Wilkie threatens to block mine tax


Independent Andrew Wilkie has threatened the Gillard government's mining tax, warning he will block it unless it is fundamentally redrawn and possibly expanded to capture profits from more mining companies.

Mr Wilkie, the first independent to pledge his support to Labor in the hung parliament, says the proposed mining tax is "unsatisfactory", must be redesigned from scratch and should be included in next year's proposed tax summit along with the rate of GST.

His position sets up a showdown with Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Treasurer Wayne Swan, who wants the mining tax excluded from the summit and has refused to canvass changes to the GST.

Mr Wilkie told The Weekend Australian that unless the mineral resources rent tax was changed he would oppose its legislation if it were introduced into the House of Representatives.

"I think we need to go back to the drawing board because the MRRT as it is currently designed is unsatisfactory," he said.

Although he would not specify his preferred changes to the MRRT, saying experts should be consulted, Mr Wilkie suggested the tax could be applied to a wider number of mining companies.

Mr Wilkie, who said the nation's richest companies could pay more tax, told The Weekend Australian he would write to the prime minister to urge the inclusion of both the mining tax and the GST at the tax summit.

Yes that right the richer companies can afford to pay more.  The minerals in the ground belong to ALL Australians.  Yes that is quite right Mr Wilkie.

I do not have a issue with is tax but what shape or form it should be is something they need to sort ... We do not have infinite resources the companies need to pay like they do in other countries .. It will not send them broke , the companies will not stop mining here like the coalition and their bleeding heart supporters keep promoting just to destabilse a government so they can achieve their own agenda ..

These companies know this is one of the last iron ore sources that can be mined and mined as easily as it can .. We only  have about 40 years left of this resource based on mining it at its current rate .. so why not make it worth our while if they want it they pay for ... they really don't have a choice .. it would cost them more to reset up some where else , it would cost them more to mine the resource somewhere else ...

wrote on Sep 11^th, 2010 at 8:44am:

Wilkie threatens to block mine tax ...

Contenders tend to fall into three camps:

• Those fooled (or paid) by the major miners, who want less or no tax;
  
• The government, who want whatever they can get past the electorate & through parliament and
  
• Those who, like the Greens, reckon the mining industry can and should pay more.
  

As I've posted elsewhere: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1283851530/35#35, it seems the major miners couldn't con Ken Henry, so they exploited a weakness in Kevin Rudd's character to perpetuate their bludge.

Wilkie may be right; the concept of a tax on profits, mediated by a market-based mechanism, does seem good. With Windsor in the first of the groups of contenders listed above, I can't see Wilkie succeeding.

wrote on Sep 11^th, 2010 at 8:49am:

Yes that right the richer companies can afford to pay more.  The minerals in the ground belong to ALL Australians.  Yes that is quite right Mr Wilkie.

It`s quite telling how unionists seem to be comfortable with looking into other people`s bank accounts,  comes with the parasitic mindset. This is the politic of envy, and resentment of success.

The minerals in the ground belong to all Australians, and the reds want to KEEP them there too.

# wrote on Sep 11^th, 2010 at 9:01am:

wrote on Sep 11th, 2010 at 8:44am: Wilkie threatens to block mine tax ... Contenders tend to fall into three camps: Those fooled (or paid) by the major miners, who want less or no tax; The government, who want whatever they can get past the electorate & through parliament and Those who, like the Greens, reckon the mining industry can and should pay more. As I've posted elsewhere: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1283851530/35#35, it seems the major miners couldn't con Ken Henry, so they exploited a weakness in Kevin Rudd's character to perpetuate their bludge. Wilkie may be right; the concept of a tax on profits, mediated by a market-based mechanism, does seem good. With Windsor in the first of the groups of contenders listed above, I can't see Wilkie succeeding.

a few accuracy problems there... those opposing the mining tax arent saying they should pay less or NO tax. they are saying that miners are ALREADY paying more taxes than most other companies and it should stay the same. Really, you should be a little more accurate that that!

I think he's just posturing. They can't get the current one through. They won't get a bigger one through.

aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 11^th, 2010 at 9:03am:

The minerals in the ground belong to all Australians, and the reds want to KEEP them there too.

