Gary Stevenson's crusade on 'Mega Tax on the Mega Rich' continues..

He argues that the core economic problem is not just low wages or weak growth, but the extreme concentration of wealth among the richest people, who use surplus capital to buy up scarce assets such as housing, land, shares and gold, pushing prices beyond the reach of ordinary workers.

His solution is to tax accumulated wealth directly, rather than relying mainly on income taxes, because workers and professionals are taxed on earnings while the ultra-rich can often hold assets, borrow against them, and avoid taxable sales.

In his view, a serious wealth tax would slow the hoarding of assets, reduce pressure on housing and public finances, and help prevent inequality from driving social and political instability.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHEEwZS_uuM

Every country that has tried this has turned into a failure. The wealthy just leave, and take all their money with them.

Gary Stephenson, millionaire, former financial trader just doesn't want others do as he did. ::)

freediver wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 11:48am:

Every country that has tried this has turned into a failure. The wealthy just leave, and take all their money with them.

Yep, that's a thing. The idea would have to be taken up by the entire First World, such that there's nowhere viable to run to.

It's also how the likes of Rhinehart and her mining peers can blackmail Australian state and federal governments and the Australian people against taxing their industry, by threatening to shut down mines.

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 12:36pm:

freediver wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 11:48am: Every country that has tried this has turned into a failure. The wealthy just leave, and take all their money with them. Yep, that's a thing. The idea would have to be taken up by the entire First World, such that there's nowhere viable to run to. It's also how the likes of Rhinehart and her mining peers can blackmail Australian state and federal governments and the Australian people against taxing their industry, by threatening to shut down mines.

You would find the mega rich suddenly want to invest their money in developing countries.

Or they would lose it all on bitcoin. Without a trace. Then go on long holidays.

Or 'gift' it all to close relatives.

Or just not bother accumulating wealth in the first place.

There is no way round it, because it is a bad idea to begin with. You create a huge disincentive for those who know how to invest in the future to do that. You would merely get rid of the mega rich, not create a magical stream of government revenue.

lee wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 12:27pm:

Gary Stephenson, millionaire, former financial trader just doesn't want others do as he did. ::)

He's also not one of the mega-rich.

He's referring to multi-billionaires who pour so much wealth into appreciating assets, to bury their wealth from prying nation-state eyes and hands, like housing, such that those assets have become unaffordium even for the moderately well-off, let alone the young and assetless, and those in the low socioeconomic brackets.

When the mega rich invest in housing, builders get a raise and rents go down. Inner city prices go up, but we are not exactly short on land here. The floor in the market price of land is it's value for agricultural production, and the government fees you have to pay to develop it.

freediver wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 12:40pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 12:36pm: freediver wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 11:48am: Every country that has tried this has turned into a failure. The wealthy just leave, and take all their money with them. Yep, that's a thing. The idea would have to be taken up by the entire First World, such that there's nowhere viable to run to. It's also how the likes of Rhinehart and her mining peers can blackmail Australian state and federal governments and the Australian people against taxing their industry, by threatening to shut down mines. You would find the mega rich suddenly want to invest their money in developing countries. Or they would lose it all on bitcoin. Without a trace. Then go on long holidays. Or 'gift' it all to close relatives. Or just not bother accumulating wealth in the first place. There is no way round it, because it is a bad idea to begin with. You create a huge disincentive for those who know how to invest in the future to do that. You would merely get rid of the mega rich, not create a magical stream of government revenue.

There are ways around it, but it would not be free market capitalism at that level of wealth.

It would have to be virtually illegal everywhere to be that rich in the first place. Imagine telling Americans that they can't personally own everything.

freediver wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 12:45pm:

When the mega rich invest in housing, builders get a raise and rents go down. Inner city prices go up, but we are not exactly short on land here. The floor in the market price of land is it's value for agricultural production, and the government fees you have to pay to develop it.

Yep... there's always plenty of land out where the crows live, eh!

Quote:

There are ways around it, but it's not free market capitalism at that level of wealth.

That's exactly what it is.

This is the politics of jealousy, nothing more. Everyone would be worse off, but you might feel better because you hate the rich so much. Like communist happily starving to death on an equal basis. It does not become less stupid because you only do it a little bit. You cannot mount a rational argument in support of this, so you fall back on mindless slogans.


Quote:

It would have to be virtually illegal everywhere to be that rich in the first place. Imagine telling Americans that they can't personally own everything.

What are you on about now?

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 12:41pm:

He's also not one of the mega-rich.

Ah, so he also gets to define who is mega-rich. how novel. 8-)

And it is ok to be just shy of being mega-rich. ;)

freediver wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 12:47pm:

Quote: It would have to be virtually illegal everywhere to be that rich in the first place. Imagine telling Americans that they can't personally own everything. What are you on about now?

Not that hard to work out...

The mega-rich would have to be declared criminals for not declaring or surrendering their wealth over a known limit for a state to police private wealth at the mega level.

American culture is predicated on the dream of having it all with minimal communal responsibility... It's why even slavery wasn't off the table... and it would probably have lasted much longer had the fledgling US not been pressured so hard in the early 19th century by world powers led by Britain.

lee wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 12:49pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 12:41pm: He's also not one of the mega-rich. Ah, so he also gets to define who is mega-rich. how novel. 8-) And it is ok to be just shy of being mega-rich. ;)

You can define it if you like... If you're a codger on the bones of your arse, anyone with a hundred grand in assets might be mega-rich.

I'd bet most boomer Australians would be worth over a million or so in assets, so not mega-rich relatively speaking...

What's your benchmark?

Taxing the mega rich more isn't necessary just get them to pay half the tax that they should pay.

freediver wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 11:48am:

Every country that has tried this has turned into a failure. The wealthy just leave, and take all their money with them.

When they sell up they pay capital gains tax so
it costs them big bucks to leave.  ;)

Bobby. wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 1:35pm:

freediver wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 11:48am: Every country that has tried this has turned into a failure. The wealthy just leave, and take all their money with them. When they sell up they pay capital gains tax so it costs them big bucks to leave.  ;)

It cost this guy over $1 million in CGT to leave Australia:



Millionaire Who Left Australia: "I'm Ashamed To Be Australian"

Why 147,000 Millionaires Already Left


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAqvKD9SUZc


Apr 7, 2026 

Episode Summary

In this episode, Morgan sits down with Adam to unpack why he made the bold decision to leave Australia after building a multi-million dollar life and why a growing number of entrepreneurs are doing the same.

Adam shares his 30-year journey in business, the impact of rising taxes and cost of living, and why he believes Australia is becoming increasingly difficult for wealth creation. He breaks down how global tax systems work, why countries like Cyprus and Panama are attracting investors, and the real advantage of reducing financial and mental overhead.

The conversation also explores cultural differences, opportunity, and how the environment shapes success. Adam shares insights on wealth migration, the hidden cost of taxes, and what it actually takes to leave Australia properly.

