Home Publications Shareholder Opinion Shareholder Opinion: Pleas to shareholders backfire: resources super-profits tax
Shareholder Opinion: Pleas to shareholders backfire: resources super-profits tax PDF Print E-mail

SHAREHOLDERS, rather than taking the advice of the government to encourage miners to calm down and back off, are right behind the campaign to raise awareness of the stupidity of the resources super-profits tax.

The mining companies' owners delight in the effectiveness of the full-page advertisements being taken out.

Furthermore, a well-funded blitz in the marginal seats in Western Australia will undoubtedly see the desired result.

Queensland is the next most affected state.

With Premier Anna Bligh openly questioning the tax, particularly its effect on liquefied natural gas projects, it is clear the government underestimated both the depth of feeling on this issue and the number of key seats that will be adversely affected.

Extractive industries are the engine of the Australian economy, and their contribution to government coffers has substantially increased over the past decade, with very little protest.

Who would have thought the introduction of a substantial new tax immediately before an election could be a political party's undoing?

Unfortunately, the history played out by the GST saga has been forgotten.

With the opinion polls trending poorly and only months to arrest the slide, this tax threatens to hang over the government all the way through to election day.

Endless rhetoric will not appease. Share prices are down because miners have received the rough end of the stick.

Even Peabody's bid for Macarthur Coal was reduced from $16 to $15, a direct outcome of the super-profits tax.

For the government, action is the only way to recapture the trust of shareholders.

But the government is in a pickle because since the backdown on the emissions trading scheme, not to mention the other initiatives that have come back to bite the government, any reversal of the announced tax will be highly damaging to the reputation of the Prime Minister.

Perceptions that he is a lame duck will not help him in the polls.

It is a pity the super-profits tax misstep will be what moulds shareholder opinion of the government.

In reality, the Rudd government has been relatively shareholder-friendly.

The reform pipeline has been full for many years, and economic management has been exemplary.

Shareholders have seen an unrelenting flow of problems for the past few years and the government has responded.

It gave shareholders a say on exorbitant chief executive termination payouts; it fixed disclosure of short selling in this country; it is going to make sure shareholder class-action lawsuits against companies are available to smaller investors; and it is about to overhaul executive remuneration in Australia.

Voters in BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and Telstra will no doubt see things differently.

Their view is of a government that does not consult, does not listen, and acts before thinking.

Causing billions to be wiped off the values of these companies does not endear one to a shareholder's heart.

 

This article by Stuart Wilson, Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Shareholders' Association featured in his weekly Shareholder Opinion column in The Australian on Wednesday, 10 May 2010.     

 

Comments  

 
-7 # Marlene Hall 2010-05-14 00:14 I think we need to have a longer term perspective. We are members of a society and we have responsibilitie s to the overall well being of that society. I believe that this furore will be extremely short lived. Usually, mining stocks form only a part of a well balanced portfolio of shares that we hold
In this "crying wolf" exercise in opposing a tax on mining profits over and above current interest rates you certainly don't speak for me.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+7 # Chris 2010-05-21 08:24 You can't ignore the facts that a) there are two huge stocks which make up a large portion of the index, and b) that especially if a mining company is 100% Australian owned and all profits stay here, it appears daft to force them to choose non-Australian projects.

If you consider some projects in Africa, (which could have more significant risks) over Australian projects purely because "they are more tax friendly", that seems ill-thought out - and with fewer jobs here.

No investment in anything should be made 'purely on tax concerns', but this is forcing them to.

How about the banks, with their huge resources ? (deposit base) - some of which could be argued belongs to Australian retail customers ? Do we tax them as well on funds acquired here, and effectively force them to borrow overseas at much higher rates to escape a tax ?

The profits belong to the shareholders - who risked their money in the business too. It is a bit rich to want all the upside with none of the down.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+17 # BobH 2010-05-25 00:34 Mining Companies are already sharing the asset. BHP is reported as paying $9bn federal and state taxes, plus on-flowing benefits to associated industries,shar eholders and employees.
They are also paying a substantial amount in dividends to Australian domiciled shareholders.
Surely this cannot be brushed aside as a nil contribution.
A company allocates scarce capital to projects giving the best return on that investment.
A multinational has many investment opportunities in many countries.
If there are more attractive opportunities in other countries, then a Company will invest in the more attractive projects.
The danger to Australia is that once a decision to invest in a "foreign" project is made, the decision cannot be reversed, all investment in that project will be lost to Australia.
Olympic Dam is an example, a long term investment spread over many years.
How dumb is Canberra?

