It is becoming the norm now for large miners to park their machines and sack dozens of operators when times are tough.

Although I can't yet find a link, I can assure you it's going on as we speak, as the Bowen Basin is in melt down, due to huge production costs, low prices and less reward at the end.

One can only assume that they (the miners) have taken the view that it's no longer worth carrying crew through the tough times, as they will only get shafted by the MRRT when good time come back. Good times that in the past, made up for carrying the load during tough times.

It appears to be yet another case of big business brainiacs outsmarting incompetent governments.

Remember there was the gloating by Swan and Gillard about the record investment in mining, post mention of the MRRT.

Of cause while they were out there gloating their 'how clever are we crap' as correctly predicted, they (the miners) were setting about accumulating tax write offs in readiness for the tax, resulting in less than 10% of the ALREADY SPENT 2 BILLION in revenue the two amigos were counting on.

Governments just don't get it, that for every action, there's a reaction.

Personally, I'm getting tired of saying, I told you so, but, I told you so.

Rehctub, I don’t share you condemnation of government the over the MRRT.

This tax is a damned good thing in principle. The big miners should most definitely be returning more to the general community when the going is good.

Yes sure it changes the economics and hence the hiring and firing regime of the mining companies, but probably only to a very small extent.

The Australian taxpayers, ex-taxpayers and dependents of taxpayers far removed from the Pilbara and the Bowen Basin should most definitely be seeing a bigger advantage from the massive exploitation of our once-off mineral wealth.

It is a great pity that our government hasn’t made this tax much more effective. This just points to the enormous power the big business sector in lobbying (read: bullying) the government into introducing something which is little than a token effort.

Production costs and the price of the product are always going to be changing and affecting the recruitment and termination of workers. The MRRT, even if it were to be highly effective, would just be one more factor, and probably not a very big one. Especially given that the MRRT would be at its biggest impost when mineral prices are at their highest and the rate of production is right up there… which would essentially mean that the MRRT would hardly be a burden or a factor in hiring and firing at all!

Perhaps it is the big miners themselves and other vested-interest and quite ruthlessly self-centred big companies that should be bearing the brunt of your wrath rechtub, rather than the government.

Will not keep you long rechtub better if you had a single clue what you are talking about.
Big game for your mob this weekend mine are having therapy, seems they fear the chalk on the try line

Dear Rechtub,

<<Personally, I'm getting tired of saying, I told you so, but, I told you so.>>

Yes, you told us about the outcome, but not whether you see it as a good or a bad thing.

Why not see the bright side, that with the reduction in the mining sector, with less exports and therefore less imports, we may re-develop our other industries, including agriculture, so we can be more self-sufficient rather than forget our basic skills. This would be handy once the world-economy collapses.

Ludwig....This tax is a damned good thing in principle. The big miners should most definitely be returning more to the general community when the going is good.

So what about when the going is bad

Now while we should agree to disagree about the MRRT, the fact remains that this is yet another case of big business, outsmarting government who, at the end of the day, have become desperate to fill the void CREATED through their missmanagement of our affairs.

Furthermore, it has led to even more instability in working folks lives, as the new trend is now for miners to hire their workers, second hand, via contract labor.

Now sure it costs them more, but when the numbers don't add up, they simply flick the switch, so as to say and sit on their hands and wait for better times.

It also reduces their exposure to ridiculous IR laws.

Now the real fear here is not so much for the present day mines, but the future mines, as it stands to reason that once you over tax profits, they (the miners) will be less inclined to risk capital on the likes of exploration.

Yuyutsu, if you seriously think we as a nation can become self sufficient, all I can say to you my friend, is keep dreaming.

Exports, or should I say, mining exports are the reason we enjoy the lifestyle we do, because without them we simply can't survive.

As far as us becoming a nation of makers again, how do you propose we do this without slashing wages, which of cause will lead to a huge decline in our lifestyles.

May I suggest that you be careful what you wish for Yuyutsu, because if we loose mining, we are doomed.

Small Retail is almost finished, Woolworths are taking over the milk business, tourism will never recover with a high dollar, manufacturing won't reignite without serious government input WITH NO MONEY, IT will continue to go off shore, (the NBN will make this easier), so apart from mining, I challenge you, what's left to fulfill your dream?
Continued

Continued by Rehctub
Belly, I went to the game last night, and although we didn't win, I think we may have turned our VERY SHORT season around as we managed to play as a team in the second 40 and put a scare on the comps favorites.

As for your boys, they are suffering from what our boys suffered from, the Benny disease. Or not having him at least.

