this is why the alp deserve to be wiped from the face of the earth

The libs will remove that tax.
And save us money by doing it.

this is a tax put on by the left that seriously angered the big end of the big economy in Australia.
And it costs us money.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 10:29am:

this is why the alp deserve to be wiped from the face of the earth The libs will remove that tax. And save us money by doing it. this is a tax put on by the left that seriously angered the big end of the big economy in Australia. And it costs us money.

you know a govt is in trouble when it LOSES money from a new tax.

the mining tax was an offensive attack on an industry that supports a lot of the economy and already pays the highest effective tax rates in the country.

longweekend58

I find it an odd tax, so we have state based royalties which they can change but we want another tax to stop an organisation becoming too productive or profitable.

The logic is very odd, so if you make slim profits, invest in infrastructure that significantly reduces costs the government could punish you ?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 10:29am:

this is why the alp deserve to be wiped from the face of the earth The libs will remove that tax. And save us money by doing it. this is a tax put on by the left that seriously angered the big end of the big economy in Australia. And it costs us money.

The big end of the economy in Australia? BHP, Rio Tinto and Estrada are all foreign companies. They come in, dig our coal and iron ore out of the ground and ship it out.

It only costs shareholders money - global shareholders.

Anyway, mining companies pay bugger all in dividends anyway.

RightSadFred wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 10:39am:

longweekend58 I find it an odd tax, so we have state based royalties which they can change but we want another tax to stop an organisation becoming too productive or profitable. The logic is very odd, so if you make slim profits, invest in infrastructure that significantly reduces costs the government could punish you ?

exactly.  and now that mining is in a slump it was all to no avail anyhow.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 11:02am:

RightSadFred wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 10:39am: longweekend58 I find it an odd tax, so we have state based royalties which they can change but we want another tax to stop an organisation becoming too productive or profitable. The logic is very odd, so if you make slim profits, invest in infrastructure that significantly reduces costs the government could punish you ? exactly.  and now that mining is in a slump it was all to no avail anyhow.

It's not in a slump, commodity prices have lowered due to decreased growth in China.

This is the benefit of a profit tax to miners. Some royalties charge on tonnage (depending on the mineral - royalties tax different minerals differently). A profits tax charges on income (as do some royalties).

Remember, the only reason we have mining in Australia is the price of coal and iron ore. Back in the 1960s, it wasn't worth shipping out.

Now, with the entire supply chain laid out, it's not worth not shipping out. If the coal price goes down, we'll continue shipping it out.

This is why a tax on profits - as opposed to stuff dug up - is in the interest of mining companies.

Karnal wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 11:21am:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 11:02am: RightSadFred wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 10:39am: longweekend58 I find it an odd tax, so we have state based royalties which they can change but we want another tax to stop an organisation becoming too productive or profitable. The logic is very odd, so if you make slim profits, invest in infrastructure that significantly reduces costs the government could punish you ? exactly.  and now that mining is in a slump it was all to no avail anyhow. It's not in a slump, commodity prices have lowered due to decreased growth in China. This is the benefit of a profit tax to miners. Some royalties charge on tonnage (depending on the mineral - royalties tax different minerals differently). A profits tax charges on income (as do some royalties). Remember, the only reason we have mining in Australia is the price of coal and iron ore. Back in the 1960s, it wasn't worth shipping out. Now, with the entire supply chain laid out, it's not worth not shipping out. If the coal price goes down, we'll continue shipping it out. This is why a tax on profits - as opposed to stuff dug up - is in the interest of mining companies.

we already have a tax on profits. its called Company Tax. And Royalties are paid ON TOP of that. so what exactly is the need for MORE taxes on the sector?

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 11:25am:

Karnal wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 11:21am: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 11:02am: RightSadFred wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 10:39am: longweekend58 I find it an odd tax, so we have state based royalties which they can change but we want another tax to stop an organisation becoming too productive or profitable. The logic is very odd, so if you make slim profits, invest in infrastructure that significantly reduces costs the government could punish you ? exactly.  and now that mining is in a slump it was all to no avail anyhow. It's not in a slump, commodity prices have lowered due to decreased growth in China. This is the benefit of a profit tax to miners. Some royalties charge on tonnage (depending on the mineral - royalties tax different minerals differently). A profits tax charges on income (as do some royalties). Remember, the only reason we have mining in Australia is the price of coal and iron ore. Back in the 1960s, it wasn't worth shipping out. Now, with the entire supply chain laid out, it's not worth not shipping out. If the coal price goes down, we'll continue shipping it out. This is why a tax on profits - as opposed to stuff dug up - is in the interest of mining companies. we already have a tax on profits. its called Company Tax. And Royalties are paid ON TOP of that. so what exactly is the need for MORE taxes on the sector?

Longy, if you're asking what the need for taxes is, you mustn't understand how governments work.

The mining sector has created a "two-speed" economy in Australia, and the mining sector requires skilled workers. You tax them so that you can create jobs growth elsewhere in the economy, and provide training for the skills and infrastructure they need.

Also, the profits tax is what the big miners have advocated themselves. Part of the mining tax roll-out was meant to include compensation for increased state royalties - which the miners didn't want.

Mining states like Queensland and Western Australia instead played politics with royalties.

And anyway, it's all a moot point because the mining tax was diluted out of existence. Some companies have actually profited from the write-downs the tax package included.

Forget health, education, social security, etc, the imperative to tax the mining sector is to stimulate the rest of the economy which has suffered under the high Australian dollar mining is responsible for. We've been doing this with offshore gas and petroleum since Hawke, and more successful resource countries like Norway have been doing it with North Sea oil.

Resource profits taxes are how you resolve the glut in other parts of an economy that big mining creates. They don't stop investment because only profits are taxed at the federal level - unlike state royalties, which are much more clumsy and ad hoc.

Company taxes are very easy to get around. Just ask your old friend, Andrei.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 11:02am:

RightSadFred wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 10:39am: longweekend58 I find it an odd tax, so we have state based royalties which they can change but we want another tax to stop an organisation becoming too productive or profitable. The logic is very odd, so if you make slim profits, invest in infrastructure that significantly reduces costs the government could punish you ? exactly.  and now that mining is in a slump it was all to no avail anyhow.

Slump is mostly contained in Australia, other countries (we aren't the only ones with sh1t that can be dug up) are still 'full steam ahead'. I wonder why?

