# Ken Henry Tax Reform



## Sir Osisofliver (23 April 2010)

If you weren't aware, Wayne Swan promised that Ken Henry's tax review will be presented to the public "before the May 11 Budget". So we will finally get to see it in the next couple of weeks.

Thought I would start a thread so we can all dissect it when it is released.

What I've heard of this review is downright scary.

The latest _possible_ leak is this one...

http://www.news.com.au/money/money-...ne-use-of-agents/story-e6frfmd9-1225857191011

So if this one goes ahead...the ATO will make a mint...but it's not exctly in the best interest of the average hard-working Aussie Battler

Cheers

Sir O


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (23 April 2010)

Here's another article which gives a few more hints...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/15/2873179.htm?site=thedrum

Cheers

Sir O


----------



## steptoe88 (23 April 2010)

but whats in it for poor working families, surely Kevin wont do anything bad that could affect working families?


----------



## rock86 (23 April 2010)

I am a tax accountant and to be honest salary and wage returns are our least profitably and costly type of return to complete, this system would not impact greatly on many tax agents as most of their income and profit comes from businesses (trusts, partnerships, companies & superfunds). I for one would be interested to see how they are actually proposing to do this and if it all adds up, why not impose it.


----------



## Whiskers (23 April 2010)

I wouldn't be surprised to see some sort of new or varied land tax to curb the amount of so called overseas 'Land Banking' and attempt to ease the housing land and rental supply shortage.

I also suspect there will be an attempt at wealth spreading. It's been mentioned a few times in principle but as yet nothing in policy has surfaced. Not sure exactly where they're heading, whether increased luxury item taxes or simply plugging tax haven loop holes and the like.


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (23 April 2010)

steptoe88 said:


> but whats in it for poor working families, surely Kevin wont do anything bad that could affect working families?




No of course he won't...until after the next election when he has a whole new raft of non-core promises to break. 



rock86 said:


> I am a tax accountant and to be honest salary and wage returns are our least profitably and costly type of return to complete, this system would not impact greatly on many tax agents as most of their income and profit comes from businesses (trusts, partnerships, companies & superfunds). I for one would be interested to see how they are actually proposing to do this and if it all adds up, why not impose it.




But that's my point rock86. For _Industry_ its not a particularly profitable exercise. (with the possible exception of doing that tax return for wealthy people because you can charge more). For Householders on the other hand....every little bit helps. So your comment above and the policy if this goes ahead can be interpreted as...screw the people _a small amount_, help _most of_ the Industry (and the tax office_ a lot_).

Mmm thats looking after the population.

Cheers

Sir O


----------



## Mofra (23 April 2010)

I am more interested in how the review recommendations itself will be avoied/changed by political self-interest. 

The Rudd government has thus far in its tenure displayed a level of economic mismangement that is diabolical and the idea that they will ignore large parts of the review in the belief they know better (or simply for populistic reasons) is a frightening one.


----------



## drsmith (23 April 2010)

Sir Osisofliver said:


> What I've heard of this review is downright scary.
> 
> The latest _possible_ leak is this one...
> 
> ...



This simplification makes sense but would be more transparent and simpler if the standard workplace deduction was reflected by an increase in the tax free threshold rather than a seperate deduction.


----------



## drsmith (23 April 2010)

Mofra said:


> I am more interested in how the review recommendations itself will be avoied/changed by political self-interest.



The Rudd Government's (any government for that matter but this one perhaps more so than most) core objective will be to collect more tax than it does now.

Other than that it won't be concerned about the detail beyond how it will impact their electoral prospects.


----------



## Happy (23 April 2010)

Wander if tax reform will fix that amazing need for paperwork shuffling because tax starts at about $7,000 income and some form of Government assistance applies up to about $50,000 ?


----------



## So_Cynical (23 April 2010)

Sir Osisofliver said:


> If you weren't aware, Wayne Swan promised that Ken Henry's tax review will be presented to the public "before the May 11 Budget". So we will finally get to see it in the next couple of weeks.
> 
> Thought I would start a thread so we can all dissect it when it is released.
> 
> ...




How so :dunno: the vast majority of tax returns are simple to do...and in my experience tax agents don't have a magic wand to find deductions where none exist....also its getting easier and easier to do it your self, the electronic etax has an auto complete feature now that's really good and saves heaps of time.

DIYT FTW


----------



## drsmith (23 April 2010)

Happy said:


> Wander if tax reform will fix that amazing need for paperwork shuffling because tax starts at about $7,000 income and some form of Government assistance applies up to about $50,000 ?



No, but it should.

There's too much government love for means tests.


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (27 April 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> How so :dunno: the vast majority of tax returns are simple to do...and in my experience tax agents don't have a magic wand to find deductions where none exist....also its getting easier and easier to do it your self, the electronic etax has an auto complete feature now that's really good and saves heaps of time.
> 
> DIYT FTW




Because, and I hate to sound like a broken record, you don't know what you don't know. 

Yes the vast majority of tax returns are simple to do, because the sheeple are not educated enough to know what they should be doing with their finances.

http://www.thebull.com.au/articles_detail.php?id=10976


----------



## drsmith (27 April 2010)

As a starting point deductions and rebates should not be allowed. That's the simplest solution of all. 

They should only be introduced where an overall economic or social benefit can be demonstrated. For example, if we want people to breed there should obviously be concessions for non-working spouse and children.

Additinal levies such as the medicare levy should also be intergrated into marginal tax rates.

A key test of the Henry Review will be it's recommendations and their implementation against the above principals.

Work related deductions could be removed with the proceeds used to offset the medicare levy. The remainder of the medicare levy could then be integrated into marginal tax rates.

In short we should have a taxation/welfare system with fewer loopholes and lower overall rates of tax. This would be simpler and fairer. Politically though this does not suit governments as it does not allow them to target specific groups in order to win elections.


----------



## trainspotter (30 April 2010)

Heard this morning on the TV (Gillard & Abbott debate) that super contributions will now be taxed at 30%. Abbott and Karl asked her to answer yes or no and she went into some long convaluted explanation that it is not up to her to release this kind of information and we have to wait until Sunday for the report. Karl then asked her if she knows what is in the report? She answered yes she does. Abbott then asked her if this is true. Gillard then protested her innocence that she did not know what the contents of the Henry Tax review were and even if she did she would not spill the beans. Ho hum. Abbott then questioned her if she did not know the contents then how is it that she has been leaking certain bits over the last 4 months to the media. Innocent looking Gillard then went on the attack saying that tobacco companies have contributed to the Liberal Party ?? WTF ?? Abbott backed up like a sheep with it's head caught in a barbed wire fence and went into meltdown about some "Mafia like CFMEU" type organisation that makes donations to the Labor PArty ?? WTF ???

ANYWAYS ..... big changes to superannuation on the horizon. YAY !


----------



## moXJO (30 April 2010)

trainspotter said:


> that super contributions will now be taxed at 30%.
> ANYWAYS ..... big changes to superannuation on the horizon. YAY !




I heard talk that it would be taken down to 0% tax as well. So maybe a sliding scale depending on income?


----------



## drsmith (30 April 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Heard this morning on the TV (Gillard & Abbott debate) that super contributions will now be taxed at 30%.



I hope they don't do something really stupid like Howard's high income superannuation surcharge from his first term in government.

According to the SMH, tax scales may be introduced for super with the first $5000 tax free and then moves up the scale to 30%. That would be fairer.



trainspotter said:


> Innocent looking Gillard then went on the attack saying that tobacco companies have contributed to the Liberal Party ?? WTF ?? Abbott backed up like a sheep with it's head caught in a barbed wire fence and went into meltdown about some "Mafia like CFMEU" type organisation that makes donations to the Labor PArty ?? WTF ???



I didn't see it but judging by that they still know how to get him to bite.


----------



## Julia (30 April 2010)

drsmith said:


> I didn't see it but judging by that they still know how to get him to bite.



You're so right.  That is what Mr Abbott needs to learn, i.e. not to take the bait.   He is much too reactive.


----------



## moXJO (30 April 2010)

Julia said:


> You're so right.  That is what Mr Abbott needs to learn, i.e. not to take the bait.   He is much too reactive.




Yes he still has not learnt to not take the bait. He should have just ignored it and stuck with his initial question.


----------



## trainspotter (30 April 2010)

Julia said:


> You're so right.  That is what Mr Abbott needs to learn, i.e. not to take the bait.   He is much too reactive.




Too true Julia ! Went from Karl & Abbott asking sensible questions which she could not answer (only with rhetoric) then it turned into Abbott looking like a complete goose and struggling for words when Julia Gizzard asked "So you are going to continue accepting contributions from the tobacco companies to the Liberal Party?" BA aba ab bab ababaabab Aaaaaaaaahhhh ....... (stupid look on face) "We will accept any legitimate donations from legitimate business's that wish to contribute to the Liberal Party" Julia Gizzardguts asks question again. Abbott goes into Chernobyl size meltdown and carries on about gangsters, CFMEU, mafia type contributions ?? WTF ??

Karl & Lisa play nicely in the background - pathetic really. Punch and Judy show.


----------



## drsmith (30 April 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Julia Gizzard asked "So you are going to continue accepting contributions from the tobacco companies to the Liberal Party?"



As a politician Tony Abbott should have been able to handle/avoid that question with ease. For a start he should have not fallen into the trap of allowing Julia Gillard to change the subject.

Learn Tony and learn quickly.


----------



## Whiskers (30 April 2010)

Gina Rinehart is leading a push by resource companies that Northern Australians deserve a tax break for putting up with snakes, extreme heat and cyclones. 

But seriously though it's about attracting workers to the top end mining projects in particular. 

Bob Katter has thrown his support behind it claiming 4000-5000 workers are needed to get projects off the ground.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/business/a-tax-break-for-putting-up-with-snakes-20100429-tuf4.html


----------



## So_Cynical (30 April 2010)

There was something in the paper today about some sort of tax break on savings, that may lure money away from housing investment, im wondering how this would work...the savings tax break i mean.


----------



## drsmith (30 April 2010)

If a national resource rent tax does not replace state mining royalties and the end result is two taxes then it will be clear the Henry Review is just a front for increasing taxes.


----------



## drsmith (30 April 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> There was something in the paper today about some sort of tax break on savings, that may lure money away from housing investment, im wondering how this would work...the savings tax break i mean.



You have to lock it away for 5 to 10 years and it will be capped at $10000 is the speculation. 

This is the sort of nonsense we should be moving away from. Banks will simply discount the interest rate on qualifying deposit products to after tax yields from non-qualifying deposits so the benefit will be more to the bank than the depositer.


----------



## Happy (30 April 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> ... im wondering how this would work...the savings tax break i mean.




Possibly some means tested tax reduction on all or part of interest earned on savings account.

(More important work for Gov machine to justify their existence)


----------



## drsmith (30 April 2010)

The Coalition Government introduced a savings rebate in the late 90's. 15% tax rebate on interest earned up to a maximum of $3000 IIRC.

It didn't last very long.

If the government is serious about encouraging deposits then a simple option would be to make the first $xxxx ($1000 for example) of interest income tax exempt. This would do much to encourage a broader savings culture from the population as a whole.


----------



## Julia (30 April 2010)

drsmith said:


> As a politician Tony Abbott should have been able to handle/avoid that question with ease. For a start he should have not fallen into the trap of allowing Julia Gillard to change the subject.
> 
> Learn Tony and learn quickly.



It's peculiar, isn't it.  Tony Abbott is far from silly.  You'd think he'd have mastered the very basic art of not being diverted by now.
This is the sort of stuff that worries the electorate.  In one sense, we like that he's basically fairly straightforward and outspoken, but he has the most immense capacity to stuff up what should be pretty damn simple.

What he needs is someone like Nick Minchin sitting on his shoulder all the time.


----------



## drsmith (30 April 2010)

Julia said:


> This is the sort of stuff that worries the electorate.



Indeed.

A leader needs to be able to contain their emotions when under the pump to inspire confidence.


----------



## So_Cynical (30 April 2010)

drsmith said:


> If the government is serious about encouraging deposits then a simple option would be to make the first $xxxx ($1000 for example) of interest income tax exempt. This would do much to encourage a broader savings culture from the population as a whole.




mmm ill vote #1 for that.  would have no impact on the ease of doing a tax return as well and wouldn't need to be means tested as it wouldn't influence anyone will money...and that's probably what they need to encourage, people with money to save money.


----------



## son of baglimit (30 April 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> ...and that's probably what they need to encourage, people with money to save money.





i understand your point, but disagree. people with money need to do the things they are famous for, being creating opportunities for themselves thru large scale investment (property devel, business, venture capital, anything entrepreneurial) and ultimately creating employment and income for the masses. the masses then need to be encouraged to put money aside for a rainy day/save for that home purchase and not feel the need to blow every dollar they earn, due to the interest being taxed at say 30%, or the interest earned reducing the centrelink benefits received (pls dont begin arguments on that here).

bank interest, and that means simple bank interest earned in easily accessible, common accounts, including fixed term deposits or compounding interest accounts, only invested with institutions with home & small business lending policies (not merchant banks etc) need to have some level of 'tax free threshold' as incentive for the masses to actually put some money aside.
and likewise that same threshold provided to encourage those receiving centrelink payments to put something aside and not lose 50c in every dollar of interest earned.

REAL INCENTIVES TO HAVE THE MASSES SAVE SOMETHING, AND NOT SPEND EVERYTHING.


----------



## Whiskers (1 May 2010)

Now they're talking!



> *Small business 'to win tax breaks' *
> 
> 1st May 2010
> 
> ...


----------



## Calliope (1 May 2010)

Rudd is rat cunning. He is targeting those his constituent dislikes like smokers, big resource companies and the rich in general.

He is favouring the popular small business sector and of course working families.

This is great wedge politics.


----------



## Julia (1 May 2010)

Re smokers, aren't the small number of Australians who smoke likely to have been Labor voters?  Won't he lose their votes?
Although no one will oppose the additional tax on cigarettes, most people will see it for what it is, i.e. a tax grab pure and simple rather than any concern about the health of smokers.  It's one way of generating some funding for all his stuff-ups that he knows the Opposition will not resist.


----------



## nulla nulla (2 May 2010)

Personaly I think the tax grab on cigaretes is most likely an enforcement of the user pays principal. Cigarete smokers are the biggest and most expensive drain on the health system. Kevin Rudd has to fund his proposed national program from somewhere and cigarete smokers are the logical choice. However it may back fire on him, as Julia points out there are a lot of smokers out there in the labour heartlands.


----------



## Julia (2 May 2010)

Nulla, as I understand it, the taxes on cigarettes more than pay for the cost of smoking related illness.
I'd be more impressed by this additional tax if it were to pay to put 'quit smoking' medications on the PBS.  That would at least be an indication the government was sincerely concerned to reducing smoking.


----------



## Julia (2 May 2010)

Superannuation contributions to rise from 9% to 12%.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/fede...olution-levy-to-jump-to-12-20100502-u0tu.html


----------



## Sean K (2 May 2010)

Julia said:


> Superannuation contributions to rise from 9% to 12%.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/business/fede...olution-levy-to-jump-to-12-20100502-u0tu.html



This is going to put a lot of stress on business isn't it? I wonder if wage increases will freeze to compensate. Surely. And then, what's the net gain? Nada. I suppose it's forced savings, something we're not very good at. Will be interesting to see how it pans out. 

The mining tax could be one of the storms brewing out there about to collide...


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (2 May 2010)

Julia said:


> Superannuation contributions to rise from 9% to 12%.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/business/fede...olution-levy-to-jump-to-12-20100502-u0tu.html



And how will small businesses be affected by this?


----------



## Gerkin (2 May 2010)

0.25% increase in 2013/2014 then 0.50%PA therefter.

not too bad on businesses.... considering the write offs availiable for small businesses


----------



## Krusty the Klown (2 May 2010)

Wayne Swan called this "the biggest tax reform of our lifetime."

It's more like the biggest anti-climax of our lifetime.

All this stuff is just more of what we get each year in the annual budget.

What a fizzer.:dunno:


----------



## sammy84 (2 May 2010)

How long again did it take Ken Henry to come up with this review?! That was an utter waste of time and resources. Instead of reform we got a few tweaks to the system.


----------



## noco (2 May 2010)

Krudd and the goose have cherry picked all the sweetners and dropped the bad bits.

Must be election year!!!!!!!!!!!!What else could anyone expect from Labor who are desperate to turn the polls around?


----------



## Calliope (2 May 2010)

*Government wimps out on true tax reform*

As David Koch says;



> I suppose we should have all known this would happen. This was meant to be the tax version of the 2020 Summit. Nothing has come of that either.




http://www.news.com.au/money/money-...eform-david-koch/story-e6frfmd9-1225861173369


----------



## JTLP (2 May 2010)

Wonder what sort of bloodbath we will see come Monday for resource stocks...40% tax on super profits 

Typical lack of hindsight that could be a very interesting turning point...wonder if WA will break away and become their own? I'd join :

Also...why with mounting debt would you reduce company tax...somebody please explain.


----------



## sammy84 (2 May 2010)

JTLP said:


> Wonder what sort of bloodbath we will see come Monday for resource stocks...40% tax on super profits
> 
> Typical lack of hindsight that could be a very interesting turning point...wonder if WA will break away and become their own? I'd join :
> 
> Also...why with mounting debt would you reduce company tax...somebody please explain.




I'm pretty sure this has been factored in already. Enough was leaked about the initiatives and they had to be paid for someway.


----------



## gooner (2 May 2010)

kennas said:


> This is going to put a lot of stress on business isn't it? I wonder if wage increases will freeze to compensate. Surely. And then, what's the net gain? Nada. I suppose it's forced savings, something we're not very good at. Will be interesting to see how it pans out.
> 
> The mining tax could be one of the storms brewing out there about to collide...




Companies will just cut wage increases to compensate - that is what happened before.  As you say forced saving for everyone.


----------



## Calliope (2 May 2010)

After splurging the Howard legacy, Rudd complained that he would have had more money to waste if Howard had plundered the big resource industries.

Rudd should thank God every night for the profitability of the resource industries, without them we would be a basket case like Greece.

He is now going to squeeze them dry to get his hands on the shareholder's profits.


----------



## Alpha_Bet (2 May 2010)

Interesting opinions expressed here.
Anyone aware of any changes to self managed superannuation and the ATO's treatment of works of art, automobiles, racehorses etc. Was mooted but have been unable to find any information post Henrys' reform release. Bet the Fin Review flies off news stand tomorrow.


----------



## drsmith (2 May 2010)

Krusty the Klown said:


> Wayne Swan called this "the biggest tax reform of our lifetime."



It's now in the same catagory as "the biggest moral challenge of our time", out the door.

The baby might be gone but some of the bathwater has been retained. Firstly, there's an oversized shirt from the child's wardrobe, a wish for a smooth Chinese growth path and a copy of the fairy tale "L-A-W tax cuts" by Paul Keating.

The smell coming from inside the car is from the child called NBN. It's just pooped itself.


----------



## Wysiwyg (2 May 2010)

Calliope said:


> He is now going to squeeze them dry to get his hands on the shareholder's profits.




If Labor hold government and the RSPT is implemented from 2012, then maybe the speculative end of the market will get more involvement. I would like to see that.


----------



## sammy84 (2 May 2010)

Wysiwyg said:


> If Labor hold government and the RSPT is implemented from 2012, then maybe the speculative end of the market will get more involvement. I would like to see that.




Very good point. I can't see how any of these new measures will be bad news for the market. More money into super=more cash inflows into the market. There have been new measures implemented to help exploration miners etc. Lower company tax rate. I guess the only, and biggest losers in all this, will be BHP and RIO.

It will be interesting to see who gets captured under the RSPT. It will also interesting and how many JV and holding companies are going to be created in order to try and escape this tax.


