Support NeoGAF

[shanshan310]

276,300 people as of May last year earning an average of $52 an hours.

So what percentage of those people are earning the majority of the money?

because stupid reactionary, hyperbole, statements deserve a stupid question

The majority of the profits go to a few people. It is known.

 

[tri_willy]

straya... fuck yea!!!

wait... the govt will fuck it up as usual... cunts

 

[Jintor]

dolla dolla

 

[Rentahamster]

That'll be reality soon enough anyway lol.

Not that soon. We'll develop cleaner and better forms of energy before we run out of fossil fuels.

In the long run: Much better? Humanity lived thousands of years without fossile oil. If anything dependency on fossile oil is holding back progress...

Humanity lived thousands of years without oil at a level of technological development, educational development, and standard of health much much less than what we enjoy currently. With several billion less humans.

Fossil fuels brought us to the industrial revolution. It's what got us here in the first place.

 

[yogloo]

No wonder games are so overpriced in australia.

 

[Witchfinder General]

straya... fuck yea!!!

wait... the govt will fuck it up as usual... cunts

Actually, as economic managers, the last few Federal governments going back to the radical reforms of the Hawke/Keating era have been very good on the whole. Most of the ire stems from ideological differences on how to spend the money.

 

[Dead Man]

Completely agree. The system in place atm is nuts, but I doubt it's gonna change somehow



I don't know why this made me laugh so much. Ask a stupid question...

Some points of reference for those that are more challenged in some areas:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...for-june-quarter/story-e6frg9df-1226683989077

It is understood Rio Tinto, which paid no mining tax in the first half of 2012-13, has decided it is not liable to pay any tax for the June quarter due earlier this week.

This is despite quarterly prices averaging a healthy $US125 a tonne in the quarter and providing Rio with more than 50 per cent margins.

Rio and BHP Billiton were expected to be only two miners paying the tax in its early years.

The poor start to government revenue for the year will put pressure on even the meagre $700 million revenue forecast Treasury estimated in May for 2013-14.

That forecast has been downgraded four times from the original $4 billion estimate for 2013-14 made when Julia Gillard introduced her minerals resource rent tax bill to parliament in November 2011.

While the tax payment due this week is for the June quarter, it is included in 2013-14 government revenue because that is when it is received. The lack of a payment means Rio, which most analysts expected to pay the lion's share of the tax from its Pilbara iron ore operations, has only made one payment of the tax from the first four instalments.

When that payment (of an unknown amount) was made in April, it was for the March quarter, when iron ore prices averaged nearly $US150 a tonne.

Most analysts expect iron ore prices to slide towards $US90 a tonne as Rio, BHP and Fortescue bring big expansions on line in the next two years.

The MRRT was hastily drawn up by the Gillard government and Rio, BHP and Xstrata (which has since merged with Glencore) in the wake of the 2010 ousting of Kevin Rudd, whose original resource super-profits tax provoked an advertising campaign from the miners and played a big part in his decline.

The watered-down, miner-influenced MRRT is just on iron ore and coal. With coal markets being hit hard by price declines, the industry is not expected to make a contribution anytime soon, leaving iron ore as the government's best hope for tax payments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_in_Australia

Despite its export importance, the mining sector employs only a small proportion of the workforce – roughly 129,000 Australians, representing only about 2.2% of the total labour force

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_mining_law

However, the principle of the owner of land owning the minerals within it has been virtually abolished by statute in Australia. The general rule is that the Crown (in right of the State) owns all minerals. This has been implemented by statute; initially by enacting that all future grants of land must contain a reservation to the Crown of all minerals. Now, all new grants of freehold titles in Australia have provided that all minerals were reserved to the Crown.

In respect of titles granted prior to the legislation, the owner of the land retained ownership of the minerals (except the Royal metals of gold and silver). That owner may grant a profit à prendre to enter and take minerals.

Crown ownership of minerals has been made universal in Victoria[7] and South Australia[8] by legislative expropriation of all minerals. In Tasmania[9] and New South Wales,[10] this approach of legislative expropriation has been applied on a selective basis (in Tasmania, for gold, silver, oil, hydrogen, helium and atomic substances, and, in New South Wales, for coal). The Crown, pursuant to statute, may grant various leases or licences to enter onto land and take minerals.