Episode Timestamps
0:00 Intro
0:24 Why Adam Left Australia
1:09 Meet Adam
2:10 The Decline of Australia
5:19 Rising Taxes & Government Control
9:05 Millionaires Leaving Australia
10:39 Why the Wealthy Are Exiting
14:10 Who Should Consider Leaving
14:10 Dreamfest Announcement
16:23 Why Property Is No Longer Working
17:16 The Hidden Tax Burden
19:59 The Work Overseas Strategy
21:17 Cyprus Tax System Explained
24:24 Panama’s 0% Tax Model
27:04 How to Leave Australia Properly
28:15 The Real Cost of Leaving
33:48 Government Mismanagement
36:41 Australia vs Global Tax Comparison
38:17 The Bandwidth Advantage
43:17 The Decision to Leave
45:18 Life After Leaving Australia
46:27 Environment & Opportunity Shift
48:05 Australia vs USA Mindset
49:38 Tall Poppy Syndrome Explained
53:49 Step-by-Step: How to Leave

About Adam


Adam is an entrepreneur, investor, and freedom-focused thinker with over 30 years of experience building businesses.
After decades of operating in Australia, he transitioned into a semi-retired lifestyle, focusing on investing, Bitcoin, and structuring his life globally to maximize freedom and long-term wealth. He is a strong advocate for financial independence, global mobility, and creating leverage through better systems and environments.

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 12:58pm:

If you're a codger on the bones of your arse, anyone with a hundred grand in assets might be mega-rich.

true dat. ;) Although any homeowner would have more.


MeisterEckhart wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 12:58pm:

I'd bet most boomer Australians would be worth over a million or so in assets, so not mega-rich relatively speaking...

Really? What is the source of your assumption? I have seen research that suggests average of over $2 million, but averages hide a lot. Ai says many Boomers  cluster between $0.5 and $3 million.  My fixed assets are currently valued at about $300k. ;)


MeisterEckhart wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 12:58pm:

What's your benchmark?

My benchmark is over $2 million.

lee wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 1:55pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 12:58pm: What's your benchmark? My benchmark is over $2 million.

For the purposes of discussion in this thread, I accept Stevenson's benchmark as referring to multi-billionaires - those with enough accumulated wealth to control/govern the state unelected.

As Lord Rothschild said, "Give me control over a nation's currency [economy], and I care not who makes its laws.”

lee wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 1:55pm:

Really? What is the source of your assumption? I have seen research that suggests average of over $2 million, but averages hide a lot. Ai says many Boomers  cluster between $0.5 and $3 million.  My fixed assets are currently valued at about $300k.

So, 'a million or so in assets' is a defensible median, then.

Bobby. wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 1:43pm:

Bobby. wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 1:35pm: freediver wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 11:48am: Every country that has tried this has turned into a failure. The wealthy just leave, and take all their money with them. When they sell up they pay capital gains tax so it costs them big bucks to leave.  ;) It cost this guy over $1 million in CGT to leave Australia: Millionaire Who Left Australia: "I'm Ashamed To Be Australian" Why 147,000 Millionaires Already Left []https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAqvKD9SUZc[]

Would you weep for him if he'd f~cked off to Bermuda to live on a yacht?

Bobby. wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 1:43pm:

Adam is an entrepreneur, investor, and freedom-focused thinker with over 30 years of experience building businesses. After decades of operating in Australia, he transitioned into a semi-retired lifestyle, focusing on investing, Bitcoin, and structuring his life globally to maximize freedom and long-term wealth. He is a strong advocate for financial independence, global mobility, and creating leverage through better systems and environments.

Adam questions immigration without any reference to the difference in the birthrate 70 years ago (3.2 to 3.3 per woman, rising to 3.55 by 1961), compared to today (1.48 per woman in 2024).

2.1 is the replacement level.

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 2:11pm:

Would you weep for him if he'd f~cked off to Bermuda to live on a yacht?

Watch the video -
he is no longer a slave to material goods -
he even rides a motor scooter - he has no car and he's happier.
He could buy 100 cars if he wanted to.

Bobby. wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 2:26pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 2:11pm: Would you weep for him if he'd f~cked off to Bermuda to live on a yacht? Watch the video - he is no longer a slave to material goods - he even rides a motor scooter - he has no car and he's happier. He could buy 100 cars if he wanted to.

Yep... And he lives in Cypress, identified as a major money-laundering jurisdiction.

Cyprus has historically faced scrutiny as a significant jurisdiction for money laundering and financial crime, often linked to its role as an offshore financial centre attracting illegal foreign capital.

Panama is in a similar category...

Adam splits his time among Cyoress, Indonesia and Panama.

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 2:35pm:

Bobby. wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 2:26pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 2:11pm: Would you weep for him if he'd f~cked off to Bermuda to live on a yacht? Watch the video - he is no longer a slave to material goods - he even rides a motor scooter - he has no car and he's happier. He could buy 100 cars if he wanted to. Yep... And he lives in Cypress, identified as a major money-laundering jurisdiction. Cyprus has historically faced scrutiny as a significant jurisdiction for money laundering and financial crime, often linked to its role as an offshore financial centre attracting illegal foreign capital. Panama is in a similar category... Adam splits his time among Cyoress, Indonesia and Panama.

Good on him I say -
he has probably paid 100 times more tax than we ever did -

he's paid his dues and now he can laugh and enjoy his life.   :)

Bobby. wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 2:45pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 2:35pm: Bobby. wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 2:26pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 2:11pm: Would you weep for him if he'd f~cked off to Bermuda to live on a yacht? Watch the video - he is no longer a slave to material goods - he even rides a motor scooter - he has no car and he's happier. He could buy 100 cars if he wanted to. Yep... And he lives in Cypress, identified as a major money-laundering jurisdiction. Cyprus has historically faced scrutiny as a significant jurisdiction for money laundering and financial crime, often linked to its role as an offshore financial centre attracting illegal foreign capital. Panama is in a similar category... Adam splits his time among Cyoress, Indonesia and Panama. Good on him I say - he has probably paid 100 times more tax than we ever did - he's paid his dues and now he can laugh and enjoy his life.   :)

And now lives under the rules of 2 nation-states that allow the likes of him to hide his wealth from scrutiny by paying kickbacks to corrupt governments.

What's the bet he's got a shitload of bitcoin he's trying to launder.

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 2:08pm:

So, 'a million or so in assets' is a defensible median, then.

Very easily. And don't forget super. The real increases come at the end of the term. Compound interest is great.

Bobby. wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 2:45pm:

Good on him I say - he has probably paid 100 times more tax than we ever did - he's paid his dues and now he can laugh and enjoy his life.   :)

And now appears on a Gen-Zer's YouTube channel as big wise buana advising Gen-Zers on how to evade tax, which could wind them up stateless and in jail in any one of multiple jurisdictions.

lee wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 2:59pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 2:08pm: So, 'a million or so in assets' is a defensible median, then. Very easily. And don't forget super. The real increases come at the end of the term. Compound interest is great.