regards
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-9 # Ray Mogg 2010-05-26 01:25 State taxes ie Royalies etc are a cost of doing bussiness,like holden buying steel to make cars and CANNOT be compared or counted as a income tax,appears both RIO and BHP pay less than 20% INCOME TAX,ie less than most workers! Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-4 # Frank Birchall 2010-05-25 01:18 Brickbats for Stuart's article. I agree with Marlene's point that we should take a longer-term perspective. We need to think about our grandchildren and future generations. On a conservative assumption about global growth rates, iron ore reserves will last another 65-100 years — what will the world use to produce steel after that? How much will BHP and Rio Tinto care about the economic plight of Australia when the last iron ore ship departs the quarry? The resources are immobile and finite so what’s the rush to enhance mining company profits now when it will only bring forward the day of reckoning? Sure, the RSPT might slow down growth of mining profits and related economic activity; but this could be in the interests of future generations of Australians. The mad rush for “growth” of all kinds is economic selfishness and myopia. (I should add that my family owns a significant number of shares in both BHP and Rio.) Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+18 # Mike M 2010-05-25 01:20 I have no real problem with a resource rental tax similar to the one being applied to the petroleum industry. The tax which is presently proposed is an additional income tax , which I believe , could and probably would be extended to all industries. If it is successful in the resources industry it is a reasonable bet that the next target would be the banking and financial industry since the present government has already expressed the view that their profits are excessive.
The problem is that our political leaders are happier dealing in spin rather than facts.
Questions I would like to see answered are as follows:
(1) Why wasn't Proffesor Garnaut, who has been studying this type of tax for 30 years not consulted?
(2)Why did Dr Henry seek out some obscure report from the U.S.A regarding the tax paid by miners rather than use readily available figures from the A.T.O.
(3) Why was the existing tax regime applied to the petroleum industry not implemented.
I"m not holding my breath!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-13 # Peter 2010-05-25 03:33 Why not make the super profit tax equitable and apply it to the top 50 companies? Banks make super profits year in and year out. It is a simple business decision for the miners and they will take the business and the jobs elswhere. Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+4 # Chris 2010-05-25 21:21 Absolutely Peter, as per my point above. There is something hypocritical that why should those who risk their capital (shareholders) not be fairly rewarded and share in the profits, but 'non-shareholders' of mining companies (or those by proxy through the indices) still want to claim 'the underlying resources' as their own, purely as Australians ?!

They all want the upside but don't want to put their money where their mouth is like the REAL shareholders. They'll soon learn how risky and expensive the dirt game can be when mining companies go broke or make a loss and start asking for their 40% writeoff handouts. Good luck with that last bit !

If they feel so strongly about it, go to the mines department in your state and peg your claim, explore, risk your money in starting your business, maybe find something after sweating in 40c heat, dig it out, sell it at the prevailing commodity price (if you can find someone to buy it off you) and then see how you feel.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+2 # Mark 2010-05-25 23:20 Chris, you are ignoring the fundamental purpose of this tax. It is a resource rental tax that values the mining inputs (rocks in the ground) in proportion to the profits received from the outputs (ore). We all own the inputs, unlike any other industry. And that "we" includes generations of Australians to come. To suggest that the operations of the RSPT should be applied to other industries is rhetorical nonsense. Deposits held by banks are in return for payments called interest and unlike rocks in the ground are returned to their owners when they want them. Once dug up and sold, OUR minerals are gone for ever. Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+5 # Mark 2010-05-25 23:21 What really annoys me about this debate is the naked self-interest that drives the naysayers. And self-interest will never produce good public policy. The other thing that really irritates me is that my investments are now being talked down by the very people who are supposed to working to grow shareholder value! Instead of contributing to the hysteria they should be talking up future profit growth even under the RSPT that awaits mining companies such as BHP and RIO as China continues its growth trajectory over the next four decades. Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-6 # Rob Brian 2010-05-25 04:17 I agree with Marlene Hall and support the super profits tax. The big companies do not pay such an extraordinarily high rate of tax. As an individual I have always had to pay a much higher percentage of tax on my income. I do not mind that either. We cannot expect to have good services if we do not pay a reasonable proportion of our income in tax. I do think the mining companies are crying "wolf". They have not managed to persuade me that this tax is unjustified. Mining companies which are making super profits and we as shareholders have responsibilitie s to society as a whole. Let us not shirk those responsibilitie s. Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+14 # Len Genoni 2010-05-25 11:56 I am opposed to this tax because:
1) it is plain that neither the bureaucrats nor the goverment understand it.We just get spin, rhetoric and outright duplicity from this government.

2) the goverment has managed to turn simple projects like insulating roofs, BER, and issuing computers to schools into national disasters, while making a laughing stock of our country with its antics over climate change, building a NBN and now the "super" tax. Add in the gross waste of billions of dollars and you have to ask yourself how they could possibly not screw up a seriously complex matter like this tax?

3) I want my grandchildren to have a job.