Quote:

Why taxes would rise under Abbott Date: September 02 2013 Ross Gittins Election campaigns have become works of fantasy where, to enter the spirit of things, you have to suspend disbelief. And the greatest unreality this time is Tony Abbott's claim the budget can be returned to surplus in the coming decade while taxes go down, not up. To most people the idea of permanently paying less tax is hugely attractive. And Abbott is promising to abolish the carbon tax and the mining tax, cut the company tax rate by 1.5 percentage points and abandon Labor's plan to end tax concessions for company cars. All this would cost about $28 billion over four years. So what reason is there to doubt he would deliver a lasting reduction in taxes? Simply his promise to get the budget back to surplus - plus the knowledge government spending is set to grow strongly in the next decade. To return to surplus and to do it while avoiding growth in tax collections would require a literally unbelievable degree of spending restraint. Remember, though it gets little notice, Abbott is also promising to impose new taxes, increase taxes and eliminate tax breaks. These are partly to help cover the cost of the taxes he's getting rid of and partly to help pay for his new spending promises. He's proposing a 1.5 per cent levy on big companies to cover the net additional cost of his paid parental leave scheme and a 0.5 percentage-point increase in all rates of income tax (aka the Medicare levy) to help cover the cost of the national disability insurance scheme (both raising $16 billion over four years). To help cover the cost of abolishing the mining tax he's proposing to save $4.7 billion over four years by cutting business tax breaks: ending the instant asset write-off, removing accelerated depreciation for motor vehicles, ending the phase-down of interest withholding tax on financial institutions and ending the ''tax loss carry-back''. Also to help cover the cost of abolishing the mining tax he proposes to save $3.7 billion in four years by effectively increasing the superannuation contributions tax for those earning up to $37,000 a year, and save $1.6 billion in four years on no-longer-forgone super tax breaks by delaying for two years phase-up in compulsory employer contributions. And all this is before we get to Labor's as-yet-unlegislated tax rises, which Abbott has quietly indicated he would proceed with: extra revenue of almost $10 billion over four years from measures to ''protect the corporate tax base'', cut research tax breaks, increase cigarette tax and impose a levy on savings accounts. When you see the list of tax hikes that accompany Abbott's grand tax-cutting gesture, it doesn't exactly inspire confidence he could keep taxes down in a way none of his predecessors has managed to. And when you realise that - according to the earlier reckoning of Saul Eslake, of Bank of America Merrill Lynch - his election promises involve extra government spending of almost $15 billion over four years, it doesn't inspire confidence he could achieve the herculean spending restraint needed to get the budget back to surplus as well as keep taxes down. The medium-term projections in Treasury's pre-election economic and fiscal outlook, about which I suspect we'll be hearing a lot more after the election, demonstrate how challenging the budget task will be in the coming decade. According to the projections, if the government elected this Saturday sticks to Labor's strategy of limiting average real growth in spending to 2 per cent a year and not allowing tax collections to exceed 23.7 per cent of gross domestic product, the budget surplus will recover to 1 per cent of GDP by 2020-21. But, since spending is projected to grow at an underlying real rate of 3.5 per cent a year, this would require an unprecedented restraint. And, even so, it would still require tax collections to grow 1.5 percentage points faster than the economy - equivalent to an ultimate $26 billion a year in today's dollars - over the decade. Alternatively, were spending allowed to grow at its underlying rate, this could still leave us with a growing surplus, provided unrestrained bracket creep was allowed to cause tax collections to grow 3.3 percentage points (an ultimate $56 billion a year) faster than the economy. And, get this. Were you to let spending grow at its ''natural'' rate, but limit growth in tax collections to a ceiling of 23.7 per cent of GDP the rest of the coming decade beyond 2018-19 would see an ever-rising budget deficit. Whoever wins this election, I'll be amazed if taxes do anything but keep rising.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/why-taxes-would-rise-under-abbott-20130901-2sytp.html?skin=text-only

But hey I'm sure Ross Gittins is a commie right?

I mean decreasing revenue whilst increasing spending is the ONLY way to achieve a surplus.

NUMPTIES >:(

Karnal wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 12:02pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 11:25am: Karnal wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 11:21am: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 11:02am: RightSadFred wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 10:39am: longweekend58 I find it an odd tax, so we have state based royalties which they can change but we want another tax to stop an organisation becoming too productive or profitable. The logic is very odd, so if you make slim profits, invest in infrastructure that significantly reduces costs the government could punish you ? exactly.  and now that mining is in a slump it was all to no avail anyhow. It's not in a slump, commodity prices have lowered due to decreased growth in China. This is the benefit of a profit tax to miners. Some royalties charge on tonnage (depending on the mineral - royalties tax different minerals differently). A profits tax charges on income (as do some royalties). Remember, the only reason we have mining in Australia is the price of coal and iron ore. Back in the 1960s, it wasn't worth shipping out. Now, with the entire supply chain laid out, it's not worth not shipping out. If the coal price goes down, we'll continue shipping it out. This is why a tax on profits - as opposed to stuff dug up - is in the interest of mining companies. we already have a tax on profits. its called Company Tax. And Royalties are paid ON TOP of that. so what exactly is the need for MORE taxes on the sector? Longy, if you're asking what the need for taxes is, you mustn't understand how governments work. The mining sector has created a "two-speed" economy in Australia, and the mining sector requires skilled workers. You tax them so that you can create jobs growth elsewhere in the economy, and provide training for the skills and infrastructure they need. Also, the profits tax is what the big miners have advocated themselves. Part of the mining tax roll-out was meant to include compensation for increased state royalties - which the miners didn't want. Mining states like Queensland and Western Australia instead played politics with royalties. And anyway, it's all a moot point because the mining tax was diluted out of existence. Some companies have actually profited from the write-downs the tax package included. Forget health, education, social security, etc, the imperative to tax the mining sector is to stimulate the rest of the economy which has suffered under the high Australian dollar mining is responsible for. We've been doing this with offshore gas and petroleum since Hawke, and more successful resource countries like Norway have been doing it with North Sea oil. Resource profits taxes are how you resolve the glut in other parts of an economy that big mining creates. They don't stop investment because only profits are taxed at the federal level - unlike state royalties, which are much more clumsy and ad hoc. Company taxes are very easy to get around. Just ask your old friend, Andrei.

the miners don't want more taxes.  NO ONE wants to pay more tax.  and the idiocy of this tax was the royaties being deductions.  so all the states had to do was increase the royalties and effectively take the money off the feds.  it was DUMB and incredibly OBVIOUS.

now if you wanted to discuss a sliding scale of company tax that applies to ALL companies then you might have an argument.  But simply taxing one industry above all others is intrinsically unfair.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 12:11pm:

Quote: Why taxes would rise under Abbott Date: September 02 2013 Ross Gittins Election campaigns have become works of fantasy where, to enter the spirit of things, you have to suspend disbelief. And the greatest unreality this time is Tony Abbott's claim the budget can be returned to surplus in the coming decade while taxes go down, not up. To most people the idea of permanently paying less tax is hugely attractive. And Abbott is promising to abolish the carbon tax and the mining tax, cut the company tax rate by 1.5 percentage points and abandon Labor's plan to end tax concessions for company cars. All this would cost about $28 billion over four years. So what reason is there to doubt he would deliver a lasting reduction in taxes? Simply his promise to get the budget back to surplus - plus the knowledge government spending is set to grow strongly in the next decade. To return to surplus and to do it while avoiding growth in tax collections would require a literally unbelievable degree of spending restraint. Remember, though it gets little notice, Abbott is also promising to impose new taxes, increase taxes and eliminate tax breaks. These are partly to help cover the cost of the taxes he's getting rid of and partly to help pay for his new spending promises. He's proposing a 1.5 per cent levy on big companies to cover the net additional cost of his paid parental leave scheme and a 0.5 percentage-point increase in all rates of income tax (aka the Medicare levy) to help cover the cost of the national disability insurance scheme (both raising $16 billion over four years). To help cover the cost of abolishing the mining tax he's proposing to save $4.7 billion over four years by cutting business tax breaks: ending the instant asset write-off, removing accelerated depreciation for motor vehicles, ending the phase-down of interest withholding tax on financial institutions and ending the ''tax loss carry-back''. Also to help cover the cost of abolishing the mining tax he proposes to save $3.7 billion in four years by effectively increasing the superannuation contributions tax for those earning up to $37,000 a year, and save $1.6 billion in four years on no-longer-forgone super tax breaks by delaying for two years phase-up in compulsory employer contributions. And all this is before we get to Labor's as-yet-unlegislated tax rises, which Abbott has quietly indicated he would proceed with: extra revenue of almost $10 billion over four years from measures to ''protect the corporate tax base'', cut research tax breaks, increase cigarette tax and impose a levy on savings accounts. When you see the list of tax hikes that accompany Abbott's grand tax-cutting gesture, it doesn't exactly inspire confidence he could keep taxes down in a way none of his predecessors has managed to. And when you realise that - according to the earlier reckoning of Saul Eslake, of Bank of America Merrill Lynch - his election promises involve extra government spending of almost $15 billion over four years, it doesn't inspire confidence he could achieve the herculean spending restraint needed to get the budget back to surplus as well as keep taxes down. The medium-term projections in Treasury's pre-election economic and fiscal outlook, about which I suspect we'll be hearing a lot more after the election, demonstrate how challenging the budget task will be in the coming decade. According to the projections, if the government elected this Saturday sticks to Labor's strategy of limiting average real growth in spending to 2 per cent a year and not allowing tax collections to exceed 23.7 per cent of gross domestic product, the budget surplus will recover to 1 per cent of GDP by 2020-21. But, since spending is projected to grow at an underlying real rate of 3.5 per cent a year, this would require an unprecedented restraint. And, even so, it would still require tax collections to grow 1.5 percentage points faster than the economy - equivalent to an ultimate $26 billion a year in today's dollars - over the decade. Alternatively, were spending allowed to grow at its underlying rate, this could still leave us with a growing surplus, provided unrestrained bracket creep was allowed to cause tax collections to grow 3.3 percentage points (an ultimate $56 billion a year) faster than the economy. And, get this. Were you to let spending grow at its ''natural'' rate, but limit growth in tax collections to a ceiling of 23.7 per cent of GDP the rest of the coming decade beyond 2018-19 would see an ever-rising budget deficit. Whoever wins this election, I'll be amazed if taxes do anything but keep rising. http://www.smh.com.au/business/why-taxes-would-rise-under-abbott-20130901-2sytp.html?skin=text-only But hey I'm sure Ross Gittins is a commie right? I mean decreasing revenue whilst increasing spending is the ONLY way to achieve a surplus. NUMPTIES >:(

but you think the rudd alternative - increased borrowings - is better?

we all know - or at least those of us with a brain - that no matter who wins, there will be spending cuts and revenue increase measures.  Despite Rudds comments to the contrary he would have no option.  a $30B deficit is already appalling.  He couldn't make it worse without risking economic problems.

so will there be tax rises and spending cuts?  of course.  and it was always going to be thus.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 12:32pm:

but you think the rudd alternative - increased borrowings - is better?

No but lets just drop the bullsh!t that under the coalition COL will decrease, you'll get more services for less money & life will be wonderful.


longweekend58 wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 12:32pm:

so will there be tax rises and spending cuts?  of course.  and it was always going to be thus.

And yet this is fine but Gillard is a liar FFS

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 12:29pm:

the miners don't want more taxes.  NO ONE wants to pay more tax.  and the idiocy of this tax was the royaties being deductions.  so all the states had to do was increase the royalties and effectively take the money off the feds.  it was DUMB and incredibly OBVIOUS. now if you wanted to discuss a sliding scale of company tax that applies to ALL companies then you might have an argument.  But simply taxing one industry above all others is intrinsically unfair.

It's not unfair - it's how taxation works. If you don't tax mining companies, the burden of paying for government services falls on income earners. In a two-speed economy, this source of revenue is not enough. The high dollar pushes manufacturing offshore. Where are the mining projects going to get all their skilled workers from?

Mining requires infrastructure and skilled workers - these things cost money. If the rest of the economy is sluggish, the tax revenue is not always there to pay for them.

And this is exactly the problem Australia finds itself it no matter what party gets in next week.

Just think, if you can't get a hundred FIFO electricians for your new project, you need to look elsewhere. If the government can't afford the track maintenance on the railway line, you need to pay for it yourself. Rail, ports, roads, skilled workers - these are all things mining companies rely on governments for.

They therefore need to be taxed accordingly. This is what tax is for.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 12:32pm:

so will there be tax rises and spending cuts?  of course.  and it was always going to be thus.

And yet, Mr Abbott wants to pretend it won't always be thus.

Axe the tax. Cunning, no?

Karnal wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 1:01pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 12:29pm: the miners don't want more taxes.  NO ONE wants to pay more tax.  and the idiocy of this tax was the royaties being deductions.  so all the states had to do was increase the royalties and effectively take the money off the feds.  it was DUMB and incredibly OBVIOUS. now if you wanted to discuss a sliding scale of company tax that applies to ALL companies then you might have an argument.  But simply taxing one industry above all others is intrinsically unfair. It's not unfair - it's how taxation works. If you don't tax mining companies, the burden of paying for government services falls on income earners. In a two-speed economy, this source of revenue is not enough. The high dollar pushes manufacturing offshore. Where are the mining projects going to get all their skilled workers from? Mining requires infrastructure and skilled workers - these things cost money. If the rest of the economy is sluggish, the tax revenue is not always there to pay for them. And this is exactly the problem Australia finds itself it no matter what party gets in next week. Just think, if you can't get a hundred FIFO electricians for your new project, you need to look elsewhere. If the government can't afford the track maintenance on the railway line, you need to pay for it yourself. Rail, ports, roads, skilled workers - these are all things mining companies rely on governments for. They therefore need to be taxed accordingly. This is what tax is for.

Your dollar is trading at 89c now.

Your problem is workplace relations laws and costs, not the dollar.