Yep, so that kind of wealth is not mega-rich by Stevenson's standards, that is moderate... and light years away from allowing the capacity to control the state unelected.

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 3:05pm:

Bobby. wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 2:45pm: Good on him I say - he has probably paid 100 times more tax than we ever did - he's paid his dues and now he can laugh and enjoy his life.   :) And now appears on a Gen-Zer's YouTube channel as big wise buana advising Gen-Zers on how to evade tax, which could wind them up stateless and in jail in any one of multiple jurisdictions.

You're not a glass half full kinda guy.     ;D

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 3:09pm:

Yep, so that kind of wealth is not mega-rich by Stevenson's standards, that is moderate... and light years away from allowing the capacity to control the state

So how then do the mega-rich control the state? Rig elections? Although the leftists do try. But I suspect that is more to do with them rather than trying to control the state.  It is the leftist mega-rich that have been pushing the climate change barrow.

Bobby. wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 3:13pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 3:05pm: Bobby. wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 2:45pm: Good on him I say - he has probably paid 100 times more tax than we ever did - he's paid his dues and now he can laugh and enjoy his life.   :) And now appears on a Gen-Zer's YouTube channel as big wise buana advising Gen-Zers on how to evade tax, which could wind them up stateless and in jail in any one of multiple jurisdictions. You're not a glass half full kinda guy.     ;D

Well... y'know... the likes of 'Adam' are common enough... spruiking how they pulled it off dumping their citizenship to live in a dodgy and corrupt/failing state... who can't return to their former home country lest they risk arrest...

Found himself a billionaire because he bought into bitcoin when they were worth less than a cheap tin of cat food, did he?

lee wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 3:18pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 3:09pm: Yep, so that kind of wealth is not mega-rich by Stevenson's standards, that is moderate... and light years away from allowing the capacity to control the state So how then do the mega-rich control the state? Rig elections? Although the leftists do try. But I suspect that is more to do with them rather than trying to control the state.  It is the leftist mega-rich that have been pushing the climate change barrow.

The Australian government's proposed royalties on mining profits is one example...

What did Rhinehart and co do? They launched a massive advertising campaign to convince Australians that what was in their interests would have consequences... like: 'we'll shut down our mines, 'cos we can... We'll lay off thousands of employees 'cos we can...

And it worked.

An Australian PM and administration doesn't politically fart without clearing it with those who can control the economy.

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 3:28pm:

The Australian government's proposed royalties on mining profits is one example...

Australian miners already pay royalties to the states, why should they be lumbered with yet another pseudo-tax? Royalties are based on volume not the sale price. All it would do is raise the cost of the raw material. That would probably have the flow on effect of reduced exports. Reduced exports, reduced profits, reduced income tax for the miners.

lee wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 3:40pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 3:28pm: The Australian government's proposed royalties on mining profits is one example... Australian miners already pay royalties to the states, why should they be lumbered with yet another pseudo-tax? Royalties are based on volume not the sale price. All it would do is raise the cost of the raw material. That would probably have the flow on effect of reduced exports. Reduced exports, reduced profits, reduced income tax for the miners.

As I said... it worked.

You, as an Australian, would have benefited from royalties... but what are you doing with your 'probablies'? You're fighting Rhinehart and co's fight for them.

China is by far and away our largest market with iron ore and other metals...

Whatever extra they'd pay to partially pay for royalties is chicken feed... especially given that there is no reliable alternative to Australian mining products.

We're less than 30 million people... How petty would a royalty surcharge to partly cover all Australians appear to the Chinese?

Australia's minerals, which are the property of all Australians, are of the highest grade anywhere in the world... Australian infrastructure is second-to-none in its capacity to maintain a steady supply... Australian on-time delivery is the best in the world.

Even the Chinese couldn't dream up a myth as good as the deals they're in with Australia... Do you think they'd quibble with perfection over a minor increase in prices to help support Australians who number less than one major Chinese city?

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 4:05pm:

As I said... it worked.

It worked? really? ;D ;D ;D ;D


MeisterEckhart wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 4:05pm:

You, as an Australian, would have benefited from royalties..

I have already benefited from royalties. Royalties are not taxes. make up your mind what you want.


MeisterEckhart wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 4:05pm:

but what are you doing with your 'probablies'? You're fighting Rhinehart and co's fight for them.

And you show you don't do economics at all. ::)


MeisterEckhart wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 4:05pm:

China is by far and away our largest market with iron ore and other metals... Whatever extra they'd pay to partially pay for royalties is chicken feed... especially given that there is no reliable alternative to Australian mining products.

You don't read the mining news, do you. Indonesia and a host of others are selling mining products to China. China is already saying Australian iron ore, coal etc are too expensive.


MeisterEckhart wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 4:05pm:

How petty would a royalty surcharge to partly cover all Australians appear to the Chinese?

Have a look at what China does in the market. Refuse shipments, impose tariifs to stop the supply. You really are a nonsense.




MeisterEckhart wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 4:05pm:

Even the Chinese couldn't dream up a myth as good as the deals they're in with Australia... Do you think they'd quibble with perfection over a minor increase in prices to help support Australians who number less than one major Chinese city?

Maybe that is why they go to places like Indonesia for supply, coal, cobalt , nickel.  ::)

The Minerals Resource Rent Tax (MRRT)—a federal tax often referred to as extra royalties or a "mining tax" on iron ore and coal—was formally scrapped in Australia in 2014, which was introduced in 2012 by the Gillard Government but was repealed by the Abbott Government following a 2013 election commitment to abolish it.

The repeal was not simply a technical policy reversal. It followed a sustained, expensive political campaign by the mining lobby targeted at Australians, including a multi-million-dollar advertising offensive against Labor’s original resource-rent tax, which helped weaken the proposal before the Abbott Government finally repealed the watered-down version in 2014.

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 4:05pm:

lee wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 3:40pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 3:28pm: The Australian government's proposed royalties on mining profits is one example... Australian miners already pay royalties to the states, why should they be lumbered with yet another pseudo-tax? Royalties are based on volume not the sale price. All it would do is raise the cost of the raw material. That would probably have the flow on effect of reduced exports. Reduced exports, reduced profits, reduced income tax for the miners. As I said... it worked. You, as an Australian, would have benefited from royalties... but what are you doing with your 'probablies'? You're fighting Rhinehart and co's fight for them. China is by far and away our largest market with iron ore and other metals... Whatever extra they'd pay to partially pay for royalties is chicken feed... especially given that there is no reliable alternative to Australian mining products. We're less than 30 million people... How petty would a royalty surcharge to partly cover all Australians appear to the Chinese? Australia's minerals, which are the property of all Australians, are of the highest grade anywhere in the world... Australian infrastructure is second-to-none in its capacity to maintain a steady supply... Australian on-time delivery is the best in the world. Even the Chinese couldn't dream up a myth as good as the deals they're in with Australia... Do you think they'd quibble with perfection over a minor increase in prices to help support Australians who number less than one major Chinese city?

