Hey, we share the same job desciption.

I get the feeling Rupert Murdoch doesn't like the Labour government. Power like that is very scary.

"News Limited has nearly three-quarters of daily metropolitan newspaper circulation and so maintains great influence in Australia. Internal News Limited documents reveal a brazen offer during the 2001 Federal election campaign to promote the policies of a major party in its best-selling newspapers nation-wide for almost $500,000[4]. Other documents include a marginal seats guide written by a senior business manager for internal use. It evidences a corporate strategy to target marginal seats at the 2004 election[5]. Some of the documents appeared on Media Watch[6] but received very little coverage[7]." - source Wikipedia (add a grain of salt/do further research)

</politics>

That would be the Greens I think. They probably haven't noticed that he is just a mouse.
Does Mickey Mouse windsurf? I always took him to be a kiter myself.
You wouldn't want a kiter for PM. Geez it could end up being compulsory.

Mining super tax - What is the problem with it. These companies are making sh!t loads of money from resources that we as citizens are all entitled to get benefit from, and destroying the landscape in the process.

So they make 60billion dollars a year instead of 100billion boo hoo.

Shares are dropping because of the mining's advertising scare campaign.

1 important point is that the tax is only on profits over a certain amount. If they aren't making much of a profit, the new tax's will be less than what they currently pay. From what I have read, it makes perfect sense is a really fair method.

I hate politics but I hate the media more and I don't beleive anything I hear or see. You need to research before forming opinions people!

Whyner for PM !

The jobs and the mones will still be there. It just means Twiggy may be worth a billion less than otherwise but he won't notice the difference anyway. Meanwhile we get better super, hospitals schools, roads and a lower company tax rate. I think Twiggy gets confused between whats good for Australia and the economy and whats good for his own back pocket.

there are other ways of looking at it.

when big companies make less money they have a lot of options - the simple view..

1. sell assests (generally to overseas companies then we don't own them anymore)
2. put up their local prices (the end user, "us" pays for it)
3. sack the workers (never a good outcome)

and specific to mining

1. stop infrastructure and community investments
2. stop exploration

the other thing that no one seems to talk about is why should we trust the governent to spend the super tax appropriately. so far they've wasted billions of dollars. would you lend money to someone you think won't use it appropriately.

and why lump the tax on one sector, surely spreading it out across multiple sectors would be a more sensible thing.

i can't help feeling after the governemnt ditched the ets which they promised to deliver they've looked around and thought who can we rip off next.

the question needs to be asked, why are they so hell bent on raising millions of dollars and what exactly are they going to spend it on and how.

no wind here

K Dog said...

pedro e said...

whyner said...

Mining super tax - What is the problem with it. These companies are making sh!t loads of money from resources that we as citizens are all entitled to get benefit from, and destroying the landscape in the process.

So they make 60billion dollars a year instead of 100billion boo hoo.

Shares are dropping because of the mining's advertising scare campaign.

1 important point is that the tax is only on profits over a certain amount. If they aren't making much of a profit, the new tax's will be less than what they currently pay. From what I have read, it makes perfect sense is a really fair method.

I hate politics but I hate the media more and I don't beleive anything I hear or see. You need to research before forming opinions people!

Hear hear! Spot on Whyner - I can't believe so many people oppose this tax - how do they think we will fund hospitals and schools? Who owns the minerals anyway? - we all do!

I agree!

4 Corners ABC had a great insight to the malarkey being thrown about by the Mining groups last Monday night. If you missed it, go on-line and take a look. Very refreshing program on this subject The ex reserve bank B Fraser was very well spoken on the scare campaign the mining groups put up
John Hewson ex Lib leader was spot on with his comments from both sides Government and Mining. pity people like him got drummed out of respective parties
In the end the Mining groups got bushwhacked
Just like they have been doing for years with the steel mill owners
NE-GOTIATION, they will eventually settle on good deal for all.

Can't agree with you all.

Australia getting a better deal from the export of its mineral wealth needs to happen. Can't disgaree with that.

But the mechanism of taxing 'mining companies super profits' is not a way of acheiving it

If Australia wants to benefit more from its mineral wealth it should be investing in it, not selling it.

The Australian government should be financing mining projects not encouraging the Chinese to. If the Government offered to fund all mining exploration and development for base rate interest plus 30% of the asset it would generate far more wealth for australians than selling it to the Chinese and everybody fighting over the divvying of the spoil.

And, the definition of 'mining company' is too vague. Twiggy argued he should be allowed onto BHP rail's line. BHP argued 'rail was part of the mining process'. BHP lost. So if rail is not part of the mining process then you can assume only activities up to primary processing are, and then the 'mining' companies' profits look a lot less 'super'.

And who is a mining company ? The company that digs it out the ground, the one that owns the mining tenement, or the one that sells the ore ?

Why aren't logging companies 'miners' under the same definition ? They harvest a natural product and do not replace it. What is the difference ?

What if I started a company that went through all the old spoil heaps and refined ore because I have a better processing facility than yesterday ? Am I mining ? or am I recycling waste ?

Proposing to Tax profits of mining comapnies seem to me like a grand vague plan that has had very little thought.

Why not just put all companies on a sliding scale of company tax, same as personnal income tax ? if the miners are making 'super' profits and nobody else is teh same revenuie comes in, but at least it is fair.

Has the australian agricultural sector been a better custodian of the land than the mining companies ? evidence and legislation would suggest not.

