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.

Quote:

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 9:01am:


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!

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



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.

longweekend58 tacitly confirmed my post, except:
longweekend58 wrote on Sep 11^th, 2010 at 9:28am:

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.

Quote:


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

[/color]"># wrote on Sep 11^th, 2010 at 9:01am:

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



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.

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


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.

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


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

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


Like sub contractors then?

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


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.

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


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

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 ??

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

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


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.

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.

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



Okey doke then.

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

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.

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


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?

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

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.

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

Do you honestly believe all taxation is bad?
Quote:

Isn't that economically rational? 
Quote:

Good policy is good policy, no matter the source.
Quote:

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:

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:

Drivel!

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


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!

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



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

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



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

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. 

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

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:


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.