Apart from the fact that there are very few reds in Australia the point is that there is a difference between keeping it in the ground and  giving it away to who ever wants to dig it up virtually for free as is the current situation.

Australia is crawling with Reds..
If you didn't vote Liberal/Nats and your not willing to flog Australia's resources off for a few pennies you are a Communist   :)

longweekend58 tacitly confirmed my post, except:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 11^th, 2010 at 9:28am:

... those opposing the mining tax arent saying they should pay less or NO tax. they are saying that miners are ALREADY paying more taxes than most other companies and it should stay the same. Really, you should be a little more accurate that that!

They lied. According to people I spoke to (and they're in mining), over something more than two decades since the 1980s, the proportion of profits paid as tax went from around 30% to less than 15%. They did discuss how that happened, but I'm no expert so it largely went over my head. I do remember a substantial rise in profitability being mentioned.

Dnarever wrote on Sep 11^th, 2010 at 10:37am:

aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 11th, 2010 at 9:03am: The minerals in the ground belong to all Australians, and the reds want to KEEP them there too. Apart from the fact that there are very few reds in Australia the point is that there is a difference between keeping it in the ground and  giving it away to who ever wants to dig it up virtually for free as is the current situation.

Why does anyone who doesn't live in a mining area believe that the mining companies get the stuff for free, the fact is they pay the state government a huge royalties check for every tonne they dig up.

BTW the mineral don't belong to all Australians they belong to the state that sits on them. If you don't have the minerals, then you  shouldn't get our money.

Look at Victoria , stuff all minerals, so the state relies on pokie's taxes and speed cameras revenue to make up the budget short falls.

How about we tax ALL super profit comanies, energy, banks or what ever? Not just our mining companies

.

wrote on Sep 11^th, 2010 at 8:49am:

Yes that right the richer companies can afford to pay more.  The minerals in the ground belong to ALL Australians.  Yes that is quite right Mr Wilkie.

Can I have my 1/22000000th of today's value of our collective mineral resources now then?

Quote:

BTW the mineral don't belong to all Australians they belong to the state that sits on them.

And what are the states, if not Australians?

# wrote on Sep 11^th, 2010 at 9:01am:

wrote on Sep 11th, 2010 at 8:44am: Wilkie threatens to block mine tax ... Contenders tend to fall into three camps: Those fooled (or paid) by the major miners, who want less or no tax; The government, who want whatever they can get past the electorate & through parliament and Those who, like the Greens, reckon the mining industry can and should pay more. As I've posted elsewhere: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1283851530/35#35, it seems the major miners couldn't con Ken Henry, so they exploited a weakness in Kevin Rudd's character to perpetuate their bludge. Wilkie may be right; the concept of a tax on profits, mediated by a market-based mechanism, does seem good. With Windsor in the first of the groups of contenders listed above, I can't see Wilkie succeeding.

You do realise Wilkie has infinite power for the next 3 years to hold the Gov to ransom; he will get what he want's or the govt won't, it's that simple.

It is not infinite. He is not the only independent the government must keep onside, and the independents are not the only people the government needs to consider. It always comes back to the voters in the end. The government would be more than happy to reject the independents if the public did too, so they could kill them off.

# wrote on Sep 11^th, 2010 at 11:05am:

longweekend58 tacitly confirmed my post, except: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 11th, 2010 at 9:28am: ... those opposing the mining tax arent saying they should pay less or NO tax. they are saying that miners are ALREADY paying more taxes than most other companies and it should stay the same. Really, you should be a little more accurate that that! They lied. According to people I spoke to (and they're in mining), over something more than two decades since the 1980s, the proportion of profits paid as tax went from around 30% to less than 15%. They did discuss how that happened, but I'm no expert so it largely went over my head. I do remember a substantial rise in profitability being mentioned.

Exploration, new equipment and plant as well as employing more people don't come cheap and it all comes off the tax bill.

Without exploration and expansion, the mining companies would just close up shop in short while.

As tax write offs go mining companies are no different to anyone else. The big difference in the taxes is, mining and energy companies pay royalties to the state, other industries don't.

There is another crucial difference. Mining companies don't actually produce or own what they sell. They just dig it up and move it. So they should only get paid for the value of what they do, not for the value of what is in the ground.

