Mining Tax Grab - How will it pan out?

[todster]

It's easy enough to know what your against but much harder to know what your for.

 

[Julia]

However, the documents also revealed that Mr Rudd's kitchen cabinet - the strategic priorities and budget committee - approved the money for the campaign on April 20, well before the new mining tax had been announced.[/I]

This is the aspect that gives the lie to the government's line of "we had to do this advertising to counter the misinformation being propagated by the mining companies". Clearly they had the advertising well and truly planned before the mining companies were even told about it, let alone got an advertising campaign into the market!

Like the fact that Western Australia has not yet agreed to the Commonwealth's health and hospital reforms.

Or that the Senate is yet to consider any legislation that might be required to give effect to that agreement.

And likewise the fact that the mining tax hasn't been legislated yet.
Given the opposition's avowal they will not pass it, and similar sounding noises from a couple of the Independants, they are going to have to significantly modify it to get it through.

Julia,
A retrospective tax would have the companies paying the tax on last years profits. I do not believe this to be the case. If it is because the miners developed the mines thinking one regime of tax was going to stay forever, then they were/are dreaming. Governments change the tax arrangements of all types of industries all the time that affect the companies involved.

It is not called a retrospective tax unless it taxes previous arrangements (ie last years income)

brty

OK, thanks for the correction, brty. What I meant was that it applied to projects already costed and up and running, which is unreasonable imo.
Bushman has below put it clearly, and as I should have.

It is retrospective in the sense that it picks up exisiting long-life mines which are unable to benefit from the 40% capital rebate. So this tax is in no way neutral as it would be if it was only applied to future projects. There is no way that it could add $9b to the budget if it truely was simpy tax reform as opposed to a tax grab.

 

[trainspotter]

Now the Unions want more reform !

The ACTU is expected to use a community forum today to call for more reform, while also pointing to a new analysis which it says shows the super profits tax will boost the economy and create jobs.

ACTU president Jeff Lawrence said modelling demonstrated reforms including the resource super profits tax (RSPT) would boost the economy by 0.7 per cent a year and investment by 2.1 per cent. (??????? HOW ????)

But the unions also wanted the Government to do more in terms of supporting key recommendations that came out of the Henry review.

"We want to see action on our other proposals including for more consistent tax treatment of investment income," Mr Lawrence said.

"The regressive effect of a proposed flattened personal income tax scale, and an absence of firm proposals to stem tax avoidance through private trusts and companies are areas of weakness."

Legislation setting up the 40 per cent tax on mining company profits is not expected to be introduced until after the election and the levy itself is not scheduled to come into force until 2012.

http://www.news.com.au/business/bre...nt-go-far-enough/story-e6frfkur-1225874276739 for the full article.

 

[brty]

Julia, Bushman,

What I was trying to point out is that governments of both persuasions do this type of thing all the time. Think of changes to MIS schemes that helped bankrupt several companies.

Think of large wineries that have spent vast sums then get a change to the alcohol taxes plus new 'investment allowances', they are/have been affected in the past.

It is just that the mining industry is a bigger industry with a large voice and they are using it.

brty

 

[Bushman]

Julia, Bushman,

What I was trying to point out is that governments of both persuasions do this type of thing all the time. Think of changes to MIS schemes that helped bankrupt several companies.

Think of large wineries that have spent vast sums then get a change to the alcohol taxes plus new 'investment allowances', they are/have been affected in the past.

It is just that the mining industry is a bigger industry with a large voice and they are using it.

brty

Fair enough. The recent changes to land taxes in NSW is a case in point.

 

[Kryzz]

Hmmm Paul Howes seemed to have one up on Clive in the debate, most interesting thing i heard was that Clive said that investment banks were banking on that the tax bill won't even make it through the parliament

 

[So_Cynical]

Again with comparing Rudd and Labor to Howard and the previous Liberal Government. Rudd told us, the voters, that he was to hold himself to a higher standard. He described Government advertising as a "cancer" on our society. All we are doing is holding Rudd to his word, it essentially has nothing to do with a previous Government.

And if you want to include all of Howard's half a billion on advertising, you need to include all of Rudd's advertising, not just his $40m in one area. As others have noted, there will be advertising campaigns regarding the budget, as well as the health reforms advertising that is already hitting our airwaves.

You guys just wont let go...defending the indefensible, Howard spends more than HALF A BILLION selling policy and somehow in your combined twisted right wing minds...Rudd spending less than 9% of that amount is worse because he publicly said he wouldn't.

