I have no love for greedy mining magnates but a tax of this size hits all Australians as we are shareholders either directly or through super. Once again the Labor party in trying to do the right thing by the people of Australia have over reached and burned those they are trying to help, happened with the roof insulation and BERS. Less haste guys and put in place the resources to monitor and assess all these programes, I remember Gough and his fantastic vision, but you cannot make up for the useless conservatives in your first term.
2
Sunday, 09 May 2010 02:05
Ronald Kitching
Re: “Because the coal and other minerals they mine do actually belong to the people of Australia. The Government went out on a limb by spending so much money for infrastructure and saved our economy going into recession.. This money has to be returned…”
The statement above shows the appalling ignorance of economics of many of the intellectual community and public.
To say that all Australian's own the resources of the Nation is the same as saying that at all Australians own a share of profitable farmers, profitable manufacturers and profitable retailers like Woolies, Coles and Harvey Norman.
A resource is not a resource until some explorer, whether an individual or company puts up the risk capital, spends the money to discover, delineate and plan a (hopefully), profitable mine.
As for the government spending money on Economic "recovery". That too is an entire waste of Capital. The result will be even more Capital destruction, a skill in which all governments seem to excel.
3
Sunday, 09 May 2010 02:21
Peter Hindrup
The moment anybody mentions ‘taxes’ everybodies hackles rise — especially if ‘increase’ is mentioned at the same time!
Why or how the government ever portrayed this as a ‘tax’ is beyond my comprehension.
What is being missed in this ‘debate’ is the fact that those setting up a business have to pay various set up costs, including whatever market research they deem to be necessary, pay all the various government levels of licences and such, and pay payroll tax from day one. All businesses ‘provide employment’.
All businesses must pay for the materials that they use in production, or for the products/produce that they intend to sell.
This is where the miners/extractors somehow seem to believe that they are different! They appear to believe that having set up the mining/extraction business that the minerals ought to be free of cost, except for the cost of extraction.
The government, on behalf of all Australians ought to be saying ‘No!’.
There ought to be a formula used to set the price at any given time of all minerals and such, a price that varies with the market. The government ought to sell said minerals and such at a percentage — 40 percent sounds reasonable — of that price to anybody who wishes to run an extraction business.
The cost of setting up, production and compliance with environmental based regulation is simply the cost of doing business, no different to that of any other type of business.
Note that this means miners/extractors pay for the Australian assets that they are selling from day one. Nor does it require the company to be ‘profitable’.
Those companies that find the price too high will not undertake the project, just as those intending to set up a business might look at the market research and say that the potential return is not good enough.
Perhaps, Graham, your question ought to read: Are you in favour of mining companies paying the Australian people a fixed percentage of the price of whatever it is they are mining?
Or:
Do you believe that the because of the taxes that they pay when they make a profit, and the jobs that they provide they should get the minerals for nothing?
4
Sunday, 09 May 2010 04:20
Deb Smith
My first comment disappeared so if it is posted twice I apologise.
What people have to be mindful of is that this super tax was submitted by the Mineral Council on behalf of the mining sector to the Henry review in 2008. This tax was their idea.
The giste of the tax was that during boom times all Australians, the whole economy would share in the profits. But during busts, we would support & maintain the mining sector.
Problem is that the fear they had with the GFC no longer exists. Now the mining sectors future is looking rosey they have renegged on their own submission.
It was not a tax as the media have played it that jumped out of nowhere. The mining industry lobbied to get this tax in for review.
As for the reported details well, we can't rely on that because the details are being thrashed out with the mining sector. It is pretty poor form to advocate for something for self protection from the nation then reneg when things are more favourable to your own circumstances.
They actually recommended a broadening of the GST base, and a rise in the GST tax. They also discussed welfare to work. Ala..Abbotts welfare cuts & ship to the mines.
This in turn will drive wages down in the mining sector whilst addressing labour shortages.