Everyone must pay tax. I'd rather grow taxes by growing the economy.You dont grow taxes by having an economy which is being choked by people who have never worked in the REAL world. People who have no idea of the risk taking, vision, sweat and capital that it has taken to build and sustain this country.

Len G
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+12 # Ferdi 2010-05-25 20:50 Stuart, you’re barking up the wrong tree.
The largest parcels of shares, i.e. the voting power is held by other Boards. Most Directors have apparently so much time and energy to spare that they sit on several Boards using their experience ,networking(ins ide info?), to vote for whatever best suits their mutual objectives. So-called “independent “ auditors and advisors are NOT independent because they are engaged & paid by the Boards.
I could go through line after line of your article but let’s just do your first two paragraphs.
In your opening sentence: who are these Shareholders in the campaign against the proposed resources tax? They are NOT the ordinary shareholders but the clique of intertwined Boards.
Who pays for those full-page ad’s? I bet that it does not in any way diminish the remuneration and perks of those Boards teams and advisors.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+16 # Matt 2010-05-25 21:16 This tax has a number of significant flaws.
Firstly the resources being taxed are not the property of the Commonwealth but belong to individual states. Mining companies pay royalties for the privilege of mining these resources.
Resource companies pay tax so do their employees, with the average Mining Wage in excess of $100,000 this is a huge tax base the governement is attacking.
The impact of the tax is 55% reduction in NPV on one project I have seen detailed modelling for.
The tax in the treasury papers is justified on rebating 40% of losses in non profitable operations, this encourages poor decisions and the Australian tax payer rebating losses by Chinese State Owned Enterprises.
It is about time the governement worked to facilitate deveopment and real job creation rather than trying to shut down a successful part of the economy.

Matt
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+3 # Remek 2010-05-25 21:25 This is socialism gone mad. You don't have equally of wealth by reducing the rich to the lowest common denominator, i.e. making the rich poorer. You do this by encouraging the poor to become richer by giving them incentives to invest, to work hard, to create and build. Somebody has to pay somewhere and it is always the poor. The mining companies should call the governments bluff by starting to lay off people and transferring their investments overseas ASAP. Only way these idiots in Canberra will get the message. Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+7 # Lynn 2010-05-25 21:37 I'm with Marlene. Even though I hold shares in the major miners, I think that it is not unreasonable for them to pay appropriately for the non-renewable resources they are using to earn their profits. No doubt there will be 'tweaking' of the terms of the new tax regime once the mining companies stop wasting their time whinging to the media and start constructive dialogue with the government. We must also ask the question 'why didn't the leaders of our companies see this coming'…It is always blatantly obvious that governments will single out industries earning excess returns…so I think the MCA and the Boards of these companies should ask themselves how they could have been caught so 'off guard'. Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+5 # John 2010-05-25 22:00 As a shareholder I would much rather my investment returns come to me directly from the company that earns them, rather than filtered through a vast army of public servants, and a bungling incompetent Government with an agenda with which I do not agree.

John
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+3 # Stan 2010-05-25 22:01 Mineral resources are finite, non-renewable
and belong to all Australians.Even though I may be worse off financially if this tax is implemented in the present form I will accept that.The few voices of reason that have commented also do not feel it will be the end of the world for us.Whilst the major opponents of the tax couch their criticism in terms of defending the workers,the shareholders,th e communities or even the whole Australian economy,none actually admit that their main concern is that it might effect their bonus's.They should not have to worry..just change the hurdle rate for their options at the next AGM and all will be solved.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+6 # Monty 2010-05-25 22:11 I agree with Marlene and Frank. BHP and RIO pay pitiful dividends. The only shareholder benefit is capital gain provided you sell at the right time which may not be when you need to. Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+9 # Bob R 2010-05-25 22:30 I am opposed to the RSPT in it's current form :

1 The arrogant, non consultative manner of it's announcement is the antithesis of good democratic processes, and is in marked contrast to how they've approached other issues. To me Rudd Swan's ' these mineral assets belong to all Australians ' is simplistic and cynical, playing to the public gallery, who will typically think 'Yeah that's right '

2 We have a company tax which should appply equally : it is not fair that successful companies are targeted for higher taxation. Personal income taxes are supposed to apply equally : we don't target people in occupations which we think are too profitable and tax them more.

