Mining Super Tax

Ah, the inscrutable ways of fate! I had to wander again into the uncharted waters of this dark side of the forum to find the willpower to read again some economics. Thanks Cultana! :rolleyes:

If I'm still awake enough to tell, Professor Garnaut makes clear that there are good reasons for introducing the tax but plenty of research still needs to be done and, if the Government is intelligent enough to do what the highest authority on the matter, namely he, says, everything will be all right. The horse trading with the interested parties is accepted as a given. It is interesting to note that in other countries it is a basic principle of taxation law (how well applied is another matter) that it be enacted by decree, exactly to avoid this sort of crap, with constitutional mechanisms for reviewing the tax later if it proves inappropriate: in a way, the highest level of application of the solve et repete principle also applied here.

And he gives further evidence of the truth of my long held belief that this country will never be a nation until the States are stripped of sovereignty.

I am going to bed now.

I've watched Garnaut on Lateline and I take what he says with a tiniest grain of salt, as many other international economists have countered ways and means that he has put forward with more plausible ideas.

Back on the GST for a moment, it affects everyone - hell, my income can be $0 for one week and $2,000 another and my point was that it taxes everyone, not just one group as the Super Tax does. But, I expect in the whole that Joe Public will love Dudd's grand plan as Australians have something called the Tall Poppy Syndrome.

Lots of intelligent comments on this thread. Hopefully some of mine will be :)

1. The government has budgeted about 8 bill in extra revenues from this tax.

2. Some mining projects are no brainers, some are more marginal. This tax may cost some of the latter. Implications should be obvious.

3. I would suggest a seperation between the mechanism of tax collection and the totals. I also suggest seperating the issues of government service delivery (by which I mean regulation and all government activities, not just the obvious) and the mechanics of that delivery. If we are striving for efficient/effective government services should be delivered as efficiently as they can be (regardless of ideaology) and the community determines what and how much through their representatives. That then determines the total tax take. Then, and only then, should we discuss the way the taxes are raised. NZ did this in the 80's and it pulled their economy back from the brink of collapse. Extreme case but I firmly believe we would benifite from a similar excercise.

4. Tax rates: Some things are geographically sensitive, many aren't. The latter go straight overseas if you overtax.

4. Garnaut and Henry are both economists who have done nothing practical in their lives (I am aware of Garnaut's position in that gold company, I believe he is a figurehead, nothing more). They are also both labor party "friends". Garnaut was behind the dismembering of the australian auto industry in the 80's now he's beck to finish stuffing the economy. I wanted to punch Henry when he made his smug comments about profits based taxes in the inquiry the other day. What a f*wit.

5. Lots of things that look like good ideas are stuffed in the details. The GST and work for the dole come to mind. Australian federal governments have a poor track record in implementation.

Finally I am comming to the conclusion that Australia would be better off if the labor party ceased to exist and some other group stepped into the role of opposing the coalition. They are so utterly corrupt, hypocritical and incompetant they have become intolerable. I am sure the coalition are similarly disposed but at least they are less obvious about it.

2c

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by damian

I wanted to punch Henry when he made his smug comments about profits based taxes in the inquiry the other day. What a f*wit.

---

Damian, do you have a link to it maybe? I'd be interested to read what he said.

The one stuff-up no-one has highlighted yet is the total lack of responsibility of the commercial network news to cover any of this. But maybe that represents the public interest in itself, which leaves those who want to find out about it to watch Ch. 2 news and Lateline and SBS for coverage of this crock. (who thankfully understand what news is about)

An interesting read

Miners head to Canberra for tax fight - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Why is it that truth and politics don't mix?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m2c1Iw

Why is it that truth and politics don't mix?

---

Get Leon Byner to ask Ranny that question on his morning 5AA radio program. Could be entertaining.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waldo

The one stuff-up no-one has highlighted yet is the total lack of responsibility of the commercial network news to cover any of this. But maybe that represents the public interest in itself, which leaves those who want to find out about it to watch Ch. 2 news and Lateline and SBS for coverage of this crock. (who thankfully understand what news is about)

---

Actually it is not a stuff up it is just the standard of the modern journalistic reporting approach. The level of investigative reporting has diminished because most jurnos seem to lack that ability. Also throw in a heavy dash of it does not sell the commercials on the TV or in the paper if one was to actually do deep digging into political garbage like this tax and other matters, Roof batts, BER , Aboriginal Housing, and all the other enterprises this government started but stuffed up big time.

The Australian was/is running a segment re the BER on line and the govt got a bit nasty about it.

Because politics is about power. That is why truth is usually the first casualty when a pollie opens their mouth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waldo

Back on the GST for a moment, it affects everyone - hell, my income can be $0 for one week and $2,000 another and my point was that it taxes everyone, not just one group as the Super Tax does.

---

Of course Waldo. But I am sure you agree that by taxing all the population, not only a section of it, the section not previously taxed is "one group" that cops a new tax. Semantics apart, the logic stands. And in that case as in this, there are compensating factors to try ironing the creases. I don't claim any knowledge of this matter and therefore can't comment, but if the end result is that all businesses end up paying 28% tax instead of <28% for the miners (whatever the real figure is) and 30% all the others, I can't see any reason to be unhappy with that.

If the KPMG report found the miners paid an effective tax rate of 35 per cent, then I have no reason to doubt the integrity of the report and it only goes to show the lack of credibility of any claim by the government as to the rate of tax the miners are paying.

Hmmm......it's starting to get rough and the slaps have turned into punches.

Andrew Forrest comments here

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waldo

If the KPMG report found the miners paid an effective tax rate of 35 per cent, then I have no reason to doubt the integrity of the report and it only goes to show the lack of credibility of any claim by the government as to the rate of tax the miners are paying.

---

I agree with you that if the Treasury figure is substantially incorrect it indicates incompetence or dishonesty. If there are no precedents or ways to measure objectively some assumptions, however, it might be a matter of whom or what one believes, as the article quoting Forrest indicates. The problem is when one of the sides of an argument has the ability to influence future behaviour to lend credence to previous assumptions. And money talks louder than words, especially when the words are incomprehensible to all but a minuscule number of adepts.

BTW, I am not aware of slapping or punching anybody, I am happy to stand corrected if that is the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frank&Earnest

BTW, I am not aware of slapping or punching anybody, I am happy to stand corrected if that is the case.

---

Figure of speech only Frank but I think you know that.:D

I do find it extraordinary that such public people are seemingly quite prepared to call each other liars in the media.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waldo

The one stuff-up no-one has highlighted yet is the total lack of responsibility of the commercial network news to cover any of this. But maybe that represents the public interest in itself, which leaves those who want to find out about it to watch Ch. 2 news and Lateline and SBS for coverage of this crock. (who thankfully understand what news is about)

---

Amen to that!!

An interesting read on the article you posted Waldo. Looks like the gov. is resorting to well known labour party tactics when it can't present decent, researched and cohesive arguments on its own part.

I listened to more of the balerdash from the ad campaign today. The poor barstewards are so confused thy really can't get anything across. We have them talking about a simpler and fairer tax system without any explanation of how the RRT will bring this about.

In relation to some quoted figures on taxes paid we here a lot of talk about aveagesTo talk about averages in this case is spurious. By the very nature of the beast ( mining industry) some companies will pay more tax and some less. Also there is the inclusion, I surmise, in all those averaged figures of mining activity such as quarrying and "small time" activities like lime extraction and sand mining. The figures given by the gov. are pobably as far removed from the real picture as it is possible to be.