Belly, here are the median house prices for Australia.

NSW -Syd $600K+
Vic -Mel $500K+
SA -Adl $$380K
WA -Perth $470K
QLD-Bris $430K

Now on top of this would be the increased number of sales in both Syd and Mel that would no doubt out strip the likes of Bris.

So, considering every sale attracts state based stamp duties, it is fair to assume that the likes of Vic and NSW would collect far more in this type of state based revenue than say SA or QLD.

Then there are the likes of car Rego's, as there is no doubt there are more rego receipts in these two states, Vic and NSW, than in the other states.

You then have pay role taxes, which are state taxes and, considering Sydney is the business capital of the country, they would collect far more of this tax than the likes of QLD.

So, can anyone explain to me why it is fair for these states (NSW&VIC) to enjoy the win falls in these taxes, without wanting to share them, while at the same time wanting a share of state based royalties, that the likes of WA,SA and QLD just happen to generate due to their mineral wealth.

As I say, it's fine to share royalties, but not unless ALL STATE REVENUES are shared.

I ask, Where is that being unfair.

'Rio Tinto has confirmed that it did not pay MRRT in 2012. "Given that the MRRT is a tax that kicks in when prices are high, you certainly won't expect to have an MRRT liability when commodity prices are low," Mr Walsh, Rio Tinto's new CEO said.'

That's exactly right. You are going to rely on a "super profits tax' in years where there is none.

How do distribute funds to the states garnered from the MRRT, when none has been collected? You would really have to ramp up GST to make an impact.

Have you noticed that it is not only the opposition that calls this tax a failure? Why do you think that is?

Yesterday, it was reported that the Carbon Tax needs to be at least re-worked because the numbers don't add up. Is that the Oppositions fault too?

It must be the oppositions fault Lee, Swanny is not smart enough to make a big mistake, he is too busy making lots of little ones.

It might be hard for you to understand Luci, but a lot of us, with no connection to the mining industry are pretty happy with what it does for us.

They all ready pay heaps of tax, while earning the export income we so desperately need. With out that income, we would not have enough foreign exchange to buy even the food we now import.

We most definitely would not have the money to pay the manufacturing industries the subsidies we now pay them to stay in business employing all those southerners.

Without mining we would have to shut down the defence & auto industries in SA. It could become a nice, if very poor vineyard. Meanwhile Vic & NSW could go back to rusting back into a grazing paddock, as it was doing before all that mining tax money went in.

With out Qld & WA mining, the rest of Oz is a banana republic, fit to make Greece & Spain look like roaring success stories. It just might be a good idea to say thank you to them some time.

If in any doubt, just think what our mining industry would look like if run by Gillard, Swan & Rudd. If that doesn’t frighten you into shutting up, there is no hope for you

If ore prices had held up, mining states hadn't raised royalties and big companies had not written down massive failures due to poor management, Treasury's forecast may have held and Swan would be looking less egg-faced. Assuming zero volatility in was his mistake, for which he is being well pilloried. None of the unforeseens mentioned, nor Swan's judgement is caused by the Coalition, and I have not said so.

The Coalition opposed Rudd's and now Gillard/Swan's mining taxes. It has no proposal for Australia to benefit more from the depletion of its minerals other than for the states to continue to give them away for a song.

Rechtub, you sound like a good person to borrow from. How about I give you one percent interest on you lending me a hundred dollars? You'd be satisfied with that wouldn't you? Royalties could be substantially increased without affecting mining investment and/or be market linked to ore prices.

Also, Rechtub, I'm failing to see the comparison between mineral depletion and house prices, stamp-duty, rego etc which are a function of the same population size that will receive the benefit of these collections.

With more foreign workers coming in and miners fabricating offshore, Australia benefits less and less with fewer Australian jobs and apprenticeships, and lower GDP. It's a scandal in the light of the massive after-tax miner's profit percentages we see (Rio Tinto's management caused loss excepted).

cont'd

Whether it's via a super-tax or raising royalties, something should be done, IMO, to gain more for Australia from our mineral assets rather than states pitting against eachother. I've previously suggested other alternatives but if it were via royalty increases, the Grants Commission can handle the necessary money redistribution among the states.

The Coalition has thus far proposes nothing on so many fronts (ah yes, dams!) and intends us to have only five minutes to inspect whatever its policy platform is prior to Sept 14. Meanwhile all it does is carp and play the man. Obviously this has been a successful strategy based on recent polling, but I'm hoping for better for the electorate, and from it.

'If ore prices had held up, mining states hadn't raised royalties and big companies had not written down massive failures due to poor management, Treasury's forecast may have held and Swan would be looking less egg-faced.'

Except Treasury weren't involved- It was Gillard, Swan and Ferguson on their own.
Even so, if Treasury had been involved the forecast MAY have held and Swan MAY ( not would) be looking less egg-faced.

Commodity prices have always been volatile, why wouldn't you take it into account?