BUT why Steve isnt the Fedral goverment giving the WA economy a fair whack of those infastructure moneys etc back. IT seems the majority is going to the other LABOUR states and not to WA..

The WA goverment contributes the majority of the australian income through mining etc..

Thats the biggest issue i have with the Fedral goverment. Apart from Rudd being an absolute tosser

__________________
I'm a jockey kunts...

Surpluses by sophists Stephen Bartholomeusz Commentary Business Spectator

Wayne Swan might claim that the Federal Budget wasn’t a political document but the lengths the government has gone to so it is able to forecast a $1 billion surplus in 2012-13 while still being able to announce some popular pre-election spending tends to contradict his stance. In fact the budget represents a very clever political strategy.
It is a strategy built on the mislabelled resource super profits tax and the increase in tobacco excise announced just ahead of the budget. Without those taxes the surplus wouldn’t have arrived three years earlier than originally forecast, assuming it does arrive – the whole budget is predicated on a massive windfall from the terms of trade generated by a continuing book in commodities.
The really clever bit is that Swan and Rudd know that the opposition can’t support the RSPT, at least in its present form.
By dedicating the revenues they say they will raise from that tax to spending on health, superannuation, cuts to company taxes et al they appear to have funded the core of their platform and will be able to go into the election with the cloak of fiscal rectitude – even though the detail of the tax and the actual revenue it will raise, if any, won’t be known until after the election.
The opposition, therefore, if it wants to match the government in terms of fiscal credibility and deliver that surplus in three year’s time, will start at least $12 billion behind it. It will either have to propose slashing spending or raising taxes, or both to fill in that gap.
The government is presumably betting that the RSPT and its attack on greedy miners and their foreign owners will play favourably in the electorate, particularly as the tax will be dedicated to probably popular measures. So, the opposition will be accused of supporting big miners and opposing worthy spending if it opposes the tax and the measures it is supposed to fund.
After the election, of course, if the Rudd government were returned, their planned protracted ‘consultation’ with the resource sector could, and almost certainly will, lead to significant changes to the detail of the tax.
The uplift factor, currently the long bond rate of less than 6 per cent is an obvious ‘detail’ that could be changed to change the tax from a super tax on ordinary profits to a tax on actual super profits. There is also the issue of retrospectivity. Post-election, a Rudd government would have a couple of years to fill in any gaps in its revenue base created by the changes.
However, while it might look like clever politics, the RSPT is destructive economics which is going to have a chilling effect on resource industry investment until it is finalised and certainty is restored and which will have long-term and damaging implications for perceptions of sovereign risk and Australia’s attitude towards foreign investment and investors, given the way the sector was ambushed by the nature of the tax and the language the government has used in promoting it.
Overnight at a conference, two of the industry heavyweights, Rio Tinto’s Tom Albanese and Xstrata’s Mick Davis, both chimed in. Albanese said he was shocked and Davis described the RSPT as "the biggest assault on the mining industry" he had witnessed in a long involvement with the sector.
Both made the point that they had invested heavily in Australia. Rio $38 billion in the past decade and Xstrata $18 billion in the past eight years, with Rio saying it had fully reinvested all of its after-tax profits and Xstrata saying it had done the same – and indeed had injected an extra $1 billion from profits earned in other countries.
Albanese said he spoke to his predecessor, Leigh Clifford, and asked what he would have done if the tax had been imposed during his tenure and was told the company wouldn’t have spent that $38 billion. Rio’s Pilbara business, Albanese said, would be a lot smaller than it is today. The government’s claim that it would have received an extra $35 billion in taxes over the past decade had the RSPT been in place "ignores that inconvenient reality".
Davis, while saying it was not helpful to use "populist rhetoric which can be interpreted as characterizing mining companies as greedy enterprises siphoning rents from Australia’s natural resources to faceless foreign shareholders," said that Xstrata and companies like it had access to multiple growth options across the globe. If the tax stood in its current form it would retard the development of resources in Australia – ie. there will be less investment than there would otherwise have been.
The government seems to think it is possible to take $9 billion a year out of the profits of the sector without any adverse consequences. The miners can’t take up their existing mines and move them elsewhere but they can cut back heavily on new investment and move their capital to more attractive jurisdictions.
That would have long-term implications for economic growth – and near term implications for the forecasts of surging business investment and windfall rivers of revenue from the resources boom on which the budget forecasts and the claimed surplus are built.
Whether the tax is ultimately imposed in its current form or redesigned, it won’t raise the revenue the government is claiming it will to get to that $1 billion surplus and, in the meantime an increasingly angry resource sector is telling the world that Australia is now a less attractive and less stable destination for mining sector investment – direct or portfolio.
The RSPT might represent a clever political strategy but the way it has been unveiled and the anti-industry and xenophobic language the government has used to leverage the political mileage in it is increasingly damaging to the national interest.