----------



## skyQuake (2 May 2010)

Still reading through it, any idea what will happen to the mid caps? Some of them don't have mines in Aus.


----------



## Calliope (2 May 2010)

sammy84 said:


> Enough was leaked about the initiatives and they had to be paid for someway.




That's right, and the Big Resources Tax Grab is to replace the billions squandered in the failed stimulus scheme.

Abbott was dealt from a stacked deck again tonight on the wormed presentations of him and Rudd on Channel 7. How can you compete for popularity against someone whose tax agenda is to rob the rich to give to the poor.


----------



## Gerkin (2 May 2010)

Alpha_Bet said:


> Interesting opinions expressed here.
> Anyone aware of any changes to self managed superannuation and the ATO's treatment of works of art, automobiles, racehorses etc. Was mooted but have been unable to find any information post Henrys' reform release. Bet the Fin Review flies off news stand tomorrow.




Thats in the Cooper review part III......government will most likely adopt it too, dont thik it will be retrospecive though, think that it moght e whatever you have in them now can stay but no nw purchases


----------



## So_Cynical (2 May 2010)

skyQuake said:


> Still reading through it, any idea what will happen to the mid caps? Some of them don't have mines in Aus.




Thinking the same thing, lotsa mid caps pay royalty's offshore so its not like the Fed govt is going to reimburse them...are they?

They shouda released this on Saturday so there was time to digest it before the market opens tomorrow....there so many questions.


----------



## condog (2 May 2010)

Easily the worst PM this nation has ever had the unfortunate experience to witness. Welcome back debt, welcome back higher taxes, welcome back higher interest rates.

Complete morons.


----------



## Whiskers (2 May 2010)

noco said:


> Krudd and the goose have cherry picked all the sweetners and dropped the bad bits.




I haven't studied all the detail yet, cos I had a Sunday arvo nap (after a hard morning of course) and missed the news. 

But, I'm curious about *which "bad" bits you think they should adopt*.



> *What the Government won't pick up*
> 
> While the report was released today, the Treasurer was quick to list certain parts of the review the Government definitely won't be implementing, in the "interests of business and community certainty".
> 
> ...






> Must be election year!!!!!!!!!!!!What else could anyone expect from Labor who are desperate to turn the polls around?




Well, I don't live for politics, but last I saw an election was near and the gov was in the lead. 

PS: I'm having a quiet ale atm (including the damn cat having a lick of the bottle while my back was turned) and wondering whether you may have had one too many today, Calliope. 



Calliope said:


> That's right, and the Big Resources Tax Grab is to replace the billions squandered in the failed stimulus scheme.




But the "stimulus scheme" in so far as stimulating the economy was almost too much of a success, what with inflation looking like popping out the top end of the ideal range.


----------



## trainspotter (2 May 2010)

40% tax on resource companies? Wtf ?? This is not a tax reform? This is just a tax grab. I would be predicting that a lot of mining companies will now not proceed on many future projects due to reduced profit margins involved.


----------



## Whiskers (2 May 2010)

trainspotter said:


> 40% tax on resource companies? Wtf ?? This is not a tax reform? This is just a tax grab. I would be predicting that a lot of mining companies will now not proceed on many future projects due to reduced profit margins involved.




I'm curious to see the effect of this new resource tax. However I can't see resource companies that are making mega profits shutting down business. 

In principal I don't have a problem with reducing company tax and increasing exploration deductions/rebates etc and returning more of the resource profits to the community as opposed to going to overseas shareholders for example. 

But, what exactly does the _windfall_ in "40 per cent tax on windfall mining profits" mean and what part or level of profit exactly does it apply to?

So far I've only heard that it's an extension of the resource rent taxes and only applies to companies making mega profits. Is that mega as in net or % terms?


----------



## noco (2 May 2010)

trainspotter said:


> 40% tax on resource companies? Wtf ?? This is not a tax reform? This is just a tax grab. I would be predicting that a lot of mining companies will now not proceed on many future projects due to reduced profit margins involved.




yes, they are already talking $150 billion in cap-ex reduction. AS ANDREW fORESTER SAID, "Rudd will kill the goose that lays the golden egg"!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!


----------



## nunthewiser (2 May 2010)

Thinks a few penny dreadful explorers may be worth spots on your watchlists.

Heres a starting point for researching some ....

http://www.miningandexploration.com.au/Companies/index.html

Crashnburn BHP


----------



## Julia (2 May 2010)

sammy84 said:


> How long again did it take Ken Henry to come up with this review?! That was an utter waste of time and resources. Instead of reform we got a few tweaks to the system.



I don't know what was contained in Ken Henry's final document, but let's remember the government has taken months to digest it and cherrypick what they are prepared to adopt, i.e. what is most likely to get them re-elected.
Tax reform?   Hardly.
It will be interesting to hear the mining companies' response tomorrow.


----------



## moXJO (2 May 2010)

Pretty mild, timeframe is fairly large on some of the reforms. Small business changes are a small small step in the right direction. Be interesting to see what the libs come up with.


----------



## drsmith (2 May 2010)

It will be even more interesting to see if China catches an economic cold by the time the so called resources super profit tax kicks in.


----------



## Sean K (2 May 2010)

I do hope that the public has had time to consume this information and really understand it.

I have no idea how it will effect miners, and I've been studying them for a bit.

eeeek


----------



## Calliope (2 May 2010)

Whiskers said:


> But the "stimulus scheme" in so far as stimulating the economy was almost too much of a success, what with inflation looking like popping out the top end of the ideal range.




The stimulus packages were designed to waste money and in this sense they were a success.



> PS: I'm having a quiet ale atm (including the damn cat having a lick of the bottle while my back was turned) and wondering whether you may have had one too many today, Calliope.




Why the snide remark?


----------



## haggis (2 May 2010)

The time frame is interesting.I would love to see a list of allowable right offs for small business, and junior explorers.
It will be interesting to see the effect on the superanuation options markets!


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (3 May 2010)

Ok For anybody looking for Ken Henry's document...here it is
http://taxreview.treasury.gov.au/content/Content.aspx?doc=html/pubs_reports.htm

Anyone looking for what the Government will be introducing look here
http://www.futuretax.gov.au/pages/default.aspx

Still going over it all.

Cheers

Sir O


----------



## Calliope (3 May 2010)

It is not tax reform. It is a political document put together by cherry picking Ken Henry's recommendations.

It is a pre-election manifesto designed to please more people than it will annoy.

Meanwhile Ruddy and Swanny are leading the Labor Party Holiday march in Brisbane, both wearing big smirks as well they might.


----------



## Solly (3 May 2010)

Looks like a political compromise


----------



## trainspotter (3 May 2010)

kennas said:


> I do hope that the public has had time to consume this information and really understand it.
> 
> I have no idea how it will effect miners, and I've been studying them for a bit.
> 
> eeeek




Tax will go from 43% to 57% for the miners on their profits. Interesting to note that the mining companies have contributed most to the governement in the way of taxes over the last three years. Media and Labor is portraying this as a "distribution" of Australias wealth? Tax Grab IMO. Apparently justifiable because he Govt needs this money to fund the SGC from 9% to 12% by the year 2020. 

Ummmmmmmm I must be really thick (flame on) but as an employer I am the one that pays the Superannuation Guarantee Contibutions into my employees compliant funds. The Govt does not assist me in this at all ?

1) Tax the living Bejeezus out of the only sector making a profit.

2) Top up super funds to 12% contributions by the year 2020 with employers money.

3) Drop company tax from 30% flat rate to 28% by 2013/14??? WTF ??? Let's say one of my companies makes $100,000 profit nett. SO therefore I am better off by NOT paying the tax man a lousy $2,000? When that 2k could have gone into paying a policeman, nurse, school teacher wage?

Yeppers ....... Great stuff here ..... thank you Mong Khan Kluddy for these scintillating tax reforms. But wait, there is more ..... this in only the "first wave" of the reform. I better go and get my surfboard (the real big one) to be able to catch these tsunami like monsters broaching the reef.


----------



## JTLP (3 May 2010)

Factored in Sammy? Miners are getting spanked in early trade. See BRM and other I/o hopefuls...


----------



## Julia (3 May 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Tax will go from 43% to 57% for the miners on their profits. Interesting to note that the mining companies have contributed most to the governement in the way of taxes over the last three years.



TS, can you - or anyone else - explain how this works?
How does it fit with the current system of royalties (which I don't really understand either)?
I get the impression the additional 40% is not going to apply across the board and some explorers will be better off.

If anyone has worked all this out and can explain it in a simple form, I'd be appreciative.

So far the miners are surely getting hammered this morning, plus companies in mining related industries.  In my p/f only the banks are slightly up!


----------



## vincent191 (3 May 2010)

I think the mining sector has over reacted. The proposed tax reforms are by no means a foregone conclusion. It still has to be agreed by the States and then go through both houses of parliament and the senate.

The mining companies especially BHP & RIO and the Unions are very powerful lobby groups. I doubt very much that the proposed tax changes will ever become law in it's present form. 

I am betting on significant changes to the proposed tax reform and start accumulating some mining shares, afterall isn't it pure madness to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs?  Force it to lay a few more eggs but don't kill it.


----------



## bellenuit (3 May 2010)

Articles in the press mention royalties paid to the states will be refunded. I don't understand the mechanics of how that works yet, but taken at face value, wouldn't that be an incentive for the states to raise royalties (if they are allowed do that). They will only be clawing back some of what would have gone to Canberra. It would be no extra impost to the miners.


----------



## skyQuake (3 May 2010)

Miners that have their mines o/s are unaffected, eg PDN, MBN, EQN etc... In fact I think they'll benefit from the lower company tax (28%)


----------



## noco (3 May 2010)

Whiskers said:


> I haven't studied all the detail yet, cos I had a Sunday arvo nap (after a hard morning of course) and missed the news.
> 
> But, I'm curious about *which "bad" bits you think they should adopt*.




Firstly, Rudd has only selected 3 out of 138 reforms set up by Henry at a cost of $10million over 18 months.

* Rudd chickened out out on 'land tax on the family home'.
* Rudd chickened out on 'the fuel excise  tax'.
* Rudd chickened out on  'the congestion tax'.
Just to name a few.

Why? because it would affect his poll ratings before the slection. But surprise, surprise, you won't like their next budget in 2011 if they get reelected 

He wants to impose an increase of the supperannuation from 9% to 12% on business, something Henry did not reccomend. Another sweetner for the rax payers.

His 40% profit sharing tax on miners is absolute madness. The Miners are already talking a cut back on cap-ex to the tune of $150billion. How will that affect supporting business? No doubt a loss of jobs!!!!


----------



## trainspotter (3 May 2010)

Sorry guys, should have qualified the nitty gritty a bit better. I should have written that it is the "effective tax rate" applicable to these numbers.

Mining companies are currently paying around 43 cents in the dollar on profit that they make. This is made up of 30% company tax, land tax, state royalties along with a plethora of other indirect taxes resulting in the magic number. Extraction costs I believe have some tax surrounding them as well?

Under the plan, from July 1, 2012, resources companies will be liable for a 40 per cent tax on profits made from the exploitation of non-renewable resources. Add in all the other taxes mentioned above and Viola ! 57 cents in the dollar GONE to Ming Pong Kuddy and the ATO.


----------



## professor_frink (3 May 2010)

Is there anywhere that we can read what all of the recommendations in the review were?


----------



## GCrenegade (3 May 2010)

Download the report from this link in Sir Osisofliver post earlier on this page and 
there is a list of recommendations from page 105


----------



## professor_frink (3 May 2010)

GCrenegade said:


> Download the report from this link in Sir Osisofliver post earlier on this page and
> there is a list of recommendations from page 105




Cheers mate.

Dunno how I missed that


----------



## Wysiwyg (3 May 2010)

Terry McCrann


> Not so with Rudd's new tax. It assumes China will keep booming and its money will keep pouring into our resources industry.




And they would not be so silly to know otherwise and propose this profit tax. The Mid West iron ore of W.A is being opened up, the gas/oil business is growing, the Pilbara is expanding.  Don't know what's happening elsewhere. Maybe uranium mining will be allowed to expand.

Plenty of opportunities. That outlier is waiting with open arms.


----------



## Whiskers (3 May 2010)

Calliope said:


> The stimulus packages were designed to waste money and in this sense they were a success.
> 
> You certainly make some bewildering statements, Calliope.
> 
> Why the snide remark?




Not snide at all (Snide: Derogatory in a malicious, superior way) compared to the 'snide' remarks you continually lob on me and others on this forum.

T'was rather conversational to try to rationalise some of your incongruent critique. Simply, you're sounding like the proverbial 'winger'.

Dare I try to get you to make a 'constructive' comment... what Henry tax reform measures do you think the gov should implement, or not impliment and a brief reason explination would also be good?


----------



## Calliope (3 May 2010)

Whiskers said:


> Not snide at all (Snide: Derogatory in a malicious, superior way) compared to the 'snide' remarks you continually lob on me and others on this forum.
> 
> T'was rather conversational to try to rationalise some of your incongruent critique. Simply, you're sounding like the proverbial 'winger'.
> 
> Dare I try to get you to make a 'constructive' comment... what Henry tax reform measures do you think the gov should implement, or not impliment and a brief reason explination would also be good?




Sorry. I Know you are being deliberately provocative, but I am not taking the bait. Try to stick to the topic.


----------



## Whiskers (3 May 2010)

Wysiwyg said:


> Terry McCrann
> 
> 
> And they would not be so silly to know otherwise and propose this profit tax. The Mid West iron ore of W.A is being opened up, the gas/oil business is growing, the Pilbara is expanding.  Don't know what's happening elsewhere. Maybe uranium mining will be allowed to expand.
> ...




Yeah, it seems to me that assuming the gov gets all that they want (worst case scenerio) there is not going to be much change for a couple of years and probably 5 to 10 years before all their proposed measures kick in. 

Plenty of money to be made in the mean time. 

From a cursory analysis any CEO or director worth their salt could do some restructuring of their budget and or corporate structure in the meantime to mitigate any 'windfall' or 'super' tax and exploit the exploration and development deductions/rebates... ie accelerate the development of new projects.

PS: T'is just a cursory thought, but it may help to level the playing field to stifle conglomerates dominating and enable more competition from emerging producers.


----------



## drsmith (3 May 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Mining companies are currently paying around 43 cents in the dollar on profit that they make. This is made up of 30% company tax, land tax, state royalties along with a plethora of other indirect taxes resulting in the magic number. Extraction costs I believe have some tax surrounding them as well?
> 
> Under the plan, from July 1, 2012, resources companies will be liable for a 40 per cent tax on profits made from the exploitation of non-renewable resources. Add in all the other taxes mentioned above and Viola ! 57 cents in the dollar GONE to Ming Pong Kuddy and the ATO.



It would be interesting to know from where the above numbers are sourced and how our overal tax percentages of resources compare with other resourced based economies globally, both current and post RSPT

The following describes how the RSPT will operate and its interaction with state royalties. 

http://www.futuretax.gov.au/pages/AFairShareFromOurNaturalResources.aspx



> The RSPT will apply a 40 per cent tax to profits from resource projects after allowing for extraction costs and recouping capital investment.
> 
> Companies will not pay RSPT until after they provide shareholders with a normal return on capital investments (In relatio to a normal I've seen references to the 10yr bond rate in the mediea in relation to this, currently ~6% or so reported). The generous tax treatment of capital investment under the RSPT, compared with the royalty regimes, will improve the viability of many less immediately profitable mining ventures, boosting investment and jobs in the sector.
> 
> ...



If it replaces state royalties then the underlying principal sounds fair to me. The questions though are the minimum rate of return where the RSPT kicks in and then the tax rate to be levied. Fundamentally, they need to be set at rates so the overall tax take is internationally competitive to attract future capital investment. These matters I suspect are ultimately what resource industries and government will haggle.

*Should the return threshold for the RSPT be higher given increased risk over 10yr bonds ?*



> The States will be able to keep their existing royalties, but current State royalty payments will be refunded to companies. Refunding State royalties under the RSPT will remove their economic effect.
> 
> Introducing the RSPT, along with refunding State royalties and removing Australian Government resource charges and taxes, is expected to increase GDP in the order of 0.3 per cent in the long run.



State royalties will be offset against the RSPT so the RSPT is not in addition to state royalties. The approach though is messy and hence closer to a simple tax increase rather than true reform.

*What happens when a resource company is liable for more tax under an existing state royalty than they are under the RSPT ? 
Do they get a refund on the difference and if so who pays (state or federal) ?*

If not, then the (so called) generous tax treatment of capital investment under the RSPT, compared with the royalty regimes, will improve the viability of many less immediately profitable mining ventures, boosting investment and jobs in the sector is a lie for those ventures at least.

*How will the refunding of state royalties be managed ?*

This should be purely be up to state and federal governments as they are the ones that cannot agree on a single tax. It should not be up to resource companies to file a rebate for state royalties.


----------



## Calliope (3 May 2010)

Herald Sun readers are not impressed;

Results: Henry Review
Thanks for voting!

Will the Henry Review tax changes make you more likely to re-elect Kevin Rudd?
Yes
8.51% (267 votes)
No
91.49% (2870 votes)
Total votes: 3137


----------



## Whiskers (3 May 2010)

Calliope said:


> Sorry. I Know you are being deliberately provocative, but I am not taking the bait. Try to stick to the topic.




Indeed I'm setting bait trying to provoke you to give some constructive options/opinions about the topic, ie what you would like changed or not... because without some leadership your eternal criticism is akin to a loose cannon hell bent on blowing things up for the want of blowing things up.

There's an old saying that if you are intent on criticising something, unless you have a better alternative, t'is wise to shut up.

It seems to me, inevetable and consistant with reforms from Keating to Howard, that lower company tax, more deductions and rebates for small business, increased super contributions to name a few would eventuate. 

Do you oppose this? Your gereric and persistant criticism suggests you do and would prefer nothing to change or that you want some of those other 'untouchable with a barge pole' recommendations as it was put, to be implemented.


----------



## nioka (3 May 2010)

After looking at all the pros and cons on this matter I am in favour of the resource tax. What needs to be born in mind is the foreign ownership of a very large percentage of our resource companies. This ownership increased dramatically over recent years at very low prices. I look at this tax as going some of the way to reclaiming back some of the farm.

If these companies facing the cost of the tax were basically Australian owned my view would be different. They aren't.


----------



## Julia (3 May 2010)

vincent191 said:


> I think the mining sector has over reacted. The proposed tax reforms are by no means a foregone conclusion. It still has to be agreed by the States and then go through both houses of parliament and the senate.



In addition, Wayne Swan indicated in a Radio National interview this morning that the 40% was more or less nominal at this stage and that he expected some 'consultation' with the mining companies.


----------



## Julia (3 May 2010)

> The States will be able to keep their existing royalties, but current State royalty payments will be refunded to companies. Refunding State royalties under the RSPT will remove their economic effect.



I'm probably being dumb, but how does this tie up with the Qld Treasurer this morning saying they were in favour of the change *as it would not affect Queensland's royalties*?


----------



## drsmith (3 May 2010)

Julia said:


> In addition, Wayne Swan indicated in a Radio National interview this morning that the 40% was more or less nominal at this stage and that he expected some 'consultation' with the mining companies.



I suspect the return on investment threshold is in the same boat.

Resource companies are screaming "throat cut" as their opening shot in negotiations. Ultimately the rate will be less or their may be a timed increase to 40% and/or increased return threshold. Politically the government will sell this as a positive and will be looking to reach agreement before the election. It will be interesting to see how much slack their is between their current suggestion and the final outcome. Tony Abbott needs to be careful not to paint himself into a corner from the outset.

A fundamental problem with a resources super profit tax (or any super profit tax) is that it will be highly volatile. Goverments will want to be cautious when considering how much of it to squirrel away in good times.