How can a Ford AU worker cost double that of a Ford UK and Ford USA worker - it isnt currency.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 2:16pm:

Your dollar is trading at 89c now. Your problem is workplace relations laws and costs, not the dollar. How can a Ford AU worker cost double that of a Ford UK and Ford USA worker - it isnt currency.

And yet Ford charge 35K in Aus for the same car they charge 18K in EU & US.

But its always the cost of labour, are exec salaries considered Labour?

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 2:42pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 2:16pm: Your dollar is trading at 89c now. Your problem is workplace relations laws and costs, not the dollar. How can a Ford AU worker cost double that of a Ford UK and Ford USA worker - it isnt currency. And yet Ford charge 35K in Aus for the same car they charge 18K in EU & US. But its always the cost of labour, are exec salaries considered Labour?

Exec salaries are SG&A smithy.

Labour costs go into the COGS and impact Gross Margin.

Very different beasts.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 2:56pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 2:42pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 2:16pm: Your dollar is trading at 89c now. Your problem is workplace relations laws and costs, not the dollar. How can a Ford AU worker cost double that of a Ford UK and Ford USA worker - it isnt currency. And yet Ford charge 35K in Aus for the same car they charge 18K in EU & US. But its always the cost of labour, are exec salaries considered Labour? Exec salaries are SG&A smithy. Labour costs go into the COGS and impact Gross Margin. Very different beasts.

Of course they are, its always the guys earning 35K fault rather than the guy who earns 1.3 mill & makes the strategic business decisions.

If only we could get those greedy bastards on 6K, we might be OK for a few years.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 12:58pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 12:32pm: but you think the rudd alternative - increased borrowings - is better? No but lets just drop the bullsh!t that under the coalition COL will decrease, you'll get more services for less money & life will be wonderful. longweekend58 wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 12:32pm: so will there be tax rises and spending cuts?  of course.  and it was always going to be thus. And yet this is fine but Gillard is a liar FFS

get over yourself...  Abbott has already announced spending cuts while Gillard categorically promised something she reneged on mere days later.

When Abbott raises the GST next week you can complain.  Until then, Gillard is way, way out in front of the Lying PM stakes.

Karnal wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 1:01pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 12:29pm: the miners don't want more taxes.  NO ONE wants to pay more tax.  and the idiocy of this tax was the royaties being deductions.  so all the states had to do was increase the royalties and effectively take the money off the feds.  it was DUMB and incredibly OBVIOUS. now if you wanted to discuss a sliding scale of company tax that applies to ALL companies then you might have an argument.  But simply taxing one industry above all others is intrinsically unfair. It's not unfair - it's how taxation works. If you don't tax mining companies, the burden of paying for government services falls on income earners. In a two-speed economy, this source of revenue is not enough. The high dollar pushes manufacturing offshore. Where are the mining projects going to get all their skilled workers from? Mining requires infrastructure and skilled workers - these things cost money. If the rest of the economy is sluggish, the tax revenue is not always there to pay for them. And this is exactly the problem Australia finds itself it no matter what party gets in next week. Just think, if you can't get a hundred FIFO electricians for your new project, you need to look elsewhere. If the government can't afford the track maintenance on the railway line, you need to pay for it yourself. Rail, ports, roads, skilled workers - these are all things mining companies rely on governments for. They therefore need to be taxed accordingly. This is what tax is for.

Garbage.  all that amounts to is 'super tax the successful'

pitiful...

The price difference isn't just down to wages. I doubt that they make up as much as 20% of the difference.
Removing wages altogether and comparing the cost between something that's imported into both Australia and the USA, the cost is still twice or more here. You can't blame wages on that.
It's more down to there being a relatively small market here when compared with the US (and just about anywhere else).

...and throw in our location, GST, import taxes etc....

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 2:16pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 1:01pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 12:29pm: the miners don't want more taxes.  NO ONE wants to pay more tax.  and the idiocy of this tax was the royaties being deductions.  so all the states had to do was increase the royalties and effectively take the money off the feds.  it was DUMB and incredibly OBVIOUS. now if you wanted to discuss a sliding scale of company tax that applies to ALL companies then you might have an argument.  But simply taxing one industry above all others is intrinsically unfair. It's not unfair - it's how taxation works. If you don't tax mining companies, the burden of paying for government services falls on income earners. In a two-speed economy, this source of revenue is not enough. The high dollar pushes manufacturing offshore. Where are the mining projects going to get all their skilled workers from? Mining requires infrastructure and skilled workers - these things cost money. If the rest of the economy is sluggish, the tax revenue is not always there to pay for them. And this is exactly the problem Australia finds itself it no matter what party gets in next week. Just think, if you can't get a hundred FIFO electricians for your new project, you need to look elsewhere. If the government can't afford the track maintenance on the railway line, you need to pay for it yourself. Rail, ports, roads, skilled workers - these are all things mining companies rely on governments for. They therefore need to be taxed accordingly. This is what tax is for. Your dollar is trading at 89c now. Your problem is workplace relations laws and costs, not the dollar. How can a Ford AU worker cost double that of a Ford UK and Ford USA worker - it isnt currency.

Then why does Japan have comparable wages and produce most of the cars in the region?

Your dollar? We like to call it our dollar, Andrei. Manufacturing has been in decline for years - due to a range of factors, including the high dollar, reduced tariffs and productivity rises in China.

There is no way Australia can compete with China for wages. I'd argue that there's no way to bring back manufacturing either.  If Australia is a mining and service economy, so be it.

But we need to tax the the miners and (who knows?) financial services accordingly.

From each according to his means, to each according to his needs. Scientific socialism, innit.

I hear Mr Abbott's a big fan.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 2:56pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 2:42pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 2:16pm: Your dollar is trading at 89c now. Your problem is workplace relations laws and costs, not the dollar. How can a Ford AU worker cost double that of a Ford UK and Ford USA worker - it isnt currency. And yet Ford charge 35K in Aus for the same car they charge 18K in EU & US. But its always the cost of labour, are exec salaries considered Labour? Exec salaries are SG&A smithy. Labour costs go into the COGS and impact Gross Margin. Very different beasts.

What hypocrisy. Everyone else has to pay but not MEEE. Of course that's what this a grade A hole says and the large miners say as they're raking in the $$$ (and at the same time they tell us in ADs that the resources belong to all Australians). You think just because of some artificial distinction invented by accountants to serve their boss masters and cheat shareholders you should escape the same unconscionable labour laws you advocate for everyone else. No matter what inflated opinion you have of yourself your a bludger of the worst kind. 