3 The proposal to effectively punish successful companies by allowing unsuccessful ones a 40 % rebate on their losses is akin to the AFL during a match deducting 40 % of a winning team's score and donating it to the losing team
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+9 # Robert Humphrey 2010-05-25 22:32 WE are getting mixed signals, miners say its bad govt. says they will benefit in the long run. No one seems to be ablet ot explain it Couldn't someone take BHP's last balance sheet and tell us exactly how it will be affected . Bob Hum Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+10 # Kay Coltman 2010-05-25 22:32 The Government had the Henry report for 6 months, they could have released it earlier and enssured a reasonable debate. Instead they tried to keep it dark and now have a PR disaster on their hands Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+5 # James 2010-05-25 22:39 As a self funded retiree I decided I would invest my life savings in Australian Shares. This concept of investment in Aussie jobs and resources appeared to be supported by policy settings of successsive Austalian Governments until now. This retrospective SRPT will take 10% of my after tax income, my money needed to be spent in my local community. I am not pleased. Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+5 # pete 2010-05-25 22:50 I agree Monty - perhaps the govt would be better advised to legislate to encourage a better reward to shareholders and our super funds - as after all we also are the risktakers rather than a heavy handed "great big new TAX" on an individual sector of the economy -. Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+6 # David Bingham 2010-05-25 22:53 I disagree with Stewart Wilson and, although being self funded retiree with two small shareholdings in BHP, think that Australians in general should see more return from the extraction of minerals from this country. This particularly where the resource is simply mined and exported. A slowdown in the rate of development of new projects may cause some short term pain because of our chronic balance of payments deficit but I feel will be of benefit in the longer term. Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+5 # David Chancellor 2010-05-25 22:54 I consider the tax grossly unfair. As a self funded retiree I live almost entirely off avery modest share portfolio. The current financial crisis has all ready hit me, and most others like me hard. In my case I am now on apart pension. This is a terrble time to hit us with higher taxation again.
Seeing Australia assessed by Wall Street as having the behaviour towards investors 'as that expected of a tin pot African country'is clearly damaging to our international reputation and hence to our vital interests.
I helped to vote the government in. Because of a stone wall refusal to negotiate on the main points of the tax I am going to vote it out.

David
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+10 # tom 2010-05-25 22:59 Very interesting article by Stuart. I would be rather interested to know the collective views of ASA members on this subject. Would it not be possible for ASA to conduct a poll on its web site where members could vote FOR, AGAINST or ABSTAIN on this important issue? I would think the collective views of remembers should be of interest to the ASA Board and its administrators. In fact I would recommend that on major and important issues ASA should seek members’ views on line - and a summary or the results be available to members on the ASA's web site. Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+4 # Robert B. 2010-05-25 23:01 As a self funded retiree whose is concerned about the direction unbridled economic growth is taking us, I agree with Marlene and Frank and others who support the tax. Furthermore, I believe
the tax should go further and apply to all mining projects, not just those earning super profits. Rapid development of our mineral resources can only occur with the aid of foreign labour and capital, with the result that most of the additional income generated will go to persons not current residents of Australia. If we notionally subtract the environmental depreciation incurred (loss of non-renewable resources), Australia could be net losers from additional mineral exploitation.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+9 # Ron Dartnell 2010-05-25 23:06 Natural resources are the property of the people and can be sold only once. Therefore any tax should be levied at a level to maximize the national benefit. There should also be enough gravy left for the extractors.This tax was badly named and poorly initiated both in manner and timing. The lack of consultation and the sense of unseemly urgency in the wake of a litany of good plans poorly administered has created a poisoned atmosphere in which acceptable resolution will be difficult to achieve. There is too much chest thumping on both sides at the moment. They should all take a cold shower sit down and talk. Every situation has a solution. Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+10 # Ron Hutchins 2010-05-25 23:43 The resource rent tax was a good idea apallingly introduced. Rudd has painted himself into a corner by locking in the 40% rate and 6% cut-in point. Some sensible consultation would have seen this tax implemented with a minimum of fuss. He has appealed to the masses by makling it a "fair go for Australians" and a "greedy company" issue. He has divided the community. He has left self-funded retirees like myself in a position where we may have to apply for our dividends through centrelink. Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+5 # Don Moffatt 2010-05-25 23:46 I agree with those who support the concept of the tax. However, I don't think the tax can be supported as it has been presented. It appears to have been developed by people who do not understand how investment decisions are taken. Furthermore it seems to be of most benfit to marginal projects which are not the ones we should be supporting. I would have preferred a tax where the funds were paid into a form of Future Fund and funds were reinvested in other aspects of the economy e.g. renewables and we could draw down the interest such a fund earned. I would also agree with other's comments that what we now require is compromise from both sides beginning with a more adequate return for the risk involved before any super tax applies. Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+4 # Ern Hemmings 2010-05-25 23:51 This tax is stupidly conceived. The States Rental tax is the right way to go. All that will happen now is Chinese companies will sell the resources cheap to themselves, make no profit in Australia and pay no tax. So then we will have a massive beauracracy set up to check that they arn't cheating. Meanwhile Australian Resource companies will stagnate while Canadian and South African companies grow in the rest of the world. What Super Profit anyway. My 3% dividend from BHP is hardly "super"!!!!!!!!!!!!! Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+2 # Heather Dettman 2010-05-25 23:58 If some outback land had the potential of providing a mining company with millions of diamonds then should they just walk in not buy the land, extract the diamonds sell them for millions and pay the government just a tax on company profits after expenses? That is pay little for access to the raw materials which yield such wealth which belong to the environment, the aboriginal people and all Australians. Taxing the banks would be different because the banks actually pay for the finance which they lend at a risk in the form of interest borrowed overseas. Mining companies hve not to date paid an increase rent or royalty or supertax on the increasing acreage they make super profits from. No other companies banks included have such a good deal. Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+5 # Fred de Silva 2010-05-26 00:00 Need informed debate on this before conclusions are drawn.It is too complex a subject to make random comments.Hopefully both sides will meet with their panel of experts and work out a compromise. Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-4 # Chris 2010-05-26 00:03 I am a self funded retiree with shares in mining companies subject to the new tax. I support whole-heartedly the principle of taxing super profits for the benefit of the Australian community. The current scare campaign by the Minerals Council, a fully funded mouthpiece of the mining industry is nothing more than an example of rampant greed designed to protect the mining companies' windfall profits. I am more than happy to take a cut in dividends and a lower share price for the greater good of the community. The ASA does not speak for me in its strident response to this issue which both surprises and disappoints me. Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+8 # P B Brown 2010-05-26 00:34 The Government would have had support if it had introduced a Norwegian type tax on the mining industry but only after full consultation had been exhausted.
The proceeds of the tax needs to be used to increase the wealth of the country and not dissipated on political handouts.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-5 # Ray Mogg 2010-05-26 01:08 State gov give away our resourses and then have to sell railways ,ports etc,so about time com gov took over.RIO , BHP etc are mainly foreign owned ,care nothing for the countries they plunder ie Papua.Now busy distroying our farmland here in Qld, I want to be able to look my Grandchildren in the eye and leave them at least as good a country as I was born inn not a few big empty holes in the ground! Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-6 # kevin wilson 2010-05-26 01:37 We are holders of RIO,BHP.FMG MGX shares .Dividends pitiful or non existent .capital gains stalled .so whats to lose .Perhaps the petro tax regime would work better .Screaming media releases will not resolve the issues . Talk calmly to the Govt .Threats to withold projects ,or exploration is bully boy tactics. Perhaps a "use it or lose it " ruling from Govt would result . Many mining coys exist mainly to perpetuate themselves .To overturn a Govt on the basis of a sectional interest is short sighted .Lets wear the tax and rest in the knowledge that history never recorded industry waklking away if there was a cheap profit resting in the ground . Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # pete sommer 2010-05-26 01:48 any goverment that steels more yhan 50% of someones/company income should be sacked. Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+3 # Alan Stewart 2010-05-26 03:35 I support the introduction of an additional resource purchase charge ( I think the name the government gave it stinks). As mentioned in a previous comment, the resources of Australia belong to all Australians (and not just West Australians as suggested) and the federal government is tasked with managing those resources for the benefit of all Australians, present and future.

