The same industry that was the very first to start shedding jobs by the bucket load, all the while still making lovely profits. I agree, mining played a big big role in Australia being sheltered from the GFC. However, the mining industry is not the whiter than white super hero that keeps being reeled off. At the end of the day this tax is all about taxing an industry at a level that is commensurate with its earnings. If I earn $180k per annum, I expect to be taxed at a higher rate than someone who earns $40k per annum. So why does this not apply to the Mining Industry? If the mining sector suddenly starts doing it tough and their earnings become lower then the tax does not apply to them. In fact the current royalty model works against them when their earnings are down, they are much better off on a percentage based payment in those situations.

As part of my current job (soon to be old yay!!!), I have to calculate royalties payable to our suppliers. Whenever we discuss new royalty models or agreements we always push for percentage based royalty models, as it gives us the reseller (mining companies) much more flexibility and offers the owners of the source material the ability to grow their income from us if we grow. During the GFC this was critical for us, as times were tough on the income side of things and our EBT figures would have been shocking with a fixed model.

I also believe that this should be rolled out in other industries, especially the financial sector.

A danger in Australia is that resources smother free enterprise by keeping the dollar high and using skilled labour. Retrospective one off taxes strike me as a deterrant to free enterprise but so far its application has been very selective and not detrimental. I am still dubious about using them.

Whether what I believe to be a "Super Profits" tax and what Rudd was proposing is same thing is another matter. I am not an accountant or lawyer privy to the details.

Mining profits themselves are determined by a number of factors but primarily costs of capital, cost of getting it out and commodity prices. Rio and BHP also add in cost of buying up competitors. The Rio/BHP dominance on the rail infrastructure in the Pilbara has held up competitors who would put some downwards pressure on the price of ore at the port, not at the mine gate.

Your point on Rio/BHP being intertwined with the establishment is very true. Just look how powerful their as campaign has been perceived to be. The junior miners are miffed they missed out. I cannot see that the liberals would play an alternative game differently.

Good points. The other issue I have with the current mining ad campaigns is that it is the likes of Clive Palmer (see my previous posts) who have funded these ads. The same person who also happens to be QLD LNP's largest single financial contributor, he also happened to be sat quite smuggly behind John Howard at Sunday's LNP Campaign Launch in Brisbane. It always concerns me when I see people with that much financial clout and persuasion in the industry sitting in the pockets of an entire political party....or are the LNP sitting in his pocket?

So what if they shed staff, better that than go bust

No it's not. It is about finding a way to get out of the problem created by the labor government when it gave away and wasted too much money.

You may expect to be taxed at a higher rate but it is morally wrong to steal more from people just because they happen to earn a bit more than others. The only fair tax is a flat tax.

I believe someone was talking about socialism in a previous post. You are talking about marxism.

You're sounding just like a Liberal Party Campaign ad

No, it's simple capitalism 1.01. You know the same principles that the mining industry itself is trying to take advantage of?

...please stop, I'm trying to eat dinner!

I still haven't recovered from that time I saw him on Lateline...huffing and puffing under the weight of those chins.

He is a bit of a fat bastard isn't he. I wonder how many tons of ore he has shoveled in his lifetime.

The major problem with this tax, and I agree with the likes of Andrew Forrest here is that it was ill thought through by Rudd, and now Gillard in that the main payers percentage wise will be the junior Australian miners. The large multi nationals were always going to get away with it either by their negotiations as they appear to have done so far, or by channelling profits overseas. The compnaies taking the big hit are Australian, which for all the guff from Rudd of taxing the evil foreign corporations shows his and Gillard's total lack of understanding of the industry.

The speed and willingness of the industry to lay off workers as quick as they did in the GFC highlights the dangers of being so dependent on commodities that go up and down like a yoyo. If the industry wants to profit massively from the land of the Australian people then it needs to ensure that it looks after Australia.

Some of these staff were laborers earning in excess of $60.00 per hour. you bet they were quick to lay them of at signs of a downturn.

If the Australian people want to profit from inward investment to develop the land and resources then Australia needs to ensure that it looks after industry. You don't do that by creating uncertainty and retrospective big tax grabs.

In most industries that is true, however not the mining industry. The resources are owned by Australia. Therefore Australia has something that Rio, BHP and the Chinese want...resources. Sure they can get it from other (limited) places around the world, but often the political structures of those countries and the cost incurred to set up shop there by the likes of Rio is incredibly prohibitive.

But that's the common sense approach, no mileage in that

Labour, whether it be UK or Australia, have no other policies than to tax and spend. And no good ever comes of it. It's what you get if you are stupid enough to vote in a Labour government.

So the mining tax is no surprise to me.

Yep, I must agree. It's even happening in the USA and their economy is going down the toilet fast. It's the good old redistribution of wealth fallacy. One day the wealthy ones go elsewhere and the the poor end up even worse off. Try explaining that to the masses when they know they are in for a $920 cheque.

Anyone recall the UK tax rates in 1974, and the numbers of businesses and highly qualified people who left the UK for the USA ?