GOLD TAX PUSH

[CriticalSilver]

If the greens new what they were doing, which they don't, but if they did and had the long term interests of Australins at heart, they would have that tax paid in gold and held in treasury reserves. That would make sense to me. But they just want to increase taxes so they can redistribute the money for bike paths and arts programs ... So said mr brown in the financial review today.

Just more of the same big government BS.

 

[Lovey80]

So Big AD 36% isn't enough for you to sit on your ass and do nothing for the priveledge of being born in Australia?

I think 36% is quite a fair compensation for someone else to do everything for us and we just get to sit back and spend it.

 

[940palmtx]

less gold mines = less tax

Nail hit squarely on head!
Increased taxation inevitably leads to decreased revenue.

 

[Big A.D.]

So Big AD 36% isn't enough for you to sit on your ass and do nothing for the priveledge of being born in Australia?

Not when the tax rate for writing a piece of software and selling copies of it to a billion people is 30%, no, a 6% premium for non-renewable resources isn't enough.

If you can make the gold and coal and stuff grow back, I'll argue for dumping mining royalties altogether.

 

[Ernster]

So Big AD 36% isn't enough for you to sit on your ass and do nothing for the priveledge of being born in Australia?

Sure there are many worse places to live, but since when has it been a privilege to be born in this country :/

 

[Au.Ag.Mzch]

If gold gets included then the miners will simply pass on the added cost to the refiners, who will then charge higher premiums to us when they sell us gold

On a slightly brighter note, atm the Greens are 'requesting' that gold be included, not demanding it. So it may end up that the MRRT in its current form goes through and gold miners will be unaffected.

 

[Lovey80]

So Big AD 36% isn't enough for you to sit on your ass and do nothing for the priveledge of being born in Australia?

Not when the tax rate for writing a piece of software and selling copies of it to a billion people is 30%, no, a 6% premium for non-renewable resources isn't enough.

If you can make the gold and coal and stuff grow back, I'll argue for dumping mining royalties altogether.

Without these miners the stuff in the ground is worth zero. Renewable or not if we can't get it out of the ground it is worth absolutely nothing to us all. You can't look at it as only a 6% premium because without the first 30% it is zero. The premium is either 36% (or 40% for the super tax) or zero.

 

[Lovey80]

So Big AD 36% isn't enough for you to sit on your ass and do nothing for the priveledge of being born in Australia?

Sure there are many worse places to live, but since when has it been a privilege to be born in this country :/

Are Australians not privileged to have been born in Australia? I feel very lucky to have had the luck of being born Australian as opposed to any number of third world countries.

 

[Dwayne]

So Big AD 36% isn't enough for you to sit on your ass and do nothing for the priveledge of being born in Australia?

Not when the tax rate for writing a piece of software and selling copies of it to a billion people is 30%, no, a 6% premium for non-renewable resources isn't enough.

If you can make the gold and coal and stuff grow back, I'll argue for dumping mining royalties altogether.

Without these miners the stuff in the ground is worth zero. Renewable or not if we can't get it out of the ground it is worth absolutely nothing to us all. You can't look at it as only a 6% premium because without the first 30% it is zero. The premium is either 36% (or 40% for the super tax) or zero.

that's an argument against all tax whatsoever, not really against the mining super tax as being discussed - which is another thread altogether

 

[dickmojo]

The resources belong to the State, not to the people. Big A.D is a deeply misguided ideologue who believes all the Greens myths, such as "profit is evil" and "productivity is wrong".

 

[Lovey80]

If gold gets included then the miners will simply pass on the added cost to the refiners, who will then charge higher premiums to us when they sell us gold

On a slightly brighter note, atm the Greens are 'requesting' that gold be included, not demanding it. So it may end up that the MRRT in its current form goes through and gold miners will be unaffected.

Not how it works at all. Miners don't pass on costs to anyone. The market decides how much a commodity is worth. Right now the market is deciding that gold is worth around $1660AUD for Gold. If the mining and refining cost of getting that gold out of the ground to market is $850.00 an ounce at a certain mine then the profit margin is $810 an ounce. Currently that miner will pay 30% of that to the Federal government PLUS a royalty to the state. Swan wants 40% so the miner loses another 4% just because lately commodities are showing an increased demand and the turnover of ounces of Gold, tones of coal and pounds of copper has meant that the miner and the government has seen increased amounts of income.

But because these miners are starting to make record breaking profits through their own ingenuity and hard work, the leeches of society have all of a sudden decided that they want a bigger piece of the pie.

 

[940palmtx]

If gold gets included then the miners will simply pass on the added cost to the refiners, who will then charge higher premiums to us when they sell us gold

On a slightly brighter note, atm the Greens are 'requesting' that gold be included, not demanding it. So it may end up that the MRRT in its current form goes through and gold miners will be unaffected.

Not how it works at all. Miners don't pass on costs to anyone. The market decides how much a commodity is worth. Right now the market is deciding that gold is worth around $1660AUD for Gold. If the mining and refining cost of getting that gold out of the ground to market is $850.00 an ounce at a certain mine then the profit margin is $810 an ounce. Currently that miner will pay 30% of that to the Federal government PLUS a royalty to the state. Swan wants 40% so the miner loses another 4% just because lately commodities are showing an increased demand and the turnover of ounces of Gold, tones of coal and pounds of copper has meant that the miner and the government has seen increased amounts of income.

But because these miners are starting to make record breaking profits through their own ingenuity and hard work, the leeches of society have all of a sudden decided that they want a bigger piece of the pie.

