Mining Super Tax

Nice summary, at a glance you appear to broadly agree with the Professor. I have a philosophically different attitude to the "consultation" process but all the rest is the sort of things where values will vary differently depending on perspective, especially the already mentioned 4.2. If indeed the tax is retrospective, blame a legal system that allows this to happen. More civilised countries respect the principle nulla poena sine lege.

I am not really sure about your assessment of the impact of the 30 to 28% reduction and the 9 to 12% increase on small businesses, IMHO it is way overstated. Incidentally, inc. does not mean big. Ask your dentist, chances are the practice is incorporated even if it is a one man band.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by artme

What is needed, apart from decent tax reform, is for the Krudd government to be given its Swan song at the next election.

---

Ahem... isn't this the kind of blatant partisan propaganda that should be frowned upon by the moderators? :D

I would agree with you if we had a decent alternative, like Turnbull for example. But I would never vote for a rabid bigot like TA. Malcolm Frazer is my current hero, I pray that he would found a party I could be happy to vote for.

Frank,

I only agree with the Prof by accident not from reading his paper and then agreeing to his point of view.
I could say he agrees with my views:D

Perspective is an odd one. Yes if I was looking at some general business the 40% covering a flop venture would be a good backing. Unfortunately in mining the concept of a flop is huge. Also since it is legislation there is no guarantee it would not be removed buy successive governments anyway. That is one of the uncertainties with it. Since it involves $billions not $thousands the chance of it being withdrawn is on the cards so it is not a sound basis to go look for finance.

The use of retrospective is an odd one and nicely banded about. All this actually means, and its clarity also seems to have vanished in the mumbo jumbo, is that existing projects will be included. The PRRT excludes preexisting projects.

As for the inc matter with the company tax all that I hoped to point out was that unless a business was actually inc'ed it would not see this reduction. That was pointed about very early in the budget/tax reform debate. Since then it has dropped off the horizon.
Yes doctors, dentist and similar practices are usually inc anyway. But the local deli, the small sub contractor running his truck and bobcat and the like may not be.

Sorry Cultana, I meant "coincide". Blame my imperfect English. :D

If that is what "retrospective" means in this context, I have no problem with it, but I do not accept it as a correct use of the word. Blame my presumption of knowing what good English is. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frank&Earnest

Ahem... isn't this the kind of blatant partisan propaganda that should be frowned upon by the moderators? :D

I would agree with you if we had a decent alternative, like Turnbull for example. But I would never vote for a rabid bigot like TA. Malcolm Frazer is my current hero, I pray that he would found a party I could be happy to vote for.

---

Not really blatant or partisan Frank, althought I understand your humour. I was fed up with Howard towards the end.It hasn't taken as long for me to be fed up with these incompetent nongs.

Agree with you on the leadership issue. It seems as if we are caught on the horns of a dilema. Painful!!

While I think Turnbul may be more acceptable I wonder about him also. Look at the performance with Godwin Gretch. I also don't like his approach to becoming a republic. I'm in favour of a republic, just not his model.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waldo

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

---

Boy this thread got a lot longer in a day didn't it ? Good that your all remaining so civil to one another. I may have missed something but most of you seem to be trying to get your heads around the problem rather than having an idealogical debate.

Sorry Waldo, I don't have a link. Bascially he was asked about the mining company claims and said something like "I learned in high school economics that a profits based tax can not impact prices so I don't think I need comment further on that". Utter BS. Just what you'd expect from a do nothing go nowhere public service academic. I'd love to see that SOB kicked out into a private business where he has to make a living.

Also seb' I think mentioned that we should consider how much money the government needs in any discussion about how they raise it. I think I was trying to make that point. Labor governments are tax, spend, waste governments. Even Hawke did his fair share of that. They bleed us dry then pass the $ off to their mates via cushy jobs (Mike Keiser anyone ?) and overpriced contracts (school halls etc). They are little more than a conduit from your wallet to their mate's swiss bank accounts.

Sigh. Mr Cranky needs a lie down....:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by damian

Labor governments are tax, spend, waste governments.

---

Damian, you certainly have a slant against labor, but seem happy to ignore those same traits within the coalition. Personally I don't particularly like any of the political options we currently have, but to even consider the current coalition as a viable option is almost laughable.