5
Sunday, 09 May 2010 08:17
John Ward
Around 1937 Menzies and others proposed a super tax (annuation that is)of one third employee, one third employer and one third government to pay for retirement.
Of course the Country party defeated it. But imagine if we did have a 5% each of wages contribution from that time what our savings would be now?
Why not start right now with the govt putting back 5% we would go straight to 15% contribution and our savings would begin to really put this counrty on the front foot.
6
Sunday, 09 May 2010 15:12
Mary Sharah
I wasn't sure if my replies to you went through to you.
Just the same I am happy to continue answering your polls.
7
Monday, 10 May 2010 01:33
Dr Max Whisson
The popularity of the Rudd Govt. has declined recently and the results of recent surveys do not appear to explain this. A factor which has not been adequately explored is the extreme actions taken on smoking. We do not hear much criticism of these new restrictive laws in the street and the mass media exclude such comments. The reasons for this however may be that the massively funded ASH propaganda has been successful in creating a culture of disapproval of smoking and smokers. It is my impression that there is deep shock and anxiety about the sweeping social engineering going on and the feeling that it is not socially acceptable to question this is silencing discussion. In fact my own suspicion is that this change to social compliance is the main objective of the anti-smoking campaign.
There are some very disturbing features of the campaign. For example the ETS or passive smoking story has radically transformed all workplaces and entertainment centres, as well as fractured many personal relationships and widely disrupted camaraderie. Now this massively promoted ETS story appears to be a blatant lie, as I can find no scientific studies to support it. Only smokers are damaged by smoking. There are many other worrying features but the most recent one is particularly worrying: the modification of cigarettes to make them FIRE SAFE. The cigarettes are already on sale and they go out if they are not frequently puffed. This change in smoking habit might be dangerous, but more seriously, the quality of the smoke is changed. This change could well be very dangerous. IT IS GROSSLY IRRESPONSIBLE TO INTRODUCE SUCH A POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS CHANGE WITHOUT EXTENSIVE ANALYSIS AND CLINICAL TRIAL.
8
Wednesday, 12 May 2010 05:07
John Peach
The promises are in the future estimates and thus not set in stone. Company Tax rates has been reduced along with other measures over a long period prior (but not in the last 3 Years under Labor). This forward 'promise' is basically an election sweetener & no more a certainty than under a Coalition Gov from later this year. Basically it is window dressing and once again an expected policy.
The forward from 2011-2014 increases in Employer contribution to employee Super although not recommended by the Henry Report will of course be welcomed by both ACTU and Super Funds, but are a two edged sword (as Henry review pointed out). In reality this policy change has little to do with the 2010-2011 Gov Budget and should have been separately debated & decided in the Federal Parliament. It is an Employer Expense and thus has wide implications to all business enterprise.
Of course it would be welcomed by those on wages but in the long run it will be another added cost for everyone or lost by other increases in living costs it also helps generate.
9
Wednesday, 12 May 2010 10:11
John Clarkson
If the government wish the taxpayers to share in 40% of the mining companies profit, then should not the taxpayers also share 40% of the risks as well? If the answer is No, then the tax is grossly unfair.
10
Wednesday, 12 May 2010 12:10
Sandy Davey
I am wondering why the mining companies are considered fair game for a super tax ( @ anything above the bond rate currently @ 6%) but the banks are quarantined. Wouln't have anything to do with the "shock and awe" that the banks could unleash on the electorate would it??? or am I just being cynical? Seems to me that mining profits are obscene but bank profits are just and decent
The statement above shows the appalling ignorance of economics of many of the intellectual community and public.
To say that all Australian's own the resources of the Nation is the same as saying that at all Australians own a share of profitable farmers, profitable manufacturers and profitable retailers like Woolies, Coles and Harvey Norman.
A resource is not a resource until some explorer, whether an individual or company puts up the risk capital, spends the money to discover, delineate and plan a (hopefully), profitable mine.
As for the government spending money on Economic "recovery". That too is an entire waste of Capital. The result will be even more Capital destruction, a skill in which all governments seem to excel.