PS. I am West Australian, a director of a company that provides services to the mining industry and I own a small number of shares (with declining values) in mining and mining services companies.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+2 # Joan L 2010-05-26 03:47 I agree that mining companies should pay royalties to the taxpayers for the minerals removed from the country .I thought they alrasdy did pay royalties to the States. I disagree strongly with retrospective legislation and thus the retrospectivity of the projects the proposed tax affects. I do not believe that accepting the extra 40% of the losses on failed projects is equivalent compensation.
As a self funded retiree dependent on share income I plan ahead for my needs and will be disadvantaged by retrospectivity of this tax. The war of words and figures and the source of the policy is becoming more and more confusing. The lack of consultation on this matter is also a source of real concern as is the PM's adamant It is Going to Happen because I Say So attitude.The Treasurer seems more conciliatory but also not very convincing in his argument for this tax.
I oppose it and doubt it is really a "Super Profits Tax"… just a quick fix for politicians facing a mounting debt problem
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+3 # Len Hodgson 2010-05-26 04:03 Australians elected a socialist Government. Is it any surprise that we end up with at least a quasi socialist outcome. Twiggy Forest referred to the proposed rents tax as representing the nationalisation of the mining industry. He's right. I won't be holding my breath waiting for Australians to wake up. Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+2 # Tom 2010-05-26 04:07 This is not the time to be playing with new taxes. Forget about the Rio's & BHP's for the moment and consider the consequences of raw building materials going up as quarries become mines.
Rudd obviously needs a top up after wasting millions on useless projects.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+3 # norm hodgkinson 2010-05-26 05:58 This government is behaving like a lot of alruisic do gooders. They do not seem to have any idea how businesses work. Evidence the home insulation debacle and school building program. All good in their way but great wastage of money and disaster for many involved without responsible compensation.
It is too easy to forget what it is like to be working for a company which has no work, no enquiries and little hope.
The government should be very careful that they are not sending us down this path again.
The memories of Whitlam' government are should be refreshed.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+3 # w hammond 2010-05-26 06:14 I say this tax is assuming nationally what belongs to the states and that the companies who do the work with their contractors have to be competitive.
Cheap comments about foreigners owning BHP are false as it is at least 60 percent Aussie.(false statement by Rudd)
This tax will affect superannuation investments, decreasing profits and will make everything so much dearer for the consumer. It affects every product from gravel for roads to fuel.
Canada pays much less tax as only 13 percent. Even China says we shall lose our competitive edge if it is implemented
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+2 # Janet B Norton 2010-05-26 06:41 Our government has overspent to protect Austalians from the GFC. That has to have some cost, and to try to avoid the cost by finding a scapegoat, the Resources Industry, is short sighted, naive and sadly asks us to validate the 'Tall Poppy Syndrome'. Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+1 # Alan 2010-05-26 07:36 It has all been said, this tax is poorly formulated and poorly timed with the global economy still in bad shape. But what do you expect from the most incompetent government I have seen since the Whitlam years. You only have to look at their record. Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+5 # Ron P 2010-05-26 07:56 Seems to me to be just to want as much as we can get for our resources, but equally stupid to try to grab for more. I worked for many years in the international oil industry and am sure a stable reliable economic structure and an available skilled workforce are often determining factors in allocating risk and selecting prospects. I think it all depends on the real cost figure that the government proposes and we’ve heard a wide range of tax opinions from the media. We should strive to offer not the highest tax/cost ventures, not the lowest, but somewhere between. If companies back off because we get it wrong I think I know who’s going to jump in and offer very appealing terms—-the Chinese, but at a cost of sacrificing ownership. I hope it’s early days in the bargaining process. Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+2 # R C McLean 2010-05-26 08:00 This RSPT is wrong in so many ways:
1When mining companies state royalties are added in their total tax is 41.3%. This is from the ATO own date. See this link for confirmation http://www.ato.gov.au/corporate/content.asp?doc=/content/00225078.htm&page=10&pc=001/001/009/005&mnu=43433&mfp=001&st=&cy=1.
2 The tax was introduced with no consultation. It this had happened the Govt could have avoided a lot of the current flak

