The takers don't get off their arses like the makers do and go out and make these things happen.

I gather you missed the BIS study that said the effective is more like 74% once everything is taken into account. Would you like an effective tax rate of 74%, I think not.

It seems funny that the prior Government managed to pay off the prior Governments Budget deficit over a 9 year period as well as give a healthly surplus without having to unreasonably tax business, whereas it has only taken less than 3 years for this Government to give us a 130% increase in the size of the deficit we have only just got rid of.



>The takers are trying to screw the makers.
>
>The so-called "makers" don't make the minerals, they just take them. Mining is different from other industries in that it takes and sells an unrenewable national resource. Royalties on production are fine, but super-profits mean that the owners of the resource are not enjoying the full value of their property. Instead it is captured by private industry that does not produce or renew the resource, just uses it up.
>
>You're correct about the 6% return (though closer to 10% is expected which is more than BHP's profit this year fwiw) but the figures I quoted of 12% effective tax increase are based on the super-profits enjoyed by miners last year. Also with $55B wiped from BHP's value, if that's because of the tax then that "value" can be attributed purely to BHP's ability to use up Australia's resources without paying much to the property owner. I see no problem with Australia effectively raising its rent to market rates.
>
>BHP made $6B this year and even with the tax I expect they'll earn more in 2012. The squalling and threats are because they like paying peppercorn rates and don't want other resource nations to get ideas, but the fact is that mining is so profitable that somebody still will make bumper profits.