Plenty of precedents say they wont.
And even if they did look elsewhere, there will be plenty of others to fill the breach.
I'm happy bet you that if the tax becomes a reality, the mining industry won't collapse because of the tax.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Twiggy sticks a great big log up Rudd
- Thread starter GuruJane
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Plenty of precedents say they wont.
And even if they did look elsewhere, there will be plenty of others to fill the breach.
I'm happy bet you that if the tax becomes a reality, the mining industry won't collapse because of the tax.
Gawd you really don't get it. Existing mines that remain profitable will continue on but expansions will not occur and new projects will be margnalised.
Do you have any idea of what the impact for SA will be if BHP stops the Olympic Dam expansion? That will be growth forecasts wiped out for the State. And don't use the crap about lose the lease, they will operate what they have developed but not expand the mine, denying SA of a massive amount of investment.
There is specualtion today that the expansion in not viable under the RSPT. Are you happy to see your state hit that hard and all those people relying in it hurt? What is the cost of that?
I love that statement; there was some clueless lefty tosser saying it on TV a few weeks ago, that if the miners pulled out, he'd start up a company and replace them, he got shut down with a pretty simple question.
If he'd do it under less favourable conditions, why hadn't he already done ti under more favourable ones?
These people and companies are tax payers, are they not entitled to an opinion?
This tax is purely designed to get Rudd back into surplus ASAP, to compensate for the immensely wasteful expenditure he's reveled in.
You're incredible.
For a start, governments don't just look after tax payers.
Secondly your saying that it is in Australia's interests to give away its assets to investors because some of those investors happen to be Australian.
You're also saying that it is much preferable for future generations to foot our retirement bill.
Your saying that any profits from the boom should be given away, largely to foreigners, rather than providing for the future and a time when minerals may not be booming.
He didn't say any of that, stop trying to muddy the waters.
Morgoth - AGO & GBG; should I load up on their shares?
This tax wont go ahead in it's current structure, I'm certain of that, so it might be time to try and take advantage of it..
Morgoth - AGO & GBG; should I load up on their shares?
This tax wont go ahead in it's current structure, I'm certain of that, so it might be time to try and take advantage of it..
No, they wont, because the threshold is too low and the rate too high.
If huge investment is going to net them another 6% profit, but the Government is going to take half of it, then the investment doesn't look anywhere near as attractive, and often wont be worth the cost/risk to achieve.
You are assuming that their interests are different, aren't you? In some cases they are, but not with this mining tax.
And overall and in general, govts of both persuasions arguably regularly put investor's interests above those of taxpayers for the greater good. eg state industry incentives - not real flash for the taxpayer but considered worthy for the extra investment & jobs.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...x-morgan-stanley/story-e6frg9no-1225880335279
Read it and give us your analysis.
Of course they are
I'm not saying that, if collected, it wont be pissed against the wall as successive governments have shown they are so apt at doing.
I would like to see funds invested and only 5% a year be able to be accessed by the government per annum as was done with the very successful precedent of Norway.
Under the current regime, there is still tax paid, but, at the production end..no matter is the end result.
Under the new regime, it'll be solely on the profit margin, so the production cost will stay the same ideally.
Under the current regime, how do you pay tax on a loss? And I think I'm missing whatever you are claiming under the new regime.
Sadly you cannot look at investments on their merits at the moment, you have to take into account the political situation. Rudd will do a deal but it will be restricted due to:
1. He needs the money
2. He cannot be seen to cave in
As such a divide and conquer strategy will be adopted. The ALP is ruthless when it comes to winning elections, whatever it takes is their motto. So where are the marginal seats located and where what resources are there.
QLD is the key in all of this. Expect CSM/LNG to get a deal and maybe coal, this would enable Rudd to say he has listened and he would hope win back support in QLD and retain/win seats. Coal is a hard one but it is important to QLD and NSW.
Does WA have the same electoral appeal? What mining assets are located there? The major one is iron ore, they are the assets with the most cash and profits. So logically if a mine were located in WA I would be worried that they will bear the brunt and that might mean iron ore gets little relief.
SA is more base metals and likely to also get a more favourable deal IMO and the noise in the press seems to suggest base metals will get a better deal.
Hope that is not the case and any deal is fair to all but you have to weigh it all up.
This is purely my musings
Show me where that article said that this tax would make the expansion unprofitable.
There's a lot of propaganda flying around at the moment.
I repeat, if it looks likely to turn a profit it will go ahead.
Would you like to make a small wager (just a token, say a couple of tickets to a home and away game) that if the tax goes ahead the resources industry wont collapse because of the tax?
Not if they can make more profit for the same outlay elsewhere.
If the tax makes a mine/expansion not profitable enough for a company to stay no one would replace them. Why? Because why would anyone operate a mine of <6% profit if you could just stick the same money in bonds for zero risk?
If the tax makes a mine unworkable for the biggest, more efficient mining companies then it would make the mine just as unworkable for every other operator.
If there were more profitable mines elsewhere then any other investor (government or otherwise) would invest in those more profitable mines as well. Why would any investor deliberately invest in a weaker investment?
Noone is going to run a mine for a 1% return. A profit is not enough, it needs to be above the WACC.
You are displaying horrendous ignorance.
In addition to your many short comings you obviously can't read,
“
Oh yeah, in case you missed this also:
You know Rudd already raided the FutureFund, right?
I have to hand to it to you for replying to one of my posts without the personal abuse
I'm not arguing that either of the major parties think beyond the next election.
That doesn't mean that they shouldn't.
Probably Keating was the treasurer/PM who held the long term interests of Australians in highest esteem. The early years of Costello weren't bad either.
The later years of Howard and Howard lite have been a big disappointment when it comes to wasteful spending.
Probably something we can all agree on.
I think an increase in the compulsory superannuation co-contribution is well overdue
I have to hand to it to you for replying to one of my posts without the personal abuse
It was one of the few sane ones.
Again.
Ignore the propaganda and use your common sense
If it looks like it will turn a profit, it will go ahead.
You can furiously quote the murdoch press or Andrew Bold or whoever, as much as you like.
It doesn't change business fundamentals. If there is a demand for uranium and it is profitable, the expansion of the mine will go ahead.
Like to take up that bet on the collapse of the resources sector, because of the tax, if the tax goes ahead?
I remembered to take my medication today.
I think it only worked for that post. The dosage is clearly too low.
It might not change the business fundamentals, but it does change the equation as to how profitable a project needs to be to justify the investment and risk in it.
Similar threads