The increased profits have little to do with the value or efficiency of the digging and moving, but the value of the resource.

BigOl64 wrote on Sep 11^th, 2010 at 11:09am:

Why does anyone who doesn't live in a mining area believe that the mining companies get the stuff for free, the fact is they pay the state government a huge royalties check for every tonne they dig up.

The original Super tax deal included a full rebate of royalties. If they are as huge an amount as you say the companies would have jumped at the offer. For many companies not making over the tax threshold they would have got a full rebate on the royalties and paid no additional tax.

The fact that the miners want to keep paying the royalties instead of paying additional 10% on profits after deductions and exemptions above the 6% profit threshold clearly indicates that the royalty payments are not the burden you infer.

Wilkie knows that if this govt is forced to an election that he wont get the preferences that pushed him over the line. His seat would return to Labor so despite his sooky la la, prattish attitude i doubt he would knife the Labor govt.
Maybe Wilkie will "disappear" forcing a by election which would guarantee the Labor party another seat   :)

freediver wrote on Sep 11^th, 2010 at 11:19am:

There is another crucial difference. Mining companies don't actually produce or own what they sell. They just dig it up and move it. So they should only get paid for the value of what they do, not for the value of what is in the ground. The increased profits have little to do with the value or efficiency of the digging and moving, but the value of the resource.

Communal mining, with all the comrades, from the execs to the cleaners being paid the same rate?  

aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 11^th, 2010 at 12:56pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 11th, 2010 at 11:19am: There is another crucial difference. Mining companies don't actually produce or own what they sell. They just dig it up and move it. So they should only get paid for the value of what they do, not for the value of what is in the ground. The increased profits have little to do with the value or efficiency of the digging and moving, but the value of the resource. Communal mining, with all the comrades, from the execs to the cleaners being paid the same rate?

Of course not. Just that they pay Australians the correct amount for taking the resources. They pay what the resource is worth, and get paid for the value of their service - exploration, investment, digging, transport etc.

freediver wrote on Sep 11^th, 2010 at 12:58pm:

aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 11th, 2010 at 12:56pm: freediver wrote on Sep 11th, 2010 at 11:19am: There is another crucial difference. Mining companies don't actually produce or own what they sell. They just dig it up and move it. So they should only get paid for the value of what they do, not for the value of what is in the ground. The increased profits have little to do with the value or efficiency of the digging and moving, but the value of the resource. Communal mining, with all the comrades, from the execs to the cleaners being paid the same rate?   Of course not. Just that they pay Australians the correct amount for taking the resources. They pay what the resource is worth, and get paid for the value of their service - exploration, investment, digging, transport etc.

Like sub contractors then?

Could you imagine someone like Peter Garrett, or Judas Gillard running something as complex as a mining enterprise?  Or a school building programme where their only responsibility was to give other people`s money away?  Or a school tuck shop?  Or a chook raffle?

freediver wrote on Sep 11^th, 2010 at 11:15am:

It is not infinite. He is not the only independent the government must keep onside, and the independents are not the only people the government needs to consider. It always comes back to the voters in the end. The government would be more than happy to reject the independents if the public did too, so they could kill them off.

They only recently completely ignored the wishes of the voters for their own self gratifcation.

If one independent disagrees with the Govt the whole deck of cards comes crashing down; such is the state of our current federal govt.

He has infinite power.  If the ALP doesn't take heed of whatever one or the collective bunch of independents want it's change of Govt time or back to the polls.  They would be keen to avoid the later as it would almost certainly dictate their demise.

freediver wrote on Sep 11^th, 2010 at 11:19am:

There is another crucial difference. Mining companies don't actually produce or own what they sell. They just dig it up and move it. So they should only get paid for the value of what they do, not for the value of what is in the ground. The increased profits have little to do with the value or efficiency of the digging and moving, but the value of the resource.

Tax the arse out out of the agricultural industry also then.

Dnarever wrote on Sep 11^th, 2010 at 11:20am:

BigOl64 wrote on Sep 11th, 2010 at 11:09am: Why does anyone who doesn't live in a mining area believe that the mining companies get the stuff for free, the fact is they pay the state government a huge royalties check for every tonne they dig up. The original Super tax deal included a full rebate of royalties. If they are as huge an amount as you say the companies would have jumped at the offer. For many companies not making over the tax threshold they would have got a full rebate on the royalties and paid no additional tax. The fact that the miners want to keep paying the royalties instead of paying additional 10% on profits after deductions and exemptions above the 6% profit threshold clearly indicates that the royalty payments are not the burden you infer.

