The election thread - Two middle-late aged white men trying to be blokey and convincing..., same old shit, FFS.

[MasterOfReality]

C'mon MOR, that last comment is a bit OTT. The fundamentals are that the tax is based on the removal of a finite resource owned by all. If you are a service industry making a super profit - good luck to you and there is no reason to be afraid.

Fact is, through a stroke of luck we are a nation full of dirt that others want. For that luck not to benefit the nation, in particular into the long term through strategic spending, would be a great shame. This tax scheme provides a means to do this.

Any tax is always viewed as a tax grab - thats what it is... taking money from private sphere to public. In this case I am completely comfortable with the principle.

Owned by all - thats what royalties are for.

The ALP introduced the concept of a super profit - it was purely designed to tap into people's entitlement feelings about getting their 'fairer share'. A fairer share can be had by buying shares or gaining employment in the mining industry. The finite resource bit is a non argument - banks make super profits from my money, and my money is not infinite? Whats the difference?

It sets a dangerous precedent - if the ALP were true blue about this, they would levy a super profits tax on all industries, not just one based on the erroneous belief that the resources are owned by all, and somehow its tied in with superannuation increases. Its simply a smokescreen in order for them to fill their budget hole.

Yes, our nation is full of dirt that others want, but what many don't realise is we don't have a monopoly on the minerals we mine either. Copious amounts of gold, iron ore, other base metals and coal are found in other countries with some reserves equalling or exceeding ours.

 

[ando_assi]

Yes, our nation is full of dirt that others want, but what many don't realise is we don't have a monopoly on the minerals we mine either. Copious amounts of gold, iron ore, other base metals and coal are found in other countries with some reserves equalling or exceeding ours.

Good lets mine all of theirs first, that way ours will be worth more!!

 

[scblack]

Good lets mine all of theirs first, that way ours will be worth more!!

Wow! Thats a good plan.

Yes, lets mine less. Lets sell less. Lets have less jobs here. Lets have less profits. Lets have less investment returns. Lets have smaller superannuation balances. Lets have smaller GDP.

Gee, what a smart comment. You should do something useful, like run the Argentinian economy........

 

[wombat]

The finite resource bit is a non argument - banks make super profits from my money, and my money is not infinite? Whats the difference?

Come on dude, there's a pretty blatant difference, but 'finite' probably isn't the best term to describe it. Non-renewable might be better (if we ignore the environmental conotations). At the end of the day, when mineral resources are dug up and consumed that it's, they're not getting put back in there.
My money on the other hand may be used by the banks to turn a profit*, but I can always go in and get it back out if I need to. Money is also a totally different commodity in that it isn't really consumed, it's held.



*Given how much money I actually have, the idea of anyone making a noticable profit from it is kinda laugable...

 

[MasterOfReality]

Good lets mine all of theirs first, that way ours will be worth more!!

Excellent, are you going to stump up the cash to get things rolling?

Keep in mind you need at least $30 million for an initial exploration drilling program.

 

[MasterOfReality]

Come on dude, there's a pretty blatant difference, but 'finite' probably isn't the best term to describe it. Non-renewable might be better (if we ignore the environmental conotations). At the end of the day, when mineral resources are dug up and consumed that it's, they're not getting put back in there.
My money on the other hand may be used by the banks to turn a profit*, but I can always go in and get it back out if I need to. Money is also a totally different commodity in that it isn't really consumed, it's held.



*Given how much money I actually have, the idea of anyone making a noticable profit from it is kinda laugable...

Hehe, in all seriousness though I have heard about long term thinking, this is bordering on rediculous (not what you have typed but the general tripe thats spewed forth from Gillard/Swan). I know that when they are gone they wont be replaced, but given these finite minerals will be around for several hundred years further, I find the whole urgency of the ALP to increase tax on mining laughable when their assertions are taken into context, and the coincidental budget black hole that they have sitting there.

I still think if they were serious they would apply a super profits tax to all industries, not just one. Rudd did accuse the previous government of riding on the mining industry's back, but is hypocrisy at its worst

 

[smeck]

......................... For that luck not to benefit the nation, in particular into the long term through strategic spending, would be a great shame. This tax scheme provides a means to do this.

The fair share for all Australians is bogus, minerals are owned by the State, not the Commonwealth. A 'fair share for all Australians' only seems to apply when money heads to the major cities, not away. If you want a slice go and get it, if you're not prepared to contribute why are you entitled to benifit? It's a moot point anyway, the money will just be wasted.

This tax won't provide the means for much more than beaucratic and corporate bourgeois on an unprecedented scale. Government's can't tell when they're been ripped off! Let's look at what the Government have done recently, the BER. The Auditor found that the reason Governments, both State and Federal, didn't see the lack of value is they were comparing the cost of the buildings to what they thought they should cost. The fact that they were paying $5500 per m^2 for buildings Catholic shools where getting for $1400/m^2, yet thinking they were getting a good deal seems to highlight the case in point.

Figures externally audited by the mining companies should that the profits they made in Australia were reinvested in Australia. The fact that a mining company can get value for each dollar will mean that it can build bigger projects with the same number of dollars than the Government could achieve. Yes they will be mining projects and thus jobs in Mining areas, not freeways built in Melbourne, but the net result will be less jobs created as the dollars won't stretch quite as far. The people to benefit from this tax will be infrastructure companies like Laing O'Rourke, Mulitplex and the like, not you and I.

Good lets mine all of theirs first, that way ours will be worth more!!

Good point, when Africa and Brazil run out of Iron Ore in about 200 years our Iron Ore will be worth a fortune.

