gillard bungled tax deal, page-20

Yeldub,I dont know if you have thought this out in any real detail,to me it was a two pronged tax.
One, to level out the actual tax paid by miners,who historicaly paid low tax in comparison to other corporations in Australia,while actualy employing comparitively low workforce numbers.
And two, the mining tax(under any name) was also intended to fight against the Dutch disease.

A win-win for the country as a whole.

The longevity of it,can only be assumed, if its doing its functon ,curbing foreign investment in mining, so as manufacturing can continue in this country.
If its not curbing mining investment now,its not doing its job.
There is ample anedotal evidence with further losses in the manufacturing sector that as of right now, its not functioning as intended.
The numerical percentage on any tax is mute,if it isnt working IMHO.

Even Ken Henry says,

LEXI METHERELL: He even questioned whether what's in place now is actually worthwhile.

KEN HENRY: I mean the obvious question it raises is one that I dare not ask really, which is whether it's worth bothering at all.

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2012/s3546899.htm

Unfortunatley when you cherry pick,you dont always capture the full flavour,thus eroding what was originaly contemplated.

For a start, the very name, "super profits tax "was stupid to say the least,I wonder who dreampt that one up, bloody stupid.
Industry equalisation something a rather would have been way better.

Again Id rather an Australian chose the outcome of a tax ,than foreign owned mining companys which you seem happy with.

I have raised this before,the ACCC,think that EBITA 29 percent on the Waterfront neccessitates a third player to become involved,why this isnt mirrored on the mines in this country is a wonderment to me,theres little consistnacy in doing business in this country,both major partys have done Australia a diservice in this area.

Raider