----------



## Calliope (3 May 2010)

Whiskers said:


> There's an old saying that if you are intent on criticising something, unless you have a better alternative, t'is wise to shut up.




That's good advice. You should follow it. Try to stick to the topic.


----------



## Julia (3 May 2010)

Ian Huntley's view of the government's response to Henry.


> Henry: what a sick joke
> Ian Huntley  |  03 May 2010  |    |    |   Increase  |   Decrease
> 
> Page 1 of 1
> ...


----------



## Whiskers (3 May 2010)

noco said:


> Firstly, Rudd has only selected 3 out of 138 reforms set up by Henry at a cost of $10million over 18 months.
> 
> * Rudd chickened out out on 'land tax on the family home'.
> * Rudd chickened out on 'the fuel excise  tax'.
> ...




Your 'chickened out' comment seems to suggest you think Rudd should have adopted these!?

Clarify please, do you think Rudd should adopt these!?


----------



## drsmith (3 May 2010)

The principal prespective from which the goverment has considered the Henry Review is it's own survival at the next election.


----------



## Calliope (3 May 2010)

Tax Reform? I don't think so.



> After two years in the making and after sitting on the thing for almost 5 months we finally have the Rudd Government response to the Henry Review: tax the hell out of mining companies.
> 
> The Rudd Government’s revolutionary proposal following the release of the Henry Tax Review yesterday is pretty astounding in its lack of vision.
> 
> ...




http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/no-hooray-for-henry/


----------



## Whiskers (3 May 2010)

nioka said:


> After looking at all the pros and cons on this matter I am in favour of the resource tax. What needs to be born in mind is the *foreign ownership of a very large percentage of our resource companies*. This ownership increased dramatically over recent years at very low prices. I look at this tax as going some of the way to* reclaiming back some of the farm*.
> 
> If these companies facing the cost of the tax were basically Australian owned my view would be different. They aren't.




My cursory opinion tends to agree, this is a pertinent point.

There is a lot of noise from big 'international' players like BHP which are largely foreign owned now, to not change the status quo, and a lot of political rethoric and rabble rousing ( watch them come out of the wood work), but at the end of the day there a lot of changes proposed all the way across the economic enviornment and it'll take some time for miners to consider and adjust to the proposed changing dynamics.

Also, I'm seeing a lot of critique without reference to the macro economic position and likely developments around the world as these changes are due to activate. The most essential being Aus's very low relative national debt especially compared to our main mineral competitors.

The implication is that once these other countries mineral economy has developed to a 'golden goose' stage, as it is put, that these other countries will need to capitalise at least as hard if not more because of their higher national debt. 

This has me considering the often used motor racing cliche, tis often better to pit-stop a lap or two before your oponents, ie to change tyres and fuel up to get better field position for later in the race.


----------



## trainspotter (3 May 2010)

BHP is 40% foreign owned and Rio Tinto is 70% give or take a point or two.

They have contributed the most to the Govt coffers. Why tax them out of being competitive? 

BHP chief executive Marius Kloppers said the proposal would hurt the sector’s competitiveness. 

“If implemented, these proposals seriously threaten Australia’s competitiveness, jeopardise future investments and will adversely impact the future wealth and standard of living of all Australians,” Mr Kloppers said. 

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...ces-tax-pd20100502-53B3N?OpenDocument&src=tnb

Meanwhile, Rio Tinto managing director Australia David Peever said the miner was concerned at the "apparently arbitrary way" in which the new tax had been set at 40 per cent. 

"Taxing 40 per cent of profits over the long-term bond rate, together with corporation tax, would make the Australian minerals sector the highest taxed in the world, seriously eroding competitiveness," Mr Peever said.


----------



## Bushman (3 May 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Meanwhile, Rio Tinto managing director Australia David Peever said the miner was concerned at the "apparently arbitrary way" in which the new tax had been set at 40 per cent.




This is a 'shoot first, ask questions later' government. They rush out policy and then watch the damage unfold. ETS, insulation, BER, relaxation of FIRB rules. 

The hope is that this is also a 'backflip' government as Rudd is the most reactive and paranoid leader Australia has ever witnessed IMO. So there is hope yet. 

The Coalition is murmuring about blocking the budget in the Senate. Lol! They would be itching to have a crack at tweedle dee and tweedle dum at the moment.


----------



## SmellyTerror (3 May 2010)

Julia said:


> Henry: what a sick joke
> Ian Huntley
> 
> ...
> My personal view is that Tony Abbott, foot in mouth and all, looks better each day.




Love to see a list from the opposition saying which Henry recommendations *they* intend to implement. Shouldn't be hard, surely...

Australia has become gutless, and we get the gutless politics we deserve.


----------



## drsmith (3 May 2010)

trainspotter said:


> "Taxing 40 per cent of profits over the long-term bond rate, together with corporation tax, would make the Australian minerals sector the highest taxed in the world, seriously eroding competitiveness," Mr Peever said.



If Tony Abbott has even half a brain, Malcolm Turnbull's first job will be to read the detail of the Henry Review.

The Coalition should also reach out to resource business leaders with the aim of reaching some sort of agreement about the rate and threshold for this tax (such that it does not erode international competitiveness) before the ALP do.

He has a Coalition ally in the WA government so he can potentially use this to negotiate a more efficient underlying structure than what the government has put forward.


----------



## Whiskers (3 May 2010)

trainspotter said:


> BHP is 40% foreign owned and Rio Tinto is 70% give or take a point or two.
> 
> They have contributed the most to the Govt coffers. Why tax them out of being competitive?




Yes they have contributed significantly to the gov coffers, but *I recall someone quoteing figures that these company profits (much going overseas) have increased exponentially more over recent years than the Aus tax take*. 

I'd suggest past and arguably current corruption allegations in WA and now Qld where the states collect the mineral royalties and big political donations from the big miners for political favors re mineral leases and developments, that they have left their very fat pork bellies very exposed for someone like Rudd to corner them for a feast of his own. 

Not justifying one way or other, but they have made themselves a very conspicious increased tax target. 

Taking the devils advocate position, maybe they'll spend more on exploration and development now to develop more projects as opposed to 'cherry picking' the most cost effective prospects they want to develop and useing their monolopy to just sit on many others until they get a sale price they demand or eventually relinquish, forcing big delays or preventing smaller and even private operators getting in on the act.


----------



## sammy84 (3 May 2010)

JTLP said:


> Factored in Sammy? Miners are getting spanked in early trade. See BRM and other I/o hopefuls...




Yeah I was completely wrong there. I have taken today as a buying opportunity however as there seems to have been overreactions all over the blace e.g BRM


----------



## Calliope (3 May 2010)

Spineless Rudd has chickened out on Tax Reform.


----------



## trainspotter (3 May 2010)

Whiskers said:


> Yes they have contributed significantly to the gov coffers, but *I recall someone quoteing figures that these company profits (much going overseas) have increased exponentially more over recent years than the Aus tax take*.
> 
> I'd suggest past and arguably current corruption allegations in WA and now Qld where the states collect the mineral royalties and big political donations from the big miners for political favors re mineral leases and developments, that they have left their very fat pork bellies very exposed for someone like Rudd to corner them for a feast of his own.
> 
> ...




Tax rate has remained equivalent to the rise in resource income:- On Saturday, for example, Swan argued: "There are some figures that are worth bearing in mind when it comes to mining taxes. "At the beginning of the 2000s, or around that date, something like one in three dollars in mining profit was returned to the Australian people. Now it's more like one in seven."

Now Swan knows only too well that statement is wildly misleading. He was actually talking about the states' royalties, not the total tax take.

There is no question that the states' royalty payments have not extracted revenue from the miners at the same rate at which profits have been increasing. That is what happens when you have ad valorem royalties which rise and fall on tonnes actually shipped (though in some cases, like coal in Queensland, on prices received as well).

But, according to Swan's own numbers, the industry's total tax contribution (which was $21bn in 2009), represented something near 28 per cent of gross profit generated (through royalty and income tax contributions). And gross profit is a distorting figure to use in this context anyway, given that it does not reflect outgoings like interest payments and depreciation along with income tax.

The federal government believes the Australian mining industry has somehow short-changed taxpayers out of $35bn over the last five years of the boom. The paper notes that the $35bn figure comes from what the government says would have been the share of industry profits through royalties and other charges if they had remained at the average for the first half of the decade, and not fallen from about 40 per cent to 12 per cent in the past five years.

This is a ludicrous position.

The biggest taxpayer among the Australian miners is BHP Billiton. It claims the RSP tax would increase the tax take from its Australian profits from around 43 per cent to 57 per cent by 2013. Last year BHP Billiton paid $6.3bn in Australian tax, some $3bn in company tax, $1.9bn in state royalties and $1.1bn in petroleum resources rent tax.

The company made a net profit of $6.5bn.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...a-curb-on-growth/story-e6frg9if-1225861303119

What alleged corruption in WA and QLD in the mining industry are you arguably referring to Whiskers? The state mineral royalties will not be relinquished to the Feds is my understanding of the situation.

So on this theory because they are profitable we should tax the hell out of them and watch then disappear to another country  (the Jansen potash project in Canada, for example).


----------



## Whiskers (3 May 2010)

Whiskers said:


> I'd suggest past and arguably current corruption allegations in WA and now Qld where the states collect the mineral royalties and big political donations from the big miners for political favors re mineral leases and developments, that they have left their very fat pork bellies very exposed for someone like Rudd to corner them for a feast of his own.




To eloborate a bit, maybe the states have helped bring this 'windfall' or super' tax on, what with WA holding out on the health agreement citing their wealth of mineral revenue and unequal royalty systems across the states and corrupt or at least political donations arguably affecting competition for projects.

There is also a little matter of mining royalties that are lost to the state, ie paid to other parties due to where that land was alienated in fee simple by the Crown in the early 1900's.

I believe Qld for example looses about 5% of it's royalties to third parties. Curious to know what the number is in other states. In Qld that's abt $b11 last decade in royalties and $500m royalties lost to other parties.

A cynical or maybe pragmatic view might be an attempt by the fed gov to take the mineral industry by the proverbial b@!!s to squeeze some sort of standardised royalty system, even a national takeover there too.


----------



## Calliope (3 May 2010)

Four out of 138 of Henry's recommendations taken up and they call it tax reform

Even the Fairfax papers have rubbished it;



> If history is any guide, pretty much all the nasty changes proposed in the Henry tax review will be implemented.
> 
> We'll end up with a congestion tax on cars, much higher tax on wine, land tax on the family home, higher tax on capital gains, cutbacks in negative gearing, a tax on bequests and annual increases in petrol tax.
> 
> ...





http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/in-time-we-will-get-the-nasties--but-not-just-yet-20100503-u1wo.html

And to add icing to the cake, Rudd added the superannuation levy increase to 12%, which wasn't even in the Henry recommendations.


----------



## noco (3 May 2010)

Whiskers said:


> Your 'chickened out' comment seems to suggest you think Rudd should have adopted these!?
> 
> Clarify please, do you think Rudd should adopt these!?




Rudd instructs Henry to research tax reform, it takes 18 months and $10million to compile. Rudd selects 3 out of 136 Henry reccomendations. Rudd cherry picked the sweetners to vote catch before the election, purely political without consideration as to whether it benifits Australia.

My point in question is not whether I believe the "chicken outs" should be adopted, but you tell me why Rudd did not adopt the whole package as suggested by Henry and why did Rudd increase the super from 9% to 12% when it was not  one of Henry's reccomendations.

If Rudd has no confidence in the Treasurer Secretary then he should sack him, or alternatively if I were Henry, I would tell Rudd what he can do with his job.

Whiskers, I hope you have read Ian Huntley's comments posted by Julia. It makes a lot of sense.


----------



## drsmith (3 May 2010)

The Henry Review set the resources rent tax at 40% on the basis of a corporate rate of 25% giving a total take of 55%. The government is therefore cheating a little with a RRT of 40% on top of corporate tax of 28-30%.

On what basis has the Henry Review suggested a total tax take of 55% from resource company profits ?


----------



## noco (3 May 2010)

Whiskers said:


> Yes they have contributed significantly to the gov coffers, but *I recall someone quoteing figures that these company profits (much going overseas) have increased exponentially more over recent years than the Aus tax take*.
> 
> Ok Whiskers, lets have a link like you tell everyone else to do. No hearsay stuff please!!!!!!


----------



## Whiskers (3 May 2010)

noco said:


> My point in question is not whether I believe the "chicken outs" should be adopted, but you tell me why Rudd did not adopt the whole package as suggested by Henry




What! You name one politicial leader who has fully adopted any report handed to them, let alone by a public servant. That would be a very short list if a list at all. I don't know if you have ever been in a position to delegate someone to research and report on something, but I certainly don't adopt as a matter of course everything that someone suggests in a report. 

In this case Henry makes his recomendations from his economist perspective in the public service. That's not necessairly the same as what the voter wants... hence the political effect.  

So what are you cranky about... do you wish Rudd had adopted all those other nasties too?



> and why did Rudd increase the super from 9% to 12% when it was not  one of Henry's reccomendations.




Since when has any gov had to have a report recomendation before they can do something! Besides, this one is surely not a surprise to you since it's been mentioned often enough over the years that super contrib's will have to increase to help pay for the retirement of an ageing population.



> If Rudd has no confidence in the Treasurer Secretary then he should sack him, or alternatively if I were Henry, *I would tell Rudd what he can do with his job.*




I expect you would. Quick to launch mouth into gear before engaging brain! :

I expect Henry is realistically not expecting his recomendations to be fully adopted, (that would be a hell of a precedent) is a bit more articulate and diplomatic than you and not least of all, values his job.   

I don't read Huntly. He's just another Journo, analyst trying to flog a product.



noco said:


> Ok Whiskers, lets have a link like you tell everyone else to do. No hearsay stuff please!!!!!!




Hearsay! You dissapoint me noco... such an ardent political critic like you would surely have remembered t'was part of the gov speech last Sunday. Trainspotter also referred to it a few posts earlier.


----------



## JTLP (3 May 2010)

sammy84 said:


> Yeah I was completely wrong there. I have taken today as a buying opportunity however as there seems to have been overreactions all over the blace e.g BRM




Sorry if this sounded blunt! Was just pointing out that I don't think it was really factored in. Market was not a nice place for miner's...that's for sure.

IN OTHER NEWS

I heard Rudd on radio this morning. Ergh. Dropped working families about 20 times; tried to make it seem that Australia was headed in the right direction; craftily evaded questions and turned them in his favour. Sigh.

Sadly Liberal won't be back any time soon...all they've got is a potato gun to shoot down Labor.


----------



## Whiskers (3 May 2010)

Calliope said:


> Four out of 138 of Henry's recommendations taken up and they call it tax reform




It's early days yet and really if you didn't expect the relative goodies before the election and the gut wrenchers after, then you're pretty naive.

*But the bottom line is... be carefull what you wish for... you might get it (more of the Henry recomendations... and there are some shockers there yet)! *


----------



## GumbyLearner (3 May 2010)

Did the Henry Tax Review recommend lifting the tax free threshold to $25,000? 

That's something I would definitely vote for. But I doubt the Labor Government would ever be that generous to those on lower wages. Those on lower wages earn too much and need to be governed for their own good.


----------



## Calliope (3 May 2010)

Whiskers said:


> It's early days yet and really if you didn't expect the relative goodies before the election and the gut wrenchers after, then you're pretty naive.
> But the bottom line is... be carefull what you wish for... you might get it (more of the Henry recomendations... and there are some shockers there yet)




I made no mention of expectations or wishes...merely a comment. Read the link.


----------



## Whiskers (3 May 2010)

GumbyLearner said:


> Did the Henry Tax Review recommend lifting the tax free threshold to $25,000?
> 
> *That's something I would definitely vote for*. But I doubt the Labor Government would ever be that generous to those on lower wages. Those on lower wages earn too much and need to be governed for their own good.




Yeah, me too. 

I'm thinking tax reform is headed in that direction, probably not all at once though, if for no other reason than the cost to employers and the gov of processing and collecting many of the smaller tax returns is getting more than they're worth. Efficiency and effictiveness is probably heading toward dictating that the complex burden on business and the bureaucracy to process personal income tax is counter productive in many cases.



Calliope said:


> I made no mention of expectations or wishes...merely a comment. Read the link.




Ok, so that was another useless sarcastic comment, since it's obvious these things (tax reform) don't fully play out in a day or two, but months and years. It's probably smart to drip feed changes otherwise if they all came out at once many might just throw it and their business into the too hard basket.


----------



## GumbyLearner (3 May 2010)

Whiskers said:


> Yeah, me too.
> 
> I'm thinking tax reform is headed in that direction, probably not all at once though, if for no other reason than the cost to employers and the gov of processing and collecting many of the smaller tax returns is getting more than they're worth. Efficiency and effictiveness is probably heading toward dictating that the complex burden on business and the bureaucracy to process personal income tax is counter productive in many cases.




That's bull. Who will pay for the enormously unnecessary bureaucracy for years to come? Those who earn between $30,000-80,000 a year. The majority of Australians that's who? . I personally would rather a tax cut than pay more super to the "faultless" financial planning industry especially after their flawless 10/10 performances during the financial crisis. ROFL It will all be chewed up by inflation and cost of living increases anyway. That's why the Henry Tax Review effectively does nothing for Aussies on average wages. Its a furphy, plain and simple. 

Unfortunately Krudd's pro-bank, not pro-battler. 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/02/2888096.htm?site=thedrum
*
Tax reform blunted by hollow men tactics*

The hollow men have got to this. The Government is introducing significant changes but, in key areas, it has squibbed it, ignoring or ruling out reforms recommended by its tax review panel in favour of the politically-saleable.

The Government has run a mile from changes that would make the tax system both fairer and more efficient - ensuring all Australians are taxed on the basis of what they earn and the tax rorts and tax havens for the well-to-do are shut down.


----------



## Calliope (3 May 2010)

Whiskers said:


> Ok, so that was another useless sarcastic comment, since it's obvious these things (tax reform) don't fully play out in a day or two, but months and years. It's probably smart to drip feed changes otherwise if they all came out at once many might just throw it and their business into the too hard basket.




I'm sorry but I really don't want to get into a slanging match with you, having been the target of your gutter language on another thread. So you may as well stop trying to stalk me.


----------



## Sean K (3 May 2010)

Calliope said:


> I'm sorry but I really don't want to get into a slanging match with you, having been the target of your gutter language on another thread. So you may as well stop trying to stalk me.



Fine to call other people naive, but when you are labelled such it's 'gutter language'. geesh


----------



## trainspotter (3 May 2010)

Whiskers said:


> What! You name one politicial leader who has fully adopted any report handed to them, let alone by a public servant. That would be a very short list if a list at all. I don't know if you have ever been in a position to delegate someone to research and report on something, but I certainly don't adopt as a matter of course everything that someone suggests in a report.
> 
> In this case Henry makes his recomendations from his economist perspective in the public service. That's not necessairly the same as what the voter wants... hence the political effect.
> 
> ...




Please refrain from using my posts as your soap box. Use your own research and post the approppriate link to correspond with your allegedly factual posts in future please. 

"I expect you would. Quick to launch mouth into gear before engaging brain! :" ... Have you learned nothing Whiskers? You cannot sell yourself up by putting others down. Try and stick to the subject matter at hand and leave the cheap shots in the playground thanks.


----------



## drsmith (3 May 2010)

GumbyLearner said:


> I personally would rather a tax cut than pay more super to the "faultless" financial planning industry especially after their flawless 10/10 performances during the financial crisis. ROFL It will all be chewed up by inflation and cost of living increases anyway. That's why the Henry Tax Review effectively does nothing for Aussies on average wages. Its a furphy, plain and simple.



Superannuation requires an incentive over conventional savings/investment to encourage long term planning for retirement.