3 If it is to be a super tax then why not base the trigger point at well above the average weighted cost of capital which has been put at the bond rate!!. That is not a super profit. If the additional tax did come in when "super profits" were being made there would be far less aggro.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+1 # paul 2010-05-26 08:16 I dont have any problem with the introduction of the new tax but I think it could have been introduced on a sliding scale so as to cause less disruption. Mining companies pay less tax then all of us and paying a bit more for our finite resources should not be a major problem. Reducing bonuses for executives could help offset the cost and I dont mind receiving a lower dividend for my shares. A small price to pay to help our country. Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+1 # MichaelC 2010-05-26 08:53 Perhaps one of the most ill-conceived taxes ever proposed by a government. Typical of the Rudd government's ineptitude. And to call it a "super profits tax" when it is really a tax on all profit is just more spin aimed at somehow making the "working family" (don't most of us fall within this category?) believe that somehow it is justified on the basis of the miners making too much of a profit. Hello - capital risked has to show a return else why would you risk it? Bank rate interest after a long period of uncertainty just doen't cut it. The economic viability of the Aussie miners (stable economic climate, sensible policies - well 'til now, skilled and available labour force) is a major reason superannuation accounts are beginning to pick up again. Well done Rudd - killed that one! And very nicely opened the door for foreign investment (call that ownership) of our mineral wealth. Talk about short sighted, ill-conceived, inept. Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+3 # DOUG M 2010-05-26 09:20 Maybe it is not unreasonable to seek a little more 'rent' from the big resource companies ! BUT it is how the impost has been imposed that has unduly spooked the Markets and the Companies. Genuine prior consultation and compromise would have been far more acceptable and far less damaging to all concerned. Bob Hawke pulled it of seamlessly many years ago ! Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+3 # Barry Chapman 2010-05-26 09:55 Australia competes with other resources rich countries in attracting investment for mineral and energy projects and consequently, Australia's taxation regime must also be competitive. Such investments in Australia's resources industries result in direct jobs for Australians. The multiplier effect should add a further 3 to 5 jobs in support industries for every job created in resource industries themselves. As a result, these investment outcomes do far more for Australia's broader society than increased taxation gobbled up by an incompetent and inefficient government machine can ever do. As Kerry Packer told a Senate inquiry in 1991,"…only a fool paid more tax than he had to and he didn't think politicians were spending his money so well that he wanted to contribute more." And Kerry didn't live to see the 'pink batts' and BER fiascos either! Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+3 # Keith A Potts 2010-05-26 18:32 If I have to believe the kitchen cabinet of K07 with little, if any, real world experience of developing major projects to profitability or the CEO's of BHP, Rio, Fortesque etc who have a track record of doing exactly that and are prohibited from engaging in "misleading and deceptive conduct" by the Trade Practices Act then K07 loses.