And yet they too were willing to bury the ALP; go figure.

qikvtec wrote on Sep 11^th, 2010 at 1:24pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 11th, 2010 at 11:19am: There is another crucial difference. Mining companies don't actually produce or own what they sell. They just dig it up and move it. So they should only get paid for the value of what they do, not for the value of what is in the ground. The increased profits have little to do with the value or efficiency of the digging and moving, but the value of the resource. Tax the arse out out of the agricultural industry also then.

Actually, profits in agriculture have declined markedly. Most of what we pay for food goes to distributors and wholesalers.

Come to think of it, the Super Profits model would probably see most farmers paying little or nothing. I'm in favour!

Look at the figures , how much money the mining bring in this country.? more than 60% while the property developers and bankers dried all the money from the public .. let tax who ??

aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 11^th, 2010 at 1:02pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 11th, 2010 at 12:58pm: aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 11th, 2010 at 12:56pm: freediver wrote on Sep 11th, 2010 at 11:19am: There is another crucial difference. Mining companies don't actually produce or own what they sell. They just dig it up and move it. So they should only get paid for the value of what they do, not for the value of what is in the ground. The increased profits have little to do with the value or efficiency of the digging and moving, but the value of the resource. Communal mining, with all the comrades, from the execs to the cleaners being paid the same rate?   Of course not. Just that they pay Australians the correct amount for taking the resources. They pay what the resource is worth, and get paid for the value of their service - exploration, investment, digging, transport etc. Like sub contractors then?

No. They take on the risk and get rewarded appropriately. No different to now really, except that we don't give the resources away dirt cheap.

without the mining this country would be in the same as Greek and the rest .. bursting of debts and housing bubbles ..

This isn't about giving up mining.

# wrote on Sep 11^th, 2010 at 11:05am:

longweekend58 tacitly confirmed my post, except: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 11th, 2010 at 9:28am: ... those opposing the mining tax arent saying they should pay less or NO tax. they are saying that miners are ALREADY paying more taxes than most other companies and it should stay the same. Really, you should be a little more accurate that that! They lied. According to people I spoke to (and they're in mining), over something more than two decades since the 1980s, the proportion of profits paid as tax went from around 30% to less than 15%. They did discuss how that happened, but I'm no expert so it largely went over my head. I do remember a substantial rise in profitability being mentioned.

A bit awkward then that the ATO and other analysts say teh exact opposite. and after all, its not as tho you actually CAN pay less tax because you just decided to. The company tax rate is 30% and the mining industry has to pay royalties on TOP of that. So it woudl be interesting to see how they can be paying 15%. so basically, you 'friends' are telling you an urban myth.

freediver wrote on Sep 11^th, 2010 at 11:19am:

There is another crucial difference. Mining companies don't actually produce or own what they sell. They just dig it up and move it. So they should only get paid for the value of what they do, not for the value of what is in the ground. The increased profits have little to do with the value or efficiency of the digging and moving, but the value of the resource.

'just'??

you clearly have little to no idea of what is involved in mining

I am involved in the mining industry and have been for many years. You can get as detailed as you want, but the economics doesn't change. It is the value of the resource, not the service provided by mining companies that is reflected in the price they get.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 11^th, 2010 at 5:21pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 11th, 2010 at 11:19am: There is another crucial difference. Mining companies don't actually produce or own what they sell. They just dig it up and move it. So they should only get paid for the value of what they do, not for the value of what is in the ground. The increased profits have little to do with the value or efficiency of the digging and moving, but the value of the resource. 'just'?? you clearly have little to no idea of what is involved in mining

Yeh, it's pointless trying to make people doubt themselves with insubstantial character assasination attempts!

But we suspect you know that! Hope the drugs you get paid are better than listening to yourself talk to uninterested and unimpressed metrosexual crack heads!