Govt's wasting money selling policy has everything to do with the previous govt because they perfected the art, and took self promotion and policy selling to a new level wasting over half a BILLION and thus fuelling there self destruction and political defeat, as it now appears Labor is doing.

Lets all be very clear here...if its wrong for 1 Govt to spend money selling policy...its wrong for all Govts.

 

[Julia]

With apologies for somewhat hijacking the mining thread, has anyone else received their pretty, glossy colour brochure with the smiling faces of a doctor9 we know he's a doctor because he has the obligatory stethoscope round his neck) and a nurse with the Dear Leader at a patient bedside?

Throughout, it talks about the wonderful targets the government has to provide more nurses, doctors, beds, aged care funding etc.
Also the 'target' of no one needing to wait more than four hours in an emergency department.
Sounds all so promising, until you realise that 'targets' are not even near being promises, and the government can't even keep promises and 'guarantees'.

 

[The Muffin Man]

You guys just wont let go...defending the indefensible, Howard spends more than HALF A BILLION selling policy and somehow in your combined twisted right wing minds...Rudd spending less than 9% of that amount is worse because he publicly said he wouldn't.

Govt's wasting money selling policy has everything to do with the previous govt because they perfected the art, and took self promotion and policy selling to a new level wasting over half a BILLION and thus fuelling there self destruction and political defeat, as it now appears Labor is doing.

Lets all be very clear here...if its wrong for 1 Govt to spend money selling policy...its wrong for all Govts.

Absolutely agreed, 100%. That is not the argument here, and I think you are missing that point completely.

Rudd went to the voters on the fact that he was different, outlining things like Government advetising as a "cancer," that he would put an end to. He is now engaging in the exact same behaviour. You don't see a problem here? It goes to the very heart of why people are falling out of love with Rudd, because as with the ETS and "our greatest moral challenge," he is going against what he supposedly believed in by side stepping his own rules relating to Government advertising. These actions have nothing to do with Howard. Howard's spending was disgraceful too, but Rudd said he would fix all that. Instead, he does the exact same thing.

You keep throwing around the $500m figure of the previous Liberal Government and comparing it to the $39m figure of the present Labor Government. You must have gone to the same school of deceit that Swan went to judging by how he is presenting the RSPT "facts" and "figures." That figure of the Liberal Party was for numerous ad campaigns and numerous topics. If you are going to aggregate all Liberal advertising expenditure, you need to aggregate all Labor advertising expenditure. Otherwise, your comparison is fundamentally flawed because you aren't comparing like items. I feel you realise this, but for some reason are prepared to look like a clown by comparing two very different items to try and push some anti-Howard / anti-Liberal agenda.

 

[trainspotter]

You guys just wont let go...defending the indefensible, Howard spends more than HALF A BILLION selling policy and somehow in your combined twisted right wing minds...Rudd spending less than 9% of that amount is worse because he publicly said he wouldn't.

Govt's wasting money selling policy has everything to do with the previous govt because they perfected the art, and took self promotion and policy selling to a new level wasting over half a BILLION and thus fuelling there self destruction and political defeat, as it now appears Labor is doing.

Lets all be very clear here...if its wrong for 1 Govt to spend money selling policy...its wrong for all Govts.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Go and read posts 193 and 194 for some FACTS in regards to the current Labor advertising spending blitz. Just my right wing twisted mind trying to be rational.

Agreed that any Govt should have a CAP on the amount they are allowed to spend on self promotion/propoganda/grandstanding.

I believe it was Keating who taught Little Johnny this fine art by the way.

Expenditures on government advertising placed through the CAS rose fairly steadily over the years of the Keating Government (1991–96). The exception was the 1992–93 financial year when there was a sharp increase in outlays. Government advertising expenditure over the first eight years of the Howard Government (see Table 1, shaded) is marked by a major increase in 1999–2000. Expenditures for that year increased by 265 per cent on the previous financial year. This reflected expenditure on the goods and services tax advertising campaign. Still, the level of government advertising expenditure in the past two financial years is similar (in real terms) to outlays in the last two years of the Keating administration.

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2003-04/04rn62.htm

We are splitting hairs now and name calling belongs in the playground.

Mining tax grab and how will it pan out? NFI ?

 

[Mofra]

Throughout, it talks about the wonderful targets the government has to provide more nurses, doctors, beds, aged care funding etc.
Also the 'target' of no one needing to wait more than four hours in an emergency department.
Sounds all so promising, until you realise that 'targets' are not even near being promises, and the government can't even keep promises and 'guarantees'.