Now as for me being once again, I'll informed, in your eyes, how about we revisit this topic is say two years, as that will give Abbott and co a chance to settle in, take stock and see just what the full extent of the damage that your much loved labor party have done THIS TIME.

It's becoming a habit of labor's, waste and miss-management, don't you think!

Two cracks in twenty years, with two failures. Kinda tells you something, if you can see outside the party walls.

Poor old Bob, who in my view was one of our best PM's, and got my vote, would be scratching his head in amazement I recon.

There's no way he would have tolerated the crap that today's labor has to put up with, from within.

Dear Rehctub,

<<Exports, or should I say, mining exports are the reason we enjoy the lifestyle we do, because without them we simply can't survive.

As far as us becoming a nation of makers again, how do you propose we do this without slashing wages, which of cause will lead to a huge decline in our lifestyles.>>

Enjoying the current lifestyle and survival are two different things. No doubt, once the global economy collapses we could not maintain the same material lifestyle as we have today, but we could still survive if we act wisely now. We have the materials, we have the energy, we have land and water, we just should not forget how to use them.

<<manufacturing won't reignite without serious government input WITH NO MONEY, IT will continue to go off shore (the NBN will make this easier)>>

The important thing is that we retain the skills and basic machinery required for manufacturing. Once there will no longer be an "off shore", at least we will be able to provide our basic needs.

And no, the NBN will not be part of it, because this level of high-tech is not something Australia could ever produce and maintain on its own. Keep the analogue copper lines - these we should have sufficient skills and capacity to maintain, so at least we will have an operating phone network.

Yuyutsu, our biggest challenge for manufacturing, is that our wages are unaffordable, yet, at the same time, too low to live on.

Now this has come about because governments have sifted the burden of welfare, from their responsibility, onto the employers.

The only way to fix this is for governments to subsidize wages, which in principle would stimulate the industries, but once again, we have no money.

But that still leaves the affordabillity issue, as the costs of living are only going to head south, which in turn means increased wages, which then further effects of ability to compete.

Now we have to compete because our population is too small to be self sufficient.

As for water, you seem to forget we are a very dry nation, and water is one of our most prescious , so we simp,y have none to spare.

<< So what about when the going is bad >>

Rehctub, the tax is minimal if not entirely non-existent when profits are down... and tax breaks are up when expenses are up!

<< …this is yet another case of big business, outsmarting government who, at the end of the day, have become desperate to fill the void CREATED through their missmanagement of our affairs. >>

Well, it is just another case of big business wielding their power over government and making it clear who really rules this country!

Whatever complications there might be, you must surely agree that a better return from OUR collective mineral wealth should be reaching US the ordinary people of Australia, and that the super-rich mining companies and their super-rich moguls need to be made just a little less super-rich.

<< Now we have to compete because our population is too small to be self sufficient. >>

Holy bolony, did you really say that??!!??

Rehctub, could you please explain your thinking.

Then you say:

<< As for water, you seem to forget we are a very dry nation, and water is one of our most prescious , so we simp,y have none to spare. >>

How does this sit with our population being “too small”?

Water is one of the essential resources that is under great stress in most of our large cities, which are exactly the places that are suffering rapid population growth and hence a rapidly increasing demand for water.

<<Now this has come about because governments have sifted the burden of welfare, from their responsibility, onto the employers.>>

That should be obvious that employers are not welfare-agencies.
Welfare should be universal, implemented as a negative income tax, whether one works or otherwise, then wages are a private matter between so-called 'employers' and so-called 'employees'.

<<The only way to fix this is for governments to subsidize wages, which in principle would stimulate the industries, but once again, we have no money.>>

It may not be feasible to have a full scale industry yet, in mass-production mode, but it is important to keep up the basic skills, machinery and infrastructure, so we know how to and can start producing in earnest the moment we are disconnected from the rest of the world.

<<As for water, you seem to forget we are a very dry nation, and water is one of our most prescious , so we simp,y have none to spare.>>

This is statistical, including the dry center which is not settled and wouldn't be any time soon either. There is shortage of water in the south (although partly fixed by desalination plants) and excess of water in the north. Even in the South there is sufficient average rain if we had sufficient storage to save it in the rainy years for the dry ones. A system of pipes and tunnels diverting water from the north to the south will solve all water problems permanently, but instead of real, physical water, the current government only wants to move more useless bytes.

<<Now we have to compete because our population is too small to be self sufficient.>>

Even tribes of 50-100 people were historically self-sufficient. All it takes is reduction in the material standard of living (compensated by an improved spiritual standard of living). We don't really need to go that far even: with current Australian population we should be able to sustain the level of technology of the 1970-1980's.

