Printable View
How many people have been following this stoush?
More importantly, how many have done some "deep and meanigful reading and research" on the matter?
The more I read the more I am inclined to believe it is the right thing. I am no defender of Rudd, especially with regards to his spurious reasons for spending from gov. funds for advertising. However, I do think it is time to stop the hysteria and look at the facts. Then we might be able to make a better judgement.
I've been following it closely on Lateline and cannot understand in any way that it is good for anything except to the detriment of...
I won't type anymore as it beggars belief and raises my blood pressure. :~ Except to write that as soon as the announcement was made and before anyone started any shouting a friends super instantly lost $20,000 due to the share price fall of mining stocks.
That's interesting because as the proposal stands I'm the opposite. I don't believe we should be be picking on individual types of economic activities and if anything I want to see ALL the big corporates paying more tax. Why should we only pick on mining companies and let bankers and money managers slip through the net and .Quote:
Originally Posted by artme
A well known Australian once said to a Senate Hearing "I can tell you you're not spending it that well that we should be donating extra". I think that sentiment applies to the resources tax.
I am against targeted taxation how it can be argued this tax will not put at risk future projects and hence jobs and development is beyond me.
The argument that the Australian people should receive a greater share of the returns from finite resources is weak and spurious. If the government was fair dinkum an adjustment to GST payments to the states thus forcing up royalties makes more sense maybe even easier to achieve :rolleyes::D
I am interested to hear what makes this a good tax that is fair.
Wading through the bullshyte is the hardest bit. Here is a clearer explanation than most. Resource Super Profit Tax Everything Correctly Explained (R.S.P.T.E.C.E.) | Stubborn Mule Im not a financial engineer so read the Blog but how I understand it is that the bigger guys will pay more tax and the smaller miners will find it easier to raise capital. Bear in mind that mining is as a pretty concentrated industry and hugely capital intensive.
A couple of salient points, Rudd wont get it through the Senate, St Steve will see to that. So at best its an exercise in seeing who has the best spin doctors. Secondly, our balance of payments is so intimately tied to resources that a hiccup in China will cause a massive recession. Remember when it used to be said that if America sneezes Australia catches a cold? But Australia only had a viable value add sector for a short while so its the way its gonna be for as long as I can tell. Its the economy we are going to have because of our geography. Its the customers not the suppliers who rule in this game. Thirdly, this proposed tax was engineered by Ken Henry and the Treasury. Im sure it has been a long time in the coming and is very well thought out, he is one of the best around Canberra. As usual Rudd and Swan (who couldnt sell beer in a pub) are implementing someone else's idea. I reckon its a bit like the GST, it will take 15 years to get something going but as the Australian pension burden increases governments of all flavours are going to be looking for money. Fourthly, it isnt going to be easy for these big miners to find other resource rich countries that have the political stability, mature financial systems, lots of open space where they dont encroach on big populations and sufficiently educated populations to move into. Australia is a relatively easy place to do business.
Personally, Im waiting for the backflip as the polls are coming and Rudd knows he is going down without a Senate majority. He will want to fight the opposition on safer ground like IR. The fact that so much is making into the press about opposition back room bickering must be heartening to him because his track record is woeful. He may save his skin but it will be because the opposition lost.
Have to agree with you Bob. Targetted taxation smacks of the old pinko left and the get even mentality of some of the old diehard armchair communists. This is the sort of card that Rudd is playing to some extent by appealing to our patriotic emotions.
I think a number of points are worth bearing in mind.
Some years ago $1 in $3 from mining came into the coffers of governments. It is now about $1 in $7.
Miners get pretty reasonable concessions from government fro exploration and development. Should we not get some money back?
The same cries went up when Hawk did this with petroleum. Did exploration and invesment stop?
Mining companies are pretty good at favourably balancing their books. Maybe this needs examination.
What of the mishmash of royalties and taxes already in place? Maybe a rethink on this would dsolve a lot of problems.
The whole point of Ken Henry's review. But the vast bulk of his recommendations were discarded presumably because they wouldnt go down too well with the electorate.Quote:
What of the mishmash of royalties and taxes already in place? Maybe a rethink on this would dsolve a lot of problems.
I'm for any new tax....soon every school in this great country will have an $800,000 tuck shop.
Bring it on!!
That's a quote straight from the latest Govt ad compaign and I question it's accuracy. The 14% figure came from a paper done by a couple of US academics. The paper wasnt officially published and as such was never subject to peer review etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by artme
I heard an interview with the author. He drew his data from annual reports. And yes he was supervising a student who wrote it. But I must agree, spin, spin, spin. When both sides start with full page paper ads I get the sh!ts. Ive ditched both sides of the media on this one. A pox on all their advertising budgets!!Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwigeo
Well at least the mining lobby is spending their own money on ads rather than taxpayers hard earned dollars. As far as Im concerned Rudd has lost the plot and nothing good can come out of a poorly thought out tax based on questionable data. If this tax was properly thought out and based on sound data it wouldnt need a $50m ad campaign to sell it to the voters.
If Rudd survives the election then watch him slap new taxes on super funds....just the thing to encourage people to rely less on the state in their retirement.
Wasn't aware that the figures i quoted are from gov. ads. I haven't seen any!
I read them somewhere but don't remember where.
I think this gov is dead in the water. The trouble is that we need to ask if we really want TA as PM.This is especially so after his stupidity with Kerry O"Brien!!!
You can't miss the ads...full page spreads in The Australian.Quote:
Originally Posted by artme
Lost faith in newspapers years ago. Did all my fairytale reading as a kid.Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwigeo
As for any ads I do stumble on I rarely, if ever, read them.