Gestalt said...

you prompted me to dig a bit deeper jermaldan. certainly i was off the mark with my first point. seems the problem is that no one overseas wants to buy or invest now which means exploration will reduce as less money is available to fund it.

from what i read the tax won't increase exploration.

a quote from the wall st journal.

The Wall Street Journal, in its scathing assessment of Mr Rudd's super tax, put it succinctly in its editorial, "This economic thinking runs counter to everything that made Australia rich over the last three decades: namely, the embrace of competition and capitalism, which rewards high risk with high returns . . . The truth is that all windfall taxes, however they are dressed up and sold by politicians, are arbitrary and economically damaging."

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/blogs/the-bishops-gambit/ground-control-to-major-rudd/20100511-uuwz.html?comments=42

Is that the Wall St Journal owned and printed by Rupert Murdock. Far right wing Liberal views....... only Reds under the bed theorist malarkey that group touted under the gold tax proposale we now have, way back, and the GST proposal we now have,way back

Gestalt said...


from what i read the tax won't increase exploration.

The Govt. will be taking a 40% stake in any exploration, profitable or not. This reduces risk and encourages exploration. i.e. if the company makes an exploration loss of $1 the govt. will pay 40c.

a quote from the wall st journal.

The Wall Street Journal, in its scathing assessment of Mr Rudd's super tax, put it succinctly in its editorial, "This economic thinking runs counter to everything that made Australia rich over the last three decades: namely, the embrace of competition and capitalism, which rewards high risk with high returns . . . The truth is that all windfall taxes, however they are dressed up and sold by politicians, are arbitrary and economically damaging."

**** The Wall St. Journal. Dogmatic as they come. If it's not a free-for-all orgy of unbridled capitalism it's no good for them.

Here's a really appropriate example of a country that took their natural resources and instead of privatising them used them to create one of the wealthiest, most stable countries on earth with almost always the highest standard of living.



en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway

Why don't we do the same?

The trouble is the government is not selling this very well at all. It is leaving people confused. For that they have failed.

I watched four corners... It was balanced. It also covered the malarkey thrown about by the government. It did very little to sway my view - this tax, in current form, is ridiculous. The approach that this government has taken is in tabling it and engaging stakeholders is foolish.

Some other points:

Government talks about tax paid by miners in terms of Gross Operating Surpluses (GOS). Government has not relied on treasury figures, but an inadequate analysis from an overseas PHD student. Would be nice to see some robust GOS figures - if that is the way the government wants to look at % tax paid.

Mining companies talk of tax in terms of their taxable income - same as you or I. Figures reported by mining companies are robust and have been independently audited by PWC and KPMG.

6% is not a "super" profit.

Both sides have over (or under) stated figures.

Palmer for saying he was pulling the plug on some projects, then admitting they were just delayed while he looks at what is happening.

Swan claimed that mining companies could only pay 58% tax if they were making an "infinite" profit. On four corners, Swan conceded that some projects would pay 58% tax. I have no idea what an infinite profit is... A "super" profit is only 6%... would be nice to know...

There has been very little (no?) discussion on how the tax will impact on share values and dividends. Don't own shares? Might be worth checking your super!

Irony? The most support for the tax seems to be coming from Victoria and NSW. Traditionally anti-mining states.

What about forestry, farming and fishing?

What about banking? Why will nobody in government stand up to the banks, who are aggressively mining the pockets of all Australians?

I thought KRudd was OK once, sometime in 2007... Now, the sight of him and his never ending rhetoric makes me feel sick Lap it up and reap the rewards... OR... the consequences...

that's great panda, no issues with the norweigan model, but that's not what the alp is doing,

actually, the norweigan model is closer to what the previous government did with future funds etc.

the current gov is talking about taxing, not investing. the only investment talk they mention involves spending so go figure.

it's what they do with it and how they get it that i'm not comfortable with.

4 corners was a good watch.

anyways, i can see yet another back flip coming on from the government. they are more hungry for votes than anything else.

Pugwash said...

evlPanda said...


The Govt. will be taking a 40% stake in any exploration, profitable or not. This reduces risk and encourages exploration. i.e. if the company makes an exploration loss of $1 the govt. will pay 40c.

Hey Panda... good to see you in the discussion again

Can you explain this?

1.

So, I am exploring for gold... I spend $1 Million in 2011 on geophysics, reconnaissance drilling and some limited infill drilling. I do some quick calcs, mining studies etc and find my project is not financially viable... boo hoo...

Do I get 40% of my money back?

From what I've read, yes.

2.

The government is taking a 40% stake. Does this mean nationalising?

It kinda does, doesn't it? (he is red under his green)

I wish the govt. would put up a website or similar to answer these basic questions. I can't be 100% sure myself.

evlPanda said...
I wish the govt. would put up a website or similar to answer these basic questions. I can't be 100% sure myself.

You just wish somebody'd find it for you. Thanks jermaldan : )


Page 4 onwards in this covers it quite well too:
drive.google.com/file/d/1AX97qJovbVrtMynevnKggjWifl5_8fOJCuJXffo4X_5fI62I4juXzTT9Ak-A/view?usp=drive_open&hl=en

evlPanda said...

evlPanda said...
I wish the govt. would put up a website or similar to answer these basic questions. I can't be 100% sure myself.

You just wish somebody'd find it for you. Thanks jermaldan : )


Page 4 onwards in this covers it quite well too:
drive.google.com/file/d/1AX97qJovbVrtMynevnKggjWifl5_8fOJCuJXffo4X_5fI62I4juXzTT9Ak-A/view?usp=drive_open&hl=en

The link with the answer was below the question