Ludwig, I am not in support of an unsustainable Australia (huge population) I was merely explaining that our population is too small for us to become self sufficient, hence,why we rely so heavily on exports, so we can't possibly exhaub what we produce, because if we produce less, our lifestyles will decline.

I don't want that, do you?

Now as for me agreeing that we should enjoy a greater share of our wealth, too right, that's why these huge miners have shares in their companies, so the likes of yourself, and in fact anyone else who wishes for a larger share, can do just that.

It's called investing, but also has it's risks attached, the risks that the likes of yourself seem reluctant to share, as all you want is a share of the profits, not the losses.

Sorry, that's not fair.

Now as for large companies taking so much of our wealth, they create thousands of jobs along the way.

So I suggest that you be careful what you wish for as you may not like the alternative.

BTW, these large players do run the country, however, unlike your beloved labor party, THEY ARE ACCOUNTABLE.

Can you imagine just what a mess we would be in had labor been in charge of mining?

They have already spent the 20 billion we had, and spent another 200 odd B we don't have, AND COUNTING.

<< Ludwig, I am not in support of an unsustainable Australia (huge population) I was merely explaining that our population is too small for us to become self sufficient… >>

That doesn’t make sense to me rehctub.

With a relatively small population, our exports would translate into a greater average per-capita gain. And with a constantly growing population, a great deal of our export income needs to be put into duplicating services and infrastructure for the new residents, rather than into improving the lot of existing residents.

<< …all you want is a share of the profits, not the losses. Sorry, that's not fair. >>

Oh yes it is. Just as with the total tax base, we should all share the returns. When the returns are down, there is less to share, but we should not have to share in any individual company losses.

It is not the fault of the average person, who pays taxes and receives benefits from those taxes, if a company runs at a loss.

It is all well and good for companies to take the risk of making a loss in their quest for big profits, or making a loss due to a changing environment as new technologies come along and they get out-competed, but the general public shouldn’t be a part of this profit/loss regime. It should surely be a role of government to protect them from this. Afterall, the general populace doesn’t make huge gains when certain economic sectors are riding high, such as with the mining boom. The best they can hope for is subtle improvements.

Shares are fine as an adjunct to the tax system, for those who want to invest and risk losing their money in order to possibly make big profits. But I don’t believe for one moment that they make a good baseline method of wealth-distribution.

continued

<< THEY ARE ACCOUNTABLE >>

How can you say that? There are just innumerable examples of big companies doing things that are clearly not in the best interests of this country’s future of our quality of life therein. We need a strong regulatory regime because big business is inherently not accountable, just as with all manner of other laws which keep people more or less in line, where they would be highly irresponsible in the absence of those laws.

Humans are inherently not accountable for the greater good of anyone other than themselves and perhaps their families and immediate associates. So sorry, but big business is inherently not very accountable at all. And given that they wield huge power, they really do need to be very carefully regulated and held to account by government, if at all possible.

<< …unlike your beloved labor party… >>

Whaaaat??

Rehctub, if I’ve said it once on OLO, I’ve said it a thousand times: The Libs and Labs are two peas in a pod, with essentially identical antisustainability-oriented ‘philosophies’. I call them the Laborials!

I have not voted for either for many elections! I am most definitely NOT a Labor supporter.

But I can see how I could become one…. if they’d just see fit to do what Bob Carr and Kelvin Thomson have been espousing for many years!

I can’t see how I could ever become a Lib supporter!!

Ludwig....Shares are fine as an adjunct to the tax system, for those who want to invest and risk losing their money in order to possibly make big profits. But I don’t believe for one moment that they make a good baseline method of wealth-distribution.

Which is pretty much what you're asking the miners to do, take the risks, in the assumption they will make large profits however, if a HUGE portion of that large profit is threatened via a tax, then they are more likely to sit on their hands in bad times. As is happening.

....But I can see how I could become one…. if they’d just see fit to do what Bob Carr and Kelvin Thomson have been espousing for many years!

You mean waste union members money and break NSW, a fine pair those two are.

Now as for your take on the MRRT, at least I can see your bias here, as you all of a sudden want a share, now that the gains have been outdoing the losses,or at least they were.

Now you mentions all Australians sharing ALL taxes.

Well I can't agree more on that one, but that doesn't happen, does it.

Finally, on the subject of accountability, can you tell me, have you ever owned a business that employs people?

rehctub,

Your proposal on the government subsidising wages actually was tried in early 19th century England. Do a search on "Speenhamland system". Taxes on property were levied at the parish level and used to subsidise wages to promote hiring of the unemployed. It turned out to be a costly failure that had to be abandoned. Previously independent workers were unable to compete with the subsidised workers and ended up in the welfare system themselves, although they had to make themselves destitute to qualify by selling and consuming any property that they might have. As more and more people were drawn into the system, benefits were reduced and property taxes soared. Eventually, the wages plus the subsidy were worth less than the wages alone before Speenhamland. Small businessmen were worse off, because they were hurt more by the high taxes than they were helped by the cheap labour. The only winners were large scale employers.

