Resource Super Profits Tax thingo whatsit

[irlewy86]

Originally Posted by ltd

It's certainly a very emotive issue so here's a couple of facts for the everyday punter.

* The tax would effectively see Australia as the highest taxing and therefore most expensive mining country in the world. This simply means that our resources become more expensive, and the worlds users of minerals would simply buy elsewhere. Only if you return more than 6 times capital invested

* If the increase in cigarettes was to stop people smooking; what does the government think an increase on mining tax will do?

* The superannuation of every Australian has shares in mining companies; ABS figures project that since the inception of this new super tax, the average superannuation balance has fallen a whopping 20-30% and the tax hasn't even passed the senate yet. This affects every one of you.

* The mining sector kept our economy out of recession, why kill it? The mining sector has kept parts of the ecconomy out of reccesion, some parts saw a huge downturn and a rise in costs because of mining related activity

* The resources do not belong to Australians, they belong to the states. As such, the miners pay huge royalties to the states to ostensibly purchase the minerals and then they themselves spend money removing them from the ground. What the federal government is saying to curry favour is ostensibly a lie, as it would take a constitutional re-write to allow royalties to be paid to the federal government as well. Under the scheme the federal government pays the royalties back to the miners. This way there is no constitutional infringements and states are free to negotiate any policy thay like

* This is not about super profits, it's about scale. After licences are purchased, leases paid for, royalties are paid, capital costs are paid and then company taxes are paid; the leftover is profit. After paying over 40% of all revenues in taxes and levies then to pay equipment costs as well as salaries and allowances, the profit on most of these companies lies in the range of 10-20%. Sounds little but due to the scale of the projects, the profits in dollar terms sounds huge. The tax is applied to any profit over 6 times the return of capital invested and costs. If all these mining companies are only making 10-20% returns then they wont pay any extra

* Last year alone BHP spent 4 billion on a mine that didn't yield, and later sold it for 400 million - one tenth of its setup cost. This would mean on this alone taxpayers would have to foot a further 3.6 billion to cover the losses of this one project.

* Rio and BHP lost over 8 billion collectively on the first day this was announced. They lost 8 billion in value, they haven't lost any money. Saavy business minded people with a solid understanding of business taxes were buying up BHP/Rio tinto shares. (Peter Dutton for example)

Sorry, but this is not thought out policy, it is an electioneering stunt bringing on class war and it is fraudulent to say the least. The government relied upon taxation figures produced by a university student in the united states of america (17%) as opposed to even treasury figures (36-42%) for the level of taxation. I don't think it was a stunt as it is a legitmate tax policy reccomended by Ken Henry and approved by Ross Garnut (Garnut also sits on the board of a gold mine) both of which are Australia's go to men on financial and ecconomic policy

In defence of the mining companies this tax should come with the strings attached that we improve mining infrastructure and training of engineers/geologists/environmental scientists to continue to make Australia a worthwhile place to do business.

[ltd]

Originally Posted by ltd
It's certainly a very emotive issue so here's a couple of facts for the everyday punter.

* Only if you return more than 6 times capital invested - I think you have misunderstood the definition of super profits; it's above the government bond rate which is 6 percent.

*The mining sector has kept parts of the ecconomy out of reccesion, some parts saw a huge downturn and a rise in costs because of mining related activity - Incorrect, the mining sector has kept the dollar high keeping our imports costs lower, also keeping commodoties like petrol lower. Further, as it has expanded it has employed hundreds of thousands of Australians directly and indirectly. Just today, Xstrata has cancelled a job which will cost 3500 direct jobs

* Under the scheme the federal government pays the royalties back to the miners. This way there is no constitutional infringements and states are free to negotiate any policy thay like - Bollocks. The extra revenue is going into consolidated revenue and treasury coffers. Paying money back in peoples super (0.5% in 2012) is another lie when you consider you've already lost 20-30% because of this policy.

* The tax is applied to any profit over 6 times the return of capital invested and costs. If all these mining companies are only making 10-20% returns then they wont pay any extra - Again you've misunderstood. This is the misinformation being peddled to confuse the masses. It's above 6% that is called a super profit. The government bond rate is 6%; it's above this that the new tax applies.

