Mining sector did not save country - Henry
- Thread starter oracle
- Start date
Back to the original question?
Kev had a big surplus to use as stimulus. He sure went through that. That stimulous was mainly built up from mining royalties and taxes, and put aside by the liberals when in government.
We also didn't suffer as much as most due to our tiny manufacturing industry. Manufacturing or secondary industries were hit harder than primary. So since you have to have either primary or secondary industries to support service industries, the very fact that our mining industry ment we don't depend on or need manufacturing, thus we had a smaller manufacturing industry contributing little to exports, then I'd say mining was the main reason.
Henry has displayed a very disturbing lack of intelligence with his statement. But I suppose this comes from being insulated his whole life in the public services.
Of course it will have an impact. Mining will take place where it is most profitable, a simple rule of capitalism. Once again a very disturbing lack of intelligence shown here. The question is how much effect, and it will be hard to tell for a while.
See ya's.
big diff tho between allowing a tax deduction and actually stumping up hurt money from the gecko
can you give more details on retrospectivness of the tax?
do you mean the companies will have to pay back tax on all the profits they received since the beginning of mining in Australia?
So Evan, do you agree with Rudd's theory that this non-renewable resource and therefore non-renewable tax revenue should be allocated to everyday budget spending to plug the deficit? Or should it be put towards Australia's future for when the resources run dry (eg. sovereign fund)?
People that are for this new tax seem to overlook that fact (it seems to me anyway). If they're jumping up and down in anger saying 'we should be paid more for our depleting resources before they run out' - then surely the extra revenue should be put towards that same future?
I don't think it's fair to argue for the tax and conveniently ignore where the spoils go.
To put it another way.... Rudd wants to tax the surviving projects. Is he prepared to compensate the ones that didn't survive ?
EG BHP dug 10 holes anticipating an average return 20%, half turned out to be duds and were canned, the other half return 40%. Rudd wants to tax the 5 (now risk free) cash cows.... what about a rebate for the duds ?
Keith, i don't think your view makes sense. Further to my previous post every business venture takes on risk. And some loss on some projects/sales.
Its the overall result that matters and BHP (and the miners in general) are sitting on MASSIVE profits.
There is no guaranteed profit/success on every venture for any business or investment. Why should it be different for the miners?
Its the overall result that matters and BHP (and the miners in general) are sitting on MASSIVE profits.
There is no guaranteed profit/success on every venture for any business or investment. Why should it be different for the miners?
Fair point. Has it been stated where the specific tax will be allocated?
Regardless, imo, the resources sector need to share more of the $ billions of profit. Particularly the $ that go OS.
Regardless, imo, the resources sector need to share more of the $ billions of profit. Particularly the $ that go OS.
I believe it has been allocated in forward budget estimates (buggered if I can be bothered finding it on the treasury website
) as part of the whole kit and caboodle so we're back in surplus a year earlier. I definitely don't recall any mention of a sovereign fund the likes of the Norwegians, but would love to be proved wrong on that one.The point being, they want to increase that effective tax rate to around 56% due to the depleting nature of resources on one hand, yet don't put their money where their mouth is when it comes to spending or more importantly saving it. If they're so worried about resource depletion, initiate spending on a new industry for Aust. that can be fostered now to take over when the rocks are gone (in 500yrs). Surely even Labor could get a new industry up in that time frame......... pffft what am I saying??!!
(sorry, couldn't resist that last shot )I guess it comes down to opinion. BHP paid 43% tax on their Aust. production last year (when you take into account company tax, state royalties etc - not just the headlines Swan loves throwing around). Personally I think that's a huge amount already, and coming from a business perspective I think >50% is unfair for any business. I realise many would disagree with me.
Sounds absolutely fantastic with your little thinking cap on, but when seen from a multi-national company's perspective it is not.
You talk of only the billions in profit. You don't mention the hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars that have been pumped into the projects over decades and decades to explore / negotiate / map / negotiate / gain access / negotiate / develop/ negotiate / build / negotiate / market / negotiate / sell / negotiate / pay expenses / pay tax / pay dividends.
You couldn't possibly appreciate the risk / time / volume of money involved to achieve that 'end of the line' billions of profit you speak of.
Thankfully, your opinion, and all of the other lefties with their hand out after contributing nothing to the profit making venture, is irrelevant in the matter.
The "resource" isn't a resource at all until some company decides to invest to get it out at great risk and cost.
No different to any other money making venture, just a larger scale with more borrowed money. Is the mining industry a protected species?
And sorry mate, who has their hand out?
And sorry mate, who has their hand out?
Last edited:
Absolutely. Every venture takes on risk based on an expected return. Now that expected return has had an unexpected tax burden imposed on it. Rudd sold the tax with the sweetener that failed projects would be recompensed. But he's taxing existing & risk free projects that succeeded, but failing to recompense the ones that didn't.
How about you toss a coin - if it comes up heads you win $1 but are taxed 40c, but if it's tails you lose your $1. That's the equivalent of taxing existing projects, but failing to recompense all the previous failed ones.
The MASSIVE profits is irrelevant.
It shouldn't be different for miners.... it isn't. It's a risk/reward relationship that gets projects off the ground..... now the rewards have been chopped off at the knees.
Have you read about OneSteel in Whyalla ?
Is it reasonable to tax this existing project out of existence ?
If they think not, they will take their bat and ball and go home.
As a capitalist rightie, I think it stinks.
But, I do have a bit of a left/socialist part as well, and I think that if the mines are foreign owned, then we should scrape as much cream off their glass as we can to use to improve our Aussie citizen's lot.
Now, if we could just buy those mines back.......
You can have your pudding and eat it too though in Australia
Talk is now there may be a modified version of the RSPT, which it seemed there would be at the start with all the chest beating of the big players
let me guess, a myriad of exemptions, definitions, expansion of the tax act, a new team to target evasion, a committee to consider the issues raised, a report to the minister, a CPA congress to skill up on the new laws... strewth i thought we were moving to a simpler tax system! obviously the ones we had werent enough.
I have said it before as well...I think it is a good idea to charge mining companies more on top of the company tax rate due to the non-renewable nature of the resources. The issue is how much more? I personally think anything above 50% is just not fair. For all the capital they invest and risks they take to get those resources out and find buyers, negotiate the best possible price, run the company surely they deserve more then 50%. If Australia wants to continue foreign investments it can't tax profits at over 50% and expect those investments to continue. All those who say we don't need foreign companies and they can pack up and leave we will find someone else. They don't realise once investment community is burnt it will be extremely difficult to convince others to come here and invest as they will fear what's the guarantee the Government won't change rules again and demand 50% or even 60% super profits tax!
The other issue is what the government intends to do with the money it collects as part of the super tax. It should be used for infrastructure projects or some kind of future fund for the benefit of future generations.
Cheers,
Oracle.
That's another reason I think they have more support for the tax than they otherwise would. Everywhere the headline is '40% super profits tax.' 40% isn't excessive generally speaking. They're already paying that. It's the fact that in reality the '40% tax' actually turns into a high 50's% tax when you add in other taxes and royalties.
Similar threads