Like Ron P I worked in the international oil industry for 20 years and remember arriving in New Zealand in the late 1970's where oil exploration had stopped entirely for an extended period due to the tax regime and only restarted when the NZ gov't set up its own oil company which contracted us to explore for oil.

How did we ever believe these morons could run the country and elect them to government???
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+3 # pete 2010-05-26 22:20 Great comment from Ern Hemmings as this transfer pricing happened in the meat industry with Japan, so no profits to tax in Australia(4 corners did an expose).

Also Barry Chapman and this was a great and true comment by Kerry Packer - absolutely on the ball.

And in reality if you knew tax would hit you hard at a certain level why would you work harder to achieve a higher price for your commodity or effort - may as well stick with mediocrity - excessive tax does not reward high achievers.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-3 # Tony 2010-05-27 09:46 The mining companies are like Abbot. They believe that if they lie often enough everybody will believe them.

Of course they winge about paying more tax. Doesn't everybody! But it is not more tax on everything, only an increase in tax on the super profit portion.

They do enjoy many benefits in exploration and depreciation, etc.,the normal costs in their business; at the taxpayers expense. They already pay less tax than in many other countries, given all the "incentives" they have.

The benefits to Australia as a whole are greater given the Government's super profit tax, than the narrow distribution of returns to shareholders. For an Australian resource that is reasonable.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+4 # Ian Staples 2010-05-27 20:22 Remember the boston tea party. That is the revolt against english taxes to provide for the english army to control america among other places. There seems to be a great desire by governments to increase their tax take to fund further wasteful profligacy instead of reigning this spending in and allowing the people to get on with their lives with more than half of their hard earned income to spend how they want! Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-2 # Ray Edmondson 2010-05-29 19:51 I agree with the tax. We should take a long view. It is logical, and good economic management. Overall it should benefit the economy, and therefore benefit shareholders with a balanced portfolio in the long term. My family has a substantial holding in BHP and Rio and we plan to retain it.

The government has badly bungled the announcement of the tax (which should never have been called a tax) and needlessly invited the hysterical reaction of the mining companies and the Opposition. Talk about an own goal.

Predictably the mining companies are purveying half truths. Their main (unspoken) concern may be that other countries will follow Australia's lead and introduce similar taxes. That will only increase Australia's competitiveness . I'd respect their views more if it weren't for the bloated salaries at the top, the incompetence (eg Rio's alumunium venture) - and if there was some holistic integrity in their arguments.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+1 # Sarah Vorchheimer 2010-05-31 13:44 בס"ד
I agree with Ern Hemmings, Pete, Keith Potts and, to some extent, with Ian staples.

This is a misguided tax that will negatively affect every sector of the Australian society. Remember, Wesfarmers is also a very profitable coal miner. Watch our grocery prices rise if this tax comes in. Every super fund and most companies of any size have mining shares.

I DO think that state laws need amending so that a miner cannot just come in and start digging up prime rural land, but that is another issue.