 :D :D ;)

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 11^th, 2010 at 6:25pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 11th, 2010 at 5:21pm: freediver wrote on Sep 11th, 2010 at 11:19am: There is another crucial difference. Mining companies don't actually produce or own what they sell. They just dig it up and move it. So they should only get paid for the value of what they do, not for the value of what is in the ground. The increased profits have little to do with the value or efficiency of the digging and moving, but the value of the resource. 'just'?? you clearly have little to no idea of what is involved in mining Yeh, it's pointless trying to make people doubt themselves with insubstantial character assasination attempts! But we suspect you know that! Hope the drugs you get paid are better than listening to yourself talk to uninterested and unimpressed metrosexual crack heads!  :D :D ;)

Okey doke then.

freediver wrote on Sep 11^th, 2010 at 6:10pm:

I am involved in the mining industry and have been for many years. You can get as detailed as you want, but the economics doesn't change. It is the value of the resource, not the service provided by mining companies that is reflected in the price they get.

Wrong on every level. like most products, its value is determined by the BUYER - the market. it is not determined by the intrinsic value of the resource not value added by the provider (mining company) but the perceived value to the customer.  Business 101. no wonder you are a lefty... no sign of economics anywher in yoru posts!

Dnarever wrote on Sep 11^th, 2010 at 11:20am:

BigOl64 wrote on Sep 11th, 2010 at 11:09am: Why does anyone who doesn't live in a mining area believe that the mining companies get the stuff for free, the fact is they pay the state government a huge royalties check for every tonne they dig up. The original Super tax deal included a full rebate of royalties. If they are as huge an amount as you say the companies would have jumped at the offer. For many companies not making over the tax threshold they would have got a full rebate on the royalties and paid no additional tax. The fact that the miners want to keep paying the royalties instead of paying additional 10% on profits after deductions and exemptions above the 6% profit threshold clearly indicates that the royalty payments are not the burden you infer.

I live in the Hunter Valley, one of Australia's oldest mining areas. I know people in the industry, mostly associated with smaller mining companies. For reasons that have already been canvassed, they favour the Rudd model.

The fact that the major miners choose to pay for mouthpieces like BigOl64, even in this forum, serves to demonstrate their determination to maintain the bludge that they've managed to establish over the decades. We could be flattered by the attention, but it really only shows that they have plenty of money to splash around.

The threshold is set at the long-term bond rate (currently around 6%), so it moves with the market.

Quote:

Wrong on every level. like most products, its value is determined by the BUYER - the market

You appear to think you are contradicting me, but you aren't. The buyer values the resource that much because the resource has intrinsic value. You are saying the same thing as me, just with different words. Perhaps you need to re-examine the context of the argument. You could tie yourself in mental knots all day trying to figure out whether supply or demand dictates the price, but you would not get any closer to the truth of the matter, nor to the actual topic here, until you stopped.

freediver wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 5:50pm:

Quote: Wrong on every level. like most products, its value is determined by the BUYER - the market You appear to think you are contradicting me, but you aren't. The buyer values the resource that much because the resource has intrinsic value. You are saying the same thing as me, just with different words. Perhaps you need to re-examine the context of the argument. You could tie yourself in mental knots all day trying to figure out whether supply or demand dictates the price, but you would not get any closer to the truth of the matter, nor to the actual topic here, until you stopped.

au contraire... you are trying to simply the argument that somehow because miners dig holes in the ground - that are mostly in areas that no one wants or has any other value - that they should be punished for it. Yes, the australian people own the minerals which is why they pay royalties now. or does the term 'royalty' not mean anything?

# wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 9:50am:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 11th, 2010 at 11:20am: BigOl64 wrote on Sep 11th, 2010 at 11:09am: Why does anyone who doesn't live in a mining area believe that the mining companies get the stuff for free, the fact is they pay the state government a huge royalties check for every tonne they dig up. The original Super tax deal included a full rebate of royalties. If they are as huge an amount as you say the companies would have jumped at the offer. For many companies not making over the tax threshold they would have got a full rebate on the royalties and paid no additional tax. The fact that the miners want to keep paying the royalties instead of paying additional 10% on profits after deductions and exemptions above the 6% profit threshold clearly indicates that the royalty payments are not the burden you infer. I live in the Hunter Valley, one of Australia's oldest mining areas. I know people in the industry, mostly associated with smaller mining companies. For reasons that have already been canvassed, they favour the Rudd model. The fact that the major miners choose to pay for mouthpieces like BigOl64, even in this forum, serves to demonstrate their determination to maintain the bludge that they've managed to establish over the decades. We could be flattered by the attention, but it really only shows that they have plenty of money to splash around. The threshold is set at the long-term bond rate (currently around 6%), so it moves with the market.

