WA First Party, headed by former ALP member Scott Cowans
nospamplease
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/wa/7279710/anti-mine-tax-party-to-be-launched-in-wa/
A new political party plans to register this week to fight for West
Australian interests and against the federal government's new mining
tax.
WA First, headed by former ALP member Scott Cowans, says it has the
500 members needed to register and plans to run three candidates for
the Senate in the next federal election.
Mr Cowans says the resource-rich state is not getting its fair share
of federal funding and is subsidising other states and territories to
the tune of about $8 billion a year.
WA First was started before the federal government announced its 40
per cent tax on mining company super profits and has been gathering
members for many months.
But the new party plans to make opposition to the tax a key part of
its election campaign, arguing it will transfer wealth to NSW and
Victoria and hurt WA by cutting investment and jobs.
The tax has been slammed by WA mining companies, business leaders and
Premier Colin Barnett.
The WA First website says the group was established on the belief that
"major political parties will never give WA a fair deal on funding".
WA needed independent senators to amend legislation and budgets when
they held the balance of power, the website says.
WA First says it would take a centrist position on most issues and
does not support secession for WA, saying the state benefits from
being part of the larger Australian economic market.
Mr Cowans, who has an IT background and is a former president of the
Western Australian club, cut his ties with Labor to form his new
party.
The party's two other Senate candidates are investment adviser John
Goodlad, a former diplomat with the Department of Foreign Affairs and
Trade, and law student James Versteegen.
WA First plans to register with the Australian Electoral Commission
this week.
dechucka
"nospamplease" <nospam...@mo.com> wrote in message
news:4bf8b116...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> WA First Party, headed by former ALP member Scott Cowans.
but previously you said it was being started by the State ALP
olde.sault
> WA First Party, headed by former ALP member Scott Cowans.
>
Hope they haven't started this move too late.
I thought that before senate approval is reached the super tax can't
be enacted.
However, mining interests are up in arms and that spell disaster for
Australia.
When will rotten Rudd stopped under"mining" this country?
OS
David Moss
wrote:
>tax.
>
>WA First, headed by former ALP member Scott Cowans, says it has the
>500 members needed to register and plans to run three candidates for
>the Senate in the next federal election.
Didn't another <insert name here> First party emerge from WA a while
back? How did it go?
DM
personal opinion only
---------------------
APR - http://politics.sunnybar.dynip.com
HD
"olde.sault" <olde....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ec36a5e6-220f-49a2...@a2g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
OS
Easy solution.
Write to Rudd and tell him to stop collecting taxes. Tell him that you don't
need the pension, you don't need age care, you don't need subsidised
medicine etc. etc.
B J Foster
The majority of Australians can pay their own way - we don't need
middle-class welfare (aka bribes), we need tax cuts.
$43 billion pissed away on a network no-one needs will pay for all of
those things *and* tax cuts - and BTW, if it ever gets built, I'll wager
that it will be double or triple that amount. Rudd paid $25 *million*
for a *document* and it's not even a business case! Only Labor can take
the governance out of government.
HD
"B J Foster" <bjfo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:htat9j$qj2$1...@bjf.motzarella.org...
Then get off our public roads and build your own private roads.
Don't accept medical insurance subsidies and private hospital subsidies.
Don't accept medicine subsidies.
Don't accept private education subsidies.
In fact, fuck off to a pure capitalist country where you have none of those
socialist institution.
>
> $43 billion pissed away on a network no-one needs will pay for all of
> those things *and* tax cuts - and BTW, if it ever gets built, I'll wager
> that it will be double or triple that amount. Rudd paid $25 *million* for
> a *document* and it's not even a business case! Only Labor can take the
> governance out of government.
With only a few phone subscribers, Australia should never have build
undersea cables to connect to the world. They could have written letters.
B J Foster
We have been paying toll road operators to build and operate toll roads
for as long as I can remember. Other main roads are built and funded by
the state. Bob Carr's State Labor government promised to abolish tolls
and promptly reneged on that promise after the election.
Local roads are maintained by the council not Kevin Rudd.
The Federal (Labor) government promised to upgrade the Pacific Highway
*decades* ago with a 3x3 levy (3 years x 3 cents per litre). AFAIK this
levy is still being collected but the Pacific Highway continues to kill
20-30 people every year.