* They lost 8 billion in value, they haven't lost any money. Saavy business minded people with a solid understanding of business taxes were buying up BHP/Rio tinto shares. (Peter Dutton for example) - Peter Dutton bought what he thought was at a low, knowing that they would bounce back on the difficulty of getting it through the senate.

I don't think it was a stunt as it is a legitmate tax policy reccomended by Ken Henry and approved by Ross Garnut (Garnut also sits on the board of a gold mine) both of which are Australia's go to men on financial and ecconomic policy - I'm glad you got on to this. The Henry report came up with 196 recommendations, the government cherry picked 3. What Henry actually suggested was this new tax replacing 3 other mining taxes including company tax. The net result would have been revenue neutral however less compliance costs giving advantage to the miners internationally thus, increasing demand for Australian commodities and ergo increasing tax take. More consumption at same rate of tax = more dollars raised in tax. What this new policy is is nothing short of a tax increase with no concessions.

Originally Posted by irlewy86

In defence of the mining companies this tax should come with the strings attached that we improve mining infrastructure and training of engineers/geologists/environmental scientists to continue to make Australia a worthwhile place to do business. - You mean like how this afternoon ostensibly 3500 miners directly lost their jobs, and how indirectly hundreds of thousands are soon to be unemployed because of the over 8 billion in cancellations? Or do you mean how now most mining projects have stalled as the banks are no longer lending money to the big companies due to their profits above the government bond rate being taxed?

Mate, we normally agree on most things but look into it a little more.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by DJR-351

More Rep to LTD.....

Ditto.

[irish2]

Originally Posted by ltd

It's certainly a very emotive issue so here's a couple of facts for the everyday punter.

* The tax would effectively see Australia as the highest taxing and therefore most expensive mining country in the world. This simply means that our resources become more expensive, and the worlds users of minerals would simply buy elsewhere.

* If the increase in cigarettes was to stop people smooking; what does the government think an increase on mining tax will do?

* The superannuation of every Australian has shares in mining companies; ABS figures project that since the inception of this new super tax, the average superannuation balance has fallen a whopping 20-30% and the tax hasn't even passed the senate yet. This affects every one of you. Total share market drop in May 8.6%. Total mining company drop on share market in may 5.4%

* The mining sector kept our economy out of recession, why kill it?
The mining industry reduced staff by 15% at the beginning of the recession. If every industry did this we would have had 19% unemployment.

* The resources do not belong to Australians, they belong to the states. As such, the miners pay huge royalties to the states to ostensibly purchase the minerals and then they themselves spend money removing them from the ground. What the federal government is saying to curry favour is ostensibly a lie, as it would take a constitutional re-write to allow royalties to be paid to the federal government as well.

* This is not about super profits, it's about scale. After licences are purchased, leases paid for, royalties are paid, capital costs are paid and then company taxes are paid; the leftover is profit. After paying over 40% of all revenues in taxes and levies then to pay equipment costs as well as salaries and allowances, the profit on most of these companies lies in the range of 10-20%. Sounds little but due to the scale of the projects, the profits in dollar terms sounds huge. I have worked for one of these mining companies recently. Does a 10 story waterfall sound like a resonable expense to a sound business? Or an excess paid for by the massive dollars reaped from a non renewable resource.

* Last year alone BHP spent 4 billion on a mine that didn't yield, and later sold it for 400 million - one tenth of its setup cost. This would mean on this alone taxpayers would have to foot a further 3.6 billion to cover the losses of this one project. 40% of 3.6 billion would be more correct.

* Rio and BHP lost over 8 billion collectively on the first day this was announced. The companies share stocks lost value, not the company. They have since regained some of that value.

Sorry, but this is not thought out policy, it is an electioneering stunt bringing on class war and it is fraudulent to say the least. The government relied upon taxation figures produced by a university student in the united states of america (17%) as opposed to even treasury figures (36-42%) for the level of taxation.

Why not take away all taxes on mining and get half of the country employed in mining? Then in 20 years time when the resources are gone are we going to ride on the back of the sheep again?

[SB076]

Originally Posted by irish2

If you tax other industries such as banks at higer rates they will just pass on the cost to consumers. Miners can not do this as the ores they remove are a global commodity, and are therefore priced on supply and demand on a world stage.