__________________
Funny looking German Subaru

Interesting comments. Go grab a pick and shovel and start taking some of YOUR resources out of the ground then. It isn't as simple as you think. The exploration companies and companies with projects still in their infancies will certainly struggle. They are operating on zero income, with almost total expenditure. Until these companies start to dig up ore, they aren't making money. It's ok for the big companies with many projects already going, they should be able to sustain themselves quite easily.

What about the large banks etc. making huge profits? Why not tax them some more instead? The federal government does not own the lands natural resources, the state governments do, and they decide how much tax will be placed onto a mining company that decides to extract these resources for profit. It seems like the government is just taxing something they have nothing to do with.

This is no way an insult to you, but just a re-buttal of your comments.

In all seriousness, that's EXACTLY what I've wanted for years.
Except don't make it a PAYG tax, make it a 30% GST type tax. No income tax, no capital gains tax, no stamp duty, no luxary car taxes just 30% of whatever you buy in goods or services, whatever the price / level.

Oh and take a big arse chain saw and push WA away from the rest of Australia.

__________________
delonixradar.com.au - use coupon code "PWRX" for large discount on all HID kits

Trippin Joe! Im a huge fan of cheap beer and cask wine.

I've always thought that too. Pay the tax when you spend the money - Save it up and it's tax free. And the figures I saw on it, it actually made more money for the government than our current complicated tax system.



Time to pull your head out of the sand and look at all the other countries world wide which have a lot of resources and are begging major mining companies to set up shop there. We have been lucky that they set up here first, but by taxing them unfairly, they will look at the economies of scale and set up shop elsewhere.

Also, why unfairly target mining companies with 'super profits'? There are a lot of other companies making a metric shit load of money off the Australian public (i.e. banks) that should be taxed harder too.

__________________
[COLOR="Gray"]550Nm off a 2L... Just wish it was in the dak dak...[/COLOR]

Yes well Barnett (>>tosser than Rudd) needs to get his shit together and make a suitable deal rather than just pack up his footy and go home...

__________________
No Subarus currently owned

clever and insightful comment

__________________
Funny looking German Subaru

Aah, but it's much easier to set up a big mine in WA than PNG for example!
And banks should be nobbled too...

__________________
No Subarus currently owned

Sure is Steve ask the good people down at Marengo Mining here in town about why they are investing in a large copper / moly mine in PNG rather than Australia. Or ask Barrick why they are now putting in larger exploration spending in Tanzania rather than Australia. If you know something I dont then please explain it to me.

http://www.marengomining.com/projects.html
Projects

Marengo has positioned itself with projects in Papua New Guinea (PNG) which have the potential to grow into world class metal mines. The Yandera Project and funds on hand give shareholders excellent leverage to the future success of Marengo.

As Australia's nearest neighbour (some 150km from Cape York Peninsula) PNG has a long history of mining, dating back to 1878 and has historically been amongst the world's largest copper and gold producers.

PNG MapLocated on one of the world's most dynamic tectonic zones, PNG has and continues to produce world class ore deposits, such as Bougainville, Lihir, Misima, Ok Tedi and Porgera. In addition, recent developments have seen the discovery of medium size ore deposits, including Tolukuma, Kainantu, Hidden Valley and Simberi.

Since gaining independence in 1975, PNG has, along with other nations, suffered periods of downturn in mineral exploration investment. However, in recent years there has been a strengthening of investment back into PNG. This has occurred as a result of increasing world demand for commodities (with resultant price increases), together with a change to a more favourable fiscal regime for investment.

PNG operates a parliamentary democracy, based on the Westminster model, where all major parties support private enterprise and foreign investment. Marengo is pleased to join many existing Australian and international companies who successfully operate both exploration and mining projects in PNG, a trend which is seen gaining momentum.

Marengo, through its subsidiary Marengo Mining (PNG) Limited, is concentrating its efforts on this richly endowed nation.


http://www.barrick.com/GlobalOperati...s/default.aspx
Not one located in Australia !

__________________
Funny looking German Subaru