Thread: Mining Super Tax

I think this article sums up the state of play. If you read some of the comments even the Duffers guide to the Resource Super Profits Tax does little to explain to duffers like me.

I also note that the treatment of interest differs from standard accounting practice if what is written is to be believed.

What has become clear to me is the fact that one should treat any communication on the subject with the utmost caution as it appears nobody including our leaders are able to fully explain how this tax is calculated or the true impact it will have.
Did you see a couple of backbenchers on the news last night. It was down right embarrassing, they did not have a clue.

A refreshing view here in the SMH from a Reuters reporter. Interesting that 60% of over 10,000 people who voted on the poll are in favour of the tax.

HH.

Originally Posted by m2c1Iw

I think this article sums up the state of play.

Makes the tax sound fair to me, the risk of a project not making a large profit is offset by a lower tax rate than they have now and if it is very successful they pay more to enable an increase in Super contributions and improvements in infrastructure.

HH.

I hear Rudd is considering varying tax rates for different commodities/mining projects. Great idea Kev.....so now we have a poorly thought out simplistic tax regime that's fast morphing into a complicated cumbersome and no doubt costly tax regime. The only beneficiaries will be the extra public servants required to run the whole thing.

Originally Posted by kiwigeo

I hear Rudd is considering varying tax rates for different commodities/mining projects. Great idea Kev.....so now we have a poorly thought out simplistic tax regime that's fast morphing into a complicated cumbersome and no doubt costly tax regime. The only beneficiaries will be the extra public servants required to run the whole thing.

Would give a whole new meaning to "creative accounting". Company X mines 6 different commodities, so all the profit is made on the lowest taxed commodity?

Talk about "policy" on the run

Originally Posted by Vernonv

BTW this is not directed at you Damian, just quoting your post.

No worries

I think this has all been said, but not in one place and I think it's worth repeating for focus. To my mind the issues are:

General company tax as per all business. I think we agree on this ?

Additional tax to compensate for the extraction of a finite and nation owned resource (you might argue farmers exploit the same resource but that's another kettle).

The efficiency with which the tax is levied and collected. Perhaps the "fairness" also ? Differentiating between minerals for example.

Whether the mining companies or the government are better able to put $ to work in the interests of Autralia and Australians. Mining company community development and shareholder supannuation vs government spending. Not clear cut IMO.

Have I missed anything ?

Originally Posted by kiwigeo

I hear Rudd is considering varying tax rates for different commodities/mining projects. Great idea Kev.....so now we have a poorly thought out simplistic tax regime that's fast morphing into a complicated cumbersome and no doubt costly tax regime. The only beneficiaries will be the extra public servants required to run the whole thing.

I read this and then there was piece saying he was not going to alter his initial 40%.
So it seems that this tax moves about testing the water so to speak to see if it will get voter traction.

I am beginning to consider that it would be highly beneficial if the current tax was scrapped and the industry and government went of into the back room and started from scratch. Then came out with an agreement with out all this instability the current situation is causing.

I am beginning to consider that it would be highly beneficial if the current tax was scrapped and the industry and government went of into the back room and started from scratch. Then came out with an agreement with out all this instability the current situation is causing.

Nah, thats not likely to happen, pride wont let that happen and I believe he's got the nod from the power brokers. No more back pedaling on policy, so he has painted himself into a corner. Kevin in 07 gone in 11

Originally Posted by hughie

Nah, thats not likely to happen, pride wont let that happen and I believe he's got the nod from the power brokers. No more back pedaling on policy, so he has painted himself into a corner. Kevin in 07 gone in 11

Try this little news paper heading.
Poll the key as mutineers circle Kevin Rudd | The Australian

.

Poll the key as mutineers circle Kevin Rudd | The Australian

Bad news for some. But good news for others yay!

I think the ultimate goal of the federal government is to force the states to do away with royalty payments altogether...

Every year the federal government is making the states more and more obsolete as they turn them into their serfs by withholding monies until the states do the federal government's bidding..

This is not helped out by voters voting in crap state governments... Before you all jump up and down and say the states should be abolished consider this.... Federal government laws are much stricter then most state laws.... Ever tried to import a knife into the country?? What is legal to own and make in the states can be illegal to import into the country..

When was the last time you went to a federal government building for assistance other then for welfare payments?

I do not think I have ever been to a federal department building even centrelink.. I have been to plenty of state department buildings..

I firmly believe the government does have an agenda to make state government as obsolete as possible which is not the way our constitution is set up... Power is supposed to flow from the states to the federal government, after all we are a federation of states.. Federal government is supposed to be the smallest sector of government..

Originally Posted by .RC.

I firmly believe the government does have an agenda to make state government as obsolete as possible which is not the way our constitution is set up... Power is supposed to flow from the states to the federal government, after all we are a federation of states.. Federal government is supposed to be the smallest sector of government..

There are arguments for an against state governments. Here are some examples of the negative side of State Governments:

1. My wife is a registered nurse working in South Australia. One of her jobs is working as an office based coordinator for a home nursing company that has operations in SA and Queensland. She is required to have registration as a nurse in both states. Why can't there be a single national nursing registration body so nurses can work in any state without having to take out new registration?

2. Until relatively recently it wasn't possible to run trains between states without having to deal with different track guages. The reason for the different guages.......it depended purely on the nationality of the Engineer in charge of railways in each state at the time railways were established. The only reason New Zealand doesn't have multiple guages is because shortly after the first (broad guage) lines were built they did away with the provincial governments and the national government adopted narrow guage as the standard.

3. Payrol tax is levied by state governments and varies by state. It's a tax on employment and a straight out money grab.

Originally Posted by .RC.

I firmly believe the government does have an agenda to make state government as obsolete as possible which is not the way our constitution is set up... Power is supposed to flow from the states to the federal government, after all we are a federation of states.. Federal government is supposed to be the smallest sector of government..

IMO this is an outdated and costly structure and inhibits progress and efficiency on many levels some of which have been pointed out. The sooner we have a single government and abolish the state governments the better.

HH.

this is an outdated and costly structure and inhibits progress and efficiency on many levels some of which have been pointed out. The sooner we have a single government and abolish the state governments the better.

It makes sense both financially and logically. But and its a major but, do we trust the federal government with this sort of power increase?
Given various track records of the labour govt for instance... Whitlam and now Rudd I am not sure I want to go that way just yet.