A simple model where there are no deductions for contributions and there is no tax on the earnings would achieve this. There may need to be limits on how much new capital can be put into super each year, possibly increasing with age.

With no deductions on contributions the income tax base would be strengthened. This I suspect would result in a net tax gain overall which could be used to reduce marginal rates.

With regard to performance, the range of investments should be broadened to generally include all those available for conventional saving/investment such as interest earning bank accounts, term deposits etc. The only difference would be that the principal and earnings could not be withdrawn until preservation age.


----------



## noco (3 May 2010)

Calliope said:


> I'm sorry but I really don't want to get into a slanging match with you, having been the target of your gutter language on another thread. So you may as well stop trying to stalk me.




Calliope, don't waste your time on MONOMANIACS for they will only read what they they want to read and nothing will change their minds. If one tries to reason with them you will only cop an ear full of spin, personal attacks and  gutter sniping in the lowest form. Anything to discredit those who try to stand in their way.


----------



## trainspotter (3 May 2010)

Whiskers said:


> To eloborate a bit, maybe the states have helped bring this 'windfall' or super' tax on, what with WA holding out on the health agreement citing their wealth of mineral revenue and unequal royalty systems across the states and corrupt or at least political donations arguably affecting competition for projects.
> 
> There is also a little matter of mining royalties that are lost to the state, ie paid to other parties due to where that land was alienated in fee simple by the Crown in the early 1900's.
> 
> ...




Got any facts on this corruption you are alleging Whiskers? Not big on beliefs and idealogy mixed with pragmatic views. More into facts and figures. Care to share the basis of your opinions with some links to the numbers you are throwing around?


----------



## nunthewiser (3 May 2010)

:jerry


Who was/is Ken Henry?


----------



## GumbyLearner (3 May 2010)

drsmith said:


> With regard to performance, the range of investments should be broadened to generally include all those available for conventional saving/investment such as interest earning bank accounts, term deposits etc. The only difference would be that the principal and earnings could not be withdrawn until preservation age.




Yes I agree 100%.

Assuming that the market doesn't take a massive hit once your contribution is ready to be paid out on retirement, you trust your fund manager, the fund don't charge too many fees etc.. are also factors that everyone should consider before signing up to anything.

As a young man I do my own super planning and have recently doubled some family members contributions who retired and bailed on a system that was ready to gorge on their retirement savings.  No fees required of course, just honest and calculated advice.


----------



## Atlas79 (3 May 2010)

I hope every clown who voted for these people loses a bundle of money.

You visit a capitalist forum then vote for socialists, this is what you get.


----------



## drsmith (3 May 2010)

GumbyLearner said:


> Assuming that the market doesn't take a massive hit once your contribution is ready to be paid out on retirement, you trust your fund manager, the fund don't charge too many fees etc.. are also factors that everyone should consider before signing up to anything.



That's where broad access to conventional saving products would come in handy. Risk could be better managed at the individual level.


----------



## Atlas79 (3 May 2010)

Apologies if this has been posted, but if you want some gallows humour listen to Krudd defining a "super profit":

http://www.smh.com.au/business/federal-budget/whats-that-superprofit-thing-again-20100503-u32m.html?autostart=1


----------



## trainspotter (3 May 2010)

nunthewiser said:


> :jerry
> 
> 
> Who was/is Ken Henry?




Kenneth "Ken" Charles Henry (January 7, 1929 – March 1, 2009) was a speed skater from the United States.

Henry won the gold medal in the 500 m at the 1952 Winter Olympics held in Oslo, Norway in front of 28,000 people at Bislett Stadium in a time of 43.2 seconds. Two weeks later, he won the same title in the annual World Meet at Hamar, Norway. His 1952 Olympic Gold Medal time was one tenth of one second short of the record time set in 1948 by Finn Helgesen of Norway.

Terrible bloke ...... caused all sorts of trouble with a tax reform booklet he has released recently as well. utthedoor:


----------



## noirua (3 May 2010)

Atlas79 said:


> Apologies if this has been posted, but if you want some gallows humour listen to Krudd defining a "super profit":
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/business/federal-budget/whats-that-superprofit-thing-again-20100503-u32m.html?autostart=1




I seemed to hear his brain ticking, something like, "Wayne Swann, where are you, help me out mate."


----------



## GumbyLearner (3 May 2010)

drsmith said:


> That's where broad access to conventional saving products would come in handy. Risk could be better managed at the individual level.




Spot on. Micro-management can have its pitfalls for the unread but it can save you a lot of hard-earned if you're dedicated/humble enough to understand and diversify asset classes. Control is the key, you can either relinquish power over the vesting of what you earn to 3rd party strangers or take the bull by the horns and D.I.Y. I have firmly come to the resolve of choosing the latter option.Then there is no-one to blame/praise but yourself for the outcome.


----------



## nunthewiser (3 May 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Kenneth "Ken" Charles Henry (January 7, 1929 – March 1, 2009) was a speed skater from the United States.
> 
> Henry won the gold medal in the 500 m at the 1952 Winter Olympics held in Oslo, Norway in front of 28,000 people at Bislett Stadium in a time of 43.2 seconds. Two weeks later, he won the same title in the annual World Meet at Hamar, Norway. His 1952 Olympic Gold Medal time was one tenth of one second short of the record time set in 1948 by Finn Helgesen of Norway.
> 
> Terrible bloke ...... caused all sorts of trouble with a tax reform booklet he has released recently as well. utthedoor:





Thankyou Trainspotter.

Why are we following a dead Yankee speed skaters booklet ?


----------



## Atlas79 (3 May 2010)

noirua said:


> I seemed to here his brain ticking, something like, "Wayne Swann, where are you, help me out mate."




Wayne must be offshore in the country he's really treasurer of, which apparently is a land known as STRAYA.


----------



## Whiskers (3 May 2010)

GumbyLearner said:


> That's bull. Who will pay for the enormously unnecessary bureaucracy for years to come? Those who earn between $30,000-80,000 a year. The majority of Australians that's who? .




I think you misunderstand my point. What I'm saying is there is a threshold where the cost of processing and collection of tax is equal to the tax obtained, which makes the exercise questionable and when the cost exceeds the amount collected, the tax obtained it's counter productive. 

I've seen the conundrum expressed ocassionally over the years to rationalise the restructuring of goods and services and taxes. If I recall correctly it was part of the change to the GST, to simplify the tax system  ie to make it more efficient and effective in terms of the processing and collection cost of the tax obtained.

A good part of the reason why the system moved to more self assessement was to save heaps of tax office staff doing the maths and processing so the gov reduced their collection expenses, thereby making more net profit (tax) out of the exercise.

But yes it may mean that lower income earners may pay no tax and the average earner pay relatively more... but if it's implimented correctly the overall cost of tax foregone will be less than the savings made in the bureaucracy.




> The Government has run a mile from changes that would make the tax system both fairer and more efficient - ensuring all Australians are taxed on the basis of what they earn and the tax rorts and tax havens for the well-to-do are shut down.




There's been talk of closing these tax loop holes and tax havens, but yes, I'm hopeful there will be something on this in the near future.


----------



## trainspotter (3 May 2010)

nunthewiser said:


> Thankyou Trainspotter.
> 
> Why are we following a dead Yankee speed skaters booklet ?




Apparently it has something to do with putting economic policy before fiscal responsibility and that is like putting the cart before the horse. 

I think I would prefer to read a dead Yankee speed skaters booklet then plough through the Ken Henry Tax Reform or more importantly the bast@rdised version trotted out by Wayne Swann and Bung Tao Kluddy.


----------



## noirua (3 May 2010)

Atlas79 said:


> Wayne must be offshore in the country he's really treasurer of, which apparently is a land known as STRAYA.




Reminds me of the Strayan Unite Group that wants to unite Australia and New Zealand. It appears 37% of Aussies are in favour and 24% of Kiwis in March 2010. 7th State problem seems to get in the way.

Anyway, companies like BHP Billiton are moving in hope of striking vast oil reserves around the Falkland Islands. They and RIO may evolve plans to move gradually elsewhere to lower tax environments.  Rudd and Co now being branded 'anti mining and oil'.


----------



## GumbyLearner (3 May 2010)

Whiskers said:


> I think you misunderstand my point. What I'm saying is there is a threshold where the cost of processing and collection of tax is equal to the tax obtained, which makes the exercise questionable and when the cost exceeds the amount collected, the tax obtained it's counter productive.
> 
> I've seen the conundrum expressed ocassionally over the years to rationalise the restructuring of goods and services and taxes. If I recall correctly it was part of the change to the GST, to simplify the tax system  ie to make it more efficient and effective in terms of the processing and collection cost of the tax obtained.
> 
> ...




Now I finally get it Whiskers. Just like Kev "gets it" with the failed insulation scheme. The majority of the Aussie population are rich. Let's raise the tax free threshold to $25,000, it couldn't make much of a difference as it will be a drop in the trickle down bucket for the majority of working families. (sarcasm completely intended)

Remember Hawkey and his bottom of the harbour mates.  Keep hoping buddy.


----------



## Whiskers (3 May 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Got any facts on this corruption you are alleging Whiskers? Not big on beliefs and idealogy mixed with pragmatic views. More into facts and figures. Care to share the basis of your opinions with some links to the numbers you are throwing around?




A recent story re Qld royalties. One could check with the Department of mines and energy for exact figures.http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/1037110/no-mining-royalties-for-qld-opponents

The corruption political favors issue has surfaced here in the press and parliament question time ocasionally over recent years and more so in WA over many previous years.

There was a couple of court cases in particular in WA involving companies that had prospects taken off them and handed to another company on ministerial descretion and some getting faster passage or priority through all the approval processes etc.

Other issues include  emerging producers having to challenge BHP and RIO in court to gain access to their rail network. An example of the conglomerate's trying to corner the market and squeeze out competition.


----------



## Julia (3 May 2010)

SmellyTerror said:


> Love to see a list from the opposition saying which Henry recommendations *they* intend to implement. Shouldn't be hard, surely...



Tony Abbot on ABC Radio this evening did in fact list several of the suggestions in the Henry Report, ignored by Rudd & Co., that the opposition would seriously look at.


drsmith said:


> If Tony Abbott has even half a brain, Malcolm Turnbull's first job will be to read the detail of the Henry Review.
> 
> The Coalition should also reach out to resource business leaders with the aim of reaching some sort of agreement about the rate and threshold for this tax (such that it does not erode international competitiveness) before the ALP do.
> 
> He has a Coalition ally in the WA government so he can potentially use this to negotiate a more efficient underlying structure than what the government has put forward.



Yes, it's well and truly time for the opposition to start coming up with alternative policies.  There are now sufficient disaffected groups for them to be able to make good capital from these with carefully thought out policies.




Whiskers said:


> What! You name one politicial leader who has fully adopted any report handed to them, let alone by a public servant. That
> would be a very short list if a list at all.



That's fairly silly, Whiskers.  Given the detailed thought, time, energy and consultation that went into the Henry Report, producing a total of 138 suggestions, one would reasonably expect the government to have adopted more than three of them, particularly in view of their having introduced something not even recommended by Dr Henry.



> I don't know if you have ever been in a position to delegate someone to research and report on something, but I certainly don't adopt as a matter of course everything that someone suggests in a report.



With due respect to your business and entrepreneurial skills, and quite possibly your equivalent qualification to that of Dr Henry as an economist, I think comparing what you would do with any 'report' handed to you with what the Australian government should do with a report prepared by the Treasury Secretary is ever so slightly irrelevant, farcical even.



> In this case Henry makes his recomendations from his economist perspective in the public service.



Of course he does.  That is his job and that is what he was charged with doing.  



> I expect you would. Quick to launch mouth into gear before engaging brain! :



I would be so grateful if we could have a discussion without all the gratuitous and meaningless personal insults.



> I don't read Huntly. He's just another Journo, analyst trying to flog a product.



No, I don't imagine Ian Huntley's musings would appeal to you.  He is too capable of seeing through the mirage that constitutes this government.



GumbyLearner said:


> . I personally would rather a tax cut than pay more super to the "faultless" financial planning industry especially after their flawless 10/10 performances during the financial crisis.



Exactly right.  No wonder they have been so enthusiastic about the increase in the SGL.  All salivating at the increased flow into their own pockets.
What a great excuse to ramp up "advice only" charges.
It will take the major institutions which employ about 80% of all financial planners about a minute and a half to come up with suitably tailored products to fit the majority of ignorant clients looking for 'personal advice'.


----------



## GumbyLearner (3 May 2010)

Whiskers said:


> A recent story re Qld royalties. One could check with the Department of mines and energy for exact figures.http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/1037110/no-mining-royalties-for-qld-opponents
> 
> The corruption political favors issue has surfaced here in the press and parliament question time ocasionally over recent years and more so in WA over many previous years.
> 
> ...




Yeah so, ever heard of this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_(real_property)


----------



## GumbyLearner (3 May 2010)

Julia said:


> That's fairly silly, Whiskers.  Given the detailed thought, time, energy and consultation that went into the Henry Report, producing a total of 138 suggestions, one would reasonably expect the government to have adopted more than three of them, particularly in view of their having introduced something not even recommended by Dr Henry.




You are right Julia. Silly is the precise word to use here IMO. 3/138 
What percentage of tax review reform is that??? 0.0XXX??


----------



## The Muffin Man (3 May 2010)

As every day passes I become less and less impressed with this Government's Economic Management skills.

Basically, the Government has decided to make our most important industry a whole lot less competitive internationally, while reducing the level of retained earnings mining companies can access to re-invest in further growth opportunities. We might have had a slightly two speed economy, now we will have a very slow speed economy. To put it as others have, the golden goose of the Australian economy has been cooked, and all of this to gain votes. Disgusting. 

Mining companies are going to be faced with certain investment decisions in the future that may not bode well for Australia. Other parts of the World are opening up, and as far fetched as it sounds, places like Africa are beginning to understand the importance of opening their arms to mining companies. Look at the investment opportunities opening up in places like Guinea, and look at the companies that have land holdings there. Effectively being taxed over 50% in Australia will no doubt alter investment decisons into the future when companies are comparing possible projects and their return levels. Couple this possible new tax with issues such as industrial relations and a CPRS arrangement on the horizion, and you have to wonder how much harder is it going to be for mining companies operating in this country into the future?

Boosting the Superannuation Guarantee to 12% from 9% is a great idea in theory, but I don't know whether it's going to have the desired results if it is not coupled with other reforms as well. I can tell you how small businesses in particular will react to this news. Wage growth will slow, and new employees will be offered lower starting salaries. What the Government is doing is placing further stress on cash flows of businesses. They tried to offset this with a cut in company taxes. I have a little piece of information for this Government, a lot of small businesses are borderline profitable anyway so won't see many benefits in a 2% company tax drop, and a lot of small businesses aren't structured as companies. 

This so called reform, the implementation of basically 2 recommendations from nearly 140, is mind-bogglingly poor.

Australia needs a sovereign fund. The Liberals set up the Future Fund (after paying off $90Bn+ in Government Debt left by the previous Labor Party), and also set up a Higher Education Endowment Fund. It comes as no surprise that Labor has already raided the Higher Education Endowment Fund (named differently now), as well as other funds set up for our future. Labor spends, to fund this spending they need to raise taxes and raid future funds. The issue with Labor spending is that they don't look to the future.


----------



## trainspotter (3 May 2010)

Clive Palmer has already come out and blamed Rudd and Co 40% tax grab for his choice to start mining in New Guinea instead of developing and prospecting more possible sites in Australia. He also eluded to shifting more of his company offshore. Oh dear ..... the rot has set in already. Like rats leaving a sinking ship.


----------



## Whiskers (3 May 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Please refrain from using my posts as your soap box. Use your own research and post the approppriate link to correspond with your allegedly factual posts in future please.




Hardly using your posts as a soap box! Not near sound enough for me to stand on! :

In fact all I did was highlight to your cohort noco, that even you recalled that what he was being so critical of me as hearsay, was in fact part of the gov speech. 



> "I expect you would. Quick to launch mouth into gear before engaging brain! :" ... Have you learned nothing Whiskers? You cannot sell yourself up by putting others down. Try and stick to the subject matter at hand and leave the cheap shots in the playground thanks.




Coming from one of the most animated posters on the forum...


----------



## GumbyLearner (3 May 2010)

Is the adoption of 3/138 recommendations of the Henry Tax Reform value for taxpayer money and future taxpayer's money? Or just more sellable crap from the incumbents in Canberra?


----------



## Calliope (3 May 2010)

kennas said:


> Fine to call other people naive, but when you are labelled such it's 'gutter language'. geesh




geesh indeed You should do your homework before you join in. This guy is the master of insults, and obviously has some sort of grudge against me.

I have bent over backwards to avoid a slanging match with him after being subjected to his abuse on the thread "Health Reform: Where is it Heading?"  I refer you to his unprovoked tirade including the gutter language in Post #137 on that thread.

You of all people should know that  I cannot respond to provocation.


----------



## nioka (3 May 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Clive Palmer has already come out and blamed Rudd and Co 40% tax grab for his choice to start mining in New Guinea instead of developing and prospecting more possible sites.




What else would you expect the MINING BILLIONAIRE to say when he may lose a million or two. If he states now, so soon, that he will mine in New Guinea he must have had that intention anyway.


----------



## Whiskers (3 May 2010)

Julia said:


> That's fairly silly, Whiskers.  Given the detailed thought, time, energy and consultation that went into the Henry Report, producing a total of 138 suggestions, one would reasonably expect the government to have adopted more than three of them, particularly in view of their having introduced something not even recommended by Dr Henry.




BUT, if you'd have read my following post... 



Whiskers said:


> *It's early days yet and really if you didn't expect the relative goodies before the election and the gut wrenchers after, then you're pretty naive.*
> *But the bottom line is... be carefull what you wish for... you might get it (more of the Henry recomendations... and there are some shockers there yet)! *






> With due respect to your business and entrepreneurial skills, and quite possibly your equivalent qualification to that of Dr Henry as an economist, I think comparing what you would do with any 'report' handed to you with what the Australian government should do with a report prepared by the Treasury Secretary is ever so slightly irrelevant, farcical even.




The point is that one who comissions a report ALWAYS has the perogerative to accept or not any or all of the recommendations in the report.

I've asked for examples of where all the recommendations have been announced and implimented immediatly, but no one has given an example. On the contrary, I think it was Calliope whose post the above blue bit responded too, made reference to recommendations that were made about 30 years later.

Further, to my blue bit above it's early days yet. Surely you don't expect all the so called reforms to be announced at once. 



> I would be so grateful if we could have a discussion without all the gratuitous and meaningless personal insults.




Hey, wooo back there julia...  do you mean like when Calliope calls me naive it's ok, but when I demonstrate or suggest he is niave, it's gratuitous and meaningless personal insults or gutter language as he puts it? Hardly a credible arguement. 




> No, I don't imagine Ian Huntley's musings would appeal to you. He is too capable of seeing through the mirage that constitutes this government.




Now Julia, that smacks of a bit of hypocrisy... that "gratuitous and meaningless personal insults" that you profess to want to refrain from. 

I have no problem 'seeing through the mirage'... it's just that too often I find that when colourful rhetoric is mixed with analysis, it's a bit superficial.

The bottom line is I'm just trying to figure out what it all means cos we probably won't be able to change it and need to adapt to the changing dynamics.

Alternatively, some seem very critical of just about everything, but I'm bemused at why they don't tell the politicans what they want instead. This is as good a forum as any to tell the polies and party workers what we want or voice alternatives.


----------



## Whiskers (3 May 2010)

GumbyLearner said:


> Yeah so, ever heard of this
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_(real_property)




What's your point? Then I can probably respond more precisely. 



GumbyLearner said:


> You are right Julia. Silly is the precise word to use here IMO. 3/138
> What percentage of tax review reform is that??? 0.0XXX??




