Thread: Mining Super Tax

I've been following it closely on Lateline and cannot understand in any way that it is good for anything except to the detriment of...

I won't type anymore as it beggars belief and raises my blood pressure. Except to write that as soon as the announcement was made and before anyone started any shouting a friends super instantly lost $20,000 due to the share price fall of mining stocks.

Originally Posted by artme

How many people have been following this stoush?

More importantly, how many have done some "deep and meanigful reading and research" on the matter?

The more I read the more I am inclined to believe it is the right thing. I am no defender of Rudd, especially with regards to his spurious reasons for spending from gov. funds for advertising. However, I do think it is time to stop the hysteria and look at the facts. Then we might be able to make a better judgement.

That's interesting because as the proposal stands I'm the opposite. I don't believe we should be be picking on individual types of economic activities and if anything I want to see ALL the big corporates paying more tax. Why should we only pick on mining companies and let bankers and money managers slip through the net and .

A well known Australian once said to a Senate Hearing "I can tell you you're not spending it that well that we should be donating extra". I think that sentiment applies to the resources tax.

I am against targeted taxation how it can be argued this tax will not put at risk future projects and hence jobs and development is beyond me.

The argument that the Australian people should receive a greater share of the returns from finite resources is weak and spurious. If the government was fair dinkum an adjustment to GST payments to the states thus forcing up royalties makes more sense maybe even easier to achieve

I am interested to hear what makes this a good tax that is fair.

Wading through the bullshyte is the hardest bit. Here is a clearer explanation than most. Resource Super Profit Tax Everything Correctly Explained (R.S.P.T.E.C.E.) | Stubborn Mule Im not a financial engineer so read the Blog but how I understand it is that the bigger guys will pay more tax and the smaller miners will find it easier to raise capital. Bear in mind that mining is as a pretty concentrated industry and hugely capital intensive.

A couple of salient points, Rudd wont get it through the Senate, St Steve will see to that. So at best its an exercise in seeing who has the best spin doctors. Secondly, our balance of payments is so intimately tied to resources that a hiccup in China will cause a massive recession. Remember when it used to be said that if America sneezes Australia catches a cold? But Australia only had a viable value add sector for a short while so its the way its gonna be for as long as I can tell. Its the economy we are going to have because of our geography. Its the customers not the suppliers who rule in this game. Thirdly, this proposed tax was engineered by Ken Henry and the Treasury. Im sure it has been a long time in the coming and is very well thought out, he is one of the best around Canberra. As usual Rudd and Swan (who couldnt sell beer in a pub) are implementing someone else's idea. I reckon its a bit like the GST, it will take 15 years to get something going but as the Australian pension burden increases governments of all flavours are going to be looking for money. Fourthly, it isnt going to be easy for these big miners to find other resource rich countries that have the political stability, mature financial systems, lots of open space where they dont encroach on big populations and sufficiently educated populations to move into. Australia is a relatively easy place to do business.

Personally, Im waiting for the backflip as the polls are coming and Rudd knows he is going down without a Senate majority. He will want to fight the opposition on safer ground like IR. The fact that so much is making into the press about opposition back room bickering must be heartening to him because his track record is woeful. He may save his skin but it will be because the opposition lost.

Have to agree with you Bob. Targetted taxation smacks of the old pinko left and the get even mentality of some of the old diehard armchair communists. This is the sort of card that Rudd is playing to some extent by appealing to our patriotic emotions.

I think a number of points are worth bearing in mind.

Some years ago $1 in $3 from mining came into the coffers of governments. It is now about $1 in $7.

Miners get pretty reasonable concessions from government fro exploration and development. Should we not get some money back?

The same cries went up when Hawk did this with petroleum. Did exploration and invesment stop?

Mining companies are pretty good at favourably balancing their books. Maybe this needs examination.

What of the mishmash of royalties and taxes already in place? Maybe a rethink on this would dsolve a lot of problems.

What of the mishmash of royalties and taxes already in place? Maybe a rethink on this would dsolve a lot of problems.

The whole point of Ken Henry's review. But the vast bulk of his recommendations were discarded presumably because they wouldnt go down too well with the electorate.

I'm for any new tax....soon every school in this great country will have an $800,000 tuck shop.

Bring it on!!

Originally Posted by artme

Some years ago $1 in $3 from mining came into the coffers of governments. It is now about $1 in $7.

That's a quote straight from the latest Govt ad compaign and I question it's accuracy. The 14% figure came from a paper done by a couple of US academics. The paper wasnt officially published and as such was never subject to peer review etc.

Originally Posted by kiwigeo

That's a quote straight from the latest Govt ad compaign and I question it's accuracy. The 14% figure came from a paper done by a couple of US academics. The paper wasnt officially published and as such was never subject to peer review etc.

I heard an interview with the author. He drew his data from annual reports. And yes he was supervising a student who wrote it. But I must agree, spin, spin, spin. When both sides start with full page paper ads I get the sh!ts. Ive ditched both sides of the media on this one. A pox on all their advertising budgets!!

Well at least the mining lobby is spending their own money on ads rather than taxpayers hard earned dollars. As far as Im concerned Rudd has lost the plot and nothing good can come out of a poorly thought out tax based on questionable data. If this tax was properly thought out and based on sound data it wouldnt need a $50m ad campaign to sell it to the voters.

If Rudd survives the election then watch him slap new taxes on super funds....just the thing to encourage people to rely less on the state in their retirement.

Wasn't aware that the figures i quoted are from gov. ads. I haven't seen any!

I read them somewhere but don't remember where.

I think this gov is dead in the water. The trouble is that we need to ask if we really want TA as PM.This is especially so after his stupidity with Kerry O"Brien!!!

Originally Posted by artme

Wasn't aware that the figures i quoted are from gov. ads. I haven't seen any!

I read them somewhere but don't remember where.

You can't miss the ads...full page spreads in The Australian.

Originally Posted by kiwigeo

You can't miss the ads...full page spreads in The Australian.

Lost faith in newspapers years ago. Did all my fairytale reading as a kid.

As for any ads I do stumble on I rarely, if ever, read them.

Originally Posted by artme

I think this gov is dead in the water. The trouble is that we need to ask if we really want TA as PM.This is especially so after his stupidity with Kerry O"Brien!!!

Amen to that.....I know Neil for PM, leader of the WW party.