State ownership of minerals has had the important result that governments, rather than private landholders, determine the legal regimes governing mineral exploration and production.

http://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/4407.aspx

Royalty Rates and Collection

Rates

In Western Australia there are two systems of mineral royalty collection used:

Specific rate - flat rate per tonne
Ad Valorem - percentage of value

Specific rate

Generally, specific rate royalties are used for low value industrial and construction materials. A specific rate or quantity-based royalty is calculated on tonnes produced.

The rates on production between 1 July 2010 and 30 June 2015 are:

62 cents per tonne (construction use); and
100 cents per tonne (used for its metallurgical content)

In 2015 these rates will be reviewed.

Ad Valorem - percentage of value

The ad valorem or value-based rates of royalty which applies under Regulation 86 of the Mining Regulations 1981(WA) is based on the following principles:

Bulk material (subject to limited treatment) - 7.5 per cent of the royalty value.
Concentrate material – (subject to substantial enrichment through a concentration plant) 5.0 per cent of the royalty value.
Metal - 2.5 per cent of the royalty value.

This system takes into account processing costs incurred after the mine-head point, price fluctuations, the grade of material and the change in the value as mined ore is processed and value is added.

An ad valorem royalty is calculated as a proportion of the ‘royalty value’ of the mineral. The “royalty value” and components used to calculate the “royalty value” are defined under Regulation 85 of the Mining Regulations 1981 (WA).

http://www.letsspreaditaround.com.au/mythbusters/myth-4-mining-companies-pay-their-fair-share

Tax is a key way through which companies pay for the minerals they extract, which we own, and for the infrastructure they use, which we’ve built. Asking them to pay their share is a simple question of fairness. In Norway, oil resource rent taxes can hit 90% of "gross profit" and yet companies keep investing because the remaining 10 per cent is still a good return on their investment. During Australia’s boom our miners have been making a return of sometimes up to 40 per cent, hence the term superprofits.

But unlike in Norway, our mining companies have turned tax-minimisation into an art form. Following their A$22 million scaremongering TV ad campaign, the revamped Mining Resources Rent Tax (MRRT) now only applies to 22.5 per cent of the mining magnates’ profits, after a questionable “extraction allowance”. And that 22.5 per cent only applies only on coal and iron ore and only on companies that make over $50m in profit.

So just how much have they made? The total revenue in 2012 for BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto, Woodside Petroleum, Newcrest and Xstrata was A$167.23 billion. The total Federal Government budget was around A$330 billion. So in effect these 5 companies made enough money to fund half our national budget. Add to that the revenues of the self-defined “small” miners. Gina Rinehart’s Hancock Prospecting alone made a $1.2 billion net profit last year. It is projected that in the next decade they will make at least another $600 billion. And yet the mere mention of any kind of tax results in threats that if they are made to pay more they will simply pack up and leave.

http://outernode.pir.sa.gov.au/mine...gulation/resource_royalties/mineral_royalties

 

[zero shift]

I wonder if this means other nations will get cheaper oil.

Some points of reference for those that are more challenged in some areas:

Good points.

because stupid reactionary, hyperbole, statements deserve a stupid question

I notice you tend to have this type of sarcastic response when you talk to people. At the very least try countering his point with links and sources as he did to you.

 

[raindoc]

Mad Max = cancelled

 

[A More Normal Bird]

well, yes, that's how a global economy works.

if you don't wana share your oil, then i guess the world shouldn't export anything there right? food, water, electronics, etc?

Just in case you listed those two because you think that the country is some barren desert reliant on selling mineral wealth to import basic necessities,Australia is a net exporter of food.

I want a proper resource tax to be in place. Why should a company get to sell all the iron or all the oil in a coutnry and take the lions share of the profits? They should earn for doing the work, sure, but the people that own the land they are taking the resources out of should get a much better deal than they currently do.

Bingo. My favourite line is that a proper MRRT will cause the miners to "go elsewhere." Newsflash, the resources won't be going with you, nor will the proximity to Asia. I'd love to see someone like Rinehart try and establish a competitive business in another country. She may develop a new-found appreciation for the role the licenses her father obtained for a song played in her "successes".