I'm glad I'm not relying on some of you to research and collect facts for me. You are seriously lacking in effort and accuracy. : 

You clearly missed this!



> Originally Posted by Whiskers
> It's early days yet and really if you didn't expect the relative goodies before the election and the gut wrenchers after, then you're pretty naive.
> But the bottom line is... be carefull what you wish for... you might get it (more of the Henry recomendations... and there are some shockers there yet)!




But given Reform means to put or change into an improved form or condition; to amend or improve by change of form or removal of faults or abuses... what is the obsession with wholesale change in a hurry? 

*Reform can be incremental can't it?* I certainly hope Rudd doesn't go ballistic with numerous changes all together and there are quite a few in there I certainly hope he does not impliment.

Given the blunders so far with trying to impliment too much too soon in the stimulus, I'm bewildered why some of you are critical of him for not repeating the performance and guaranteeing the same result.


----------



## GumbyLearner (4 May 2010)

Whiskers said:


> What's your point? Then I can probably respond more precisely.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I just wish the ALP hacks at the forefront of Krudd's agenda actually did some hard yakka in their time to at least at a bare minimum be able to emphasize who they claim to represent. 

Well guess what I have over 6 years unskilled labouring experience. Have a card carrying background. And all I can say is...they don't represent my interests or working families. They represent the interests of their friends in the banks and buy-offs within the union movement (who hate them anyway) but don't have the intestinal fortitude to challenge them because it might make their gravy train shorter and less comfortable for all the years of verbal dogmatic diarrhoea that they claimed to care about but fail to act on.  Spineless paid off cowards is how the leadership of the union movement on the east coast of australia can be summarized. All the trimmings, none of the heart.  

In conclusion, ****en wimps!


----------



## Calliope (4 May 2010)

Julia.
 I realize that Whiskers, as a Labor apparatchik, has no option but to toe the Party line, but the following quote from his rant shows that even when presented  with a rational argument from a newspaper on his side of politics he either doesn't read it or ignores it and attacks the messenger.



> Hey, wooo back there julia... do you mean like when Calliope calls me naive it's ok, but when I demonstrate or suggest he is niave, it's gratuitous and meaningless personal insults or gutter language as he puts it? Hardly a credible arguement.




His reasoning is as sloppy as his spelling and grammar, and need not be taken seriously.


----------



## The Muffin Man (4 May 2010)

nioka said:


> What else would you expect the MINING BILLIONAIRE to say when he may lose a million or two. *If he states now, so soon, that he will mine in New Guinea he must have had that intention anyway.*




That's one perspective. Another perspective may be that Palmer was weighing up the positives and negatives of investing in New Guinea compared to Australia when this new resource tax was introduced. This is what I was referring to in my earlier post. If you don't think that this new tax will alter the investment decisions of mining companies in the future then you are living in a dream world. Mining companies have finite levels of capital to re-invest, which will be reduced even more by this new tax. With these reduced finite levels of capital, the mining companies need to decide which projects and investments will give the greatest level of return for the level of risk they are willing to carry. The pendulum is slowly swinging away from Australia.

Australia is becoming less and less attractive as far as mineral investment goes, and to assume that the mining industry will always be here in the same strength as we have seen over our history is a dangerous folly. This new tax, the ever increasing complex and costly Industrial Relations regime operating in this country, and the CPRS hanging over our heads, all point towards a deterioration in operating conditions for mining companies. No wonder mining companies are starting to court countries like New Guinea and Cameroon (SDL), where the taxation regimes being employed there are looking more and more attractive as time progresses. Mining companies are starting to wake up to Africa's potential, and more importantly, Africa is starting to wake up to Africa's potential. Every further restriction or deterioration in conditions mining companies experience in this country will push them further towards the point of looking elsewhere to invest their capital. Wouldn't it be a crying shame if this policy actually slowed down project investment into the future and all of the benefits that come with it?

I hope mining companies do start identifying overseas projects that would receive their investment instead of Australian projects if this new tax policy was to come into effect. Maybe then the Australian public might realise that Rudd is planning on actually taxing the industry into a point of uncompetitiveness internationally.

Thanks Kevin, and thanks Wayne. This is nothing more than a tax grab to plug leaks in the budget, leaks that were created by over-spending and extremely poorly executed Government policies that have ended up costing billions. If you don't think that revenues from this tax will end up in consolidated revenue for Labor to spend away then I personally think you are a little naive. Rudd is talking about infrastructure funds for the future, well we already had a few of those future funds and Labor has already raided them to pay for such brilliant policy as the BER (Builder's Early Retirement) scheme. Let's not even mention the almost criminal way that the budget surplus was thrown away. Just how much better does this make Howard & Costello's previous performance on Economic Management look?


----------



## basilio (4 May 2010)

*"A resources rent tax on  mining companies which earn 'super profits'  "*

Not a surprise that the mining companies are going apoplectic on that front. I can barely think of a single mining business magnate that could conceive of the possibility of making too much profit. And on the same issue each and every one them will protest that the tax take is always too high and will point to some benighted little  country which will gladly roll over for  some beads and mirrors and a decent kickback to Il Presidente and his cronies.

*The larger issue in this debate is how countries manage the development of their natural resources so that at the end of the day the country itself is better off as distinct from the value free mining companies whose sole focus is extracting maximum return for minimum outlay*. Think about Nigeria for example and the effect the massive oil industry has had there. Consider the destruction that BHP / Rio Tinto has wrecked on New Guinea with it's mining activities.

I'm not pretending I have clean hands on this issues. I invest in energy companies with a view to a decent return. But I don't have any delusions that the returns to small shareholders somehow makes up for an overall lowering of living standards in Australia. There is a mountain of evidence that simply making the Palmers, and Hancocks of this world multi billionaires isn't necessarily in our collective interest.

Obviously if you tap the web you can find a million stories to back up almost any point of view. I can throw up a few references but I suggest that when you see a counter story proclaiming just how  beneficial and profitable mining activities are for a country check out just who is telling the story. 

http://www.revenuewatch.org/news/FSCHearingReport_PWYP1107.pdf
http://eyeonmining.wordpress.com/2009/08/05/bougainville-plaintiffs-celebrate-as-rio-tinto-loses/




> *Ok Tedi Mine: Some Facts and Figures*
> 
> The environmental and human tragedy that is still unfolding at the Ok Tedi mine in Papua New Guinea raises fundamental questions about the governance of natural resources. These questions concern the balance of power between inexperienced, cash-poor governments and powerful multinational industries; the provision of and access to information that is technical in nature; communication across language and cultural barriers; and the need for institutional structures that allow for effective complaint and redress when things go wrong. Such issues are directly relevant to the global mining industry’s ongoing efforts to reduce its adverse social and environmental impact and to be more accountable for its actions.
> The story in brief
> ...






http://archive.wri.org/page.cfm?id=1860&z=?


----------



## Bushman (4 May 2010)

Maybe they should consider a 'land rent tax' for super profits earned on the family homes? 

This tax gain could be used to fund housing affordability solutions. 

That way all generations will share in the unpredented housing boom. 

Oh i forgot that any tax reform for middle Australia is deeply frowned upon


----------



## basilio (4 May 2010)

Quick follow up on just how Nigeria has developed - courtesy of mining companies- with it's huge oil/gas resources



> *The curse of oil still stalks Nigeria delta*
> 
> Plans to share petroleum wealth were meant to bring peace to Nigeria's troubled oil province. But Daniel Howden finds that an arms amnesty is failing and the Delta remains a powder keg
> 
> ...




http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...f-oil-still-stalks-nigeria-delta-1930001.html


----------



## Mofra (4 May 2010)

3/138 is a little bit of a misnomer.

Rudd is a popularist style politician, in that the polls are more important than getting the right thing done at the right time. I have no doubt that there are more reforms that he may perceive as unpopular that he will include in the first post-election budget, should he be re-elected.


----------



## trainspotter (4 May 2010)

Banks will want to watch out on the "super profits" tax grab by this Government. Might not be too far away when the budget is leaking even further that they end up in the sights of Robin Hood Kruddy and his band of merry men. Stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is so passe these days. Been done before for limited success.

Do we think that Australia has the monopoly on resources? Just like we think we are big time Charlies on the world stage by trying to lead the world into an CPRS & ETS? Come on people WAKE UP TO YOURSELVES !!

There are 6,697,254,041 in the world and 22,331,101 in Australia which equates to 0.0003345521% of global population. Ya got to be kidding me that this Govt thinks that mining companies wont go overseas and explore other less taxing governements, cheaper labour forces, and richer resourced countries like Africa and Brazil ?


----------



## cutz (4 May 2010)

When boom turns to bust we'll see who's not wearing clothes.


----------



## Calliope (4 May 2010)

Rudd's supporters try to convince themselves that whacking the big miners and the smokers were  courageous decisions.  From an electoral point it takes no courage at all  to attack two unpopular minorities and is just another example of his gutlessness.

The smokers cannot fight back, but the big miners are obliged to try to defend their shareholders.

Attacking unpopular minority groups has long been a favoured ploy of dictators. It helps to keep the masses distracted from the really nasty bits.

He will release a few sweeteners before the election, a few nasties after the ejection but most recommendations (like the health reform package) will disappear into the "way down the track" basket


----------



## trainspotter (4 May 2010)

Whiskers said:


> Hardly using your posts as a soap box! Not near sound enough for me to stand on! :
> 
> In fact all I did was highlight to your cohort noco, that even you recalled that what he was being so critical of me as hearsay, was in fact part of the gov speech.
> 
> Coming from one of the most animated posters on the forum...




I reiterate Whiskers ..... if you are going to post your beliefs and opinions without any FACTS *ie *links to the subject matter at hand rather than wishy washy inuendo then you deserve the sabre rattling you are experiencing at the moment. If it was a Govt speech then repeat verbatim with corresponding accuracies please. Likewise your posts in regards to WA alleged corruption in the mining industry. FMG taking BHP to court to use a railway line that actually did not belong to FMG is hardly "corrupt" as you put it, now is it? Have not seen any supporting evidence in regards to Govt and mining companies calluding on tenements either of late? Maybe in the 1980's during WA Inc and such but those days are long gone now aren't they ?

I do enjoy the way you have this tremendous thick hide and have the ability to brush off and dismiss all rational thought process's, then change the spotlight away from the crux of the discussion and turn it around by throwing out a strawman argument. It is very Laboresque in it's design and you must have practiced this in the mirror at home for many hours to perfect this technique. Or has Kevin Rudd produced a coaching manual for the proletariat these days?

This Henry Tax Report will go a long way of taking the wind out of the sails of this Govt as the people and media are now starting to pick up on the untruths of a policy on the run, zealous overspending, tax grabbing, pontificating and hopelessly out of it's depth Government. Like I have posted previously "Economic Policy prior to Fiscal Responsibility is like placing the cart before the horse."


----------



## The Muffin Man (4 May 2010)

Mofra said:


> 3/138 is a little bit of a misnomer.
> 
> Rudd is a popularist style politician, in that the polls are more important than getting the right thing done at the right time. *I have no doubt that there are more reforms that he may perceive as unpopular that he will include in the first post-election budget, should he be re-elected.*




Absolutely agree.


----------



## Whiskers (4 May 2010)

Bushman said:


> *Maybe they should consider a 'land rent tax' for super profits earned on the family homes?*
> 
> This tax gain could be used to fund housing affordability solutions.
> 
> ...




That is one area I'm seriously hoping they don't go near. 

*The family home should be sacrosanct in terms of creating wealth for the average 'working family'.*

However foreign Land Banking is one issue that I'm pleased has seen a policy reversal to force non residents to sell on leaving the country.

Also, the eternal issue of Negative Gearing (which I generally like and have used) hasn't got much mention yet. That's one that may come after an election.


----------



## Whiskers (4 May 2010)

trainspotter said:


> I reiterate Whiskers .....




lol... so you recognise that I am higher up the food chain than you.

Chips are there to be devoured. Have to watch I don't get to fat (cocky) on the easy pickins though.  lol 

Sorry mate, couldn't resist that one. It was too easy.  :


----------



## nunthewiser (4 May 2010)

I think you need to get out more whiskers.


----------



## Buckfont (4 May 2010)

There is a webcast tomorrow on the Henry tax review through Business Spectator for those who are interested, here`s the link

http://webcast.viostream.com/?viocast=2526&auth=e4032bf3-49b1-4ab6-9fd5-877a9fef2958


----------



## Bushman (4 May 2010)

Whiskers said:


> That is one area I'm seriously hoping they don't go near.
> 
> *The family home should be sacrosanct in terms of creating wealth for the average 'working family'.*
> 
> ...




My comment was more 'tongue in cheek' and taking the mickey out of the term 'super profits'. A previous posters comments about banking 'super profits' was on the money. Mac Bank also posted a 'super profit'. 

For the record though, I cannot see why the family home should be 'sacrosanct' re tax reform. 

Back to the resource 'rent tax' and Krudd, for him to attack BHP as being 'foreign owned' will go down as the biggest piece of political spin I have read for a long, long time. 

The most outrageous part of this is the diabolical spending record of this government. If the infrastructure spending they are proposing will be via a PPP then I might have some hope that this will not be another excercise in wastefullness, especially seeing a particular industry which is immensely valuable to the common good is being put to the sword to achieve this.  

Off course Labour's spin will make no mention of the risk:return trade-off inherent in the 'super profits' they are so happy to get their paws into. You do not invest in a high risk mining venture without a significant ROE. 

It is just dumb populism this.


----------



## Whiskers (4 May 2010)

Mofra said:


> 3/138 is a little bit of a misnomer.
> 
> Rudd is a popularist style politician, in that the polls are more important than getting the right thing done at the right time. *I have no doubt that there are more reforms *that he may perceive as unpopular that he will include in the first post-election budget, should he be re-elected.




*Worth repeating again for those criticising a lack of volume of reforms.*

Be careful what you wish for... you might get it.

Do we really want more rushed changes and schemes to end up in a scrambled mash or should we be greatful that maybe this time Rudd is showing signs of taking things a bit slower in an effort to, or that the people can speak out to, help to get the implementation right.


----------



## trainspotter (4 May 2010)

LMAO@Nunthewiser ....... Once agan Whiskers you have failed to read what is in front of you. I am trying to get you to the point where I can actually have a meaningful debate without the peripheral, obtuse remarks from your good self. If you actually concentrate and enucleate with clarity, I have seen a few flashes of genuine brilliance only to descend into a hopeless fug of despair with your inarticulate verbosity.

Anyways ...... :horse:

Henry Tax Reform sugested a 40% tax on mining companies BUT also sugested the state royalties be removed. This does not seem to be the case now does it?


----------



## drsmith (4 May 2010)

cutz said:


> When boom turns to bust we'll see who's not wearing clothes.



Rudd, Swan and Gillard for a start unless as a people we drown them (politically) before the tide goes out.

Abbott's swimming with his pants down and occasionally likes to fart bubbles in the water like a child (something he will need to correct) and turnbull I'm yet to make up my mind on.


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (4 May 2010)

@ Whiskers -  how many people have to tell you to please take your ball elsewhere if you cannot play nice before you reach enlightenment?

Here is my *opinion.* 

Increasing super contribution rate - bad idea - my views on superannuation and the horrible nature of this vehicle as an investment mechanism is well stated on these boards. Much of the "working families" the Krudd refers to don't have the financial knowledge or experience to effectively use this increase to their advantage. Meaning that they will be left to the tender mercies of financial planners and advisers, whose pie just got bigger. I'm sure the financial companies will be laughing all the way to the bank. 

When the government reviewed superannuation several years ago and compared the actual numbers with the projected numbers which were wildly different, the response from Finance companies boiled down to "Well there wasn't enough money in super to start with which is why our fees seem high." And so the government response to Tax reform is....more of the same.

Resources tax - it's a blatant tax grab that I think will work in the short-term, but be negative over the long-term. It takes a finite period of time to go from bare dirt to hole in the ground and production. It also take a finite period of time to close down the operation because it is no longer economic. The mining companies in the short-term therefore will have to just grin and bear it until they are in a position to change the metrics. Over the longer term I see this affecting the production and infrastructure capacity in Domestic mining concerns. Watch for significant price increases in commodities in about 4 years and significant bottlenecks in about three to five years - despite the 1/3 of the tax being spent on infrastructure.

Company tax reduction - makes investing within company structures more attractive because there has not been a reduction in personal tax or an increase in the tax free threshold. There will be long-term benefits in using this structure as an investment vehicle. I can see a bunch of people putting funds into company structures and then down the track one of the other nasties that Ken recommended (Playing with dividend imputation comes to mind) being used to suck additional tax revenue from the increase. IE Carrot before the stick.

Whilst I disagree with the vast majority of Ken Henry's report as being too "inside the box" and just an extension of existing policy I think it is laughable that just two and half recommendations were taken up...before the election. Unfortunately I can't see the opposition's response being any better as they will both be working from the same badly designed report.

Cheers

Sir O


----------



## Whiskers (4 May 2010)

Bushman said:


> Off course Labour's spin will make no mention of the risk:return trade-off inherent in the 'super profits' they are so happy to get their paws into. You do not invest in a high risk mining venture without a significant ROE.
> 
> It is just dumb populism this.




I'm not sure it's dumb populism... maybe clever, cunning etc  

It's worth remembering that Aus is a far more politically stable country than our main mineral competitors and is closer to the main future consumers of China and India. 

Also Aus has far less national debt than our main competitors who at some time will have to raise more revenue. Many of them are facing civil unrest as previous posters have mentioned at the huge disparity in the distribution of their nations wealth. Every other day we hear of strikes, accidents and civil unrest disrupting or closing a mine in South America or Africa. 

One of two things will happen for our competitors. If the disparity continues history shows that civil unrest, civil war etc will continue and esculate OR the gov will reform (increase) the tax system to appease the population.

In summary, stepping outside the square, it seems Rudd senses that he has some room to press here, before the conglomerates consider the competitors sovereign risk is more attractive than his increased 'super' or 'windfall' tax.

In general it seems there is scope for the gov to rationalise the resource rent/tax system and gather a bit more tax before the miners seriously contemplating abandoning Aus.

My concern is that they don't get the formula and implementation much better than they have in most other things.

To that extent, I wish the critics would lay off the ridicule of minimal changes does not equal tax reform gabble and focus on making sure they do a much better job of what is currently on the adgenda, to get it right.


----------



## Calliope (4 May 2010)

Poor old Ken. He is now just a hairy nosed wombat road-kill.


----------



## The Muffin Man (4 May 2010)

Whiskers said:


> *Worth repeating again for those criticising a lack of volume of reforms.*
> 
> Be careful what you wish for... you might get it.
> 
> Do we really want more rushed changes and schemes to end up in a scrambled mash or should we be greatful that *maybe this time Rudd is showing signs of taking things a bit slower in an effort to, or that the people can speak out to, help to get the implementation right.*




Or is it that Rudd is sitting on his hands before he implements 'unpopular' reforms after a possible election victory? I think that this is far more likely. Very deceitful Kevin.

Rudd may have a little room to move before mining companies divest enough to make a real difference to our economy, but when you start adding up IR, RRST, and CPRS, that room is getting increasingly smaller.

Abbott needs to come out with an alternative, and show that any additional taxes are going towards securing Australia's future through some kind of sovereign wealth fund. The minerals aren't gonig to be there forever, neither will the red hot demand we are currently experiencing.


----------



## drsmith (4 May 2010)

Sir Osisofliver said:


> Whilst I disagree with the vast majority of Ken Henry's report as being too "inside the box" and just an extension of existing policy I think it is laughable that just two and half recommendations were taken up...before the election. Unfortunately I can't see the opposition's response being any better as they will both be working from the same badly designed report.