Miners can and do increase their prices frequently (yes they do also go down) in 2000 the price of iron ore (metric ton) was around US $0.27 in 2010 the price is $1.765 - which as you stated is due to supply and demand (not their costs) but as a customer (down the line anyway) its frustrating as it plays havoc with your costs and the relationship with your customers. Now BHP, Vale and Rio have started moving away away from the fixed prices to a more flexible spot price so it will be interesting to see what happens to the pricing in future.

In regards to the tax, I am unsure I dont know why the mining companies have been singled out and I am also skeptical on any tax any governments introduce (the purpose of the tax review was to simplify the tax system) However I also do not want all our natural resources shipped off overseas to the highest bidder at the expense of our local industry either.

I would have thought they would have been better off having a scaled tax based on your profits (not turnover) ie record a profit of $100K and you pay tax @ 25% record a profit of $10B and pay 35% - if business goes through a tough patch they pay less tax, if things are going well they pay more.

[cs123]

Originally Posted by irish2

Why not take away all taxes on mining and get half of the country employed in mining? Then in 20 years time when the resources are gone are we going to ride on the back of the sheep again?

This is one of the issues I have with it. The tax doesn't go towards some future fund, it is linked into our regular tax revenue stream. We will now be dependant on the tax and hence the performance of our mining sector.

[irlewy86]

*I think you have misunderstood the definition of super profits; it's above the government bond rate which is 6 percent. Touché, I'll put a firecracker up the backside of my trusted poltical analyst.

*Incorrect, the mining sector has kept the dollar high keeping our imports costs lower, also keeping commodoties like petrol lower. Further, as it has expanded it has employed hundreds of thousands of Australians directly and indirectly. Just today, Xstrata has cancelled a job which will cost 3500 direct jobs. And as one of the 14,000 people laid off by Rio Tinto I can empathize with these guys, I also worked with guys who jumped on a plane to Ravensthorpe and lost there jobs somtime between 6 and 9am. However knowing that a good 60% of any minesite workforce are skilled and in demand, they should survive.

* Under the scheme the federal government pays the royalties back to the miners. This way there is no constitutional infringements and states are free to negotiate any policy thay like - Bollocks. The extra revenue is going into consolidated revenue and treasury coffers. Paying money back in peoples super (0.5% in 2012) is another lie when you consider you've already lost 20-30% because of this policy. I probably didn't explain that right, the RSPT will refund the royalties (in credit form to the operation) to avoid a double dip.


* They lost 8 billion in value, they haven't lost any money. Saavy business minded people with a solid understanding of business taxes were buying up BHP/Rio tinto shares. (Peter Dutton for example) - Peter Dutton bought what he thought was at a low, knowing that they would bounce back on the difficulty of getting it through the senate. I tried to slide that one past. I still believe the 8 billion will be made back irrospective of the RSPT

I don't think it was a stunt as it is a legitmate tax policy reccomended by Ken Henry and approved by Ross Garnut (Garnut also sits on the board of a gold mine) both of which are Australia's go to men on financial and ecconomic policy - I'm glad you got on to this. The Henry report came up with 196 recommendations, the government cherry picked 3. What Henry actually suggested was this new tax replacing 3 other mining taxes including company tax. The net result would have been revenue neutral however less compliance costs giving advantage to the miners internationally thus, increasing demand for Australian commodities and ergo increasing tax take. More consumption at same rate of tax = more dollars raised in tax. What this new policy is is nothing short of a tax increase with no concessions. In any democracy there is ultimately a great deal of compromise, 3 out of 196 is disappointing though.

Ultimately I think its strange that this tax would be propsed given that it will make it nigh on impossible to introduce "that other scheme which I really don't wont to go off on a tangent about"

[irish2]

Originally Posted by cs123

This is one of the issues I have with it. The tax doesn't go towards some future fund, .

In a way it does and in a way it doesn't. You are right in that the money won't be kept for the future. However this is a common tactic by governements to prevent a big boom to then avoid the bust. Economists refer to it as 'cutting off the head to avoid the trough'. So although no moneys will be saved for the future it should help to 'cool' the industry that is booming in an otherwise struggling ecconomy. It is similar to raising interest rates as the ecconomy picks up.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by cs123

This is one of the issues I have with it. The tax doesn't go towards some future fund.....