Oh,. I gott have a good laugh at this post... People 'you know' in the mining industry want to pay MORE tax than they currently do. And you honestly expect anyone to believe that? But wait, there's more... GIven that there is now an alternative proposal that has the miners maying more than they do now but less than Rudd proposed, you expect us to believe that they STILL prefer the RUdd model? Did the entire mining tax campaign totally miss you? did you not see the anti-labor swing in QLD primarily on the back of the mining tax? Your credibility isnt helped by implausible arguments. If you want to lie you need to make the lie more believable because NO ONE who is sane wants to pay more tax.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 6:12pm:

... Oh,. I gott have a good laugh at this post... People 'you know' in the mining industry want to pay MORE tax than they currently do. And you honestly expect anyone to believe that? But wait, there's more... GIven that there is now an alternative proposal that has the miners maying more than they do now but less than Rudd proposed, you expect us to believe that they STILL prefer the RUdd model? Did the entire mining tax campaign totally miss you? did you not see the anti-labor swing in QLD primarily on the back of the mining tax? Your credibility isnt helped by implausible arguments. If you want to lie you need to make the lie more believable because NO ONE who is sane wants to pay more tax.

You're conflating the major miners with the whole industry. According to the people I spoke to, the detail of the Rudd model was much friendlier to the smaller end of the industry.

The "entire mining tax campaign" was run by the majors, for the majors. The outcome disadvantaged smaller miners, as well as business in general.

I can't honestly claim to understand the details, but apparently the Rudd model didn't necessarily lead to a smaller miner paying more. There were also provisions for investment, exploration and (I think) depreciation that were mentioned favourably. Being a tax on profits, the majors would necessarily pay more than those lower down the totem pole. That's why they conned Rudd (and us).

You can support the bludgers if you must, but I'm certainly not about to.

# wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 7:54pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 12th, 2010 at 6:12pm: ... Oh,. I gott have a good laugh at this post... People 'you know' in the mining industry want to pay MORE tax than they currently do. And you honestly expect anyone to believe that? But wait, there's more... GIven that there is now an alternative proposal that has the miners maying more than they do now but less than Rudd proposed, you expect us to believe that they STILL prefer the RUdd model? Did the entire mining tax campaign totally miss you? did you not see the anti-labor swing in QLD primarily on the back of the mining tax? Your credibility isnt helped by implausible arguments. If you want to lie you need to make the lie more believable because NO ONE who is sane wants to pay more tax. You're conflating the major miners with the whole industry. According to the people I spoke to, the detail of the Rudd model was much friendlier to the smaller end of the industry. The "entire mining tax campaign" was run by the majors, for the majors. The outcome disadvantaged smaller miners, as well as business in general. I can't honestly claim to understand the details, but apparently the Rudd model didn't necessarily lead to a smaller miner paying more. There were also provisions for investment, exploration and (I think) depreciation that were mentioned favourably. Being a tax on profits, the majors would necessarily pay more than those lower down the totem pole. That's why they conned Rudd (and us). You can support the bludgers if you must, but I'm certainly not about to.

You really are pro-tax arent you. the more the merrier - as long as it isnt you that pays. Or is it just that labor proposed it? it is the inequitable nature of these tax increases I dont like. Just one industry has to pay - not all of us and if course we have to make sure it is the one industry that saved our economy from recession. we must make sure we do the labor thing and punish high achievers!

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 8:01pm:

... You really are pro-tax arent you.

Do you honestly believe all taxation is bad?

Quote:

the more the merrier - as long as it isnt you that pays.

Isn't that economically rational?  ;)

Quote:

Or is it just that labor proposed it?

Good policy is good policy, no matter the source.

Quote:

it is the inequitable nature of these tax increases I dont like. Just one industry has to pay - not all of us

One industry perhaps, but targeted at that part of the industry which has managed to bludge increasingly, not only on us, but on the rest of the same industry.