Don't digress folks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by damian

Also seb' I think mentioned that we should consider how much money the government needs in any discussion about how they raise it. I think I was trying to make that point. Labor governments are tax, spend, waste governments. Even Hawke did his fair share of that. They bleed us dry then pass the $ off to their mates via cushy jobs (Mike Keiser anyone ?) and overpriced contracts (school halls etc). They are little more than a conduit from your wallet to their mate's swiss bank accounts.

---

They need as much money as it takes to get reelected :D What we call government in Australia is basically a set of policies decided by opinion polling. That goes for both L's, I make no distinction. Rudd buys school halls and insulation, Howard gave it away as middle class welfare and advertising the GST, no difference at all IMO. When Howard got kicked out he left a massive budget surplus, IMO this is where everyone of us was over taxed. The GST was a giant tax grab, probably the biggest in the history of the federation. To claim either party as a paragon of virtue and the other as the very evilist naughty baby eating barstools seems simplistic and propaganda to me.

Your question is valid. What is the role of Govt? Its a bit like a comment I heard once that a human is basically a transport mechanism for an alimentary canal. The country has become a fund raising mechanism so that two parties can play politics in Canberra. Neither seems particularly interested in what we really think or what the country needs now, in ten years time or in one hundred years time. The horizon and purpose of the L's is the next election and dragging the other through the mud.

The L's are like two sides of a coin. The Lib's fundraising base is big business. Its cohering value is hatred of Labour. Lab's fundraising base is the Unions.Its cohering value is getting one back on the bosses. Remove either big business or the unions and the other loses its ideological reason for existence. And yet they need each other, better the enemy you know.... I read Miranda Devine's spray in the Telegraph the other day (a very conservative commentator) and the lady was at her hysterical best about the rising threat of the Greens. At least the Labs/Libs can be attacked in the usual way and the Labs/Labs attacks can be defended in the usual way but there may be a new voice in the national debate and that will be a big threat to both of them. Im not advocating the Greens, Im attempting to point out a state of affairs.

Maybe it's the influence of some red I had tonight but I don't know whether to treat your comments as cynical Seb., or regard them as truth.

I think it is fairly clear that both sides of politics have forgotten why they are where they are, or maybe they never knew.

Well my two bobs worth on the matter as a swinging voter is this.

Basically Rudd has screwed up so many times before this and now he has to go with it come hell or high water.

I fear him and his two consorts Swann and Gilliard are of little use to the country as well.

As for Ken Henry. I see that he reckons there would no difference if the tax was 40 or 50% in fact he went to agree that even if it was 75% it would still be no difference on its out come. So I will add him to the list above as way to expensive to be any near my tax dollars for any reason.

The highlight, for me anyway, of this "debate" in parliament came yesterday when Bronwyn Bishop (not my favourite politician) addressed Julia Gillard (dressed in a hideous hounds tooth coat) as "the member for David Jones".

If looks could kill Ms Bishop would be heading for a state funeral:D

Quote:

---

[he highlight, for me anyway, of this "debate" in parliament came yesterday when Bronwyn Bishop (not my favourite poltician) addressed Julia Gillard (dressed in a hideous houndstooth coat) as "the member for David Jones".

---

:2tsup::2tsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by damian

Bascially he was asked about the mining company claims and said something like "I learned in high school economics that a profits based tax can not impact prices so I don't think I need comment further on that". Utter BS.

---

I'm pretty sure the context of what he was saying was related to the price of the commodities being sold on the open market, in which case he has a point. If they threw a tax on some inputs, then the commodities would become more expensive ie it would artificially inflate the price of those commodities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by q9

I'm pretty sure the context of what he was saying was related to the price of the commodities being sold on the open market, in which case he has a point. If they threw a tax on some inputs, then the commodities would become more expensive ie it would artificially inflate the price of those commodities.

---

Thus the commodity achieves a smaller return for the investor, exactly the point the miners are making and it follows the capital will be moved elsewhere.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe Australia has the only deposits of the many mineral/elements we mine.

As a side note what happened to the 5.5billion from the bank deposit guarantee fees? see this article