Henry comments that evenue raising should be concentrated on four robust and efficient broad-based taxes:



> 1) personal income, assessed on a more comprehensive base;



The review does not go far enough though. There should be no deductions for wage and salary income and lower marginal rates for all. Emphasis should be on a big increase in the tax free threshold as suggested by Henry. Deductions for investments should only relate to untaxed income from that investment class. EDIT: Capital gains tax should only be on real gains (indexed to inflation). Ultimately, income taxes (including CGT) should be done away with all together (as should middle class welfare) with government services supported purely by consumption/corporate taxes.

With the exception of a basic safety net, tax should not play a role in wealth redistribution nor should it be possible to gain advantage over others through tax minimisation schemes with no underlying economic merit.



> 2) business income, designed to support economic growth;



Where company profit is distributed after tax (franked), it should be tax free in the hands of the shareholder. This would preserve the integrity of the corporate tax base.



> 3) economic rents from natural resources and land;



Natural resources belong to us all so it's only fair that the people get a fair return from their exploitation. The extent to which this is reflected by a RRT on top of company tax is a subject for further debate in itself. The level of a RRT should however reflect long term objectives of continued resource extraction.

If the tax base for income/corporate/consumption taxes are robust, why tax land ?
That's double dipping as the money used to purchase that land has allready been taxed.

Come to think of it, it's triple dipping as we all ready pay what is effectively a land tax to local government for their services.



> 4) private consumption.



In order of taxes this should be first and cover all consumable items. Investment no and that includes rent. Land should only be subject to a consumption tax to the extent real value is added (via subdivision for example). 

There, you have it. The Smith Review.

To whom do I send the invoice ?


----------



## Whiskers (4 May 2010)

nunthewiser said:


> I think you need to get out more whiskers.




lol yeah I know.  Just one more response and I'll go and do something outside.   



trainspotter said:


> LMAO@Nunthewiser ....... Once agan Whiskers you have failed to read what is in front of you. I am trying to get you to the point where I can actually have a meaningful debate without the peripheral, obtuse remarks from your good self. *If you actually concentrate and enucleate with clarity, I have seen a few flashes of genuine brilliance *only to descend into a hopeless fug of despair with your inarticulate verbosity.
> 
> Anyways ...... :horse:




That's gold and spot on mate.  

The problem is I'm only human and I get tired reading so much generalised and ctitical for the sake of criticism commentry and try to decipher the main points from often a miss mash of different issues inter-twined in some comments.

Too often I've tried to focus on one issue at a time and ask specific questions but most often no specific relative response comes back. Just more evasive, critical dare I say it 'waffle' trying to put me off.




> Henry Tax Reform sugested a 40% tax on mining companies BUT also sugested the state royalties be removed. This does not seem to be the case now does it?




Well, lets work on this issue alone for a moment. 

As I have mooted a number of times now, I suggest Rudd probably has an adgenda to mavouvre into a position of relieving the states of the main control of mining activities and revenue. In principal it may be a good thing for a national takeover and uniform taxes and royalties based more on revenue or profits than tonnage, but... 

It's still early days, and the States will no doubt balk at the idea. I'm waiting for the detail of how Rudd is going to manipulate his announcements and changes to eventually probably corner the states into submitting to some sort of takeover.

The problem he faces is to get the states to agree to and honour an agreement to remove state royalties, bearing in mind they didn't remove those state taxes when the GST was implemented.


----------



## skyQuake (4 May 2010)

drsmith said:


> Natural resources belong to us all so it's only fair that the people get a fair return from their exploitation. The extent to which this is reflected by a RRT on top of company tax is a subject for further debate in itself. The level of a RRT should however reflect the long term objectives of continued resource extraction.
> 
> If the tax base for income/corporate/consumption taxes are robust, why tax land ?
> That's double dipping as the money used to purchase that land has allready been taxed.




RRT is double taxation... Pay RRT on what you extract then pay company tax. 
Miners with assets overseas are fine but Aussie miners are screwed.
If you're earing more than 6% on your mine you'll get slugged with the RRT.

Existing mines will fill govt coffers. But new ones? Risk is incredibly high. A potential 30% return on a mine is suddenly 20%
No-one wants to take the risk anymore. No-one wants to expand mines anymore. Why not just buy bonds and earn that 6% RISK FREE.

Killing the golden goose...


----------



## Bushman (4 May 2010)

Whiskers said:


> I'm not sure it's dumb populism... maybe clever, cunning etc





Believe me Whiskers, I want to believe. As the father of a young daughter, the thought of Abbot bringing his Catholic social agenda to the federal arena makes me shiver. 

I agree that the ROE required for backing an off-shore project should be higher compared to an Aussie prject given the sovereign risk. H/e this 'tax grab' damages Australia's reputation with off-shore investors. Mines a long-term investments so you need a long-term stable tax regime to support that time frame. 

The comments about BHP being 'foreign owned' is pure spin and deeply inflammatory to foreign investors. 

It is 'dumb populism' as it is another scheme dreamt up by Rudd/Swann without testing the longer term ramifications. It is the same approach taken to insulation, ETS, BER, health care. Shoot now, ask questions later.


----------



## Calliope (4 May 2010)

The Age poll on the Henry Tax Review;  



> Is the government response to the Henry tax review the ''revolution'' promised?
> 
> Yes, increasing compulsory super paid by employers to 12 per cent is itself a significant change for all workers.
> 9%
> ...




http://images.theage.com.au/2010/05/02/1401793/svHENRY-420x0.jpg


----------



## drsmith (4 May 2010)

skyQuake said:


> RRT is double taxation... Pay RRT on what you extract then pay company tax.
> Miners with assets overseas are fine but Aussie miners are screwed.
> If you're earing more than 6% on your mine you'll get slugged with the RRT.
> 
> ...



The RRT is worthy of a thread in itself. I've allready made some specific comments;

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=552287&postcount=87
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=552295&postcount=93
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=552316&postcount=103
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=552338&postcount=111

Miners are currently paying state royalties on top of a 30% company tax and seem to be doing OK as a whole.

The general thrust of the RRT to me seems to be good in that it is levied once a certain profit level is reached. The points above do however require careful consideration in relation to the threshold and rate set. I don't have enough background knowledge to make specific judgements on that.

It would be interesting to know how Henry came up with a 55% total tax take (25% corporate rate +40%*75%) above the 10yr bond rate and how that compares internationally.

The government at the very least is trying to grab the golden goose around the neck and give it a good hard shake to see what falls out short term. Not good from a long term economic management perspective I agree.


----------



## Julia (4 May 2010)

The Muffin Man said:


> That's one perspective. Another perspective may be that Palmer was weighing up the positives and negatives of investing in New Guinea compared to Australia when this new resource tax was introduced. This is what I was referring to in my earlier post. If you don't think that this new tax will alter the investment decisions of mining companies in the future then you are living in a dream world. Mining companies have finite levels of capital to re-invest, which will be reduced even more by this new tax. With these reduced finite levels of capital, the mining companies need to decide which projects and investments will give the greatest level of return for the level of risk they are willing to carry. The pendulum is slowly swinging away from Australia.
> 
> Australia is becoming less and less attractive as far as mineral investment goes, and to assume that the mining industry will always be here in the same strength as we have seen over our history is a dangerous folly. This new tax, the ever increasing complex and costly Industrial Relations regime operating in this country, and the CPRS hanging over our heads, all point towards a deterioration in operating conditions for mining companies. No wonder mining companies are starting to court countries like New Guinea and Cameroon (SDL), where the taxation regimes being employed there are looking more and more attractive as time progresses. Mining companies are starting to wake up to Africa's potential, and more importantly, Africa is starting to wake up to Africa's potential. Every further restriction or deterioration in conditions mining companies experience in this country will push them further towards the point of looking elsewhere to invest their capital. Wouldn't it be a crying shame if this policy actually slowed down project investment into the future and all of the benefits that come with it?
> 
> ...



Great summary.



Mofra said:


> 3/138 is a little bit of a misnomer.
> 
> Rudd is a popularist style politician, in that the polls are more important than getting the right thing done at the right time. I have no doubt that there are more reforms that he may perceive as unpopular that he will include in the first post-election budget, should he be re-elected.



Exactly.  He simply doesn't have the courage to put these out before trying to convince the electorate to re-elect him.   If I hear him or Wayne Swan just one more time saying "well, we've had to take the *tough decisions*" I will scream.   Tough???  Give us a break!   They are proving to be quite breathtaking in their cowardice.




Calliope said:


> Rudd's supporters try to convince themselves that whacking the big miners and the smokers were  courageous decisions.  From an electoral point it takes no courage at all  to attack two unpopular minorities and is just another example of his gutlessness.
> 
> The smokers cannot fight back, but the big miners are obliged to try to defend their shareholders.
> 
> ...



Yep, you're quite correctly summing up the government.




Whiskers said:


> Do we really want more rushed changes and schemes to end up in a scrambled mash or should we be greatful that maybe this time Rudd is showing signs of taking things a bit slower in an effort to, or that the people can speak out to, help to get the implementation right.



Oh dear, Whiskers, the Henry Report was about two years in the making and surely you don't think Dr Henry did not communicate and consult with his masters during the formation of this?  And then the government have had half a year to release it and offer their response.  Hardly rushed, for god's sake.
It is as Calliope has said, they will be offering what is most likely to get them re-elected (think of all those punters who are thinking, oh goody, I will be getting more Super and I don't have to even lift a finger to provide it for myself,) and then if they are re-elected, out will come the stuff they really want to do to shore up the coffers once again.

I can't believe how supporters of the government appear to be quite unable to see or at least acknowledge that government's blatant failings.




Sir Osisofliver said:


> Much of the "working families" the Krudd refers to don't have the financial knowledge or experience to effectively use this increase to their advantage. Meaning that they will be left to the tender mercies of financial planners and advisers, whose pie just got bigger. I'm sure the financial companies will be laughing all the way to the bank.



Exactly so.  I think I said this yesterday.


----------



## trainspotter (4 May 2010)

I think the media grab that annoyed me the most was the one where Swann and Krudd were sitting on a couch clutching a document and forelock tugging each other and saying things like "Mmmmmmmmmmm, this one is going to be tough to sell" whilst they stabbed at the bit of paper in their hands.  Warped in his piety as he stroked his chin and peered over the rim of his bifocals Krudd then went onto say "Let them eat cake" and such like frivolness.


----------



## drsmith (4 May 2010)

Sir Osisofliver said:


> Increasing super contribution rate - bad idea - my views on superannuation and the horrible nature of this vehicle as an investment mechanism is well stated on these boards. Much of the "working families" the Krudd refers to don't have the financial knowledge or experience to effectively use this increase to their advantage. Meaning that they will be left to the tender mercies of financial planners and advisers, whose pie just got bigger. I'm sure the financial companies will be laughing all the way to the bank.
> 
> When the government reviewed superannuation several years ago and compared the actual numbers with the projected numbers which were wildly different, the response from Finance companies boiled down to "Well there wasn't enough money in super to start with which is why our fees seem high." And so the government response to Tax reform is....more of the same.



People should have more and simpler investment choices for superannuation and there should not be up-front income tax deductions on contributions. It is primarily this that leads to poor investment choice and exploitation by fund managers.



drsmith said:


> Superannuation requires an incentive over conventional savings/investment to encourage long term planning for retirement.
> 
> A simple model where there are no deductions for contributions and there is no tax on the earnings would achieve this. There may need to be limits on how much new capital can be put into super each year, possibly increasing with age.
> 
> ...


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (4 May 2010)

drsmith said:


> People should have more and simpler investment choices for superannuation and there should not be up-front income tax deductions on contributions. It is primarily this that leads to poor investment choice and exploitation by fund managers.
> 
> https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=552397&postcount=123




Drsmith - I think more and simpler are mutually exclusive when referring to the Financial services industry. There are already a plethora of products with new one's being made all the time to keep the waters impenetrable to the inexperienced investor.

The tax deduction on contributions is the governments bribe to encourage people to put more money in. It _seems_ like a good idea but is in actuality a terrible thing to do.

Cheers

Sir O


----------



## drsmith (4 May 2010)

Sir Osisofliver said:


> Drsmith - I think more and simpler are mutually exclusive when referring to the Financial services industry.



I was looking at it from the perspective of offering simple products in addition to what we all ready have with the expectation that higher returns (as a consequence of no fees) and simplicity would over time weed out some of the poorer performing products.

In other words, use tax reform and additional superannuation options to facilitate a passive reform of the financial services industry by market competition.


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (4 May 2010)

drsmith said:


> I was looking at it from the perspective of offering simple products in addition to what we all ready have with the expectation that higher returns (as a consequence of no fees) and simplicity would over time weed out some of the poorer performing products.
> 
> In other words, use tax reform and additional superannuation options to facilitate a passive reform of the financial services industry by market competition.




LOL that's nice in theory, in actuality however most of the Fin Services industry is a sales job. So without *unbiased education*, the consumer would be simply sold into the product that is in the best interests of the salesperson rather than their own best interest. To someone who knows little it's confusing as hell.

Cheers

Sir O


----------



## Whiskers (4 May 2010)

Julia said:


> Oh dear, Whiskers, the Henry Report was about two years in the making and surely you don't think Dr Henry did not communicate and consult with his masters during the formation of this?  And then the government have had half a year to release it and offer their response.  Hardly rushed, for god's sake.




Let's be clear (again), I'm not and never have been aligned to any political party. I'm simply taking a logical and pragmatic look at all the information. Do you remember the six hats from your dispute resolution training. They are just as important to individual everyday application.

Secondly, but they have been spending money left right and centre during that half year and have needed to spend more to rectify problems.

Then there is the issue of accounting for or budgeting for these costs, remembering that the COAG deal was also happening at this time and the exact numbers to nail that down were not known untill recently. 

So from an administritive, financial and accounting perspective, starting with the key or limiting  issues, (White hat)... surely you're not surprised that nothing too big was released until after COAG and re-crunching the budget.

You might notice that I intentionally play the devils advocate ocassionally as part of wearing different hats and some others maybe unconsciously do the same.

It seems to me that too many people wear the red or black hat too often and just don't want to change it.

Now if you're dwelling in your red or black hat for too long you may wrongly think I'm (different things)...


----------



## drsmith (4 May 2010)

Sir Osisofliver said:


> LOL that's nice in theory, in actuality however most of the Fin Services industry is a sales job. So without *unbiased education*, the consumer would be simply sold into the product that is in the best interests of the salesperson rather than their own best interest. To someone who knows little it's confusing as hell.



Judging by these rates the benefit of tax concessions on income from super is going to the bank, not the investor.

http://www.commbank.com.au/personal/super-retirement/super-savings-account/rates-fees/default.aspx

If investors could access the bank's normal savings products for superannuation, they may bypass the investment advisor alltogether.



Sir Osisofliver said:


> The tax deduction on contributions is the governments bribe to encourage people to put more money in. It _seems_ like a good idea but is in actuality a terrible thing to do.



That deduction ultimately does not finish up in the hands of the investor. It's eaten up, slowly but surely by fees and lower rates of return as shown in the link above.


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (4 May 2010)

drsmith said:


> Judging by these rates the benefit of tax concessions on income from super is going to the bank, not the investor.




Tell me something I don't know. And this is an industry wide characteristic.



> If investors could access the bank's normal savings products for superannuation, they may bypass the investment advisor alltogether.




*snort* Good luck getting that through. It's the banks that establish product, therefore they control it. And when it's *mandated* that it be in a complying product...this is what is called a captive market.



> That deduction ultimately does not finish up in the hands of the investor. It's eaten up, slowly but surely by fees and lower rates of return as shown in the link above.




So we agree  It's a bribe, just not an effective bribe. More of a Clayton's bribe as it were. 

Cheers

Sir O


----------



## drsmith (4 May 2010)

Sir Osisofliver said:


> *snort* Good luck getting that through. It's the banks that establish product, therefore they control it. And when it's *mandated* that it be in a complying product...this is what is called a captive market.



A possible solution to that is to reduce compliance to presevation as an investment until presevation age.

If at the end of the day investment houses don't offer like for like investment products for superannuation savings when compared to ordinary savings, there should be no tax advantage for superannuation whatsoever. On that I do agree.



Sir Osisofliver said:


> So we agree  It's a bribe, just not an effective bribe. More of a Clayton's bribe as it were.



As it stands it's very much a clayton's bribe along with those stands of blue gums and illusionary wealth from inflated property prices.


----------



## trainspotter (4 May 2010)

Whiskers said:


> Let's be clear (again), I'm not and never have been aligned to any political party. I'm simply taking a logical and pragmatic look at all the information. Do you remember the six hats from your dispute resolution training. They are just as important to individual everyday application.
> 
> Secondly, but they have been spending money left right and centre during that half year and have needed to spend more to rectify problems.
> 
> ...




ROFL@Whiskers - Dispute Resolution Training?? More like verbal judo in your case mate ! Six hats?? Hah ah aha ha ha ha ...... the Mad Hatter more like it ! And that is what Mr Rudd has been lately ..... 

Whiskers typed _"Secondly, but they have been spending money left right and centre during that half year and have needed to spend more to rectify problems." _ Spend money to rectify exactly WHAT problems? The problems that they created themselves perhaps?

"There are times when it is better to do nothing then rush headlong into a folly" my grandpappy always used to say and I believe this is one of those times.

Different coloured hats for Chrissake ! Pfffffffffffffffffffttttttttt !!!


----------



## bellenuit (4 May 2010)

*Cape Lambert cancels plans at WA project as a result of Henry tax*

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...ult-of-henry-tax/story-e6frg9no-1225862152771


----------



## The Muffin Man (4 May 2010)

bellenuit said:


> *Cape Lambert cancels plans at WA project as a result of Henry tax*
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...ult-of-henry-tax/story-e6frg9no-1225862152771




This will be the tip of the perverbial ice-berg.


----------



## prawn_86 (4 May 2010)

bellenuit said:


> *Cape Lambert cancels plans at WA project as a result of Henry tax*
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...ult-of-henry-tax/story-e6frg9no-1225862152771




Publicity stunt? Or just an excuse to get out of a marginal project?


----------



## Bushman (4 May 2010)

prawn_86 said:


> Publicity stunt? Or just an excuse to get out of a marginal project?




They have decided to focus on Sierra Leone; just lol.


----------



## Whiskers (4 May 2010)

bellenuit said:


> *Cape Lambert cancels plans at WA project as a result of Henry tax*
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...ult-of-henry-tax/story-e6frg9no-1225862152771






prawn_86 said:


> Publicity stunt? Or just an excuse to get out of a marginal project?




Yeah, it seems odd that the Henry review is still a long long way from being L A W, and no gaurantee that it ever will be... AND *the latest opinion polls suggesting a coalition win if an election was held now.*

It looks like opertune criticism of extra taxes as one would expect, but what are they really afraid of... the libs as the next gov, accepting Henry's recomendations too!


----------



## JTLP (4 May 2010)

Now...i'm just a n00b so shoot me down if you will...but...

Super to 12% - What if we have stagnant growth in the market ala Japan? Does the 'extra' money your average 30 year old get over the period of 12% super really equate to that much of a greater return?

Couple this with crippling the backbone of Australia...we are reknowned for resources etc...how does Rudd & Co intend to boost our super bottom line if our best performing sector is only returning profits to share holders at the 10 year bond rate? Wouldn't it make sense for super funds etc to just drop money into bond rates for a guaranteed return whilst still collecting fat fees?

Maybe i'm just confused.


----------



## Whiskers (4 May 2010)

trainspotter said:


> ROFL@Whiskers - Dispute Resolution Training?? More like verbal judo in your case mate ! Six hats?? Hah ah aha ha ha ha ...... the Mad Hatter more like it ! And that is what Mr Rudd has been lately .....
> 
> Whiskers typed _"Secondly, but they have been spending money left right and centre during that half year and have needed to spend more to rectify problems." _ Spend money to rectify exactly WHAT problems? The problems that they created themselves perhaps?
> 
> ...