Quote:

and if course we have to make sure it is the one industry that saved our economy from recession.

Is that true, or did we get through that crisis thanks to a good beginning (legacy of the previous government) and a current government that took a bit of a risk with stimulus funding? The stimulus was not all good – things done in haste rarely are – but it worked.

Quote:

we must make sure we do the labor thing and punish high achievers!

Drivel!

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 8:01pm:

it is the one industry that saved our economy from recession.

What absolute rubbish! I doubt that you even know what the term "Consumer Confidence" relates to, and why spending is better than saving for the whole economy?

The Mining Industry employs about 30,000 people, and IF they all earned and spent $1,500 a week - there's no way in the world that that would have kept the rest of Australia's industries afloat and out of recession!

And as for the exports of Iron Ore and Coal - That only adds to the GDP - Not cash-in-hand for the worker to spend.

More.... The Mining Fart Bubble

Sayonara wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 8:18pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 12th, 2010 at 8:01pm: it is the one industry that saved our economy from recession. What absolute rubbish! I doubt that you even know what the term "Consumer Confidence" relates to, and why spending is better than saving for the whole economy? The Mining Industry employs about 30,000 people, and IF they all earned and spent $1,500 a week - there's no way in the world that that would have kept the rest of Australia's industries afloat and out of recession! And as for the exports of Iron Ore and Coal - That only adds to the GDP - Not cash-in-hand for the worker to spend. More.... The Mining Fart Bubble

You forget the significantly higher tax revenues... but of course you do. It wouldnt matter what facts I presented because to you there is only ONE issue at hand. It is a labor policy and therefore you support it against any criticism. ANd that has ALWAYS been the main point for you - and for your mythical 'friends in the industry' that are demanding to pay more tax!

Quote:

au contraire... you are trying to simply the argument that somehow because miners dig holes in the ground - that are mostly in areas that no one wants or has any other value - that they should be punished for it

Taxation is not the same thing as punishment. That is like saying anyone who supports income tax thinks people should be punished for a hard days work. How about you start by addressing what I actually say? This would go a lot quicker if you did.

freediver wrote on Sep 13^th, 2010 at 11:08pm:

Quote: au contraire... you are trying to simply the argument that somehow because miners dig holes in the ground - that are mostly in areas that no one wants or has any other value - that they should be punished for it Taxation is not the same thing as punishment. That is like saying anyone who supports income tax thinks people should be punished for a hard days work. How about you start by addressing what I actually say? This would go a lot quicker if you did.

There is an element of punishment for success, in the agenda of the parties of envy.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 8:01pm:

... we must make sure we do the labor thing and punish high achievers!

As distinct from the Liberal way: pander to the richest bludgers.

# wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 9:50am:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 11th, 2010 at 11:20am: BigOl64 wrote on Sep 11th, 2010 at 11:09am: Why does anyone who doesn't live in a mining area believe that the mining companies get the stuff for free, the fact is they pay the state government a huge royalties check for every tonne they dig up. The original Super tax deal included a full rebate of royalties. If they are as huge an amount as you say the companies would have jumped at the offer. For many companies not making over the tax threshold they would have got a full rebate on the royalties and paid no additional tax. The fact that the miners want to keep paying the royalties instead of paying additional 10% on profits after deductions and exemptions above the 6% profit threshold clearly indicates that the royalty payments are not the burden you infer. I live in the Hunter Valley, one of Australia's oldest mining areas. I know people in the industry, mostly associated with smaller mining companies. For reasons that have already been canvassed, they favour the Rudd model. The fact that the major miners choose to pay for mouthpieces like BigOl64, even in this forum, serves to demonstrate their determination to maintain the bludge that they've managed to establish over the decades. We could be flattered by the attention, but it really only shows that they have plenty of money to splash around. The threshold is set at the long-term bond rate (currently around 6%), so it moves with the market.

Seriously, do you really think that mining companies pay me or anyone else to go onto these message boards and act as their 'mouthpeice'  ;D

I doubt the even know or care that you or I even exist, and would not waste any money on this or any other board.