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 3:21pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 1:01pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 12:29pm: the miners don't want more taxes.  NO ONE wants to pay more tax.  and the idiocy of this tax was the royaties being deductions.  so all the states had to do was increase the royalties and effectively take the money off the feds.  it was DUMB and incredibly OBVIOUS. now if you wanted to discuss a sliding scale of company tax that applies to ALL companies then you might have an argument.  But simply taxing one industry above all others is intrinsically unfair. It's not unfair - it's how taxation works. If you don't tax mining companies, the burden of paying for government services falls on income earners. In a two-speed economy, this source of revenue is not enough. The high dollar pushes manufacturing offshore. Where are the mining projects going to get all their skilled workers from? Mining requires infrastructure and skilled workers - these things cost money. If the rest of the economy is sluggish, the tax revenue is not always there to pay for them. And this is exactly the problem Australia finds itself it no matter what party gets in next week. Just think, if you can't get a hundred FIFO electricians for your new project, you need to look elsewhere. If the government can't afford the track maintenance on the railway line, you need to pay for it yourself. Rail, ports, roads, skilled workers - these are all things mining companies rely on governments for. They therefore need to be taxed accordingly. This is what tax is for. Garbage.  all that amounts to is 'super tax the successful' pitiful...

The "successful" are foreign companies who take our resources with them. By the same token, would you tax foreign companies who came here, bought or leased all our land, farmed it, and sent the produce overseas?

Of course not - you wouldn't let them do this in the first place. We're not a cash-crop economy. Why should mining be any different?

Mind you, if you had a valid criticism, you'd post it. "Pitiful" is just an utterance. It's just the sort of thing Chris Pyne would say.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 3:20pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 12:58pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 12:32pm: but you think the rudd alternative - increased borrowings - is better? No but lets just drop the bullsh!t that under the coalition COL will decrease, you'll get more services for less money & life will be wonderful. longweekend58 wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 12:32pm: so will there be tax rises and spending cuts?  of course.  and it was always going to be thus. And yet this is fine but Gillard is a liar FFS get over yourself...  Abbott has already announced spending cuts while Gillard categorically promised something she reneged on mere days later. When Abbott raises the GST next week you can complain.  Until then, Gillard is way, way out in front of the Lying PM stakes.

Yeah
ok
its just the spending cuts announced, cuts that wont effect anyone, like the 10 billion clean energy fund.

Karnal wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 3:34pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 3:21pm: Karnal wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 1:01pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 12:29pm: the miners don't want more taxes.  NO ONE wants to pay more tax.  and the idiocy of this tax was the royaties being deductions.  so all the states had to do was increase the royalties and effectively take the money off the feds.  it was DUMB and incredibly OBVIOUS. now if you wanted to discuss a sliding scale of company tax that applies to ALL companies then you might have an argument.  But simply taxing one industry above all others is intrinsically unfair. It's not unfair - it's how taxation works. If you don't tax mining companies, the burden of paying for government services falls on income earners. In a two-speed economy, this source of revenue is not enough. The high dollar pushes manufacturing offshore. Where are the mining projects going to get all their skilled workers from? Mining requires infrastructure and skilled workers - these things cost money. If the rest of the economy is sluggish, the tax revenue is not always there to pay for them. And this is exactly the problem Australia finds itself it no matter what party gets in next week. Just think, if you can't get a hundred FIFO electricians for your new project, you need to look elsewhere. If the government can't afford the track maintenance on the railway line, you need to pay for it yourself. Rail, ports, roads, skilled workers - these are all things mining companies rely on governments for. They therefore need to be taxed accordingly. This is what tax is for. Garbage.  all that amounts to is 'super tax the successful' pitiful... The "successful" are foreign companies who take our resources with them. By the same token, would you tax foreign companies who came here, bought or leased all our land, farmed it, and sent the produce overseas? Of course not - you wouldn't let them do this in the first place. We're not a cash-crop economy. Why should mining be any different? Mind you, if you had a valid criticism, you'd post it. "Pitiful" is just an utterance. It's just the sort of thing Chris Pyne would say.

this same argument has been had ad nauseum before.  Royalties pay for the minerals in the ground.  they are not 'stolen' as some fools assert.  After that they are just like any other company which beggars the question why they should be singled out for extra tax when no other company or industry is.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 3:44pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 3:20pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 12:58pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 12:32pm: but you think the rudd alternative - increased borrowings - is better? No but lets just drop the bullsh!t that under the coalition COL will decrease, you'll get more services for less money & life will be wonderful. longweekend58 wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 12:32pm: so will there be tax rises and spending cuts?  of course.  and it was always going to be thus. And yet this is fine but Gillard is a liar FFS get over yourself...  Abbott has already announced spending cuts while Gillard categorically promised something she reneged on mere days later. When Abbott raises the GST next week you can complain.  Until then, Gillard is way, way out in front of the Lying PM stakes. Yeah ok its just the spending cuts announced, cuts that wont effect anyone, like the 10 billion clean energy fund.

so what?  or have you not noticed that we are losing $30B per year at the moment?  somehow that has to be made-up.

why is it that you criticise Libs for everything but scarcely criticise Labor for 6 years of debt-funded incompetence.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 4:04pm:

why is it that you criticise Libs for everything but scarcely criticise Labor for 6 years of debt-funded incompetence.

Because it was not 6 years of debt funded incompetence, although if you rely on the Tele or Advertiser in Adelaide or whatever its called you just might.

In fact Labor are the ones clawing back some of the largess only to be hammered for it.

Tonys the one promising more & your fawning over him like some doe eyed lover, suspending your reality FFS.

Stop being a school girl, look at the ACTUAL FACTS & make your own mind up.

I'm not championing Rudd or Labor they are smacking hopeless, but just because they are doesn't mean I should suddenly believe that spending more will increase wealth.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 4:29pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 4:04pm: why is it that you criticise Libs for everything but scarcely criticise Labor for 6 years of debt-funded incompetence. Because it was not 6 years of debt funded incompetence, although if you rely on the Tele or Advertiser in Adelaide or whatever its called you just might. In fact Labor are the ones clawing back some of the largess only to be hammered for it. Tonys the one promising more & your fawning over him like some doe eyed lover, suspending your reality FFS. Stop being a school girl, look at the ACTUAL FACTS & make your own mind up. I'm not championing Rudd or Labor they are smacking hopeless, but just because they are doesn't mean I should suddenly believe that spending more will increase wealth.

Debt has risen by A$245,000,000,000 (335% increase).

The Government in the last 3 years have missed their OWN FORECASTS by A$107,000,000,000!!!

:D  :D

Sprintcyclist wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 10:29am:

this is why the alp deserve to be wiped from the face of the earth The libs will remove that tax. And save us money by doing it. this is a tax put on by the left that seriously angered the big end of the big economy in Australia. And it costs us money.

Unless you are a foreign mining company - how exactly is removing the mining tax saving YOU money?!!?