Just wow, you know nothing about this, China are developing iron ore deposits in other countries with the intention of not buying Australian iron ore.

Just some basic information for you

Quote:

As of May 2026, China remains the world's largest iron ore consumer, importing over 75% of global seaborne supply. Amidst efforts to reduce dependency on Australian and Brazilian imports, China has begun receiving shipments from the massive Simandou project in Guinea. Recent negotiations have seen China's state-backed CMRG secure pricing deals with major miners like BHP, incorporating yuan-denominated port prices

Leroy wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 5:36pm:

Just wow, you know nothing about this, China are developing iron ore deposits in other countries with the intention of not buying Australian iron ore. Just some basic information for you Quote: As of May 2026, China remains the world's largest iron ore consumer, importing over 75% of global seaborne supply. Amidst efforts to reduce dependency on Australian and Brazilian imports, China has begun receiving shipments from the massive Simandou project in Guinea. Recent negotiations have seen China's state-backed CMRG secure pricing deals with major miners like BHP, incorporating yuan-denominated port prices

And good luck with all that...

A military coup, social or political collapse in that part of Africa, and it's back to the tried and true.

Everything China does in Africa is predicated on corrupt dealings with African leaders.

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 5:41pm:

Leroy wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 5:36pm: Just wow, you know nothing about this, China are developing iron ore deposits in other countries with the intention of not buying Australian iron ore. Just some basic information for you Quote: As of May 2026, China remains the world's largest iron ore consumer, importing over 75% of global seaborne supply. Amidst efforts to reduce dependency on Australian and Brazilian imports, China has begun receiving shipments from the massive Simandou project in Guinea. Recent negotiations have seen China's state-backed CMRG secure pricing deals with major miners like BHP, incorporating yuan-denominated port prices And good luck with all that... A military coup, social or political collapse in that part of Africa, and it's back to the tried and true. Everything China does in Africa is predicated on corrupt dealings with African leaders.

Burying your head in the iron ore won't change anything.

Leroy wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 5:49pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 5:41pm: Leroy wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 5:36pm: Just wow, you know nothing about this, China are developing iron ore deposits in other countries with the intention of not buying Australian iron ore. Just some basic information for you Quote: As of May 2026, China remains the world's largest iron ore consumer, importing over 75% of global seaborne supply. Amidst efforts to reduce dependency on Australian and Brazilian imports, China has begun receiving shipments from the massive Simandou project in Guinea. Recent negotiations have seen China's state-backed CMRG secure pricing deals with major miners like BHP, incorporating yuan-denominated port prices And good luck with all that... A military coup, social or political collapse in that part of Africa, and it's back to the tried and true. Everything China does in Africa is predicated on corrupt dealings with African leaders. Burying your head in the iron ore won't change anything.

Whatever that means...

China's been 'cutting Australia off' for at least as long as Xi Jinping has been in power, as part of China's 'strategy' to weaken or drive a wedge between the US-Australia alliance.

Unfortunately for China, its usual strategy of rotting out a nation's political system by corruption and taking control of its resources has not worked in Australia...

In Africa, there's a wealth of political trash in power queueing up to be bought... until they're shot in the face by a rival, and it's back to the drawing board for China.

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 3:22pm:

Bobby. wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 3:13pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 3:05pm: Bobby. wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 2:45pm: Good on him I say - he has probably paid 100 times more tax than we ever did - he's paid his dues and now he can laugh and enjoy his life.   :) And now appears on a Gen-Zer's YouTube channel as big wise buana advising Gen-Zers on how to evade tax, which could wind them up stateless and in jail in any one of multiple jurisdictions. You're not a glass half full kinda guy.     ;D Well... y'know... the likes of 'Adam' are common enough... spruiking how they pulled it off dumping their citizenship to live in a dodgy and corrupt/failing state... who can't return to their former home country lest they risk arrest... Found himself a billionaire because he bought into bitcoin when they were worth less than a cheap tin of cat food, did he?

You still haven't watched the video and now you're making stuff up.   ::)

Adam comes back to Australia quite often -
he just doesn't live here anymore.


Watch it properly and learn something:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAqvKD9SUZc

'Royalties' are chicken feed from our resources, that vanish into consolidated revenue never to be seen again until some party decides an old mate on the hustings or on the barricades - whatever - needs a fine position as a 'commissioner' for this or that.. a Gauleiter in other words .. complete with fine office, finely paid staff and fine super retirement scheme totally protected by Howard's Way.

Bobby. wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 6:26pm:

You still haven't watched the video and now you're making stuff up.   ::) Adam comes back to Australia quite often - he just doesn't live here anymore. Watch it properly and learn something: []https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAqvKD9SUZc[]

You think he's the only one to scoot from Australia and settle down in a corrupt nation?

Why Cypress? Why Panama? Both nations with a bad reputation for allowing access to illegal or questionable wealth... Coincidence?

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 6:34pm:

Bobby. wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 6:26pm: You still haven't watched the video and now you're making stuff up.   ::) Adam comes back to Australia quite often - he just doesn't live here anymore. Watch it properly and learn something: []https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAqvKD9SUZc[] You think he's the only one to scoot from Australia and settle down in a corrupt nation? Why Cypress? Why Panama? Both nations with a bad reputation for allowing access to illegal or questionable wealth... Coincidence?

He went to countries that don't tax the living Christ out of people with money.

We need people with money to invest here in Australia
but they are leaving now due to the 100s of taxes.

What about moving to New Zealand?
is it better for rich people?


Google AI:


New Zealand does not have a comprehensive capital gains tax, meaning general profits from the sale of assets like shares, crypto, or property are typically not taxed if held as long-term investments.  However, the government does tax specific capital gains as ordinary income in several key scenarios, functioning as a targeted or "lite" capital gains tax.

Key areas where capital gains are taxable include:

Residential Property (Bright-Line Test): Profits from selling residential property are taxed if sold within 10 years of purchase (for properties bought on or after March 27, 2021) or within 5 years for certain new builds and properties bought between 2018 and 2021.


Share Trading: If the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) classifies you as a "trader" rather than a passive investor—based on intent, frequency of transactions, or business-like behavior—profits are taxed as income.


Foreign Investments: Investors with foreign shares exceeding NZ$50,000 in cost are subject to Foreign Investment Fund (FIF) rules, which tax gains based on prescribed methods like the Comparative Value or Fair Dividend Rate methods.


Financial Arrangements: Gains on certain financial instruments, such as bonds or currency fluctuations, are taxed under financial arrangement rules, often on an accrual basis.