Without getting political, it friggen used to before it got pee'd up against someone elses wall.

[Jastel]

Originally Posted by irish2

I don't think you understand. The whole share market is down. The world markets are down. The mining sector has done better than the rest of the share market. We don't remove non renewable resources to make our money. The Aussie dollar being down is good for local production and farmers.

We aren't talking about profits like the CBA of $2 billion. We are looking at guys like Clive Palmer making $8.5 billion in one year. That is just his money his company made more!

You're right, I dont understand how penalising one of the only successful sectors of the economy and throwing thousands of jobs away is a good thing.


Maybe someone can set up a yes/no poll so we can see an answer.

[snappy]

I think alot of people think the miners could afford to pay a little more . But exactly that a little more . But what the have been slugged with is to much to quick

[robbyg]

The mining industry i think should be taxed the same as any other industry or company, why should companys or buisness get taxed more because they are on a good wicket, this country from what i can see thrives on taxing people who have a go, to look after people who do nothing.

[irish2]

Originally Posted by robbyg

The mining industry i think should be taxed the same as any other industry or company, why should companys or buisness get taxed more because they are on a good wicket, this country from what i can see thrives on taxing people who have a go, to look after people who do nothing.

Other industries don't remove the wicket and send it overseas only to leave a giant mess usually filled with heavy metals which is then cleaned up by tax payers.

[robbyg]

Originally Posted by irish2

Other industries don't remove the wicket and send it overseas only to leave a giant mess usually filled with heavy metals which is then cleaned up by tax payers.

I work in the manufacturing industry 36 years now, struggling to keep a job, as all of the manufacturing in this country is done offshore, due to industries and small buisness getting taxed out of the playing field, the mining companys i think may do the same, the issue of heavy metal waste have no idea would like to hear some more info on that if you can

[Green X]

I work in mining and Oil& Gas

I think this.

1. We as Australians let these Big Miners come in a pull the stuff outa the ground, If we want a bigger slice of the action then Australian's should get off couch and do it.
Most of you want to sit on ya **** and get money for other people's Risk and hard work.

2. You have too look at all the other things mining support.
I.E Woodside is flying like 4000 workers in and out of Karratha evry month, ya don't think that helps keep your air travel cheep?? That's one company and one example

ya BHP/RIO's, woodside's Ect built northwest WA, Ports rail network BHP,RIO paid for that and employed allot of Australians to do it the Gov did Sweet FA, Oh yeah they did TAX the workers and the Miners thou.

3. If we want more of the weath why do we give it to multi national's companys to dig and suck up?? Why is Apache, a Yank energy company selling australians Gas that's from Australia???

4. Look at how much money the miners pump back into Australia, yes they make big $$ then they put Big $$ back into Australia. Newmont gold spent 3 Billion in the middle of the GFC on boddington gold mine, BHP was in the middle of the HUB upgrade $400,000,000 worth, woodside was on PLUTO a $12 Billion project they had just finished Train 5 that's another 1 Billion or so. that's 3 companys off the top of my head.

What is the TAX going to do for you and your family.... Will it put money back into your poket??? Well i didn't see any TAX cuts in the budget did you?

[robbyg]

Originally Posted by Green X

I work in mining and Oil& Gas

I think this.

1. We as Australians let these Big Miners come in a pull the stuff outa the ground, If we want a bigger slice of the action then Australian's should get off couch and do it.
Most of you want to sit on ya **** and get money for other people's Risk and hard work.

2. You have too look at all the other things mining support.
I.E Woodside is flying like 4000 workers in and out of Karratha evry month, ya don't think that helps keep your air travel cheep?? That's one company and one example

ya BHP/RIO's, woodside's Ect built northwest WA, Ports rail network BHP,RIO paid for that and employed allot of Australians to do it the Gov did Sweet FA, Oh yeah they did TAX the workers and the Miners thou.

3. If we want more of the weath why do we give it to multi national's companys to dig and suck up?? Why is Apache, a Yank energy company selling australians Gas that's from Australia???