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 4:29pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 4:04pm: why is it that you criticise Libs for everything but scarcely criticise Labor for 6 years of debt-funded incompetence. Because it was not 6 years of debt funded incompetence, although if you rely on the Tele or Advertiser in Adelaide or whatever its called you just might. In fact Labor are the ones clawing back some of the largess only to be hammered for it. Tonys the one promising more & your fawning over him like some doe eyed lover, suspending your reality FFS. Stop being a school girl, look at the ACTUAL FACTS & make your own mind up. I'm not championing Rudd or Labor they are smacking hopeless, but just because they are doesn't mean I should suddenly believe that spending more will increase wealth.

so if I removed the word 'incompetence' do you wish to challenge the statement that it was '6 years of debt funded government'?

because if you don't, then frankly, your credibility is shredded.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 4:29pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 4:04pm: why is it that you criticise Libs for everything but scarcely criticise Labor for 6 years of debt-funded incompetence. Because it was not 6 years of debt funded incompetence, although if you rely on the Tele or Advertiser in Adelaide or whatever its called you just might. In fact Labor are the ones clawing back some of the largess only to be hammered for it. Tonys the one promising more & your fawning over him like some doe eyed lover, suspending your reality FFS. Stop being a school girl, look at the ACTUAL FACTS & make your own mind up. I'm not championing Rudd or Labor they are smacking hopeless, but just because they are doesn't mean I should suddenly believe that spending more will increase wealth.

I missed that first time thru... you really want to adopt that stance after we just had 6 years of massive spending beyond our means?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 5:12pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 10:29am: this is why the alp deserve to be wiped from the face of the earth The libs will remove that tax. And save us money by doing it. this is a tax put on by the left that seriously angered the big end of the big economy in Australia. And it costs us money. Unless you are a foreign mining company - how exactly is removing the mining tax saving YOU money?!!?

coz it costs more to collect than the revenue generated.  and it reduces employment slightly.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 5:33pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 5:12pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 10:29am: this is why the alp deserve to be wiped from the face of the earth The libs will remove that tax. And save us money by doing it. this is a tax put on by the left that seriously angered the big end of the big economy in Australia. And it costs us money. Unless you are a foreign mining company - how exactly is removing the mining tax saving YOU money?!!? coz it costs more to collect than the revenue generated.  and it reduces employment slightly.

The mining tax is bringing in bugger all. It should be raised to its original rate.

Likewise with the big 4 banks. Profit-tax them all. These services prosper through favouritism in government policy (for economically sound reasons). Make them pay for it.

Trade and currency speculation. Tax it. No one would notice a minute percent on each trade - what do we get by having our currency subject to foreign currency markets?

These are all reasonable proposals, and necessary in a climate of declining revenues. You want to get rid of the deficit? Think about where the revenue should come from.

It's unfair that PAYE taxpayers should foot the investment in training and infrastructure that companies like big mining and financial services benefit from.  It's unfair that the rate of our currency, our interest rates, and our government's foreign debt should be subject to foreign currency speculators.

Tax them.

It's the smart alternative to banning them, Longy. It's called capitalism.

Welcome to an unfair world. "Pitiful", innit.

Karnal wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 5:34pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 5:33pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 5:12pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 10:29am: this is why the alp deserve to be wiped from the face of the earth The libs will remove that tax. And save us money by doing it. this is a tax put on by the left that seriously angered the big end of the big economy in Australia. And it costs us money. Unless you are a foreign mining company - how exactly is removing the mining tax saving YOU money?!!? coz it costs more to collect than the revenue generated.  and it reduces employment slightly. The mining tax is bringing in bugger all. It should be raised to its original rate. Likewise with the big 4 banks. Profit-tax them all. These services prosper through favouritism in government policy (for economically sound reasons). Make them pay for it. Trade and currency speculation. Tax it. No one would notice a minute percent on each trade - what do we get by having our currency subject to foreign currency markets? These are all reasonable proposals, and necessary in a climate of declining revenues. You want to get rid of the deficit? Think about where the revenue should come from. It's unfair that PAYE taxpayers should foot the investment in training and infrastructure that companies like big mining and financial services benefit from.  It's unfair that the rate of our currency, our interest rates, and our government's foreign debt should be subject to foreign currency speculators. Tax them. It's the smart alternative to banning them, Longy. It's called capitalism. Welcome to an unfair world. "Pitiful", innit.

The resources do not belong to the "people" of Australia whatsoever.
No more so than the water of the Pacific ocean that washes up on the east coast beaches belongs to you either.

The mining companies pay royalties to mine there.

Just like we as a company pay for the licence to drill for gas deposits off-shore in Australian waters.

The companies are staffed by Australians, we invest in capital which in turn provides service industry ancillary jobs in Australia, we play a role in Australian society as well.

The projects are even undertaken by Australian companies - ours is a Pty Ltd company registered in Sydney.

To demand "foreign companies" should pay their fair share completely ignores reality and panders to the ill-informed on the topic.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 5:51pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 5:34pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 5:33pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 5:12pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 10:29am: this is why the alp deserve to be wiped from the face of the earth The libs will remove that tax. And save us money by doing it. this is a tax put on by the left that seriously angered the big end of the big economy in Australia. And it costs us money. Unless you are a foreign mining company - how exactly is removing the mining tax saving YOU money?!!? coz it costs more to collect than the revenue generated.  and it reduces employment slightly. The mining tax is bringing in bugger all. It should be raised to its original rate. Likewise with the big 4 banks. Profit-tax them all. These services prosper through favouritism in government policy (for economically sound reasons). Make them pay for it. Trade and currency speculation. Tax it. No one would notice a minute percent on each trade - what do we get by having our currency subject to foreign currency markets? These are all reasonable proposals, and necessary in a climate of declining revenues. You want to get rid of the deficit? Think about where the revenue should come from. It's unfair that PAYE taxpayers should foot the investment in training and infrastructure that companies like big mining and financial services benefit from.  It's unfair that the rate of our currency, our interest rates, and our government's foreign debt should be subject to foreign currency speculators. Tax them. It's the smart alternative to banning them, Longy. It's called capitalism. Welcome to an unfair world. "Pitiful", innit. The resources do not belong to the "people" of Australia whatsoever. No more so than the water of the Pacific ocean that washes up on the east coast beaches belongs to you either. The mining companies pay royalties to mine there. Just like we as a company pay for the licence to drill for gas deposits off-shore in Australian waters. The companies are staffed by Australians, we invest in capital which in turn provides service industry ancillary jobs in Australia, we play a role in Australian society as well. The projects are even undertaken by Australian companies - ours is a Pty Ltd company registered in Sydney. To demand "foreign companies" should pay their fair share completely ignores reality and panders to the ill-informed on the topic.

you mean there is another kind of opinion other than 'ill-informed'?  that's much of what I hear!

