So your argument is the 40-50% net tax the miners claim to have been paying isn't enough?
If someone can mount a reasonable argument that the present regime doesn't deliver value to Australians then I'd be happy to look at it and assess it on its merits.
I find it very difficult to accept the 'resources belong to all Australians argument therefore tax them more' because it is overly simplistic. For one, what does resources belong to all Australians acutally mean? Should we be issued with entitlements to permits when we are born? Should resources companies be nationalised with a certain % owned by the government?
Second issue with the 'it belongs to everyone' argument is that it is based on an assumption that the present taxation system is not adequately recovering fair value from the mining companies. Conveniently the commentary trotted out in defence of Rudd's plan never, EVER addresses this. If there is going to be any substance to the 'miners are nasty so make them pay' argument some investigation into what IS currently being paid is warranted.
Third, we are a capitalist country. All Australians are entitled to participate in the profits of these companies by buying shares, directly or indirectly.
And last, from a political point of view, there was no consultation with the industry prior to the tax being announced. If K Rudd was serious about reform surely a better approach would have been industry-wide consultation, rather than the arbitrary, aggressive approach adopted. Makes me laugh to hear Swannie talking about miners "holding a gun to the head of the government"; why would the impish schoolboys pick a fight with anyone holding a gun, let alone the miners. Wayne Swan v Marius Kloppers - what a fight night that would be!