Yet another unwise decision from the financially naîve Federal Labor Government.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Gerry 2010-05-31 21:16 Minerals once extracted are gone. Adequate payment is needed but this is not thought out. Simplifying royalties is good. The starting level for one and the retospectivity for another and a blanket level for all industries are all negatives. Norway's idea of salting such a tax awayin the piggy bank is required,not just for hand outs. Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # Graham Henderson 2010-06-01 07:13 I have no problem in mining companies paying a fair price for the minerals which they mine, but this should be by way of royalties, and not a tax on the profits earned. The royalties should be controlled by the federal government and not the states, with the proceeds invested for the long term benefit of all Australians, and not spent on short term election gimmicks. We also need an incentive for Australian industry to process our mineral wealth into finished products, and not merely ship it off overseas. Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-3 # Tony 2010-06-01 08:23 Dig up the country as you may, but do not be surprised when the fat cats take you to the cleaners. The bosses only care about filling their pockets with cash. It is only a tax on profits above a certain level. Resources are finite. Share them out. Stop the shouting. Get on with living in paradise each day. Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-2 # roberta littlewood 2010-06-01 19:13 This tax is good public policy. I agree with an earlier comment that we need place our responsibilitie s as members of society above our narrower interests as shareholders. The hysterical reaction by some mining companies and magnates does little credit to Australia. I am displeased that an officer of the ASA chose to take such a public and partisan stance on the tax and am pondering the future of my membership. He clearly does not represent my views. Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Ken Lindsay 2010-06-01 20:43 In support of the resources rent tax we should note the following:
1.The average effective tax rate across the mining industry is 23%. In Australia it is 16.4%. (Ref. Peter Hartcher, SMH, News Review, May 29-30 pge 9)
2. Business faces multuple risks. The risk of governments changing tax arrangements is just another one.
3. BHP's earning per share jumped from 26 cents in 2002 to $US2.75 by 2008.
4. Rio Tinto's revenue moved from $US8.46 billion in 2002 to $US54.26 billion in 2008.
5. Norway has a resources rent tax of 50%and company tax paid on top of that. The world's major oil companies are still drilling in Norwegian waters. (Ref. Ian Verrender, SMH 29-30 May, Weekend Business , page 5, ref points 3,4,5)
6.Treasury figures show that royalty payments have slipped from 32% of profits in 2003-04 to 14% by 2008-09. Ref. Ross Gittins, SMH, Weekend Business, May 29-30, page 5.)
The Australian community deserves to share in this wealth.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+2 # Rob 2010-06-01 21:19 This tax is silly! I have no affiliation with Government or Mining or any political party.
1. Tax whatever you like but remember that as soon as tax goes over 50% its more profitable to avoid tax than to produce.
2.No finance department would ever allow me to make an investment on the grounds that if it failed the company might recover some cash in five or ten years time. I was expected to make the project work.Therefore the the partial recovery of losses will always be valued at zero for investment purposes.
3.Australia has a good reputation for not changing rules retrospectively . Lets keep it. It makes us an attractive place to invest.
4. If you take more from the mining industry (or any other)in Australia more investments will shift else where.
5.I don't criticize Governments for back-flips after making mistakes I think it should should be mandatory.
6. "I fear the dullard for the knave" from Stupidity by Mary Fullerton-its worth a read.
I fear the Government is the dullard.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Margaret 2010-06-01 21:32 Can our country afford to allow this government to introduce a mining tax based on outdated statistics and misinformation? It is a national emergency when the government is prepared to place immediate political gain before the long term viability of a major industry. The mining companies have every right to expect constructive consultation in any process for the reform of the current tax and royalty system under which they operate. Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # Joyce 2010-06-02 00:02 I am appalled to see Stuart Wilson align the ASA so stridently with the miners and, therefore, the Federal Opposition. He certainly doesn't speak for me. Unless he's angling for a job with a mining company, I don't think this is at all helpful. Resources rent is a complex issue with winners and losers - Marlene Hall's comments are the most reasonable I've read and I share her views. It would be far more valuable for the ASA to educate members by presenting a balanced approach. Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-2 # Murray Roberts 2010-06-02 02:59 I see this as a money grabbing "Fine" on the miners for doing so well. The banks may be next. If it wasn't for them during the worst of the GFC we would be down with the rest of the developed countries in real financial trouble. However they are selling a once only resource, the bigger issue is that we sell Iron Ore for $120 a tonne and buy it back in the form of a value added item, ie:(700,000+ cars) for between $15 - $200k. costing us over $14 Billion dollars a year and 1,000's of jobs. Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Ralph Greenham 2010-06-09 03:05 Totally opposed to RSPT.It is ill-conceived,short -sighted, discriminatory and fails to recognise risk/reward for investors have supported the exploration and development of a mining operation over many years before any profit is made. High risk hopefully generates high rewards. The Govt. apparently fails to recognise the significant contribution made by mining companies to our economic health, enabling us to come through the GFC in pretty good shape. Their success has resulted in huge tax revenue (BHP alone paid $6.3 billion in total last year), highly paid employment (more tax, increased spending on luxury items and housing) and the success of hundreds of manufacturers,s uppliers and spport industries throughout the whole country. The Rudd Govt. would have us believe mining companies are greedy and the only ones to benefit from Australia's resources. How untrue. Their policy is negative to mining and its effcts will flow on to other industries. Bad,bad policy. Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Ray Milne 2010-06-15 20:34 The super-profits tax is set with super-profits assumed to be earned once profits reach 6% pa . This is nonsense .
Super profits are normally cnsidered to begin from about 12% pa .
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Allan S 2010-07-31 05:39 The socalled SuperTax is a typical example of creeping Socialism.If labour gets away with it next will be the Banks,then more controls on Farmers under the saving the planet scam and so on down the line to other Industries.[the few that are left]The Miners pay their royalties and taxes as required under the laws, and generate billions more in wages ,gst and income tax on wages .At the same time labour wants to reinvent the wheel in the form of the NBN,a huge white elephant.The Miners are in a purple patch at the moment,which could change at any time ,so let them get on with the job.Socialism is all about control via high taxes ,restrictive rules ,big Government etc,the last thing most in Australia want or need.On the way a huge Debt is accumulated ,which takes more control from Australians.China took a Great Leap Forward once and Gilliard and Labour are Moving Forward as well .We know what happened in China. Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 

Add comment


Security code
Refresh

© Australian Shareholders' Association
ABN 40 000 625 669