I think there are a few issues here with these arguments. Mining in general is destructive. We're taking mostly finite resources and relocating them, often overseas. This is point number one, depletion of finite resources. Point number two is this idea of compensation for depleting finite resources. Some propose a super profits tax in order to compensate. But who does the extra money go to? Through taxation it is the Government, and 'theoretically' through the Government to the people. However... point two does not solve point one. There are many ways to solve point one, for instance restricting mining tenements, perhaps even constructing a 'sustainable mining' plan for the entire country so that mining is done more gradually. This could count for all finite assets, even PMs, energy, etc. Point two is a socio-political issue. Are we communists? Capitalists? Socialists? What are we? Is it right to demand monetary compensation right now for a problem that will affect future generations? Will the Government save and invest this money so that it can buy resources back at sometime in the future if it had to, or simply just to benefit the future generations in another way? (um, hell no, they'll spend it like water). No wonder the issue is so damned contentious. You've got both sides of the argument trying to solve the problem of sustainability with 'free markets' vs 'compensation'. Free markets obviously don't work, they'll take every ounce, drop or joule if they can make a profit from it. And compensation doesn't work as it hampers legitimate mining organisations in uncompetitive ways. Unfortunately... we'll never get sustainability. The capitalist model of 'growth growth growth' means that we crave capital investment, more profits, bigger mining industries, terminal prosperity... We can also think of these arguments as short-term vs long-term. The 'free markets' argument is short-term thinking. We'll be okay tomorrow, next year, next decade, maybe longer. The 'compensation' argument is long-term thinking with little consideration to the pointlessness of Government taxation and spending. No-one is right, no-one is even close. But the real solution won't be implemented due to human greed. So what now?
Stamp duty is not near enough of a percentage for the rest of us. Do you really think we will let you get away with most of the profits?
40ozs of gold per ton of gold produced..Put the gold at the Perth Mint and hold it on behalf of the people. Now thats what I call a good tax. Regards Errol 43
It is a nice sentiment, and I like it. (But...) Under what conditions is it withdrawn? Will we invest it and keep it forever like the Future Fund? By the way, 40oz's is roughly 0.12% of a tonne. That's not what i'd even call a tax. More like "look what I found on the floor of the refinery".
Dogmatrix, please enlighten us what your idea of the future fund is (was). And you are 100% wrong about free markets, They do none of the things you are talking about and if actually left free are the answer to most things. What you are referring to is corporatism and a completely different thing from a free market.
So jack up the rate. And get rid of the subsidies and rebates while you're at it. If I want to own a house, I'm going to work out how to own a house. If I can't afford it, I either work harder or I give up. Or I could spend my time whingeing about how unfair everything is. If a mining company wants to make a buck selling dirt, they're going to work out how to make a buck selling dirt too. Mining companies whinge louder than I do though.
Bingo! You just made my point. The Australian government set the goal posts for the mining companies to come in and mine. The ones that are currently in progress before the changes in taxes should stay the same. The goal posts were set, the risks weighed, and they executed. If they had gone bankrupt we wouldn't be bailing them out. It is effectively a breaking of contract and should be deemed illegal IMO. IF the govt wants to change the goal posts for future mining investment then that is their prerogative. The miners will then have the chance to weigh up the risks under the new goal posts and decide to attempt to pull it off or not. Under these circumstances, it is my prediction that companies will simply go to more friendly countries and increases in revenue will stall as "pollitical risk" in Australia has already gone through the roof in Australia since Rudd announced these measures in the first place.
and the green reaper ( bob brown) said that a higher tax on gold was a good idea because " the gold belongs to all of us". Sounds like the socialist nightmare that's bob browns wet dream.
Okay, so exchange my poor choice of term for 'corporatism'. Is my post still wrong? The Future Fund was a cheap jab at Errol. IMO it is an example of assets that were wasted by Government, but each has their own opinion of that I am sure (probably roughly proportional to how much they received). The point being that the fund didn't last long. Do you disagree?
Big deal, we have Americans who hate America, forgive them for they've not seen the light of day for moons with their heads you know where
I thought the Crown owned the mineral wealth of the country, except where native title had been re-established. This claim of paying Australians for depletion of their collective mineral wealth is just a smoke screen to encourage a false sense of righteousness for gaining popular support for more taxes. You don't own it , you never owned it. It's there, some want to mine it, others want to tax them for mining it. Just like they want to tax you for everything in your existence. . . While letting the banks and military get away with murder in the name of the latest globalist agenda. But i would sure like the greens to fund some more bike paths. . . Like trinkets to Indians.
thats right and you can add it to all public servants who get free pay from us taxpayers. Vicious circle hey?
Just before we go any further, BHP said this morning that the Australian mining industry will need and extra 170,000 workers over the next five years. The Australian mining industry isn't going anywhere except full speed ahead. Now, as far as I'm aware, the Commonwealth government can make whatever laws it likes regarding taxation. There are no contract terms with the mining industry or any other industry that it needs to fulfil. Industry is aware that governments sometimes change the rates of tax and they would have taken this into consideration when businesses start up. Yes, goal posts move. Its a fact of life and you deal with it. Lets just forget this "sovereign risk" nonsense. "Sovereign risk" is where the military seizes control of the mines and maybe kills some of the senior management who don't co-operate. In contrast to that, Australia increases the tax rates by a little bit. I also have a question about free markets: If the miners who actually operate the machinery that digs this stuff out of the ground go to the management and say they want a 4% pay increase or a bigger end of year bonus if the company does really well, is that a hideous blow against free enterprise, or is that normal market forces dictating the price of a product or service that is in high demand? Since I know the answer already, why are pay increases a normal part of doing business but a tax increase is some disgusting attack on industry?
You're missing the whole point here. This is nothing but tall poppy syndrome, from Labor the greens and anyone supporting this. They are targeting one sector just because of their success. You gave an analogy that also proved my point. The workers don't change the goal posts with their employer retrospectively they work out an agreement on future remuneration. Their old contracts are still valid. But the point is completely irrelevant in that there is no consideration of risk here. I'll give you another analogy that suits this down to the ground. You go to your bank and take out a 100k loan so you can invest in shares. The bank asks for collateral over the loan of your house and agrees to a 7% interest rate over 1 year. At the end of the year you turn that 100k into 1million and go to pay off the loan and unemcuber your house from the loan. The bank then turns around and says 'oh you made too much money from our money we want 15% or we keep title over your house'. Or an even better one, you go place a fixed price bet on Manly to win the GF. They offer you $1.55 and you make the bet and lay down 100k. After manly wins the GF, TAB Corp decides that you made too much profit and only pays out on $1.20. Bottom line is if you want more than the 42% the miners claim is their average tax+royalties. You go find a few hundred million from investors, you gather together the best expertise in the industry, you go out into the middle of the desert and find the stuff, you dig it out of the ground and get it to market then you can keep the 58% IF you pull it off. [edit] you also conveniently fail to mention that along with record profits from the miners also has come record tax revenue to the government.
IF ONLY it were only doled out to those born here! the sad truth is YOU CAN ARRIVE HERE ILLEGALLY ON A BOAT and you're STILL ENTITLED to it! if that doesn't strike you are unfair and bullsh1t then there's something seriously wrong with you mate!
There seems to be more of our mining companies being taken over by foreign companies so I don't know how much of the mineral wealth actually stays in Australia. Once all the easy minerals have been mined out they are not replaceable, this mining boom cannot last for ever, and then Australia is up the creek! What is wrong with returning some of the profits to Australians?