Crypto and Personal Property: The IRD generally considers cryptocurrency and assets bought with the specific intention of disposal to be taxable income upon sale.

Bobby. wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 6:50pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 6:34pm: Bobby. wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 6:26pm: You still haven't watched the video and now you're making stuff up.   ::) Adam comes back to Australia quite often - he just doesn't live here anymore. Watch it properly and learn something: []https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAqvKD9SUZc[] You think he's the only one to scoot from Australia and settle down in a corrupt nation? Why Cypress? Why Panama? Both nations with a bad reputation for allowing access to illegal or questionable wealth... Coincidence? He went to countries that don't tax the living Christ out of people with money. We need people with money to invest here in Australia but they are leaving now due to the 100s of taxes.

He left and went to corrupt countries... seeking citizenship in both of them.

Bobby. wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 6:57pm:

Crypto and Personal Property: The IRD generally considers cryptocurrency and assets bought with the specific intention of disposal to be taxable income upon sale.

I'd bet 'Adam' is balls deep in crypto.

It's the usual modern reason why the Adams of this world strip themselves of their citizenship and f~ck off to dodgy countries.

Bobby. wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 6:57pm:

What about moving to New Zealand? is it better for rich people? Google AI: New Zealand does not have a comprehensive capital gains tax, meaning general profits from the sale of assets like shares, crypto, or property are typically not taxed if held as long-term investments.  However, the government does tax specific capital gains as ordinary income in several key scenarios, functioning as a targeted or "lite" capital gains tax. Key areas where capital gains are taxable include: Residential Property (Bright-Line Test): Profits from selling residential property are taxed if sold within 10 years of purchase (for properties bought on or after March 27, 2021) or within 5 years for certain new builds and properties bought between 2018 and 2021. Share Trading: If the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) classifies you as a "trader" rather than a passive investor—based on intent, frequency of transactions, or business-like behavior—profits are taxed as income. Foreign Investments: Investors with foreign shares exceeding NZ$50,000 in cost are subject to Foreign Investment Fund (FIF) rules, which tax gains based on prescribed methods like the Comparative Value or Fair Dividend Rate methods. Financial Arrangements: Gains on certain financial instruments, such as bonds or currency fluctuations, are taxed under financial arrangement rules, often on an accrual basis. Crypto and Personal Property: The IRD generally considers cryptocurrency and assets bought with the specific intention of disposal to be taxable income upon sale.

Albo has a great lifestyle.

---

Bobby. wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 7:10pm:

Albo has a great lifestyle.

Awww... now it's about an Australian PM being able to afford an expensive home...

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 7:15pm:

Bobby. wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 7:10pm: Albo has a great lifestyle. Awww... now it's about an Australian PM being able to afford an expensive home...

Living large while he taxes the living Jesus out of everyone.     ::)

Bobby. wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 7:34pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 7:15pm: Bobby. wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 7:10pm: Albo has a great lifestyle. Awww... now it's about an Australian PM being able to afford an expensive home... Living large while he taxes the living Jesus out of everyone.     ::)

How old are you?

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 7:35pm:

Bobby. wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 7:34pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 7:15pm: Bobby. wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 7:10pm: Albo has a great lifestyle. Awww... now it's about an Australian PM being able to afford an expensive home... Living large while he taxes the living Jesus out of everyone.     ::) How old are you?

None of your business.

Bobby. wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 7:39pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 7:35pm: Bobby. wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 7:34pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 7:15pm: Bobby. wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 7:10pm: Albo has a great lifestyle. Awww... now it's about an Australian PM being able to afford an expensive home... Living large while he taxes the living Jesus out of everyone.     ::) How old are you? None of your business.

First it's 'Adam'...

What do you know of 'Adam'? Not if that's his first name... no last name given... no way to fact check what he says of himself... only very vague references to how he came by his wealth - nothing substantial to corroborate his backstory...

He appears on a YouTube vid pitched to Gen-Zers, hosted by a gullible Gen-Zer who asks no tough questions... just lets 'Adam' ramble...

Then it's 'Albo got money'... I'd bet every cent is accounted for with the ATO twice over.

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 12:55pm:

freediver wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 12:47pm: Quote: It would have to be virtually illegal everywhere to be that rich in the first place. Imagine telling Americans that they can't personally own everything. What are you on about now? Not that hard to work out... The mega-rich would have to be declared criminals for not declaring or surrendering their wealth over a known limit for a state to police private wealth at the mega level. American culture is predicated on the dream of having it all with minimal communal responsibility... It's why even slavery wasn't off the table... and it would probably have lasted much longer had the fledgling US not been pressured so hard in the early 19th century by world powers led by Britain.

Declare whatever you want Meister. It won't change the reality. These sorts of rules always harm everyone. As you would expect, seeing as they are based entirely on greed and the abandonment of reason. Doing it on a global scale doesn't make it any less stupid than doing it on a national scale.

freediver wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 7:49pm:

Declare whatever you want Meister. It won't change the reality. These sorts of rules always harm everyone. As you would expect, seeing as they are based entirely on greed and the abandonment of reason. Doing it on a global scale doesn't make it any less stupid than doing it on a national scale.

Yep, well, he's not without his critics, that's for sure.

But what is unreasonable about limiting mega wealth that can and does damage democratic process?

There was a time when the idea that every citizen should have the vote was thought preposterous... Even some of the US founding fathers thought it was ridiculous.

Quote:

But what is unreasonable about limiting mega wealth that can and does damage democratic process?

It doesn't "damage democratic processes". It damages the economy, by changing the way people invest money. People will go to great lengths to avoid this tax, and it will always be in a way that reduces investment in the country's future.

"Not unreasonable, in a way that you can comprehend" is not exactly a sound reason to do something.

freediver wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 8:02pm:

Quote: But what is unreasonable about limiting mega wealth that can and does damage democratic process? It doesn't "damage democratic processes". It damages the economy, by changing the way people invest money. People will go to great lengths to avoid this tax, and it will always be in a way that reduces investment in the country's future. "Not unreasonable, in a way that you can comprehend" is not exactly a sound reason to do something.

The rich are leaving:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAqvKD9SUZc

freediver wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 8:02pm:

Quote: But what is unreasonable about limiting mega wealth that can and does damage democratic process? It doesn't "damage democratic processes". It damages the economy, by changing the way people invest money. People will go to great lengths to avoid this tax, and it will always be in a way that reduces investment in the country's future. "Not unreasonable, in a way that you can comprehend" is not exactly a sound reason to do something.

So, the mega-rich can't and don't damage democratic process, eh!

We can see with Trump what the mega-rich can do. JD Vance owes his vice presidency to Peter Thiel.

What you offer is 'it can never harm the democratic process' and  'it'll never work'.

