mining tax...

[pocket_cup]

this has been aaaalllllllll over the news recently, but im surprised i have seen nothing on here. (unless i have just missed it, i did do a search though)

tell us what you think about the tax? and whether it well affect us in a positive or negative way.


IMO the tax is a good idea, the mining bosses hate the idea because it is going to cost them money, i think, these huge company's wealth should be shared around, after all this is the stuff that lies beneath OUR feet! i dont think this will affect the mining companies. the minerals in the ground are worth way too much for them not to dig it up, so ofcourse they are going to dig it up.

but on the other hand, it may cause the companies to start new projects to re-coupe some of their loss, which will create more jobs, and make mining industry even stronger, but could be detrimental to the environment.

i dont really know much about the tax. if anyone is will to give a brief run-down of the scheme, im sure many would appreciate it.

 

[eyes]

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this;

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1
The sixth would pay $3
The seventh would pay $7
The eighth would pay $12
The ninth would pay $18
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do..

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.
So the first four men were unaffected.
They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers?

How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realised that $20 divided by six is $3.33.
But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving," declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works.

The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction..

Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.

In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

Edit: I don't necessarily agree with this... It just got emailed to me this morning - another interesting way to put things...

 

[PINT of Stella. mate!]

In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

For those who have a basic knowledge of natural resources, the above post is bollocks!


Sure they might start drinking overseas, but sadly countries rich in mining resources are a bit like decent pubs in the eastern suburbs: Few and far between. Primary industries are location specific. They can't be outsourced overseas. Where exactly are the mining firms going to re-locate to? I hear India and China are great countries for outsourcing too - Oh wait, they actually BUY all our resources because they don't have enough of their own... Shit... Well, what about other countries that have the same resources? Well, a great deal of them - particularly in Africa- have incredibly poor infrastructure, widespread corruption and extremely unstable local politics. Companies will still invest there but they sure as shit won't put their eggs all in one unstable revolution-prone basket.

Australia has great infrastructure, a decent educated workforce and vast mineral deposits. If there is still a profit to be made in mining here, then companies will. End of Story.

If still in doubt, look at the Norwegian Oil Industry - They have extremely high tax, a nationalised oil company (Statoil) and some of the harshest climatic conditions yet companies still operate there. The local population are a lot better off for it too with an extremely high standard of living enjoyed by all!

 

[Tomas]

In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

First google result from the UGA website:

Contrary to Internet folklore, Dr. Kamerschen is NOT the author of "Tax Cuts: A Simple Lesson in Economics" or “Bar Stool Economics” or anything similar to that. Additionally, he does NOT know who wrote it and he has no opinion on its merits.

Ie: just because it sounds right, doesnt mean it is.

 

[jumpers]

Rio Tinto said last wk (maybe wk before) that they will shelve investment plans in Aust due to new tax.
ASIC jumped on this statement - the directors have a duty of disclosure - so if they really meant this it would have big ramifications. ASIC investigated the directors of Rio in regards to shelving plans. Rio directors were then forced (by law) to issue a statement to say they WERE NOT shelving any investment plans in Australia.
The mining companies will still invest in our resources

 

[PSYCHO-T]

SNIP

POSM and EYES are both right.
There is no reason for this tax.

I dont see how the TRUE hard working aussies (those outwest/offshore) should be in the firing line and at risk of loosing their jobs So the scum of society (the drug users, metho drinkers and lazy pricks) can keep up their addictions and even get an increase in their dole payment.

Sadly i dont know enough on the taxing system
but what about maybe putting a "super extreme mega ultra cool tax" on the banks who ACTAULLY rip off the country and every Aussy out there?

But with this mining tax i know so many locals who are already at risk and have been told that why will be fired if its passed, this in turn will send my community into a more of a shit hole and put more people out on the streets mainly the small business owners who rely on these people spending their money they bring back home with them.

So to sum up
the Pro's
Junkies can afford next fix

The cons
loss of jobs
Loss of business
fall of our great nation.

 

[PSYCHO-T]

fence sitting

If you want further proof that we should not leave big decisions in the hands of the government
Look waht happend when the SEC in latrobe valley was taken over.

i think 30,000 or more jobs were lost that day.

 

[PINT of Stella. mate!]

POSM and EYES are both right.
There is no reason for this tax.

Try actually reading my post before commenting...

 

[top_dog]

I did the sums on a project I'm familiar with and with the current tax regime the NPV was about $1 Billion. With the RSPT the NPV went to -$249 Million.

Projects with high CAPEX and OPEX but low grades will suffer.

 

[thecat]

It's estimated last year BHP registered a before tax profit of $11.6 billion and paid $3.16 billion tax

Under the new system they'd pay $4.9billion which means they would still make a registered profit of over $6.5 billion there is no way they would walk away from $6.5 billion dollars profit just to save a little tax.