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 5:51pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 5:34pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 5:33pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 5:12pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 10:29am: this is why the alp deserve to be wiped from the face of the earth The libs will remove that tax. And save us money by doing it. this is a tax put on by the left that seriously angered the big end of the big economy in Australia. And it costs us money. Unless you are a foreign mining company - how exactly is removing the mining tax saving YOU money?!!? coz it costs more to collect than the revenue generated.  and it reduces employment slightly. The mining tax is bringing in bugger all. It should be raised to its original rate. Likewise with the big 4 banks. Profit-tax them all. These services prosper through favouritism in government policy (for economically sound reasons). Make them pay for it. Trade and currency speculation. Tax it. No one would notice a minute percent on each trade - what do we get by having our currency subject to foreign currency markets? These are all reasonable proposals, and necessary in a climate of declining revenues. You want to get rid of the deficit? Think about where the revenue should come from. It's unfair that PAYE taxpayers should foot the investment in training and infrastructure that companies like big mining and financial services benefit from.  It's unfair that the rate of our currency, our interest rates, and our government's foreign debt should be subject to foreign currency speculators. Tax them. It's the smart alternative to banning them, Longy. It's called capitalism. Welcome to an unfair world. "Pitiful", innit. The resources do not belong to the "people" of Australia whatsoever. No more so than the water of the Pacific ocean that washes up on the east coast beaches belongs to you either. The mining companies pay royalties to mine there. Just like we as a company pay for the licence to drill for gas deposits off-shore in Australian waters. The companies are staffed by Australians, we invest in capital which in turn provides service industry ancillary jobs in Australia, we play a role in Australian society as well. The projects are even undertaken by Australian companies - ours is a Pty Ltd company registered in Sydney. To demand "foreign companies" should pay their fair share completely ignores reality and panders to the ill-informed on the topic.

Not when you look at the profit involved, the effect of mining on the overall economy, and the jobs mining actually provides.

The biggest areas of emoyment in Australia are training/education, tourism and construction.

Mining employment is largely FIFO, and driven by the fast bucks. This takes skills out of other areas of the economy. Try getting an electrician in Perth.

Minerals are owned by the states. If you think it was set up this way for the sole profit of foreign companies, you must have a very strange idea of the commonwealth and the role of government.

Who knows? Maybe you’re right and I’m living in some bizarre parallel universe.

You do have this effect on people you know, Andrei.

There are very types of ill-informed.

Buzz commenting on Economics being the gold standard.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 6:06pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 5:51pm: Karnal wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 5:34pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 5:33pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 5:12pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 10:29am: this is why the alp deserve to be wiped from the face of the earth The libs will remove that tax. And save us money by doing it. this is a tax put on by the left that seriously angered the big end of the big economy in Australia. And it costs us money. Unless you are a foreign mining company - how exactly is removing the mining tax saving YOU money?!!? coz it costs more to collect than the revenue generated.  and it reduces employment slightly. The mining tax is bringing in bugger all. It should be raised to its original rate. Likewise with the big 4 banks. Profit-tax them all. These services prosper through favouritism in government policy (for economically sound reasons). Make them pay for it. Trade and currency speculation. Tax it. No one would notice a minute percent on each trade - what do we get by having our currency subject to foreign currency markets? These are all reasonable proposals, and necessary in a climate of declining revenues. You want to get rid of the deficit? Think about where the revenue should come from. It's unfair that PAYE taxpayers should foot the investment in training and infrastructure that companies like big mining and financial services benefit from.  It's unfair that the rate of our currency, our interest rates, and our government's foreign debt should be subject to foreign currency speculators. Tax them. It's the smart alternative to banning them, Longy. It's called capitalism. Welcome to an unfair world. "Pitiful", innit. The resources do not belong to the "people" of Australia whatsoever. No more so than the water of the Pacific ocean that washes up on the east coast beaches belongs to you either. The mining companies pay royalties to mine there. Just like we as a company pay for the licence to drill for gas deposits off-shore in Australian waters. The companies are staffed by Australians, we invest in capital which in turn provides service industry ancillary jobs in Australia, we play a role in Australian society as well. The projects are even undertaken by Australian companies - ours is a Pty Ltd company registered in Sydney. To demand "foreign companies" should pay their fair share completely ignores reality and panders to the ill-informed on the topic. you mean there is another kind of opinion other than 'ill-informed'?  that's much of what I hear!

Feel free to inform us all in this thread, Longy.

Karnal wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 6:10pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 5:51pm: Karnal wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 5:34pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 5:33pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 5:12pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 10:29am: this is why the alp deserve to be wiped from the face of the earth The libs will remove that tax. And save us money by doing it. this is a tax put on by the left that seriously angered the big end of the big economy in Australia. And it costs us money. Unless you are a foreign mining company - how exactly is removing the mining tax saving YOU money?!!? coz it costs more to collect than the revenue generated.  and it reduces employment slightly. The mining tax is bringing in bugger all. It should be raised to its original rate. Likewise with the big 4 banks. Profit-tax them all. These services prosper through favouritism in government policy (for economically sound reasons). Make them pay for it. Trade and currency speculation. Tax it. No one would notice a minute percent on each trade - what do we get by having our currency subject to foreign currency markets? These are all reasonable proposals, and necessary in a climate of declining revenues. You want to get rid of the deficit? Think about where the revenue should come from. It's unfair that PAYE taxpayers should foot the investment in training and infrastructure that companies like big mining and financial services benefit from.  It's unfair that the rate of our currency, our interest rates, and our government's foreign debt should be subject to foreign currency speculators. Tax them. It's the smart alternative to banning them, Longy. It's called capitalism. Welcome to an unfair world. "Pitiful", innit. The resources do not belong to the "people" of Australia whatsoever. No more so than the water of the Pacific ocean that washes up on the east coast beaches belongs to you either. The mining companies pay royalties to mine there. Just like we as a company pay for the licence to drill for gas deposits off-shore in Australian waters. The companies are staffed by Australians, we invest in capital which in turn provides service industry ancillary jobs in Australia, we play a role in Australian society as well. The projects are even undertaken by Australian companies - ours is a Pty Ltd company registered in Sydney. To demand "foreign companies" should pay their fair share completely ignores reality and panders to the ill-informed on the topic. Not when you look at the profit involved, the effect of mining on the overall economy, and the jobs mining actually provides. The biggest areas of emoyment in Australia are training/education, tourism and construction. Mining employment is largely FIFO, and driven by the fast bucks. This takes skills out of other areas of the economy. Try getting an electrician in Perth. Minerals are owned by the states. If you think it was set up this way for the sole profit of foreign companies, you must have a very strange idea of the commonwealth and the role of government. Who knows? Maybe you’re right and I’m living in some bizarre parallel universe. You do have this effect on people you know, Andrei.

you seem unhappy that mining companies make ANY profit at all.  Why is that.  You would think there are no foreign companies operating her or that aussie companies don't also operate overseas.

What really is your problem?