DON'T YOU CLAIM THAT RUDD'S TAX GRAB IS FOR ROADS, YOU BLOODY LABOR LIAR!
> Don't accept medical insurance subsidies and private hospital subsidies.
I couldn't give a fuck about subsidies - I pay for health insurance and
it covers all of my needs.
I am quite happy to pay tax for a safety net for the *minority* of
people who can't afford health insurance but I am *not* happy about
paying for Labor couch potatoes who have all sorts of health problems
because of their sedentary lifestyle. You not only have big fat tummies
but big fat heads as well - do a little exercise each day and *invest*
in your health instead of sucking off the government tit.
> Don't accept medicine subsidies.
See above. The only medicine commonsense people need is fresh fruit &
vegies every day & a glass of red. A nice fat cigar also helps - until
you think about Rudd's punitive "sin" taxes, which would raise anyone's
stress levels.
> Don't accept private education subsidies.
We have a great higher education system now - and *not* due to the
efforts of any idiot government, it has become a net *earner*.
Private schools should not be subsidised any more or less than
gubbermint schools - which are funded by *state* government, not Rudd.
>
> In fact, fuck off to a pure capitalist country where you have none of those
> socialist institution.
Fuck off yourself. We have all of these things *before* Rudd's punitive
profits tax, so WHY DO WE NEED A BIG NEW TAX?
I'll tell you why - the idiot can't balance the budget and he wants to
spend $43 *billion* on a network which no-one needs.
>
>
>>
>> $43 billion pissed away on a network no-one needs will pay for all of
>> those things *and* tax cuts - and BTW, if it ever gets built, I'll
>> wager that it will be double or triple that amount. Rudd paid $25
>> *million* for a *document* and it's not even a business case! Only
>> Labor can take the governance out of government.
>
> With only a few phone subscribers, Australia should never have build
> undersea cables to connect to the world. They could have written letters.
>
When the gubbermint owned Telstra, I paid $1.60 per minute for overseas
phone calls. What do you pay now?
Labor idiots
HD
"B J Foster" <bjfo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
How old are you?
You argue like a child without any life experience.
bringyagrogalong
>
> I'll tell you why - the idiot can't balance the budget.
It will be balanced in three years time. Try to keep up for fucksake!
> and he wants to spend $43 *billion* on a network
> which no-one needs.
Well, if we want to remain an international laughing stock, then I
suppose you're right!...
How does it feel to be rubbing shoulders with Mexico. LOL
But people in the know, as opposed to wankers like you, had this to
say:
Australian General Manager of Google said: "The NBN, announced by the
Government, will be the greatest enabler of change Australian
businesses and users could wish for. I don't think enough of us
realise the importance of this for Australia".
The CEO of Foxtel said: "I think most of the response to the broadband
initiative has been positive and in fact most of the negative
commentary has really come, essentially, of a political nature rather
than in terms of the operators and the landscape".
Hmmm! I think he's having a go at you and your Neanderthal Liberal
mates.
"The National Broadband Network will help Australia keep pace with
fast-moving nations and take the lead on many others as the global
digital economy develops.
"Government involvement in broadband is a growing trend and Australia
is not alone in this regard.
"Countries around the world, and particularly our Asia Pacific
neighbours, are rapidly adopting fibre broadband.
"This includes global Fibre-to-the-Premises leaders such as South
Korea, Hong Kong, Japan, Taiwan and fast-growing China.
"In fact, 78 per cent of global fibre to the premise connections are
in the Asia-Pacific region.
"While each country starts from a different position, and their policy
responses will reflect this, there is a growing consensus that
investment in high speed broadband infrastructure is critical.
"Clearly, broadband is a growing consideration for national economies,
businesses of all sizes and other organisations around the world.
"High-speed broadband is a key enabler for the digital economy, an
environment that promises transformative opportunities to improve the
way we all go about our
day-to-day lives.
"Enabling all Australians to take part in this environment is a key
goal for the Rudd Government and why we have resolved to invest in the
National Broadband Network.
"The National Broadband Network will help Australia keep pace with
fast-moving nations and take the lead on many others as the global
digital economy develops".
Now cast your mind back to the advent of that new fangled motor car.
You were against that as well, weren't you?
B J Foster
Middle class Australians need none of the things that you cited.
Tax cuts are what we need - and a less parasitic government. With tax
cuts, we will make our own choices - we don't need idiot Labor control
freaks.