Remembering that the tax only applies to companies who make "super profits" and the $11.6 was profit they couldn't hide with write offs, deductions, rebates and other creative accounting.

I don't know enough about economics to say whether the TAX will be good for the country but saying companies will pack up and go else where is a bit of a stretch.

I just wonder if the tax was aimed a banks who also reap in big profit whether any one would see it as an issue or would we all be cheering?

 

[rone]

If still in doubt, look at the Norwegian Oil Industry - They have extremely high tax, a nationalised oil company (Statoil) and some of the harshest climatic conditions yet companies still operate there. The local population are a lot better off for it too with an extremely high standard of living enjoyed by all!

Quote from expat focus.com

"The cost of living in Norway is extremely high, and it was rated the second most expensive country in which to live in a 2006 Quality of Life Index, compiled by the Economist Intelligence Unit). It is the most expensive European country in which to live.

Housing, transport and restaurant costs are very high, and groceries are also costly. Alcohol and tobacco prices are particularly expensive."

So it would seem to be not all it is cracked up to be...

 

[Ivan]

Quote from expat focus.com

"The cost of living in Norway is extremely high, and it was rated the second most expensive country in which to live in a 2006 Quality of Life Index, compiled by the Economist Intelligence Unit). It is the most expensive European country in which to live.

Housing, transport and restaurant costs are very high, and groceries are also costly. Alcohol and tobacco prices are particularly expensive."

So it would seem to be not all it is cracked up to be...

You shouldn't be so selective with your statistics.

Norway maintains a Scandinavian welfare model with universal health-care, subsidized higher education, and a comprehensive social security system. Norway was ranked highest of all countries in human development from 2001 to 2007,[15] and then again in 2009.[16] It was also rated the most peaceful country in the world in a 2007 survey by Global Peace Index.[17]

Norway enjoys the world's highest quality of life, while Niger suffers the lowest, a U.N. agency said Monday, as it released a ranking that highlights the wide disparities in well-being between rich and poor countries.

Norway was followed by Australia and Iceland on the list, which drew on statistics dating from 2007, before Iceland was hit hard by the global economic crisis.

The United States was 13th.

 

[rone]

Sorry. I apologise. I just assumed that in a political discussion selective statistics were de rigeur. It is, after all, what the politicians do. I feel dirty having stooped to their level. I will shower immediately

Shan't happen again - promise

 

[Matt H]

I dont see how the TRUE hard working aussies (those outwest/offshore) should be in the firing line and at risk of loosing their jobs So the scum of society (the drug users, metho drinkers and lazy pricks) can keep up their addictions and even get an increase in their dole payment.

I really do love seeing the massive juxtaposition on rb of posts made by the educated... and the not-so...

 

[PINT of Stella. mate!]

Housing, transport and restaurant costs are very high, and groceries are also costly. Alcohol and tobacco prices are particularly expensive."

As far as the price of a pint goes, we're not far off them these days so we might as well scoop some of the benefits...

 

[PINT of Stella. mate!]

I really do love seeing the massive juxtaposition on rb of posts made by the educated... and the not-so...

I love how the phrase 'hard-working' has been used to describe the overpaid bludgers who work in the mining and oil industries. (myself included)

 

[Regan of Gong]

I don't understand the reasoning of "It's our natural resources, so we should get more of a share".

No, you shouldn't- we live in a capitalist society. If you wish to receive more of a share, start your own mining company and take it.

 

[Arete]

I don't understand the reasoning of "It's our natural resources, so we should get more of a share".

No, you shouldn't- we live in a capitalist society. If you wish to receive more of a share, start your own mining company and take it.

At the same time, once resources have been mined, no one else has the chance to come and profit from them. In addition, the land miners utilise to expolit their deposits is often permanently altered in such a manner it is no longer useable for other enterprises.

As such, I don't consider it unreasonable for miners to compensate the general public in order to carry out said activites. As for the correct way for them to make these contributions - that's another kettle of Pisces altogether...

 

[thecat]

I don't understand the reasoning of "It's our natural resources, so we should get more of a share".

No, you shouldn't- we live in a capitalist society. If you wish to receive more of a share, start your own mining company and take it.

I worked in the coalfeilds of NSW. Those mines had all their rail transport subsided, ie they didn't pay a cent to get the coal from pit to port.

Qld is set to spend something like $850 million in the next 12 months upgrading coal rail corridors and buying new trains and then another $40 million upgrading the coal terminal at Gladston.

I think it's a bit rich for mining companies to cry poor as they reap in huge profit and still get all this infrastructure supplied to them from tax payer dollars

 

[daever]

I think its shit. I've seen a lot of work stop because of the tax talk. The mining companies at the moment, are bluffing. However, if this tax goes through, they're going to try and recuperate the losses - this means less expansion, worse environmental policies, lower maintenance, lower safety, and lower pay for workers. If politicians really want to help our infrastructure they should stop selling off our public assets instead of damaging our biggest industry.