Why or how the government ever portrayed this as a ‘tax’ is beyond my comprehension.
What is being missed in this ‘debate’ is the fact that those setting up a business have to pay various set up costs, including whatever market research they deem to be necessary, pay all the various government levels of licences and such, and pay payroll tax from day one. All businesses ‘provide employment’.
All businesses must pay for the materials that they use in production, or for the products/produce that they intend to sell.
This is where the miners/extractors somehow seem to believe that they are different! They appear to believe that having set up the mining/extraction business that the minerals ought to be free of cost, except for the cost of extraction.
The government, on behalf of all Australians ought to be saying ‘No!’.
There ought to be a formula used to set the price at any given time of all minerals and such, a price that varies with the market. The government ought to sell said minerals and such at a percentage — 40 percent sounds reasonable — of that price to anybody who wishes to run an extraction business.
The cost of setting up, production and compliance with environmental based regulation is simply the cost of doing business, no different to that of any other type of business.
Note that this means miners/extractors pay for the Australian assets that they are selling from day one. Nor does it require the company to be ‘profitable’.
Those companies that find the price too high will not undertake the project, just as those intending to set up a business might look at the market research and say that the potential return is not good enough.
Perhaps, Graham, your question ought to read: Are you in favour of mining companies paying the Australian people a fixed percentage of the price of whatever it is they are mining?
Or:
Do you believe that the because of the taxes that they pay when they make a profit, and the jobs that they provide they should get the minerals for nothing?
What people have to be mindful of is that this super tax was submitted by the Mineral Council on behalf of the mining sector to the Henry review in 2008. This tax was their idea.
The giste of the tax was that during boom times all Australians, the whole economy would share in the profits. But during busts, we would support & maintain the mining sector.
Problem is that the fear they had with the GFC no longer exists. Now the mining sectors future is looking rosey they have renegged on their own submission.
It was not a tax as the media have played it that jumped out of nowhere. The mining industry lobbied to get this tax in for review.
As for the reported details well, we can't rely on that because the details are being thrashed out with the mining sector. It is pretty poor form to advocate for something for self protection from the nation then reneg when things are more favourable to your own circumstances.
They actually recommended a broadening of the GST base, and a rise in the GST tax. They also discussed welfare to work. Ala..Abbotts welfare cuts & ship to the mines.
This in turn will drive wages down in the mining sector whilst addressing labour shortages.
Of course the Country party defeated it. But imagine if we did have a 5% each of wages contribution from that time what our savings would be now?
Why not start right now with the govt putting back 5% we would go straight to 15% contribution and our savings would begin to really put this counrty on the front foot.
Just the same I am happy to continue answering your polls.
There are some very disturbing features of the campaign. For example the ETS or passive smoking story has radically transformed all workplaces and entertainment centres, as well as fractured many personal relationships and widely disrupted camaraderie. Now this massively promoted ETS story appears to be a blatant lie, as I can find no scientific studies to support it. Only smokers are damaged by smoking. There are many other worrying features but the most recent one is particularly worrying: the modification of cigarettes to make them FIRE SAFE. The cigarettes are already on sale and they go out if they are not frequently puffed. This change in smoking habit might be dangerous, but more seriously, the quality of the smoke is changed. This change could well be very dangerous. IT IS GROSSLY IRRESPONSIBLE TO INTRODUCE SUCH A POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS CHANGE WITHOUT EXTENSIVE ANALYSIS AND CLINICAL TRIAL.
The forward from 2011-2014 increases in Employer contribution to employee Super although not recommended by the Henry Report will of course be welcomed by both ACTU and Super Funds, but are a two edged sword (as Henry review pointed out). In reality this policy change has little to do with the 2010-2011 Gov Budget and should have been separately debated & decided in the Federal Parliament. It is an Employer Expense and thus has wide implications to all business enterprise.
Of course it would be welcomed by those on wages but in the long run it will be another added cost for everyone or lost by other increases in living costs it also helps generate.