+1

 

[Ernster]

Are Australians not privileged to have been born in Australia? I feel very lucky to have had the luck of being born Australian as opposed to any number of third world countries.

Id say we use to be lucky but not so much anymore. This country has gone down the toilet in the last 10-15 years along with most of society. No more freedom, reglations, rules, fees, fines for every damn thing, high cost of living, so many idiots around and a government that loves to screw us out of every dollar they can.

As I said overall its still one of the better places to live and am grateful that I wasnt born in Iraq or somewhere like that but its just sad what we use to be and what we have become.

 

[Lovey80]

Not when the tax rate for writing a piece of software and selling copies of it to a billion people is 30%, no, a 6% premium for non-renewable resources isn't enough.

If you can make the gold and coal and stuff grow back, I'll argue for dumping mining royalties altogether.

Without these miners the stuff in the ground is worth zero. Renewable or not if we can't get it out of the ground it is worth absolutely nothing to us all. You can't look at it as only a 6% premium because without the first 30% it is zero. The premium is either 36% (or 40% for the super tax) or zero.

that's an argument against all tax whatsoever, not really against the mining super tax as being discussed - which is another thread altogether

No not an argument against tax whatsoever, just an argument that mining companies shouldn't be singled out simply because they are mining a common resource. The way Big A.D. was portraying it, the miners are getting away with only 6% when that is not the case at all.

The banks are mining every single man woman and child's wealth every time they create money out of thin air, yet neither party is advocating we "super-tax" them.

 

[Dwayne]

Without these miners the stuff in the ground is worth zero. Renewable or not if we can't get it out of the ground it is worth absolutely nothing to us all. You can't look at it as only a 6% premium because without the first 30% it is zero. The premium is either 36% (or 40% for the super tax) or zero.

that's an argument against all tax whatsoever, not really against the mining super tax as being discussed - which is another thread altogether

No not an argument against tax whatsoever, just an argument that mining companies shouldn't be singled out simply because they are mining a common resource. The way Big A.D. was portraying it, the miners are getting away with only 6% when that is not the case at all.

The banks are mining every single man woman and child's wealth every time they create money out of thin air, yet neither party is advocating we "super-tax" them.

I simply meant that your argument could also be used for Big A.D.'s software company example as well. Why should there be any tax on software given that it wouldn't have existed to be taxed if the software company didn't create it.

 

[Lovey80]

that's an argument against all tax whatsoever, not really against the mining super tax as being discussed - which is another thread altogether

No not an argument against tax whatsoever, just an argument that mining companies shouldn't be singled out simply because they are mining a common resource. The way Big A.D. was portraying it, the miners are getting away with only 6% when that is not the case at all.

The banks are mining every single man woman and child's wealth every time they create money out of thin air, yet neither party is advocating we "super-tax" them.

I simply meant that your argument could also be used for Big A.D.'s software company example as well. Why should there be any tax on software given that it wouldn't have existed to be taxed if the software company didn't create it.

Oh I get that Dwayne you were quite clear. My point was though that for the time being a corporate profit is taxable at 30% for all companies. The miners pay that plus a royalty determined by the state.

 

[dccpa]

Big A.D. Why do you think the minerals belong to you? Do you own your home or does it belong to everyone? Assuming you sell your home, do you keep the money or do we all get a share? Didn't you get to enjoy the benefits of living in a house that belonged to all of us? And you didn't keep many people employed while you lived in the house. The more I think about this, the more I realize how much you have been taking advantage of the rest of us by living in our house. Since you got the most benefit on the front end, the rest of us should get most of the benefit on the back end.

 

[Big A.D.]

The more I think about this, the more I realize how much you have been taking advantage of the rest of us by living in our house. Since you got the most benefit on the front end, the rest of us should get most of the benefit on the back end.

Why don't you take that benefit up front and give it a funky name like "Stamp Duty" so the idea catches on?

 

[Big A.D.]

So Big AD 36% isn't enough for you to sit on your ass and do nothing for the priveledge of being born in Australia?

Not when the tax rate for writing a piece of software and selling copies of it to a billion people is 30%, no, a 6% premium for non-renewable resources isn't enough.

If you can make the gold and coal and stuff grow back, I'll argue for dumping mining royalties altogether.

Without these miners the stuff in the ground is worth zero. Renewable or not if we can't get it out of the ground it is worth absolutely nothing to us all. You can't look at it as only a 6% premium because without the first 30% it is zero. The premium is either 36% (or 40% for the super tax) or zero.

No, resources in the ground are worth something because they can be dug up at a future date. Look at every single miner's stated JORC reserves if you don't believe me and then try explaining to the market why these are meaningless to the companies' valuations.

In a free market - like the one we have here - the miners can hand back the leases and walk away if they like. Someone else will come along and take their place if they think the costs involved justify the profits to be made, so what exactly is wrong with the government accepting the highest bid for the resources on our behalf?

 

[Lovey80]

Yes they are worth something but you will have to pay someone to dig them up in the future also. If you think we live in a free market then you must be on drugs. Almost every part of the market is manipulated by government.

Someone else will come along and take their place if they think the costs involved justify the profits to be made.

Why would someone do that when the government has a history of letting companies do exactly this, then if they strike it rich they change the goal posts on them and suck them dry?

so what exactly is wrong with the government accepting the highest bid for the resources on our behalf?

Please explain what you are trying to say here because you make no sense at all.