Trainspotter, mate... I do wish you had not bought into other people's discussion... at least before making sure brain was engaged first. 

Sorry to be blunt, but when you ask any Psychologist, Manager or Human Resource Manager in particular, with a degree or better who has done a thorough job of their study you will see how careless, ignorant and useless, to put it mildly, this attempted ridicule is.

They are not my concepts, they have been around for ages and any teen doing a half decent job studing Psychology or Management, HRM in particular at uni will be familiar with it.

I might just add that most competent managers and leaders are also familiar with the concept, as is I'm sure Rudd is, as his ability to influence people indicates.

Try google search 'Six Hat Thinking' or 'Six Hat Brainstorming' for an intro.


----------



## Whiskers (4 May 2010)

JTLP said:


> Now...i'm just a n00b so shoot me down if you will...but...
> 
> Super to 12% - *What if we have stagnant growth in the market *ala Japan? Does the 'extra' money your average 30 year old get over the period of 12% super really equate to that much of a greater return?




That's always the risk with managed super in particular.

At least if you manage your own, if you are confident and competent too, you can move your funds around sectors. There's usually something that's making money at any one time.

I've not seen recent figures, but I suspect the Rudd gov is concerned about future age pension committments, especially now that he has spent a lot of money around the place and is looking for savings in this case, or extra tax revenue to balance future budgets.

Even if the libs win the next election for 10 years I suspect it will be on the adgenda sometime later because the notion that the rate may need to increase in the future has been around for quite a while now.

But from a tactical perspective, I suppose it's better to try to get these things done in boom times rather than gloom times.


----------



## ColB (4 May 2010)

> *Originally posted by Whiskers*
> 
> Trainspotter, mate... I do wish you had not bought into other people's discussion... at least before making sure brain was engaged first.
> 
> ...




Rudd definitely has an ability to influence people so much so that he has buckleys chance of getting my vote and probably the vote of any other clear thinking invividual.  How could any other party possibly do worse than this bunch of clowns?


----------



## drsmith (4 May 2010)

They all wear blue hats and think their geniusus.


----------



## drsmith (4 May 2010)

Six hats ??



> Six distinct states are identified and assigned a color:
> 
> Questions (White) - considering purely what information is available, what are the facts?
> Emotions (Red) - instinctive gut reaction or statements of emotional feeling (but not any justification)
> ...




It's more like how to think like children.


----------



## Whiskers (4 May 2010)

drsmith said:


> Six hats ??
> 
> 
> 
> It's more like how to think like children.




Yes, in a way. Getting back to basics.

We tend to grow up and get set in our ways. It's a handy process to remember, to remind us of our basic instincts and related behaviour, while learning how to manage them in an adult capacity for best effect.

But ideally, one needs to do personality style analysis to better understand oneself, cos the information we percieve is filtered and cognitised according to our individual dominant personality traits.

Unfortunately, all this knowledge and talent doesn't necessairly equal good behaviour or decisions, sometimes just good ability to manage or manipulate people... often referred to as toxic people. 

Child molesters, psychopaths and super con artists are the worst end of the range... many politicans would come somewhere next down the list and as I mentioned Rudd is certainly up there with the most influential politicians.

Hence my bewilderment at why some don't appreciate a slower flow of change and new measures that must surely be easier to scrutenise and rectify than a gung-ho 100mph death wish.


----------



## trainspotter (4 May 2010)

Completely off topic now Whiskers ...... zzzzzzzzzzz ........ 6 hats indeed !! This is what I was elucidating about in regards to the introduction of superfluous diatribe that is not part of the discussion. It is not necessary or critical to the debate. We are now off topic completely. 

I have studied peoples mannerisms, social interactions including their "ticks", nervous behaviour, including social behavior, personality, researched psych  methods, therapeutic techniques and finally just get them pissed as a newt to see their real personalities come out once alcohol has taken effect. I have seen meek and mild accountants turn into lion tamers and macho dudes reduced to crying babies in the corner sucking their thumb.

The 6 thinking hats theory you have thrown up is merely a book by Edward de Bono written in 1985, himself a proven fraudulent who prays on the misfortune of people looking for an excuse to blame others as to why they are unsuccessfull in life. I have been to his "power of positive thinking" forums on several occasions and liken them to Amway meetings.

"De Bono believed that the key to a successful use of the Six Think Hats methodology was the deliberate focusing of the discussion on a particular approach as needed during the meeting or collaboration session. For instance, a meeting may be called to review a particular problem and to develop a solution for the problem. The Six Thinking Hats method could then be used in a sequence to first of all explore the problem, then develop a set of solutions, and to finally choose a solution through critical examination of the solution set. " THANK YOU WIKI ANSWERS !!

Just when I thought I was getting somewhere with you Whiskers .... you let me down. 

"There are times when it is better to do nothing then rush headlong into a folly" my grandpappy always used to say and I believe this is one of those times. Clearly you have failed to read what I have written ...again.

Henry Tax Reform -Would have been better off to do nothing and wait until after the election to release the information. Get my drift now???


----------



## Julia (4 May 2010)

Whiskers said:


> Let's be clear (again), I'm not and never have been aligned to any political party. I'm simply taking a logical and pragmatic look at all the information. Do you remember the six hats from your dispute resolution training. They are just as important to individual everyday application.



Well, Whiskers, my dispute resolution training was courtesy the ordinary old Justice Department, and they didn't indulge in such colourful psychobabble.
When I read your meanderings, I feel immensely grateful to the Justice Department.



> You might notice that I intentionally play the devils advocate ocassionally as part of wearing different hats and some others maybe unconsciously do the same.
> 
> It seems to me that too many people wear the red or black hat too often and just don't want to change it.
> 
> Now if you're dwelling in your red or black hat for too long you may wrongly think I'm (different things)...



Oh dear.



trainspotter said:


> ROFL@Whiskers - Dispute Resolution Training??
> 
> 
> Different coloured hats for Chrissake ! Pfffffffffffffffffffttttttttt !!!






drsmith said:


> Six hats ??








Sir Osisofliver said:


> Tell me something I don't know. And this is an industry wide characteristic.



Sir 0, you must be one of the few candid financial planners around.  Goodonya!


----------



## trainspotter (4 May 2010)

Whiskers said:


> Trainspotter, mate... I do wish you had not bought into other people's discussion... at least before making sure brain was engaged first.
> 
> Sorry to be blunt, but when you ask any Psychologist, Manager or Human Resource Manager in particular, with a degree or better who has done a thorough job of their study you will see how careless, ignorant and useless, to put it mildly, this attempted ridicule is.
> 
> ...




Aaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh I can't be bothered ! Other than to say you need to get a better search engine than Google. Try Bing .... it does the same thing.

I prefer Erik Erikson and his insight into identity crisis myself. Hope, will, purpose, competence, fidelity, love, caring, wisdom are his stages of lifes virtues.

Google this or even Bing it if you like for a different perspective.


----------



## trainspotter (4 May 2010)

By the way Whiskers, the verbal judo retort is a certified police training technique that has been used effectively since 1984. 6 hats ROFL @ you !

http://www.verbaljudo.com.au/ and http://www.verbaljudo.com/

BING !


----------



## Whiskers (5 May 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Aaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh I can't be bothered !




Ahh, but you are botherd... to the point of posting three times... still emotionally attached (yellow hat) and the need to pass judgement (black hat).

I accept that you have studied such things as Verbal Judo cos that's the point I'm making about your style.

This is a technique that people like police, teachers, soldiers and even nurses need to use to influence people to do what they want. Little to do with conflict resolution and everything to do with you, the police or teacher etc being in charge, keeping in control of your subjects and the situation. 

This is further indicated for example, by your use of the word debate as opposed to dialogue. Debate is confrontational whereas dialogue is an exchange of ideas.

Verbal judo is all about control.... the six hats concept is about cooperative analysis value adding and implementation. There's a world of differance. Control is just one aspect of the 6 hats, dialogue and conflict resolution generally.

I would add that Rudd is also an exponent of verbal judo, control as in the unbalanced or misplaced use of behavioural management skills, maybe even a toxic effect, especially towards his cabinet and staffers.

You will recall child abusers, psychopaths and con-artists etc are control freaks that went to the dark side. For control freaks it's a thin line to the dark side... one reason why military (control) type training often needs to be undone psychology to reduce the increased risk of social problems later.



trainspotter said:


> Henry Tax Reform -Would have been better off to do nothing and wait until after the election to release the information. Get my drift now???




But were'nt you one that was critical of the gov for not releasing it sooner!

Anyway, I dissagree. Now that the gov has COAG out of the way and re-drafted the budget, there is really no good reason to delay the release or discussion of the recomendations.

My whole point is I accept that reform is inevetable and the more public consultation into the process the better for a good result.

Seriously, can you imagine the criticism and backlash if the henry report release was delayed until after the election!

Debate is a political style, dialogue is a social style.

I say, just please be thankfull for small mercies that they have not bombbarded us with a heap changes all at once and hopefully that they engage in community dialogue more this time.


----------



## moXJO (5 May 2010)

You forgot the 7th and most common hat on forums: Asshat


 ass-hat   
 One whose head is so far up their rear end it could pass for a hat; used to describe a person who is stubborn, cruel, or otherwise unpleasant to be around. 



(aimed at no one)


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (5 May 2010)

@ whiskers - Please don't derail the thread? I thought I would try politeness as you don't seem to be responding to all the negativity being thrown your way. 
_
"The Rudd government's proposed 40 per cent Resources Super Profit Tax announced Sunday has been slammed by the industry, along with BHP Billiton’s Marius Kloppers and Fortescue Metals Andrew Forrest, and yesterday caused $9 billion to be wiped from the value of the ASX’s top 100 miners.

The tax is expected to commit an extra $12bn to the tax pool by 2014."_

Nice one Kev.

Cheers

Sir O


----------



## noco (5 May 2010)

The Rudd Government, ie. Rudd and his brain washed well rehearsed lined cronies are all pushing the same barrow that the likes of BHP are 70% owned by overseas interests and profits are going overseas. So what? overseas investers are entitled to a fair dividend for their investment. Another con job to get voters on side.

I have money invested  in Australian companies mining in South Africa, Cambodia, Yemen  and Texas. So should I leave my dividneds in those countries or as Rudd states be a victim of 40% tax fall out. Actually, South African  miners are only taxed 20%. So I can understand why Australian miners would divert their interests overseas. Can you blame them? Australia is now becoming an international  laughing stock and is being well discussed by other countries.

The repercussions of course will be the loss of over $100 billion in cap-ex and many jobs. The unions will turn a blind eye to that. 

I am entitled to a fair return on funds invested overseas just as overseas investors are entitled to a return for funds invested in Australia.

As Clive Palmer quoted yesterday, Rudd is becoming like a communist. I'm sure Rudd would like to see all mining become state owned so he get his grubby hands on all the profits.


----------



## zzaaxxss3401 (5 May 2010)

The amount of money I have lost on mining stocks (including BHP and RIO) over the past few days, will FAR outway any tax gains I'll get back personally from the Government's tax gathering.

Even with this new tax, I'll still have lousy internet speed, poor mobile coverage in the country, shockingly poor roads, long hospital queues, congestion, public transport woes, housing problems, GST, and the Medicare Levy.

Can ANYONE outline what KRudd has done for the past 3 years?

NOTE: I used "done" rather than "achieved".


----------



## trainspotter (5 May 2010)

moXJO said:


> You forgot the 7th and most common hat on forums: Asshat
> 
> ass-hat
> One whose head is so far up their rear end it could pass for a hat; used to describe a person who is stubborn, cruel, or otherwise unpleasant to be around.
> ...




The best post on this thread so far IMO ! Other than The Muffin Mans inciteful dialogue on the mining companies finite resources for exploration etc.


----------



## todster (5 May 2010)

noco said:


> The Rudd Government, ie. Rudd and his brain washed well rehearsed lined cronies are all pushing the same barrow that the likes of BHP are 70% owned by overseas interests and profits are going overseas. So what? overseas investers are entitled to a fair dividend for their investment. Another con job to get voters on side.
> 
> I have money invested  in Australian companies mining in South Africa, Cambodia, Yemen  and Texas. So should I leave my dividneds in those countries or as Rudd states be a victim of 40% tax fall out. Actually, South African  miners are only taxed 20%. So I can understand why Australian miners would divert their interests overseas. Can you blame them? Australia is now becoming an international  laughing stock and is being well discussed by other countries.
> 
> ...




BHP 40% foreign owned Rio 70% was what i read?
Harbinger was dumping iron ore prior to this can you explain that?
Yep there all going to pack up and head to the safe havens in Africa and S.America with there stable Governments 
yeah yeah yeah
Don't think Rudd is the only one who uses spin


----------



## trainspotter (5 May 2010)

Let's try some facts here shall we !

According to Access Economics, since 1999, miners have paid $78bn in Australian royalties and taxes (just a tad shy of the $80bn in the profit increase Rudd identifies). And, in 2008-09, the miners total tax bill rose by $7.7bn to $20.1bn. *That is a near seven-fold increase on the total tax bill in 1999, which was $2.64bn.*

"And remember," the Prime Minister continued, "these companies, BHP and Rio, BHP is 40 per cent foreign owned, Rio Tinto is more than 70 per cent foreign owned, that means these massively increased profits, the $80bn I referred to before, built on Australian resources, are mostly, in fact, going overseas."

*Now there are some real doosies in that little effort. The first thing to observe, just for the record, is that BHP Billiton is, in fact, about 60 per cent owned by non-Australian shareholders and Rio Tinto is nearly 85 per cent foreign owned.*

My second observation would be that less than half of BHP's attributable profit was returned to shareholders through dividend payments while crisis-struck Rio's payout in 2009 represented a more miserly 16 per cent. Both companies then retained profits to invest in building or rebuilding their businesses. And that is the story across the mining sector.

For executives and shareholders alike, it is a capital growth industry not a yield play.

I think we should all read this http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...tical-imperative/story-e6frg8zx-1225861771939 for a little more clarity.

I called on the Govt to release the Henry Tax Review in all it's glory, not sit on it for 6 months and do nothing. This means to me an admission of guilt. Remember these are only recommendations and it is up to the Govt. to decide which, if any they are going to implement. 

At the end of the day it is a great big fizzer IMO ..... a tax grab of Grinches released prior to an election. Makes a mockery of Ken Henry, 10 million dollars, 1000 pages, 138 reforms and 18 months of work.


----------



## noco (5 May 2010)

todster said:


> BHP 40% foreign owned Rio 70% was what i read?
> Harbinger was dumping iron ore prior to this can you explain that?
> Yep there all going to pack up and head to the safe havens in Africa and S.America with there stable Governments
> yeah yeah yeah
> Don't think Rudd is the only one who uses spin





Sorry, yes you are right about Rio 70%. Just got it around the wrong way.

As a point of interest, my portfolio of investments in Australia have dropped from between 2% and 10% since that stupid announcement  of 40% by Rudd and Swan. My overseas interest have increased. What would you recommend my friend, sell my Australian interests and invest  in overseas operations?


----------



## Calliope (5 May 2010)

noco said:


> Sorry, yes you are right about Rio 70%. Just got it around the wrong way.
> 
> As a point of interest, my portfolio of investments in Australia have dropped from between 2% and 10% since that stupid announcement  of 40% by Rudd and Swan. My overseas interest have increased. What would you recommend my friend, sell my Australian interests and invest  in overseas operations?




Todster has been practising Rudd's spin. He still has a long way to go.


----------



## bellenuit (5 May 2010)

*Super-profit tax to boost Canada's competitive advantage, says Jim Flaherty*

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...ays-jim-flaherty/story-e6frg9df-1225862465958


----------



## todster (5 May 2010)

Calliope said:


> Todster has been practising Rudd's spin. He still has a long way to go.




Calliope old mate the irony of your address cracks me up every post!


----------



## Calliope (5 May 2010)

todster said:


> Calliope old mate the irony of your address cracks me up every post!




You obviously crack up very easily. I'm not surprised.


----------



## Gar (5 May 2010)

Can somebody please tell me if this 40% super profit tax is across all resource companies or just the top tier fellas.

The media only seems to talk about the big boys


----------



## Calliope (5 May 2010)

moXJO said:


> You forgot the 7th and most common hat on forums: Asshat
> ass-hat
> One whose head is so far up their rear end it could pass for a hat; used to describe a person who is stubborn, cruel, or otherwise unpleasant to be around.
> (aimed at no one)




Good one moXJO. A little bit of satire will beat a thousand words of preaching every time. It pointless trying to debate with asshats as they tend to get very nasty when cornered.


----------



## Whiskers (5 May 2010)

Sir Osisofliver said:


> @ whiskers - Please don't derail the thread?



I'm doing my best Sir... 



> I thought I would try politeness




thank you. I like that.



> as you don't seem to be responding to all the negativity being thrown your way.




True... I've been trying to steer (facilitate) some of the comments and their authors away from confrontational debate and put downs, to more dialogue.



> _"The Rudd government's proposed 40 per cent Resources Super Profit Tax announced Sunday has been slammed by the industry, along with BHP Billiton’s Marius Kloppers and Fortescue Metals Andrew Forrest, and yesterday caused $9 billion to be wiped from the value of the ASX’s top 100 miners.
> 
> The tax is expected to commit an extra $12bn to the tax pool by 2014."_
> 
> ...




That's true, except for _caused $9 billion to be wiped from the value of the ASX’s top 100 miners._ 

Given that the world markets were already in a correction before this announcement was made, I'm not sure how much to attribute the sell-off of the miners in particular to the proposed new tax.

Also as of a couple days ago, *the latest polls have the coalition winning an election now*. I've no clear idea about the coalition position as I've not seen Abbott make any endorsement or rebuttal of the review. *So is the industry and markets concerned that the coalition wil also adopt the 'super' or windfall' tax too.* 

I seems inevetable that some sort of new tax and or rearrangement of the system will occur, at least under Rudd, but how much extra it will cost the miners and what the trade-offs are I can only speculate until I can get a bit of a picture from seeing what signals and trail Rudd is leaving a bit further down the track.


----------



## Whiskers (5 May 2010)

Gar said:


> Can somebody please tell me if this 40% super profit tax is across all resource companies or just the top tier fellas.
> 
> The media only seems to talk about the big boys




Good point... and I don't think anyone knows how it will all pan out in the end or whether the coalition (since they are now in the lead in polls) will also endorse something similar or not. 

The best I'm ably to imply is firstly, that the tax is intended to reap back some of the higher profits that some big companies are making from resources, and...

Secondly, that Rudd has taken Henry as bait and cast it out there in the public domain to see what activity it creates and will probably decide, after inspecting what is responding, on some specific burley (sweeteners) to catch his target and leave the rest of the shoal (community) relatively unaffected and content.


----------



## Judd (5 May 2010)

From what I have been told the tax is to apply to extraction industries.  This would include sand mining for glass production, crop fertilizers, even brick makers.

Lots to look forward to it would seem.


----------



## moXJO (5 May 2010)

Whiskers said:


> That's true, except for _caused $9 billion to be wiped from the value of the ASX’s top 100 miners._
> 
> Given that the world markets were already in a correction before this announcement was made, I'm not sure how much to attribute the sell-off of the miners in particular to the proposed new tax.
> .




I would agree with the above statement. Unfortunate timing for Rudd's announcement. 
As for the tax I am in two minds about it. 

Still very early days. And as to what this tax will look like by the end of the squabbling is anyone’s guess. Main concern is an ETS hitting miners in the next few years as well.


----------



## Julia (5 May 2010)

Whiskers said:


> Given that the world markets were already in a correction before this announcement was made, I'm not sure how much to attribute the sell-off of the miners in particular to the proposed new tax.