I agree with Ludwig about Big Business really running the country and often wonder why we don't just get rid of all the politicians and cut out the middlemen.

Ludwig, my main opp to the mining tax is that the miners already pay company tax, royalties, which put end to the argument thatnthese are an infinite resourse and, they generate so many other taxes, such as employees, contractors, support businesses and GST associated with most of these.

In fact, if we remove mining from our economic situation, there really isn't much less and there's no signs tha the dollar is coming back to where it needs to be, 70-80c to boost tourism, exports and manufacturing.

So just what is it that makes you think that the tax is fair, considering the taxes they already pay amd generate both directly and indirectly?

Divergence, what I mean by businesses being burdened by welfare, it's the constant wage rises that are being forced upon business.

On top of these (another $30/week on the table at present) the government's forcing business to cough up another 3% for super, for which they (labor) are claiming the credit for.

Governments does this so as to shift the burden to employers, as the more wages get increased, the less dependent people become on welfare.

Now while I'm not against wage rises, they MUST be linked to increased productivity, and they simply are not as productivity is in serious decline.

<< Which is pretty much what you're asking the miners to do, take the risks, in the assumption they will make large profits… >>

Isn’t that the way of it with all businesses? Or at least many businesses in a much broader field than just mining?

This is the nature of the commercial world. But governments should even it out and strive to make sure that it is NOT the nature of the our society and that the tax bases and all the activity that results from it is kept on a much more even keel.

<< …a HUGE portion of that large profit is threatened via a tax… >>

Rehctub, it would only be a ‘huge’ portion if the profits were huge… in which case the relevant companies would be riding high and would not be too put out by it.

I really can’t see how the MRRT would significantly affect business confidence or risk-taking, especially when you consider it in amongst all the other variables that affect company decisions. If mining companies are saying this, I think they are being a little bit less than totally honest.

No I’ve never owned a business. I was a ranger, botanist and principle scientist in the Qld public service. Now in ‘temporary retirement!’ Oh, and I worked in the mines in the early 80s as a geologist’s assistant cum assistant geologist.

What on earth has me owning a business or not got to do with accountability??

<< …if we remove mining from our economic situation, there really isn't much less… >>

Much left, I presume that should be.

Well, rechtub, all the more reason why we the ordinary people should be getting a better return from our primary resources while the going is good.

<< So just what is it that makes you think that the tax is fair, considering the taxes they already pay and generate both directly and indirectly? >>

The principle that the more you earn, the higher the percentage of tax you should pay, on a sliding scale. And the notion that for a few to make humungus profits from public-owned resources is a little bit obscene. And the country really does need a big boost to its tax base, of which the MRRT is but a minuscule part.

Crikey, all the MRRT is is a very small rebalancing of the wealth distribution gained from mining. In fact, it is more a matter of principle than a meaningful gain for the Australian public.

I can’t really understand the opposition to it from anyone, other than the vested-interest miners themselves, who are always out to maximise their profits.

Ludwig, name another sector that pays royalties, pays taxes, generates enormous externally generated taxes, all after taking huge risks, then is told they can only earn a 12% return on investment, before paying ANOTHER 40 cents tax IN EVERY DOLLAR THERE AFTER.

Simple answer, there are none!

As for my question on business ownership, I asked that because I was curious as to whether you had actually created any jobs, risked your house for the sake of your job, or were directly financially accountable for your actions, other than the risk of loosing your job.

Now as you have not, it is quite understandable why you come from where you do with regards to your logic.

It also explains why you don't understand, nor appreciate the environment that business owners have been forced to endure, due to the imcompitence displayed by this government.

Now while I enjoy debating issues with you, i think it is best that we agree to disagree on the mining tax.

Cheers

<< Now as you have not, it is quite understandable why you come from where you do with regards to your logic.>>

Rehctub, I think this statement says more about you than me.

My employment history has got very little to do with my philosophical outlook.

What about yours? You’ve been a butcher and a businessman all your working life, yes? Always thinking about how you can maximise your returns above all else?

Perhaps I could say that this is why you can’t appreciate my desire for a better wealth-distribution – a more socialistic form of democracy if you like, and why you can’t appreciate my copious posts about sustainability??

Anyway, we will beg to differ on this issue.

And yes I do enjoy discussing this stuff with you and I thank you for your cool-headed debating style.