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 7:55pm:

freediver wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 7:49pm: Declare whatever you want Meister. It won't change the reality. These sorts of rules always harm everyone. As you would expect, seeing as they are based entirely on greed and the abandonment of reason. Doing it on a global scale doesn't make it any less stupid than doing it on a national scale. Yep, well, he's not without his critics, that's for sure. But what is unreasonable about limiting mega wealth that can and does damage democratic process? There was a time when the idea that every citizen should have the vote was thought preposterous... Even some of the US founding fathers thought it was ridiculous.

Bit of a juxtaposition.

Bobby. wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 8:07pm:

freediver wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 8:02pm: Quote: But what is unreasonable about limiting mega wealth that can and does damage democratic process? It doesn't "damage democratic processes". It damages the economy, by changing the way people invest money. People will go to great lengths to avoid this tax, and it will always be in a way that reduces investment in the country's future. "Not unreasonable, in a way that you can comprehend" is not exactly a sound reason to do something. The rich are leaving: []https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAqvKD9SUZc[]

Back with your latest boyfriend, eh!

Who is 'Adam'? Do you know? Is he really rich at all? Has he really left Australia?

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 8:09pm:

freediver wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 8:02pm: Quote: But what is unreasonable about limiting mega wealth that can and does damage democratic process? It doesn't "damage democratic processes". It damages the economy, by changing the way people invest money. People will go to great lengths to avoid this tax, and it will always be in a way that reduces investment in the country's future. "Not unreasonable, in a way that you can comprehend" is not exactly a sound reason to do something. So, the mega-rich can't and don't damage democratic process, eh!

Do at least try to keep up Meister. I was answering the question you actually asked, stupid as it was. If you want to ask a different question, ask it. Believe it or not, it really is that hard to figure out what you are trying to say. Most of the time I doubt you are even aware yourself.

Are you saying we should deliberately try to make rich people poor as a way of defending democracy from them?

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 8:09pm:

freediver wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 8:02pm: Quote: But what is unreasonable about limiting mega wealth that can and does damage democratic process? It doesn't "damage democratic processes". It damages the economy, by changing the way people invest money. People will go to great lengths to avoid this tax, and it will always be in a way that reduces investment in the country's future. "Not unreasonable, in a way that you can comprehend" is not exactly a sound reason to do something. So, the mega-rich can't and don't damage democratic process, eh! We can see with Trump what the mega-rich can do. JD Vance owes his vice presidency to Peter Thiel. What you offer is 'it can never harm the democratic process' and  'it'll never work'.

Unlike Kamala who thoroughly deserved her VP and earned her nomination for president.

freediver wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 8:12pm:

Are you saying we should deliberately try to make rich people poor as a way of defending democracy from them?

The usual switcheroo from you...

Have you ever debated someone except those in your head?

Limiting mega-wealth is not a reference to impoverishing them... but you know that already.

It's a simple question Meister.

Are you saying we should deliberately try to make rich people poorer as a way of defending democracy from them?

If not, what exactly are you trying to say? If you are merely Gary Stevenson's puppet and you don't understand what you are saying, just say so.

Here I was thinking you were talking economics, but this is a whole new level of bizarre.

freediver wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 8:21pm:

It's a simple question Meister. Are you saying we should deliberately try to make rich people poorer as a way of defending democracy from them? If not, what exactly are you trying to say? If you are merely Gary Stevenson's puppet and you don't understand what you are saying, just say so.

More switcheroo. Do you ever get tired of your teenage debating tactics?

I'm referring to what Garyn Stevenson claims... that there should be a limit to the amount of wealth/assets any one person can own...

Feel free to quote where I claim the mega-rich should be impoverished...

More to the point... indicate where Gary Stevenson makes that claim.

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 8:11pm:

Bobby. wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 8:07pm: freediver wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 8:02pm: Quote: But what is unreasonable about limiting mega wealth that can and does damage democratic process? It doesn't "damage democratic processes". It damages the economy, by changing the way people invest money. People will go to great lengths to avoid this tax, and it will always be in a way that reduces investment in the country's future. "Not unreasonable, in a way that you can comprehend" is not exactly a sound reason to do something. The rich are leaving: []https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAqvKD9SUZc[] Back with your latest boyfriend, eh! Who is 'Adam'? Do you know? Is he really rich at all? Has he really left Australia?

Do you ever get tired of your teenage debating tactics?    ::)

Quote:

I'm referring to what Garyn Stevenson claims... that there should be a limit to the amount of wealth/assets any one person can own...

What should the limit be Meister?

And do you agree with his claims, or are you merely sharing them to point out what a moron he is?

And again, it is not a difficult question: Are you saying we should deliberately try to make rich people poorer as a way of defending democracy from them?

Bobby. wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 8:30pm:

Do you ever get tired of your teenage debating tactics?    ::)

That wasn't a tactic... that was a dig at your multi-posting the same video of your latest crush.

What do you know of 'Adam'?

freediver wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 8:31pm:

Quote: I'm referring to what Garyn Stevenson claims... that there should be a limit to the amount of wealth/assets any one person can own... And again, it is not a difficult question: Are you saying we should deliberately try to make rich people poorer as a way of defending democracy from them?

Slight deflection in your switcheroo now... (thought you'd slip that in, eh!) but still maintaining an emotive word for teenage rhetorical effect.

freediver wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 8:31pm:

Quote: I'm referring to what Garyn Stevenson claims... that there should be a limit to the amount of wealth/assets any one person can own... What should the limit be Meister? And do you agree with his claims, or are you merely sharing them to point out what a moron he is?

Well, that's the devil in the detail...

Rory Stewart recently took a shot at him by claiming Stevenson had no academic economics background... Had to retract and apologise, of course.

And it might boil down to: when is a heap just a pile?

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 8:35pm:

freediver wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 8:31pm: Quote: I'm referring to what Garyn Stevenson claims... that there should be a limit to the amount of wealth/assets any one person can own... And again, it is not a difficult question: Are you saying we should deliberately try to make rich people poorer as a way of defending democracy from them? Slight deflection in your switcheroo now... (thought you'd slip that in, eh!) but still maintaining an emotive word for teenage rhetorical effect.

Are you capable of giving a straight answer to a simple question Meister? Feel free to rephrase the question into one that is less emotional for you, if that is what it takes. I don't know how to dance around all your trigger words, and I apologise if my efforts so far have only added to your confusion and emotional distress.

Also, I understand that you could not come up with something like this yourself, but we still do not know whether you actually agree with Stevenson, or are merely pointing out for us what a moron he is. Which is it?

freediver wrote on May 13^th, 2026 at 5:43am:

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 8:35pm: freediver wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 8:31pm: Quote: I'm referring to what Garyn Stevenson claims... that there should be a limit to the amount of wealth/assets any one person can own... And again, it is not a difficult question: Are you saying we should deliberately try to make rich people poorer as a way of defending democracy from them? Slight deflection in your switcheroo now... (thought you'd slip that in, eh!) but still maintaining an emotive word for teenage rhetorical effect. Are you capable of giving a straight answer to a simple question Meister? Feel free to rephrase the question into one that is less emotional for you, if that is what it takes. I don't know how to dance around all your trigger words, and I apologise if my efforts so far have only added to your confusion and emotional distress. Also, I understand that you could not come up with something like this yourself, but we still do not know whether you actually agree with Stevenson, or are merely pointing out for us what a moron he is. Which is it?