I don't have the brochure - tell me Julia, are they core or non-core targets? :

 

[Calliope]

Lets all be very clear here...if its wrong for 1 Govt to spend money selling policy...its wrong for all Govts.

It's even more wrong to make a solemn promise not to do it and then to cynically break that promise.

 

[Julia]

I don't have the brochure - tell me Julia, are they core or non-core targets? :

Gee whiz, Mofra, I stupidly neglected to note this. Unfortunately, I used the brochure to put my dog's paws on when cutting her toenails, so am unable to clarify this for you. Shame on me.

 

[medicowallet]

Throughout, it talks about the wonderful targets the government has to provide more nurses, doctors, beds, aged care funding etc.
Also the 'target' of no one needing to wait more than four hours in an emergency department.
Sounds all so promising, until you realise that 'targets' are not even near being promises, and the government can't even keep promises and 'guarantees'.

Yes, I for not one minute believe Rudd and his electioneering (take over hospitals anyone??)

However,

Doctor training and nurse training is, and already was, in the pipeline, so there will be many more trained, irrespective of Kevin Rudd's claiming them for his fame.

 

[nunthewiser]

The Mining tax already having an effect i see.....

 

[badger41]

Just watched Kevin commenting on his meeting with "a bunch of miners" last night.

Hope the bunch of miners were wearing hard hats and flouro vests - could have been useful. Also maybe they should have brought some picks and shovels along - handy for destruction and burial.

Wonder if our Prime Minister would enjoy being decribed as a member of "a bunch of pollies" at the next function he attends. PM, try some common courtesy: "I met with a number of senior mining company executives" might have been appropriate.

It occurs to me that "bunches" are often used to descibe bananas - the old one "go in green, turn yellow, come out bent". And I've never heard this applied to productive enterprises, it seems to have been reserved for politicions in the past. Perhaps understandably.

 

[Bushman]

Access Economics do not agree with Krudd, Swan and Henry.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...modelling-faulty/story-e6frg926-1225874749243

Xstrata agree with Access.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...66bn-in-projects/story-e6frg9df-1225875067008

Kruddy and Swan look to retrospectively install Peter Garrett as the Treasurer so that he can take the wrap for stuffing up the modelling.

Abbott, errr , what Xstrata and Access said.

 

[Julia]

Just watched Kevin commenting on his meeting with "a bunch of miners" last night.

Hope the bunch of miners were wearing hard hats and flouro vests - could have been useful. Also maybe they should have brought some picks and shovels along - handy for destruction and burial.

Wonder if our Prime Minister would enjoy being decribed as a member of "a bunch of pollies" at the next function he attends. PM, try some common courtesy: "I met with a number of senior mining company executives" might have been appropriate.

That's a really good point, badger, and he indulges in this disparaging language frequently. And it's not just his pejorative language but also his scornful and derisive tone. Maybe he can use this on the Opposition but to treat a group of successful businessmen whom you are trying to persuade to your point of view in this way is not just rude and ignorant, but counter-productive.

Access Economics do not agree with Krudd, Swan and Henry.

Thanks for that link, Bushman. There would be few who do not respect Chris Richardson's views.

To be fair to Ken Henry, I understand the government have not adopted his RPST in its entirety, but picked out the bits they want. I don't know, but perhaps his full suggestion made more sense.
Or maybe he had his mind on wombats when he was working it all out.
There's no doubt he is well and truly in the government's pocket: no sense of Treasury being impartial these days.

 

[Whiskers]

If I may get this thread back on topic, who has heard of a mining project cancelled or delayed for anything other than 'The new Super Tax' in the last month or so?

It seems all of a sudden that mining projects don't get delayed or cancelled because they were fundamentally unviable or some other extenuating circumstance.

The Xstrata example smells quite a bit of political oppertunism in a similar vein to Clive Palmers now political art form. Isn't the canned extension of their near depleted open cut copper project, to underground operations, with what I've heard one analyst say is about lower production rates and about double the overheads of open cut, much more about the fundamental viability of the project than anything else?

After all... at the risk of repeating the obvious... the new tax proposal, if it even gets to law in about two years, if at all, is only on profits and then only on those profits above 6% or maybe 10% depending how much ground is given.

This post is just bait for the habitual emotional ranters who never study the detail or read the fine print, but just love to whinge and make a lot of noise about whatever is the flavor of the month. :

 

[Sir Osisofliver]

This post is just bait for the habitual emotional ranters who never study the detail or read the fine print, but just love to whinge and make a lot of noise about whatever is the flavor of the month. :

Nice... so if I make any comment that doesn't agree with your view I'm an emotional whinger? Muppet.

Cheers

Sir O