4. Look at how much money the miners pump back into Australia, yes they make big $$ then they put Big $$ back into Australia. Newmont gold spent 3 Billion in the middle of the GFC on boddington gold mine, BHP was in the middle of the HUB upgrade $400,000,000 worth, woodside was on PLUTO a $12 Billion project they had just finished Train 5 that's another 1 Billion or so. that's 3 companys off the top of my head.

What is the TAX going to do for you and your family.... Will it put money back into your poket??? Well i didn't see any TAX cuts in the budget did you?

Seems like your at your at the coal face of things, its a shame many are not.

[Green X]

Originally Posted by robbyg

Seems like your at your at the coal face of things, its a shame many are not.

yeah well.. Mate every day i can see Rio's Port and see Ships being filled with ore that we are are going to buy back as steel and other products.... Then on home base see the LNG getting loaded for Japan/ china cheaper than what we get it for and it P***** me off that's how it works but we as Australian's made it like that.

We droped the ball with Manufacturing and we are trying to do the same with the resources sector Taxing it off shore is not going to do anything for us we should be bringing it home.

[ltd]

Originally Posted by irish2

Why not take away all taxes on mining and get half of the country employed in mining? Then in 20 years time when the resources are gone are we going to ride on the back of the sheep again?

We don't need to go to extremes, which is precisely the opposite of what the government are trying to do.

Contrarily to what you've written; why not tax companies into oblivion so that industries shut down? Half the country may be unemployed but atleast we'll have our minerals left where they are?

What's been forgotten in this debate is the fact that on the projected returns now on mining, the banks refuse to lend money to the big miners anymore resulting dozens of project cancellations.
Yes, the law hasn't been passed yet and yes, it will be difficult to get it through in its current form however, the effects are already being felt.

Just under a year ago there was a thread where everyone was upset about the increases in electricity pricing. What does everyone think will happen when the price of coal increases another 20%? Think your powerbills will come down? Try them going up another 50%.
That's just the start. Everything will go up dramatically.

The danger here is we are devaluing the mining companies which again is where all of our super is tied up, but also making them unviable and cheaper for a takeover. Remember Chinalco's bid late last year? Imagine when Rio or BHP is so devalued they can be bought by a foreign interest at a pittance.
Who could be such a buyer....... hmmm....... I wonder?
Who's money did we borrow to buy plasmas and pink batts?

Finally, the problem here is very obvious. Whilst it is one of the dumbest pieces of legislation since federation (up there with the ETS), the reason it can't be dropped is because of the number of backflips already.

[JPFS1]

Green X

You're points are all valid. But I'll throw in some points that I think help explain why in Australia things happen the way they do (ie, raw materials and minerals exported then imported back) etc...

Firstly it's about capability of refining the raw materials. We are not setup to do it too well. We would require even greater investment in the industry to build new state of the art refineries that are capable of refining to the spec we need. For now, there aren't many miners interested in doing this, perhaps there's an issue of being able to do it competitively etc.

Secondly, it's about the age of our industry and risk management. There's really only a handful of multi Billion dollar Australian companies and even these guys won't take on projects at 100%. Too much risk. The industry as you know is about managing the risk. Financiers will not take on too much risk, small Aus companies that have picked up highly prospective leases can't afford and can't manage the risk alone, so they JV the projects to mitigate risk and to help with raising the capital required.

Of course i'm sure there's more to it, but there are others that could do better than me on this.

[irish2]

Originally Posted by robbyg

I work in the manufacturing industry 36 years now, struggling to keep a job, as all of the manufacturing in this country is done offshore, due to industries and small buisness getting taxed out of the playing field, the mining companys i think may do the same, the issue of heavy metal waste have no idea would like to hear some more info on that if you can

96% of all Arsenic is from mining. Copper sulfate from tailings in many mine sites leeches into waterways. If a coal mine is a strip mine, the entire exposed seam leaches sulfuric acid, leaving the subsoil infertile on the surface and begins to pollute streams by acidifying and killing fish, plants, and aquatic animals.

In Australia miners must set aside money to renew the area and replant vegetation. In most cases the money set aside is insufficient resulting in a half finished job or the tax payer footing the bill.

[irish2]

Originally Posted by ltd

We don't need to go to extremes, which is precisely the opposite of what the government are trying to do.