You are just not that important or interesting, maybe throw in intellegent as well.  ;D

BigOl64 wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 6:53pm:

# wrote on Sep 12th, 2010 at 9:50am: Dnarever wrote on Sep 11th, 2010 at 11:20am: BigOl64 wrote on Sep 11th, 2010 at 11:09am: Why does anyone who doesn't live in a mining area believe that the mining companies get the stuff for free, the fact is they pay the state government a huge royalties check for every tonne they dig up. The original Super tax deal included a full rebate of royalties. If they are as huge an amount as you say the companies would have jumped at the offer. For many companies not making over the tax threshold they would have got a full rebate on the royalties and paid no additional tax. The fact that the miners want to keep paying the royalties instead of paying additional 10% on profits after deductions and exemptions above the 6% profit threshold clearly indicates that the royalty payments are not the burden you infer. I live in the Hunter Valley, one of Australia's oldest mining areas. I know people in the industry, mostly associated with smaller mining companies. For reasons that have already been canvassed, they favour the Rudd model. The fact that the major miners choose to pay for mouthpieces like BigOl64, even in this forum, serves to demonstrate their determination to maintain the bludge that they've managed to establish over the decades. We could be flattered by the attention, but it really only shows that they have plenty of money to splash around. The threshold is set at the long-term bond rate (currently around 6%), so it moves with the market. Seriously, do you really think that mining companies pay me or anyone else to go onto these message boards and act as their 'mouthpeice'  ;D I doubt the even know or care that you or I even exist, and would not waste any money on this or any other board. You are just not that important or interesting, maybe throw in intellegent as well.  ;D

well said. but you have to say it is entertaining to read the comments by the losers who obviously have their hearts set on a lifetime of welfare and for their dependants. They MUST have higher mining taxes to support their indolent lifestyles.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 8:01pm:

...They MUST have higher mining taxes to support their indolent lifestyles.

Given that I'm retired, enjoying the rewards of a long and productive working life, I fell justified in pointing out the there's a term appropriate to your type. I rhymes with anchor.

# wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 9:32pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 14th, 2010 at 8:01pm: ...They MUST have higher mining taxes to support their indolent lifestyles. Given that I'm retired, enjoying the rewards of a long and productive working life, I fell justified in pointing out the there's a term appropriate to your type. I rhymes with anchor.

Been studying Nietzsche recently?

# wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 9:32pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 14th, 2010 at 8:01pm: ...They MUST have higher mining taxes to support their indolent lifestyles. Given that I'm retired, enjoying the rewards of a long and productive working life, I fell justified in pointing out the there's a term appropriate to your type. I rhymes with anchor.

Yes, I can see how a reasonable person could come to such a conclusion, when they are dealing with people who equate having empathy for other humans as a weakness, and that anyone who would not screw over their own mother to make an extra buck is a loser.

I disagree with aspects of the mining tax, I think it does not go far enough, I believe ALL windfall profits deserve to be taxed at a higher rate, not just mining companies.
I would suggest that any windfall profits could be balanced out against past revenues declared, and then averaged over an appropriate period, to set the level of tax to be paid, which would provide a fairness for those who have "worked" to develop a business, and gone through periods of low income, then hit the jackpot, so to speak.

Where mining companies differ from other industries is where they exploit a finite resource originating in our country, and hope that the people of the country do not seek a share of the proceeds from the profits earned.
People that make things, build, things, grow things, etc, they are the ones that I feel deserve a better go from our tax system, rather than those who dig up our countries finite resources and sell it.

Banks should be up there as well when it comes to asking that they either give the consumer's better services at reduced costs, or pay more tax if they prefer to just screw everyone over in their pursuit of very high profits.

Business can be run ethically, and the tax system should provide an incentive for business owners to choose that option.

The mentality of the right seems to be that the creator of the Ponzi scheme is a hard working, clever entrepreneur, who deserves to rake in any level of profit he can get away with, without fear of paying a higher tax rate on profit earnings outside the range which normal business practices would expect to achieve.

The rest of us think that responsible and ethical behaviour should extend to all walks of life, including business, and paying a bit extra when you are lucky enough to earn windfall profits, does not seem unreasonable.

Of course, what seems reasonable to some, is interpreted as the moaning of indolent bludgers, by some of the more extreme people in our community that reside in the polar regions of opinion.