Amen to that.....I know Neil for PM, leader of the WW party.:D:D:DQuote:
Originally Posted by artme
The more I read, the more I am alarmed by Rudd's plan to centralize all the states assets. I just don't see how this will make anything simpler.
For those that have the time, <a href="http://www.businessday.com.au/business/fighting-the-tax-battle-theyve-lost-the-war-20100601-wrmm.html"> here is a good opinion piece by Michael Pascoe </a> on the situation and more importantly how badly the ad campaign by the Govt really is...
Good read, thx. Confirms my deepening cynicism and desire to fill parliment house with cement............. while its in session,
Heard reports earlier today that the ad campaign was planned since before the tax was announced. Hard for them to claim that its to counter the mining and coalitions campaign if the reports are true:rolleyes:
Well the headlines in the Whyalla news today has two words "Ghost Town".
Simple the local steel works will not be viable with this tax.
Not sure how this will also affect Pt Pirie and the smelter there not to mention the power station at Pt Augusta.
Couldn't resist :roflmao:
Mines are Downsizing
Attachment 138256
Dj has upsized with a new beep beep. :U
Yes, a great article by Mr. Pascoe! Thanx for the reference.
I actually listened to one of the gov. ads today and was struck by the tenor of it. A list of assertions ith no proof that they were even remotely true.
I still think the idea of a RRT is OK - just not this one.
As Pascoeand others have pointed out, the boat has been missed once again. True tax reform seems to be even further away, and the true interests of the country are left wallowing in the wake of massive egos, big business and inept politicians.
What a bloody good idea! Woodwould for PM!!Quote:
Originally Posted by m2c1Iw
Anyone who can explain Irish politics so well would find this job a picnic.:wink::wink:
Targeted taxation a pinko idea? That's really new. :D Tell that to the tobacco companies. Fiscal policy is a targeting exercise. The real issue, that nobody here has actually addressed yet because nobody, included myself, has had the time and inclination, let alone the expertise, to shift through the spin, is whether the country will be better or worse for it. GST anyone?
The GST isn't discriminatory, the super tax on the miners is.
The last real tax reform in this country was started by Hawke Keating with Fringe Benefits Tax, Capital Gains and playing with the superannuation changes from 1983. It ended with the GST of Howard Costello. It was reform because it greatly broadened the tax base and spread taxation across more areas.
Rudd Swann trumpeted this as the greatest root and branch reform to the tax system since federation, when all they are doing is turning state royalties into this new tax. No broadening, greater complexity, and a real chance of us paying the miners next time resource prices take a nose dive.
The governments marketing is using questionable statistics in some cases and total lies in others, unlike the Hawke years no effort has been made at consensus or consultation. What we have is the destruction of any goodwill with the targeted miners and a loss of faith amongst many including I suspect those who will be charged with implementing it in the unlikely event it gets off the ground.
The real travesty in this is that it is a good idea done very badly. We should get more out of the coal, gas and minerals we export. Instead we get a repeat of the insulation fiasco, great idea, but designed to fail.
This has all the hallmarks of a marketing campaign designed by hollowmen, and no sign that either the Prime Minister or the Treasurer really know what they are doing. No wonder the Greens are doing well in the polls, everyone else is on the nose.
The GST was specifically left out of the tax review anyway.
Hence it is a dead point.
With reference to the current resource super profit tax (RSPT)/RRT this is a heavy but interesting article.
The new Australian resource rent tax | The Australian
After reading several bit and articles I get the impression the Mining industry is not in principal against a RRT but more in the unconsulted manner the current proposal has been delivered and in a way fixed in cement by the govt.
There is within many articles and media reports, hints and comments a preferred model being along the lines of the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT). Not necessarily a direct copy but as a model base.
Unfortunately this is going to be a long argument with lots of political heat with little forward progression.
The real big losers is going to the sucker that is trying to live off his/her retirement fund and watch the mineral section of the portfolio go for a bad swim.
Thanks for the link to the Garnaut article.
Makes for interesting reading and I find I now have more questions of the government than ever regarding the implementation of this policy.
I would ask Mr Garnaut to expand on his references to our government being able to implement policy in the public good that are contested by powerful private interests in the midst of dangerous time for our country.
Does this reference relate to giving our government the ability to implement taxation to return to a balanced budget after the questionable expenditure it committed to as a result of the GFC? I beleive that what he is saying.
In any event his call for constructive (or should that be rational and transparent) discussion clearly needs heeding by all parties.
The GST is discriminatory, it taxes people who do not have sufficient income to be taxed on personal income. It was well known by everybody, so much so that compensatory measures were taken by the Government to offset this disadvantage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waldo
I do not believe his lecture here has anything directly relating to the expenditure the govt made due to the GFC and trying to get a balanced budget sheet ASAP.Quote:
Originally Posted by m2c1Iw
He outlined it in a generalised manner near teh beginning as:
"This is a dangerous time for our country in a dangerous world. Europe is floundering, as Governments wake up to the consequences of socialising the losses of private financial institutions in response to the global financial crisis. In the United States, a clever and politically skilled President is battling with domestic problems on a daunting scale. The United States has fewer political and fiscal reserves than at any time since the 1930s, with which to come to the aid of a North Atlantic world in trouble. We will learn over the year ahead whether it has the political and fiscal reserves to help itself."
One of the biggest issues we will face for a period is the lack of creditable politicians on all sides of politics, includes the little parties as well. Unfortunately the old guard and their ability to spin with a level of quality and belief have now vanished. Many of these old guard also had a belief in this nation and country, which the current lot appear to have lost or never had.
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
Damian, do you have a link to it maybe? I'd be interested to read what he said.Quote:
Originally Posted by damian
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)
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 m2c1Iw
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waldo
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waldo