Contrarily to what you've written; why not tax companies into oblivion so that industries shut down? Half the country may be unemployed but atleast we'll have our minerals left where they are? There are about 100,000 people employed in the mining industry in Australia. Roughly the same amount employed by the automotive industry. Nobody seems to care about car makers closing up shop here.

What's been forgotten in this debate is the fact that on the projected returns now on mining, the banks refuse to lend money to the big miners anymore resulting dozens of project cancellations.
Yes, the law hasn't been passed yet and yes, it will be difficult to get it through in its current form however, the effects are already being felt.

Just under a year ago there was a thread where everyone was upset about the increases in electricity pricing. What does everyone think will happen when the price of coal increases another 20%? Think your powerbills will come down? Try them going up another 50%.
That's just the start. Everything will go up dramatically. Why will the cost of coal go up 20% when the cost of production has not increased? The tax is on a profit which is made after all costs and expenses have been taken into consideration

The danger here is we are devaluing the mining companies which again is where all of our super is tied up, but also making them unviable and cheaper for a takeover. Remember Chinalco's bid late last year? Imagine when Rio or BHP is so devalued they can be bought by a foreign interest at a pittance.
Who could be such a buyer....... hmmm....... I wonder?
Who's money did we borrow to buy plasmas and pink batts? Who owns it now? A bunch of shareholders from any and every nationality. The stocks of BHP and RIO dropped less than almost every other company in the ASX 200 last month.

Finally, the problem here is very obvious. Whilst it is one of the dumbest pieces of legislation since federation (up there with the ETS), the reason it can't be dropped is because of the number of backflips already.A very similar tax has already been in place to anybody removing petroleum based products from Australia for 2 decades. It is only a copycat piece of legislation.

The oil and gas industry in Australia makes up roughly a third of all mining operations and already has a 40% super profits tax. Has the tax driven up the price of oil and gas? We are one of the smallest players in the oil and gas industry so why do they continue to mine here when they will make no profit?

[irish2]

Originally Posted by Green X

I work in mining and Oil& Gas


4. Look at how much money the miners pump back into Australia, yes they make big $$ then they put Big $$ back into Australia. Newmont gold spent 3 Billion in the middle of the GFC on boddington gold mine, BHP was in the middle of the HUB upgrade $400,000,000 worth, woodside was on PLUTO a $12 Billion project they had just finished Train 5 that's another 1 Billion or so. that's 3 companys off the top of my head.

What is the TAX going to do for you and your family.... Will it put money back into your poket??? Well i didn't see any TAX cuts in the budget did you?

How much money was pumped into Australia? All equipment, vehicles and machinery are sourced overseas. All we provide is labour.

Tax cuts were anounced in the budget. A 2% cut in company tax to all corporations by 2015, and to small business by 2012. A 3% increase to super contributions by employers which will also pick up investments in our own nation. Superfund investment is responsible for a lot of infrastructure in Australia as well as boosting the stock market significantly.
Link to an article from The Australian.

[robbyg]

Originally Posted by irish2

How much money was pumped into Australia? All equipment, vehicles and machinery are sourced overseas. All we provide is labour.

Tax cuts were anounced in the budget. A 2% cut in company tax to all corporations by 2015, and to small business by 2012. A 3% increase to super contributions by employers which will also pick up investments in our own nation. Superfund investment is responsible for a lot of infrastructure in Australia as well as boosting the stock market significantly.
Link to an article from The Australian.

Not real sure if its labour only, the company i work for manufacture and commision motor control centres for the Ernest Henry copper and gold mines up north, from what i heard yesterday they are not proceeding with future expansion due to this new tax, this affects the the place i work for and the suppliers of materials and componets that supply us, it just goes down the line, me personally dont take to much note of super fund guros pushing there own barrow.

[Green X]

Originally Posted by irish2

How much money was pumped into Australia? All equipment, vehicles and machinery are sourced overseas. All we provide is labour.

Tax cuts were anounced in the budget. A 2% cut in company tax to all corporations by 2015, and to small business by 2012. A 3% increase to super contributions by employers which will also pick up investments in our own nation. Superfund investment is responsible for a lot of infrastructure in Australia as well as boosting the stock market significantly.
Link to an article from The Australian.