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 6:55pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 6:10pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 5:51pm: Karnal wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 5:34pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 5:33pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 5:12pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 10:29am: this is why the alp deserve to be wiped from the face of the earth The libs will remove that tax. And save us money by doing it. this is a tax put on by the left that seriously angered the big end of the big economy in Australia. And it costs us money. Unless you are a foreign mining company - how exactly is removing the mining tax saving YOU money?!!? coz it costs more to collect than the revenue generated.  and it reduces employment slightly. The mining tax is bringing in bugger all. It should be raised to its original rate. Likewise with the big 4 banks. Profit-tax them all. These services prosper through favouritism in government policy (for economically sound reasons). Make them pay for it. Trade and currency speculation. Tax it. No one would notice a minute percent on each trade - what do we get by having our currency subject to foreign currency markets? These are all reasonable proposals, and necessary in a climate of declining revenues. You want to get rid of the deficit? Think about where the revenue should come from. It's unfair that PAYE taxpayers should foot the investment in training and infrastructure that companies like big mining and financial services benefit from.  It's unfair that the rate of our curre Welcome to an unfair world. "Pitiful", innit. The resources do not belong to the "people" of Australia whatsoever. No more so than the water of the Pacific ocean that washes up on the east coast beaches belongs to you either. The mining companies pay royalties to mine there. Just like we as a company pay for the licence to drill for gas deposits off-shore in Australian waters. The companies are staffed by Australians, we invest in capital which in turn provides service industry ancillary jobs in Australia, we play a role in Australian society as well. The projects are even undertaken by Australian companies - ours is a Pty Ltd company registered in Sydney. To demand "foreign companies" should pay their fair share completely ignores reality and panders to the ill-informed on the topic. Not when you look at the profit involved, the effect of mining on the overall economy, and the jobs mining actually provides. The biggest areas of emoyment in Australia are training/education, tourism and construction. Mining employment is largely FIFO, and driven by the fast bucks. This takes skills out of other areas of the economy. Try getting an electrician in Perth. Minerals are owned by the states. If you think it was set up this way for the sole profit of foreign companies, you must have a very strange idea of the commonwealth and the role of government. Who knows? Maybe you’re right and I’m living in some bizarre parallel universe. You do have this effect on people you know, Andrei. you seem unhappy that mining companies make ANY profit at all.  Why is that.  You would think there are no foreign companies operating her or that aussie companies don't also operate overseas. What really is your problem?

I’ll tell you, Longy. My problem is the title of this thread: ditching the mining tax.

The mining tax wasn’t originally political. Tony Abbott only made it this way because he saw a wedge to get Rudd.

The mining tax was first proposed by Ken Henry. It was part of an entire reform of the Australian tax system and the economy, post-mining boom.

It included measures like scrapping stamp duty on home sales to allow more mobility in the housing market, lowering company tax to stimulate development, and raising superannuation from 9 to 12% to create a greater pool of Australian investment and raise retirement income.

The current government picked ideas it liked, and knocked back others. The Henry review also wanted a 5% rise in the GST, which would be a hard sell, but Labor implimented the mining tax and have a date to raise super.

Abbott intends to scrap the mining tax and do away with the rise in super. It also wants an additional 1.5% rise in the company tax of about a thousand big companies to pay for its maternity leave package.

Abbott will ditch the mining and carbon taxes, but raise some companies’ company tax, get rid of the proposed rise in super and spend 3.2 billion on "direct action" policies to meet the promised 5% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2020.

So, in a nutshell, please don’t pretend the Libs are somehow "fair" or apolitical when it comes to taxing and spending money. Many of their policies are ludicrous, unpopular and irrational. Direct action - the government pays. Maternity leave - the big companies pay. And we all lose the rise in super to pay for other things, whatever they are.

We need a mining super-profits tax now, more than any other time in history. Why? Because the profits now are unprecedented, and we need the cash badly.

Abbott WILL spend it, and he has no hope of returning to surplus.

You know this, I know this, it’s hardly a secret. Let’s not pretend. We need more taxes. The only question is who will cough up the money.

The Mining Tax is a bad tax. So are the cuts more quietly implemented on R&D capital purchases for offshore drilling and shale fracking - but that too is something Abbott has a better understanding than the Government.

The Mining Tax is bad. Why?

Well it raises little revenue and at the same time makes Australia less attractive than Canada for mining.

In business management classes I recall when you want to cut costs in a business act on the ones which have low visionary impact but high in dollars.
The tax is the opposite. Brings in little revenue and is high in visionary as a tax of investment!

We are finding similar in oil and gas. Cutting our rebate on fracking R&D has cost us $100 million on our bottom line.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 10:28pm:

The Mining Tax is a bad tax. So are the cuts more quietly implemented on R&D capital purchases for offshore drilling and shale fracking - but that too is something Abbott has a better understanding than the Government. The Mining Tax is bad. Why? Well it raises little revenue and at the same time makes Australia less attractive than Canada for mining. In business management classes I recall when you want to cut costs in a business act on the ones which have low visionary impact but high in dollars. The tax is the opposite. Brings in little revenue and is high in visionary as a tax of investment! We are finding similar in oil and gas. Cutting our rebate on fracking R&D has cost us $100 million on our bottom line.

I would expect you to say that a mining tax is a bad tax but since your making the case I think it would be useful for those who didn't attend your business management classes if you were to clear up a few thing.  First it would help if you were to explain your terms like "low visionary impact". Look I know it sounds impressive, it does, don't misunderstand me but if we are to feel the full force of your point or even understand it I think you should explain that term. Secondly as I understand it what your talking about is what a business manager running a business should do when he/she wants to cut costs. That is, what he or she should do to cut costs, within the business environment in which the business operates including whatever taxes might apply to the running of that business. In other words, the rule is a rule for business managers not governments because of course governments don't run your business (you do) and have other considerations to consider including whats fair and whats good for the community as a whole.  But if I'm wrong in this and the government was derelict in overlooking the rule you set out, what do you think might have possessed Ken Henry (Federal Treasury Secretary) in proposing it.  Also do you think maybe if the tax remained set at the level originally set by the government and proposed by Henry, it would now be netting the level of revenue to satisfy your rule.  And finally when you speak about "cutting your rebate on fracking R&D" and how much its cost your bottom line, have you ever considered that there may be other considerations involved here then just how much money you make. Can't help thinking that your a wet behind the ears junior accountant whose been telling quite a few porkies on this forum about his self importance.   

Andrei only trained as an accountant, Spartacus. He now lives off an untaxed family trust account.

It’s a living.

Karnal wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 11:57pm:

Andrei only trained as an accountant, Spartacus. He now lives off an untaxed family trust account. It’s a living.

It figures (thanks for the heads up Karnal). And he was the one going on about the labour laws not being tough enough on the rest of us. 

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2013 at 12:46am:

Karnal wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 11:57pm: Andrei only trained as an accountant, Spartacus. He now lives off an untaxed family trust account. It’s a living. It figures (thanks for the heads up Karnal). And he was the one going on about the labour laws not being tough enough on the rest of us.

But CEO salaries not being generous enough.

It's such an unfair world.