Hi SteeleRedux,

The MRRT.

You said << I have addressed one of your so called 'well heads' and now you need to respond. Either defend your proposition or remove it from the list so we can move on.>>

Did you address it? Or was it just your usual rhetoric?

<< Anyway a Mining Tax 'bleeding away the nation's wealth'? You have got to be kidding me. Perhaps bleeding some of the obscene amounts of money spilling into the bank accounts of Clive, Gina and Twiggy and putting it to work in the Australian community. >>

Is that it?

I’ll let your rhetoric stand for itself, my economic case is:

The MRRT remains a populist tax on the basis that the public feel that “big miners” should pay more tax. Acknowledged.

Because this tax was introduced at the wrong time in the resource cycle, (each phase delivers different benefits to the economy) it tried to raise the tax at the end of the “digging and shipping” phase and the start of the “infrastructure investment” phase, a period of reduced earnings and higher costs. It has driven away billions of dollars of investment and reduced investment in Australia due to increased sovereign risk.

As a direct result the tax never raised anywhere near the predicted $10.6 bn, and has lead to negative impacts on investment in mining projects and jobs. It has resulted in significant compliance costs and a reduced tax take that taxpayers will ultimately pay for. Treasury figures forecast that the repeal of this tax will save the government $13.4 billion of “bleeding”.

The ALP Government only reached agreement with the largest mining firms, BHP Billiton, Xstrata and Rio Tinto which represent the 83% of foreign-owned companies with the least tax exposure, leaving Australian mining companies facing increased tax exposure. They already pay State based royalties, company tax, payroll tax and many indirect taxes.

The phase of the resource cycle that could potentially deliver on the MRRT is yet to materialize and there are doubts about it.

My assessment vs. your << you’ve got to be kidding >> Next!

Dear spindoc,

You see you would have far more credibility if you had anywhere on this forum called for the states to return their increased royalties which they imposed in response to the MRRT.

You have not.

Those increases will this year result in royalty figures for the two big resource states far outstripping the MRRT payments, and because royalties are a direct cost impost rather than a super profit tax their impact will be far more severe across the board for the industry.

I for one would like to see the profits spread to all Australians not just to a couple of states.

As for moving from a dig and ship phase to an infrastructure phase “Royalties are expected to increase by 5 per cent next financial year and by 10 per cent the following year.”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/states-keep-billions-in-royalty-grab/story-fn59niix-1226739923644#

You wrote;

“As a direct result the tax never raised anywhere near the predicted $10.6 bn, and has lead to negative impacts on investment in mining projects and jobs. It has resulted in significant compliance costs and a reduced tax take that taxpayers will ultimately pay for. Treasury figures forecast that the repeal of this tax will save the government $13.4 billion of “bleeding”.”

Besides not delivering the predicted amount all the rest of what you claim is spin and rot I'm afraid. Palmer for instance claimed it had forced him to shut down three projects but then said he had been exaggerating. The tax was strictly on profits and not per tonne of ore therefore far less compliance than royalty calculations. How on earth did it result in a reduced tax take? Pure spin.

And where on earth did you pull out the figure of 13.2 billion of “bleeding”?

Hi SteeleRedux,

My thread made the claim that policies such as << Gonsky, NDIS, NBN, Border Protection, Mining Tax, CO2 Tax, Fair Work Act, Union Shop EBA’s, ABCC, debt/deficit and red/green regulation >> Were bleeding away tax payers hard earned money.

You picked only one of these to challenge, the MRRT.

“The repeal of the MRRT package contributes more than $13 billion of savings to the Budget’s bottom line on an underlying cash basis over the forward estimates,” Joe Hockey, March 14, 2014.

A spokeswoman for Treasurer Joe Hockey told the newspaper the tax should be abolished because it has destroyed jobs and business investment, particularly in Western Australia, while generating sovereign risk issues”.

This is the statement on the Coalition’s proposed cost savings issued today by Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey and Andrew Robb, Shadow Minister for Finance, Deregulation and Debt Reduction:

“The Mining Tax package has been a disaster for the mining industry and a disaster for the Budget. The MRRT has raised $40 billion less than originally forecast and the package of spending measures has left the Budget at least $18 billion worse off”

It doesn’t matter is the actual forecast figure is $13bn or $18bn, my point was it is costing the nation and not generating net income.

So I have substantiated my perspective in support of my assertions. You have had your stab at it. If you can show that treasury are wrong in their estimates of the costs of the MRRT then fine. Otherwise your submission stands and we can move on to debate the rest.

Take your pick from the remaining items on my list my list, “ Gonsky, NDIS, NBN, Border Protection, CO2 Tax, Fair Work Act, Union Shop EBA’s, ABCC, debt/deficit and red/green regulation”