Mate the computre your typing on was made overseas. Iv been over this in another post! Sadly the Ford Falcon will not do the work of a Cat Hallpack, or a metso ball Mill. , but the people who work on and sell this stuff are Australians!

A bit of stuff is still made in Aus, Last set of belt feeders i fitted for Pibara Iron were made by RCR in south west WA, the rollers were made by sandvic in QLD.


wow 2 hole %, That's a % of what the henry report recomended, Infact 2% is about how much of the henry Tax report the Govenment took on board!!

[robbyg]

Originally Posted by Green X

Mate the computre your typing on was made overseas. Iv been over this in another post! Sadly the Ford Falcon will not do the work of a Cat Hallpack, or a metso ball Mill. , but the people who work on and sell this stuff are Australians!

A bit of stuff is still made in Aus, Last set of belt feeders i fitted for Pibara Iron were made by RCR in south west WA, the rollers were made by sandvic in QLD.


wow 2 hole %, That's a % of what the henry report recomended, Infact 2% is about how much of the henry Tax report the Govenment took on board!!

Hey green x the metso ball mill i remember that, we are currently doing the electrical for a carbon kiln for metso minerals, small world

[Green X]

Originally Posted by irish2

The oil and gas industry in Australia makes up roughly a third of all mining operations and already has a 40% super profits tax. Has the tax driven up the price of oil and gas? We are one of the smallest players in the oil and gas industry so why do they continue to mine here when they will make no profit?

The Oil & Gas SPT is not the same as the RSPT mate it's set up diffrently.

I.E> NWS projects don't come under the O&GSPT.

Gorgan will and that's a JV between the 3 Majors in O&G, O&G don't have the runing cost's of mining nor the risk, I.E LNG isn't going to crash overnight like nickle!

[irish2]

Originally Posted by Green X

The Oil & Gas SPT is not the same as the RSPT mate it's set up diffrently.

I.E> NWS projects don't come under the O&GSPT.

Gorgan will and that's a JV between the 3 Majors in O&G, O&G don't have the runing cost's of mining nor the risk, I.E LNG isn't going to crash overnight like nickle!

A profit based tax is better than a royalty based tax when the market crashes. A royalty tax is a set dollar rate per ton. The super tax is on profit. Which do you think will work better when nickel prices go down for the mining industry?

[Green X]

Originally Posted by irish2

A profit based tax is better than a royalty based tax when the market crashes. A royalty tax is a set dollar rate per ton. The super tax is on profit. Which do you think will work better when nickel prices go down for the mining industry?

Prices go down production goes down.

In the case of BHP Rav would't make a diffrence the mine was costing morer to run than it was making and it needed another 100 mill spent on it to fix the problems with the plant.

the issiu with the SPT is that it's not a Tax on Super profits, a 6% return is not a super profit. If 6% is a super profit then the bank is charging me super profit rates on my Homeloan! How's that allowed!

Mate i don't have a issue with puting a bigger Tax on mining, but 40% once over a 6% return get off it that's just BS flat out!

The GFC happened and Rio, That's Pilbara iron/ Robe, almost went bust and evryone S*** now 1 year later evryone is like pfft the big miners can afford to give morer!

The banks screw ya 6 ways from sunday on evrything and they don't even get looked at for a SPT TAX and if they did they would just bump up there fees, and the Gov even bail the banks out after they ****** up.

Miners Employ 100,000+ people on site and off all over the contry, pay good, look after there workers, build Infrastructure and support the community they oporate in, yes they can make bit profits on the back of Big Risk

[Green X]

Originally Posted by robbyg

Hey green x the metso ball mill i remember that, we are currently doing the electrical for a carbon kiln for metso minerals, small world

haha yeah 4 600 Ton Metso's at Boddington Gold, I walked into that joint after working on Iron ore and it blew my mind, That joint could take a atom bomb and keep turning LOL


Mill 4, still being assembled in that photo Big units.

[Full Noise]

We also need to take into account, the “law of unintended consequences”.

Considering this proposed law in its current from was a tax on mining profits, the government “conveniently forgot” to tell the average punter about how quarried products were included.

So……. bricks are made of clay, concrete from gravel and so on.

This will also push the price of building a new house, factory and anything else up.

So can the people who support this tax grab please explain to me how this is good for Australians?