Using the royal 'we' now eh! Just like the Queen.

Well, I doubt you have a son… If you did, you’d have recognised in his teen years what you are in your middle age… except the effeminate bits, I guess.

A straight answer, eh! To what? That Stevenson’s aim is to make rich people poor? Did he say that?

Now, rephrase your question commensurate with Stevenson’s point… there’s a good nutjob.

Do you still collect marbles, or have you lost them?

Stevenson's goal, I'm guessing, is to stop asset wealth from accumulating in the hands of the few faster than democratic societies can tax, regulate, or politically resist it.

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 12^th, 2026 at 5:23pm:

The Minerals Resource Rent Tax (MRRT)—a federal tax often referred to as extra royalties or a "mining tax" on iron ore and coal—was formally scrapped in Australia in 2014, which was introduced in 2012 by the Gillard Government but was repealed by the Abbott Government following a 2013 election commitment to abolish it.

"Labor's Mineral Resources Rent Tax (MRRT) had failed to deliver, and the government blamed falling commodity prices"


"Key reasons the Mineral Resource Rent Tax (MRRT) failed in Australia:

https://duckduckgo.com/?t=lm&q=the+mrrt+failed&ia=web

    Political opposition and loss of support: The government that introduced the MRRT lost credibility and parliamentary support; repeal became politically feasible once opposition parties and some crossbenchers campaigned against it.

    Strong industry resistance: Major miners lobbied vigorously, arguing the tax harmed investment, competitiveness and jobs; this messaging resonated with voters and MPs.

    Perceived complexity and uncertainty: The MRRT’s rules (valuation of royalties, uplift adjustments, loss carry‑forwards, and accounting treatment) were seen as complicated, producing uncertainty for companies and advisers.

    Narrow base and limited revenue: Forecasts of revenue proved unreliable; actual receipts were lower than projected, weakening the political case for keeping the tax.

    Administrative and compliance concerns: The ATO and industry highlighted practical difficulties in administering and complying with the MRRT, increasing perceived costs for both government and companies.

    Economic timing and market conditions: Commodity price volatility (especially for iron ore and coal) reduced the apparent justification for a new resource rent tax during downturns.

    Messaging and policy design failures: The government struggled to clearly explain who would pay and why, and failed to build broad public consensus or offsetting measures to neutralize political backlash."

From AI

lee wrote on May 13^th, 2026 at 2:37pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 12th, 2026 at 5:23pm: The Minerals Resource Rent Tax (MRRT)—a federal tax often referred to as extra royalties or a "mining tax" on iron ore and coal—was formally scrapped in Australia in 2014, which was introduced in 2012 by the Gillard Government but was repealed by the Abbott Government following a 2013 election commitment to abolish it. "Labor's Mineral Resources Rent Tax (MRRT) had failed to deliver, and the government blamed falling commodity prices" "Key reasons the Mineral Resource Rent Tax (MRRT) failed in Australia: https://duckduckgo.com/?t=lm&q=the+mrrt+failed&ia=web     Political opposition and loss of support: The government that introduced the MRRT lost credibility and parliamentary support; repeal became politically feasible once opposition parties and some crossbenchers campaigned against it.     Strong industry resistance: Major miners lobbied vigorously, arguing the tax harmed investment, competitiveness and jobs; this messaging resonated with voters and MPs.     Perceived complexity and uncertainty: The MRRT’s rules (valuation of royalties, uplift adjustments, loss carry‑forwards, and accounting treatment) were seen as complicated, producing uncertainty for companies and advisers.     Narrow base and limited revenue: Forecasts of revenue proved unreliable; actual receipts were lower than projected, weakening the political case for keeping the tax.     Administrative and compliance concerns: The ATO and industry highlighted practical difficulties in administering and complying with the MRRT, increasing perceived costs for both government and companies.     Economic timing and market conditions: Commodity price volatility (especially for iron ore and coal) reduced the apparent justification for a new resource rent tax during downturns.     Messaging and policy design failures: The government struggled to clearly explain who would pay and why, and failed to build broad public consensus or offsetting measures to neutralize political backlash." From AI

And the nearly 25 million that the mining industry collectively sunk into discreditation, which is why its abolition became a viable election issue.

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 13^th, 2026 at 2:45pm:

And the nearly 25 million that the mining industry collectively sunk into discreditation, which is why its abolition became a viable election issue.

Even if they had paid that as tax, instead of deductions, it would still mean the MRRT failed. ::)

The MRRT was forecast to collect BILLIONS annually, instead it got $200-300 million over its lifetime.

lee wrote on May 13^th, 2026 at 2:50pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 13th, 2026 at 2:45pm: And the nearly 25 million that the mining industry collectively sunk into discreditation, which is why its abolition became a viable election issue. Even if they had paid that as tax, instead of deductions, it would still mean the MRRT failed. ::) The MRRT was forecast to collect BILLIONS, instead it got $200-300 million.

$200-300 million between 2012 and 2014?

And I'd bet the mining industry claimed much of their campaign costs as a tax deduction, so, likely partly taxpayer-subsidised.

lee wrote on May 13^th, 2026 at 2:50pm:

The MRRT was forecast to collect BILLIONS annually, instead it got $200-300 million over its lifetime.

So, possibly $2 billion over 14 years had it run from 2012 to date, then.

The MRRT was forecast to raise billions annually, but after mining industry pressure, design concessions, asset deductions and commodity-price changes, it raised only a tiny fraction of the forecast amount before being repealed.

But still would have amounted to billions from 2012 to date had it survived to date.

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 13^th, 2026 at 3:13pm:

The MRRT was forecast to raise billions annually, but after mining industry pressure, design concessions, asset deductions and commodity-price changes, it raised only a tiny fraction of the forecast amount before being repealed. But still would have amounted to billions from 2012 to date had it survived to date.

Quote:

MRRT was forecast

These things never work because half the politicians from both sides are financially in bed with the corporations. There are enough loop holes in all this type of legislation because the policy is sunk by people with vested interests in the planning stage.

Dnarever wrote on May 13^th, 2026 at 3:23pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 13th, 2026 at 3:13pm: The MRRT was forecast to raise billions annually, but after mining industry pressure, design concessions, asset deductions and commodity-price changes, it raised only a tiny fraction of the forecast amount before being repealed. But still would have amounted to billions from 2012 to date had it survived to date. Quote: MRRT was forecast These things never work because half the politicians from both sides are financially in bed with the corporations. There are enough loop holes in all this type of legislation because the policy is sunk by people with vested interests in the planning stage.