Mineral deposits are everywhere, contrary to popular belief geology doesn't adhere to political and cultural boundaries, we don't have the only good mineral deposits in the world. Australia has a good workforce, but the mining companies trained their blue collar workforce and they heavily subsidise the Tertiary system for related Degree courses. We have good infrastrucutre, but most Iron Ore infrastructure was built by the mining companies inside the last 50 years. Let's not give them a reason to build more somewhere else.

 

[wombat]

I still think if they were serious they would apply a super profits tax to all industries, not just one. Rudd did accuse the previous government of riding on the mining industry's back, but is hypocrisy at its worst

Yeah, I see the point, but I also think that mining is a slightly different case. That's not to say that I support the tax (to be honest I'm pretty undecided/conflicted really), I just think that it is a different industry.

One thing I have been thinking about though is what this all means for the potential success of an ETS or similar plan? I've always been under the impression that if an effective ETS is to be brought in, it's going to have to financially slug a range of industries, including mining because, well, it's kind of the point of the thing...

If the mining industry does get hurt with the RSPT is it going to provide even more ammunition for the anti-ETS movement?

 

[MasterOfReality]

Yeah, I see the point, but I also think that mining is a slightly different case. That's not to say that I support the tax (to be honest I'm pretty undecided/conflicted really), I just think that it is a different industry.

One thing I have been thinking about though is what this all means for the potential success of an ETS or similar plan? I've always been under the impression that if an effective ETS is to be brought in, it's going to have to financially slug a range of industries, including mining because, well, it's kind of the point of the thing...

If the mining industry does get hurt with the RSPT is it going to provide even more ammunition for the anti-ETS movement?

I think Australia will have to look closely at NZ as they started their ETS a few weeks ago if I recall correctly before deciding whether its really worth it.

I was thinking that the ETS would have already included something similar to the mining tax. Otherwise how else were the majority of income earners going to be compensated 120%.

 

[wombat]

I was thinking that the ETS would have already included something similar to the mining tax. Otherwise how else were the majority of income earners going to be compensated 120%.

Probably did, but I was thinking more of a potential ETS that may actually accomplish something, not that plan that Rudd presented earlier in the year.

 

[smeck]

From here

As Resources Minister Martin Ferguson told furious mining bosses in Perth he would consider further changes to the deal, Treasury secretary Ken Henry confirmed a significant rise in commodity prices had been built into the new tax forecasts compared with the original resource super-profits tax.

It should come no suprise as that a little creative accounting was used in the comparison numbers. I'm going to wait for some numbers about an increase in the PRRT receipts for a true comparison of 'lost' RSPT income.

 

[brisneyland]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/06/2945913.htm

What do you lot think?

edit: hang on, this is not what I thought it was...

 

[MasterOfReality]

Replace 'Nauru' with 'E Timor' and all is solved, apparently.

 

[scblack]

Replace 'Nauru' with 'E Timor' and all is solved, apparently.

Does it happen to sound to you, like Rudd in the lead-up to the 2007 election?

She's saying "Me Too" just like Rudd was saying to the tax rates which were put up by the Liberals.

They stand up for very very little, other than getting re-elected.

 

[FR Drew]

As opposed to Abbot who has backflipped on Howard's immigration policy and is proposing to process people onshore in Australia now?

 

[brisneyland]

They stand up for very very little, other than getting re-elected.

As opposed to EVERY OTHER POLITICIAN?

But yes, not exactly an imaginative policy.

 

[scblack]

As opposed to Abbot who has backflipped on Howard's immigration policy and is proposing to process people onshore in Australia now?

I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the word backflip.

A backflip happens when you renege on your OWN policy. Rudd backflipped on everything he ever said as we know. If Abbott changes policy from what Howard did, its not a backflip.

In any case, I do not believe you have your facts right. I just looked at the Liberal website (something I honestly never did before this minute), and Liberal policy is thus: "That is why the Coalition has announced it will restore the strong regime of border protection policies that were so effective under the last Coalition Government, in particular off shore processing in another country, temporary protection visas and being prepared to turn back the boats where the circumstances allow."

Seems to be offshore processing to me.

 

[MasterOfReality]

Does it happen to sound to you, like Rudd in the lead-up to the 2007 election?

She's saying "Me Too" just like Rudd was saying to the tax rates which were put up by the Liberals.

They stand up for very very little, other than getting re-elected.

Yes, very much so.

I don't recall any backflip from Abbott about onshore processing. If he had, it would be all that was on the news. I heard one of the shadow ministers say on the news that the coalition's policy has pretty much been consistent for however many years. I haven't been to the Liberal's website to check it out though.

From The Australian:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/pol...ustralia-by-boat/story-e6frgczf-1225888393108


Labor's policy is a wind vane - the direction that it points depends on the polls.

 

[FR Drew]

(cough), moving right wing to capture the disaffected Hanson voters (cough)

So is Labor being "wind vane" just copycat politics by being populist?

No matter what they do, you'll bitch simply because they're called the Labor party, let's not pretend otherwise.

 

[smeck]

.................No matter what they do, you'll bitch simply because they're called the Labor party, let's not pretend otherwise.

Ironic, given you criticised myself and MOR for displaying a level of knowledge of the Labor party while you've just tried to score political points on Abbott's new policy that appears to not exist. Let's not pretend you make any effort to listen to anything another politician says, your comment about immigration policy shows you spent more time typing than thinking, and even less time researching. Your statements are never objective and if referring to a Coalition MP they're nearly always derogatory, rarely can you provide anything to support your view other than political rhetoric.