Agree this is very relevant.  The whole market is down in one of the worst days for months.  Obviously the broader market is reacting more to Greece et al than the mining situation.




> I've no clear idea about the coalition position as I've not seen Abbott make any endorsement or rebuttal of the review.



Well, Whiskers, you haven't been paying attention, have you?  Tony Abbott has switched his rhetoric about a "great big new tax", first applied in criticism of the ETS, to the new mining tax and has declared he is opposed to it.
However, knowing Mr Abbott's propensity for changing his mind, that may be a, er, flexible response.


----------



## Whiskers (5 May 2010)

moXJO said:


> Still very early days. And as to what this tax will look like by the end of the squabbling is anyone’s guess. Main concern is an ETS hitting miners in the next few years as well.




Yes, an ETS would be a double wammy.

There's a lot of possibilities atm, what with the coalition now leading the polls.

Interesting that Rudd's vote has fallen much more than Abbot has risen. Is this a sense that voters think the coalition will be better for Turnbull being in there and maybe come back as leader.

Given turnbull supported an ETS of sorts and he probably will regain a significant role or leadership again, it could be that voters prefer a coalition and some sort of ETS in preference to a new resource tax and or an increase in super contrib's?

Apparently, from what I can gather, the large drop for Rudd and labor was attributed to the shelving of the ETS more so than the Henry reforms.


----------



## moXJO (5 May 2010)

Whiskers said:


> Interesting that Rudd's vote has fallen much more than Abbot has risen. Is this a sense that voters think the coalition will be better for Turnbull being in there and maybe come back as leader.
> 
> Given turnbull supported an ETS of sorts and he probably will regain a significant role or leadership again, it could be that voters prefer a coalition and some sort of ETS in preference to a new resource tax and or an increase in super contrib's?
> 
> Apparently, from what I can gather, the large drop for Rudd and labor was attributed to the shelving of the ETS more so than the Henry reforms.




More likely that both parties are so hopeless that neither have the populations confidence that they can run the country.


----------



## Whiskers (5 May 2010)

Julia said:


> Well, Whiskers, you haven't been paying attention, have you?  Tony Abbott has switched his rhetoric about a "great big new tax", first applied in criticism of the ETS, to the new mining tax and has declared he is opposed to it.
> *However, knowing Mr Abbott's propensity for changing his mind, that may be a, er, flexible response*.




Yes, that's why I'm not clear. He still hasn't completely shed his former chief head kicker role and rethoric to oppose for opposition sake, and fully made the transition to a pure leadership role and put out a clear policy position yet.


----------



## Julia (5 May 2010)

Whiskers said:


> Interesting that Rudd's vote has fallen much more than Abbot has risen. Is this a sense that voters think the coalition will be better for Turnbull being in there and maybe come back as leader.



I don't think so.  Probably more that the dumping of the ETS moved most of the fall off in Labor vote to the Greens and Independents.



> Given turnbull supported an ETS of sorts and he probably will regain a significant role or leadership again, it could be that voters prefer a coalition and some sort of ETS in preference to a new resource tax and or an increase in super contrib's?



Turnbull supported the ETS but not the majority of the Party.  They will look extremely silly if they now do a backflip and support an ETS, particularly as Turnbull lost his job because of it!

It's irritating that Mr Rudd is saying the Super contribution increase can only go ahead if the mining tax proceeds intact.  If the Super contribution is being paid by all employers, surely they are funding it, not the miners alone.
I'm getting an increasing impression that Rudd himself doesn't actually know what he's supposed to be putting out there.



moXJO said:


> More likely that both parties are so hopeless that neither have the populations confidence that they can run the country.



Yes, I agree.  Depressing, isn't it.


----------



## Julia (5 May 2010)

From "Business Spectator" today:


> On the resources tax, BHP and to a lesser extent Rio Tinto are the backbone of Australian share portfolios. The government savaged them. Just as dangerous, they classified foreign investors as bad people and worthy of being hit hard. Foreign investors are going to be required for so many projects. They will now be much more wary and that nervousness will be multiplied by the fall on Wall Street.
> 
> So what we have is a world that is showing signs of stress at a time when Australia has moved into dangerous interest rate territory and has decided to decimate its own stock market by attacking foreign investors and its growth sector, resources. It's not smart.


----------



## Whiskers (5 May 2010)

Julia said:


> From "Business Spectator" today:




Probably not smart in the short term, but maybe sometime down the track it may be necessary to avoid the world being run by corporations a-la another attempt at the 'East India Company' experiment.

Uncle Festivus started a thread re the bigger Macro economic environment and I postulated these possibilities there https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=552906#post552906

Off topic a little, but tax reform of the likes of Henry may be necessary to prevent the world from transforming from government rule to corporate rule.

There has been rule by Mititary, Kingdom, Dictator, Communism and Capitalism government... but apart from the limited 'East India Company' experiment, we've not had total corporate government... yet! 

I suppose it depends on our level of self interest and relevant time span.


----------



## JTLP (5 May 2010)

In today's Herald Sun they have an article about the banks raising interest rates and KRudd calling them greedy for boosting there bottom lines even further. Hey Krudd...why not have a BSPT...after all they're being greedier then miners!

Also enjoyed the fact that he said that miners flactuate. Yes the markets are down re:Greece but the materials index was tumbling pretty fast on Monday when other mkts seemed not to bad. 

Sigh.


----------



## todster (5 May 2010)

JTLP said:


> In today's Herald Sun they have an article about the banks raising interest rates and KRudd calling them greedy for boosting there bottom lines even further. Hey Krudd...why not have a BSPT...after all they're being greedier then miners!
> 
> Also enjoyed the fact that he said that miners flactuate. Yes the markets are down re:Greece but the materials index was tumbling pretty fast on Monday when other mkts seemed not to bad.
> 
> Sigh.




BHP & RIO were heading south before monday


----------



## Bushman (5 May 2010)

Julia said:


> From "Business Spectator" today:




Australia's appaling saving rates (who needs to save when house prices rise on average 10% per year ) means that we are dependent on foreign investment! 

Even our precious banking cartel is majority dependent on foreign funding sources. 

This is the main reason that we keep running a shocking current account deficit despite our positive terms of trade. 

So this demonising of foreign investors on one hand does not make sense if we keep running 'cup in hand' to net savers on the other. 
The exodus from BHP/RIO will be explained by the required cost of capital increasing for foreign investors to compensate them for the increased sovereign and regulatory risk. This is the way that capital markets work.

I will repeat, it is just crazy (& xenophobic) populism this. If Krudd truely was cunning (not just a reactionary), then he would've taxed the banks and their risk-free 'super' profits rather than punishing a sector that genuinely drives producitvity in this nation.


----------



## trainspotter (5 May 2010)

Judd said:


> From what I have been told the tax is to apply to extraction industries.  This would include sand mining for glass production, crop fertilizers, even brick makers.
> 
> Lots to look forward to it would seem.




I heard on the news "Straight from Kevin Rudds mouth" that it is only to do with larger companies that are making a very large profit in the mining industry. *ie* BHP & Rio Tinto but I am not 100% sure ? 

He definitely said that banks would not be placed in the cross hairs even though Westpac made a 2.88 billion dollar profit for 6 months to March 31st. PM Bung Chow Kluddy just labelled them "greedy" ... after all he should know !


----------



## sails (5 May 2010)

todster said:


> BHP & RIO were heading south before monday




IMO, most likely instos were selling in anticipation due to leaked info before Monday. 

If you don't think it was the massive money grab by the govt, what other reasons do you think BHP & RIO fell over so rapidly at this precise time???


----------



## Calliope (5 May 2010)

For anybody who is really interested in what the Henry Tax Review was trying to do before Rudd got his grubby hands on it, read this link;

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...xactly-whats-best-for-them-20100504-u713.html



> So let's ignore our appalling politicians and pay the Henry report the courtesy of considering what it has to say. Its key point is we need changing taxes for changing times. We're in the early part of a new century, our lives are changing, the position Australia finds itself in is changing, so how does our system of taxes need to change in response the major challenges we're likely to face over, say, the next 40 years?...


----------



## todster (5 May 2010)

sails said:


> IMO, most likely instos were selling in anticipation due to leaked info before Monday.
> 
> If you don't think it was the massive money grab by the govt, what other reasons do you think BHP & RIO fell over so rapidly at this precise time???




Monday when in mid april?
Bhp were going south around then when i looked
Educated people were telling me things in China were the cause then.


----------



## JTLP (5 May 2010)

todster said:


> BHP & RIO were heading south before monday




More then 2 resource companies on the ASX todster...

Look at co's where projects are in Aus...that's the damage right thurr


----------



## trainspotter (5 May 2010)

Notice how we have lost sight of the Health reform issues we faced last week ?? Thank you Swanny & Rudd for the greatest magical act whereby the voting public are having trouble keeping up with the bouncing ball !!  And a big thank you to Ken Henry and a giant waste of money and resources !


----------



## nioka (5 May 2010)

trainspotter said:


> He definitely said that banks would not be placed in the cross hairs even though Westpac made a 2.88 billion dollar profit for 6 months to March 31st. PM Bung Chow Kluddy just labelled them "greedy" ... after all he should know !




The banks are a problem and taxing them wouldn't help. they would just increase their charges to compensate for any tax. Customers would end up paying the tax and not the bank. I would like to see the banks have their charges and interest rates capped.

That will anger the ASFers that say "no no no this should be free enterprise". However the banks enjoy a privileged position in our society and should be regulated so that they are not in a position to take more than their share of the cake. We are captive customers and as "captives" deserve some protection. The banks were the first to cry out for help in the GFC and ask for protection.

I detest the attitude of the banks but there is no alternative to controling my finances. The only way to work with them is to put as much as possible through a credit card and pay it in full on the last day for interest free credit. Even depositing cheques there incur no fee and you dont have to have a minimum balance to dodge fees.


----------



## todster (5 May 2010)

JTLP said:


> More then 2 resource companies on the ASX todster...
> 
> Look at co's where projects are in Aus...that's the damage right thurr




Yes just giving you an example of fluctuation


----------



## trainspotter (5 May 2010)

Does anyone else think it is sheer coincidence that Chun Lee Kluddy could not get his hands on the 30% GST revenue from WA and now we have a resource tax of 40% on mining companies? 

Ummmmmm ..... doesn't WA contribute and or account for a sizeable amount of this resource boom? Conspiracy theory abounds !!


----------



## todster (5 May 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Does anyone else think it is sheer coincidence that Chun Lee Kluddy could not get his hands on the 30% GST revenue from WA and now we have a resource tax of 40% on mining companies?
> 
> Ummmmmm ..... doesn't WA contribute and or account for a sizeable amount of this resource boom? Conspiracy theory abounds !!




Todays West any hope of of improving Labors meagre share of WAs 15 seats which the ALP hold 4 have been abandoned


Mr Barnett that 62% of mineral production comes from this state and about 70% of petroleum production 
no votes for Kev HERE obviously
Gees how about we put up a fence and the rest of you can rot in hell its all ours haahaaaaaaahaaa


----------



## nioka (5 May 2010)

todster said:


> Todays West any hope of of improving Labors meagre share of WAs 15 seats which the ALP hold 4 have been abandoned
> 
> 
> Mr Barnett that 62% of mineral production comes from this state and about 70% of petroleum production
> ...




My WA relatives are very much in favour of the resource tax. They say that not everyone in WA has benefited from the mining. The mining is creating a two tierd population of the "have a lot" and the "dont have a lot". There may be more votes in it for Rudd than some think. There are also a lot who are not happy that WA held out on the health package.


----------



## Wysiwyg (5 May 2010)

nioka said:


> My WA relatives are very much in favour of the resource tax. They say that not everyone in WA has benefited from the mining. The mining is creating a two tierd population of the "have a lot" and the "dont have a lot".



So what are you saying that if I start excavating my backyard and turn up some gold that everyone in the vicinity has a personal right to it? If people want to "have a lot" then they should go and "do a lot" is the way it works.


----------



## Julia (5 May 2010)

Bushman said:


> Australia's appaling saving rates (who needs to save when house prices rise on average 10% per year ) means that we are dependent on foreign investment!
> 
> Even our precious banking cartel is majority dependent on foreign funding sources.
> 
> ...



Exactly so.



nioka said:


> My WA relatives are very much in favour of the resource tax. They say that not everyone in WA has benefited from the mining. The mining is creating a two tierd population of the "have a lot" and the "dont have a lot". There may be more votes in it for Rudd than some think. There are also a lot who are not happy that WA held out on the health package.



I don't think there's any doubt that much of the voting public will delight in the thought that the big miners are going to be 'punished' for being so profitable.  This, after all, is the land of condemnation of tall poppies.

The same people will fail to understand that we simply need foreign investment, and will respond to Rudd's populist suggestion that we're donating our riches to overseas companies.
So utterly short-sighted and superficial.

And hey, to keep that same element in the electorate happy, the Ruddmeister might even pander to them even further with a Supertax on the banks!.  Whacko!  Wouldn't that be a winner!


----------



## noco (5 May 2010)

Wysiwyg said:


> So what are you saying that if I start excavating my backyard and turn up some gold that everyone in the vicinity has a personal right to it? If people want to "have a lot" then they should go and "do a lot" is the way it works.




You are so right Wysiwyg, too many bludgers want to sit on their backside and expect Government handouts from the hard work of others.


----------



## ColB (5 May 2010)

> *Originally Posted by nioka
> 
> My WA relatives are very much in favour of the resource tax.* They say that not everyone in WA has benefited from the mining. The mining is creating a two tierd population of the "have a lot" and the "dont have a lot".






> *Originally Posted by Wysiwyg*
> 
> So what are you saying that if I start excavating my backyard and turn up some gold that everyone in the vicinity has a personal right to it? If people want to "have a lot" then they should go and "do a lot" is the way it works




My relatives in Western Australia are very happy with their free insulation as well and one of them, a building contractor, has just finished building a school canteen for only $780,000 and is about to retire from the proceeds.  

I'm not happy with the resources tax and I'm not happy that *we will all pay* for their [Labor's] total incompetence


----------



## nioka (5 May 2010)

Wysiwyg said:


> So what are you saying that if I start excavating my backyard and turn up some gold that everyone in the vicinity has a personal right to it? If people want to "have a lot" then they should go and "do a lot" is the way it works.




According to the law you don't own the gold anyway. It could be pegged out by a mining company and all you would get is compensation for disturbance and the government gets a royalty.

One of my properties was pegged out by a miner. the court awarded me 5% plus $2 acre. The company found little of value, went bust and all I was left with was a mess that cost me a lot to repair. If you check your deed you will probably find that the "crown" reserves the mineral rights.


----------



## Wysiwyg (5 May 2010)

nioka said:


> According to the law you don't own the gold anyway.



You're right. In a universal sense, no one owns anything. Everything is on loan for our mortal life even though we gave coloured paper and feel it is ours.


----------



## Ageo (6 May 2010)

nioka said:


> According to the law you don't own the gold anyway. It could be pegged out by a mining company and all you would get is compensation for disturbance and the government gets a royalty.
> 
> One of my properties was pegged out by a miner. the court awarded me 5% plus $2 acre. The company found little of value, went bust and all I was left with was a mess that cost me a lot to repair. If you check your deed you will probably find that the "crown" reserves the mineral rights.




Noika not so sure about that as usually they sign an agreement for exploration details only. I have never heard the owner of the land to earn a royalty on how much gold they retrieve as in reality no1 really knows how much is on someones land.


----------



## Surly (6 May 2010)

nioka said:


> My WA relatives are very much in favour of the resource tax. They say that not everyone in WA has benefited from the mining. The mining is creating a two tierd population of the "have a lot" and the "dont have a lot". There may be more votes in it for Rudd than some think. There are also a lot who are not happy that WA held out on the health package.




I wonder if any of the billions of dollars mining companies spend in WA and Australia generally on wages as well as equipment in some way helps your relatives indirectly????

It certainly sounds like a very narrow minded view to me.

cheers
Surly


----------



## matty77 (6 May 2010)

Wysiwyg said:


> So what are you saying that if I start excavating my backyard and turn up some gold that everyone in the vicinity has a personal right to it? If people want to "have a lot" then they should go and "do a lot" is the way it works.




agreed, you dont deserve anything for doing nothing.

dont forget the mining companies are the ones that have invested billions of dollars into infrastructure for the mines etc. And dont forget the billions of dollars invested in the stock market with mining companies as well that ordinary Australians are now hurting by holding. 

But the real point is this, even if the super tax went ahead do you honestly trust the current government to spend the money properly? you got to be kidding me right?


----------



## gav (6 May 2010)

Wysiwyg said:


> So what are you saying that if I start excavating my backyard and turn up some gold that everyone in the vicinity has a personal right to it? If people want to "have a lot" then they should go and "do a lot" is the way it works.




LOL exactly.  By that logic, all of us at ASF should get a slice of Robots properties


----------



## drsmith (6 May 2010)

matty77 said:


> But the real point is this, even if the super tax went ahead do you honestly trust the current government to spend the money properly ?



Perhaps what we need is a PM with the financial mindset of Kerry Packer.


----------



## trainspotter (6 May 2010)

drsmith said:


> Perhaps what we need is a PM with the financial mindset of Kerry Packer.




Kerry Packer said this:

"If a working class Labor supporter saw a bloke drive past in a Rolls-Royce, he'd say to himself 'Come the social revolution and we'll take that away from you, mate'. Whereas if his Liberal counterpart saw a bloke drive past in a Roller he'd say 'One day I'm going to own one of those'. To my way of thinking the first attitude is wrong. The latter is right." (slight poetic licence)

and this as well:

"I am not evading tax in any way, shape or form. Now of course I am minimizing my tax and if anybody in this country doesn't minimize their tax they want their heads read because as a government I can tell you you're not spending it that well that we should be donating extra"


----------



## Whiskers (6 May 2010)

Ooops wrong thread. Cut and... now which thread was it!


----------



## IFocus (6 May 2010)

nioka said:


> My WA relatives are very much in favour of the resource tax. *They say that not everyone in WA has benefited from the mining. The mining is creating a two tierd population of the "have a lot" and the "dont have a lot". *There may be more votes in it for Rudd than some think. There are also a lot who are not happy that WA held out on the health package.




This very true Nioka with the boom comes rising prices even with the knock on effect of dollars spent there is indeed a two speed economy here in the west.

On health today comments about problems of the health system in dire trouble due to lack of funding but a rapid expansion of population to fuel the resource boom.


----------



## Whiskers (6 May 2010)

IFocus said:


> This very true Nioka with the boom comes rising prices even with the knock on effect of dollars spent there is indeed a two speed economy here in the west.
> 
> On health today comments about problems of the health system in dire trouble due to lack of funding but a rapid expansion of population to fuel the resource boom.




Yes, I tend to agree. I know quite a lot who are based in Queensland who have gone to the west on work stints as the mining projects come and go, but all call Qld home and, apart from job accidents, get all their medical care in Qld.

Probably worth doing a survey of miners to confirm the proportion of itinerate workers supporting the states mining income and whether their hospital system is actually up to standard for an obvious need to increase with population. 

Might be a case of taking a lend of other states workers without an equivilant contribution to their states health expenses.


----------



## todster (6 May 2010)

Whiskers said:


> Yes, I tend to agree. I know quite a lot who are based in Queensland who have gone to the west on work stints as the mining projects come and go, but all call Qld home and, apart from job accidents, get all their medical care in Qld.
> 
> Probably worth doing a survey of miners to confirm the proportion of itinerate workers supporting the states mining income and whether their hospital system is actually up to standard for an obvious need to increase with population.
> 
> Might be a case of taking a lend of other states workers without an equivilant contribution to their states health expenses.






Pretty sure they fly into Telfer from Brisbane direct,did when i was there anyway


----------