Clearly Labor politicians weren't in bed with the mining industry, which cynically sunk $25 million into a public discreditation scare campaign to persuade the Australian people to act against their own interests.

Aboot and co saw an opportunity to cynically exploit public misgivings that otherwise would have been a no-brainer as a great good for the people.

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 13^th, 2026 at 3:05pm:

So, possibly $2 billion over 14 years had it run from 2012 to date, then.

As against billions annually for 12 years. But you forgot the compliance cost part.


lee wrote on May 13^th, 2026 at 2:37pm:

Perceived complexity and uncertainty: The MRRT’s rules (valuation of royalties, uplift adjustments, loss carry‑forwards, and accounting treatment) were seen as complicated, producing uncertainty for companies and advisers.

lee wrote on May 13^th, 2026 at 2:37pm:

Administrative and compliance concerns: The ATO and industry highlighted practical difficulties in administering and complying with the MRRT, increasing perceived costs for both government and companies.

lee wrote on May 13^th, 2026 at 2:37pm:

Economic timing and market conditions: Commodity price volatility (especially for iron ore and coal) reduced the apparent justification for a new resource rent tax during downturns.

Practical difficulties - the cost of badly drawn legislation. ::)

lee wrote on May 13^th, 2026 at 3:58pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 13th, 2026 at 3:05pm: So, possibly $2 billion over 14 years had it run from 2012 to date, then. As against billions annually for 12 years. But you forgot the compliance cost part.

So, for argument's sake, let's say $1.5 Billion, then...

That would have been at least $1.5 Billion over 14 years at little to no cost to the taxpayer... All gain, no pain.

And the mining industry acceded to the Gillard government's watered-down version of the original proposal and pulled the discreditation campaign, but the political damage had been done, and Abbott was on it.

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 13^th, 2026 at 4:12pm:

That would have been at least $1.5 Billion over 14 years at little to no cost to the taxpayer... All gain, no pain.

Mining companies are taxpayers. ::)


MeisterEckhart wrote on May 13^th, 2026 at 4:12pm:

And the mining industry acceded to the Gillard government's watered-down version of the original proposal and pulled the discreditation campaign, but the political damage had been done, and Abbott was on it.

And the fiscal balance never added up. Just like the current budget.

Why don't you want to comment on what the ATO said at the time? Doesn't suit your mantra? ::)

lee wrote on May 13^th, 2026 at 4:19pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 13th, 2026 at 4:12pm: That would have been at least $1.5 Billion over 14 years at little to no cost to the taxpayer... All gain, no pain. Mining companies are taxpayers. ::)

Do you feel like Twiggy Forrest? Or a mining company?

lee wrote on May 13^th, 2026 at 4:19pm:

Why don't you want to comment on what the ATO said at the time? Doesn't suit your mantra? ::)

Yep, and the hearts of Australians would bleed for the practical difficulties in administering and complying with the MRRT, eh!

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 13^th, 2026 at 4:25pm:

Yep, and the hearts of Australians would bleed for the practical difficulties in administering and complying with the MRRT, eh!

That ATO would, because they are the ones charged with auditing. There is a cost to compliance and even now, 12 years later, with better computers and software would still be horrendously expensive.

So we know you don't do economics, where buyers can go to other producers, in other countries, if cheaper. You don't understand the complexities of tax law. You just don't understand period. ::)

lee wrote on May 13^th, 2026 at 4:34pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 13th, 2026 at 4:25pm: Yep, and the hearts of Australians would bleed for the practical difficulties in administering and complying with the MRRT, eh! That ATO would, because they are the ones charged with auditing. There is a cost to compliance and even now, 12 years later, with better computers and software would still be horrendously expensive. So we know you don't do economics, where buyers can go to other producers, in other countries, if cheaper. You don't understand the complexities of tax law. You just don't understand period. ::)

Yes, of course... and the average Australian would be awake at 3:00am worrying about the details... The mining industry decimation campaign wasn't targeted at the details as much as mass unemployment within the industry as mines were shut down.

And if the Chinese could have 'cut Australia off' that easily, it would already have done it, particularly under Xi Jinping's rule... who is obsessed with driving a wedge between the US-Australia alliance... And not so much cut Australia off, but blackmail Australia with the threat of cutting us off... It hasn't happened yet... and it likely never will.

And, money guy, given that the 2 years it was running, it made about 200 million, which means that it wasn't like it was doing nothing for Australians...

And, money guy, what was 200 million in 2012 worth? 400 million today? You'd know that, wouldn't you, money guy?

Face it... Australians got f~cked up the arse by a powerful local industry run by Australians... and were expected to thank the industry for the ride.

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 13^th, 2026 at 4:51pm:

and the average Australian would be awake at 3:00am worrying about the details...

The average Australian knows about as much as you, maybe more. ::)


MeisterEckhart wrote on May 13^th, 2026 at 4:51pm:

And, money guy, what was 200 million in 2012 worth? 400 million today? You'd know that, wouldn't you, money guy?

The CPI has risen 28.5% in the 12 years. 200x 1.285 is nowhere near $400m. Even using the rule of 72 it is less than 40% or 1.4.

And thanks for showing your "knowledge". Bye.

lee wrote on May 13^th, 2026 at 6:27pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 13th, 2026 at 4:51pm: and the average Australian would be awake at 3:00am worrying about the details... The average Australian knows about as much as you, maybe more. ::) MeisterEckhart wrote on May 13th, 2026 at 4:51pm: And, money guy, what was 200 million in 2012 worth? 400 million today? You'd know that, wouldn't you, money guy? The CPI has risen 28.5% in the 12 years. 200x 1.285 is nowhere near $400m. And thanks for showing your "knowledge". Bye.

So, close to 300 million, then... chump change to you? Not worth it to Australians? Best to knock it on the head and be done with it, eh!

For a money guy, you post here that your assets are worth less than those of most boomers... wouldn't that line you up as a generational loser, money guy?

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 13^th, 2026 at 6:39pm:

wouldn't that line you up as a generational loser, money guy?

yep. I give my time and money to charity, It doesn't have to be much. You? ::)

lee wrote on May 13^th, 2026 at 7:13pm:

I give my time and money to charity,

The Bank of Cypress?

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 13^th, 2026 at 7:11am:

Stevenson's goal, I'm guessing, is to stop asset wealth from accumulating in the hands of the few faster than democratic societies can tax, regulate, or politically resist it.

But the devil in the details is what haunts Stevenson and fuels criticism of him.

Correct diagnosis is one thing, but...

MeisterEckhart wrote on May 13^th, 2026 at 8:26pm:

The Bank of Cypress?

no pet. that would be you.

Sallies, Soldier on, first responders, etc. Volunteer at rural fire brigade.

You shouldn't judge others by your shortcomings. ::)