In any case, *all* of the things that you cited are *already* fully
funded and *none* of them needs a great big new fucking tax.
Only idiots believe pollies when they think up new taxes - or children.
nospamplease
<sof...@aapt.net.au> wrote:
>B J Foster <bjfos...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> I'll tell you why - the idiot can't balance the budget.
>
>It will be balanced in three years time. Try to keep up for fucksake!
Stop using more aliases.
Do you use several aliases because no one else is backing Rudd in
here. All this pro rudd posts are coming from a single person.
nospamplease
wrote:
>On Sun, 23 May 2010 04:40:20 GMT, nospam...@mo.com (nospamplease)
>wrote:
>
>>tax.
>>
>>WA First, headed by former ALP member Scott Cowans, says it has the
>>500 members needed to register and plans to run three candidates for
>>the Senate in the next federal election.
>
>Didn't another <insert name here> First party emerge from WA a while
>back? How did it go?
Well there was no super tax around back when.
Now there is something to fight against.
As the Premier of WA rightly said, its a call to arms as Canberra is
stealing from the West. Rudd has worked out that he will lose seats in
WA anyway so doesn't care about the West.
The gorgan project now at risk and falls into this super tax mess.
$50b at risk. This is huge sums of money that was going to employ tens
of thousands of workers.
Lawyers are coming out of the woodwork to say the Rudd gov has no idea
about Aust mining laws. They like the Premier of WA say that the mines
in WA belong to the state of WA not the rest of Australia.
The mess has spread to NSW and its coal projects to be used to help
prop up Vic. This not going down well inside NSW.
Many mines in SA have projects on hold as they do in Qld and Tas.
500,000 mining jobs that are going to go. Really dumb by Rudd.
Poor timing, poorly thought out.
Rudd should have done a progressive tax, start with a small number and
bring it up slowly to give the mining companies a chance to work
through it but no Rudd did it all at once.
For those that don't have a clue, the gst, we in WA only get $0.68
back whgere all the others states get $1.35 back when all should have
got $1 back but that was messed up.
bringyagrogalong
>
> For those that don't have a clue, the gst, we in WA only get $0.68
> back whgere all the others states get $1.35 back when all should have
> got $1 back but that was messed up.
So after you got screwed by Howard, you still want to vote for the
Libs?
Have you got a screw loose?
scott....@wafirst.org
with former Liberal party member John Goodlad as we believe there is
an inherent conflict in being members of national political parties
and putting WA first. The Party is totally independent - we believe
Liberal and Labor governments ignore WA. However, considering our
strident opposition to the mining tax, we will be preferencing the
conservative parties over the ALP whilst this tax stands. Of course,
voters can still go below the line on the ballot paper and preference
however they like.
Regards,
Scott Cowans
WA First Senate Candidate
www.wafirst.org
bringyagrogalong
Fuck-off!
We don't want traitorous bastards like you contaminating this
newsgroup.
HD
"B J Foster" <bjfo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
David Moss
wrote:
>Lawyers are coming out of the woodwork to say the Rudd gov has no idea
>about Aust mining laws. They like the Premier of WA say that the mines
>in WA belong to the state of WA not the rest of Australia.
Its irrelevant who the mines belong to. The Commonwealth government
has a clear constitutional power to make laws with respect to
corporations and to levy taxes.
You would think a State Premier would know that.
David Moss
wrote:
>In response to a comment above, I have left the ALP to start WA First
>with former Liberal party member John Goodlad as we believe it there
>is an inherent conflict in being members of national political parties
>and putting WA First. The Party is totally independent and,
>considering our strident opposition to the mining tax, we will be
>preferencing the conservative parties over the ALP whilst this tax
>stands. Of course, voters can still go below the line on the ballot
>paper and preference however they like.
>
>Regards,
>
>Scott Cowans
>WA First Senate Candidate
>www.wafirst.org
Gday Scott,
Currently I have the following in the Parties listing at:
http://politics.sunnybar.dynip.com/party
Western Australia First
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Western Australia First is attempting to get its founders elected to
the Senate to achieve for a better outcome for Western Australia in
federal parliament.
Website:www.wafirst.org
If you can suggest better wording without waffling I am keen to amend
the listing to suit.
David Moss
I do!
I want to know why they didn't feel it necessary to put Western
Australia first before the mining super profit tax was proposed.
scott....@wafirst.org
profits tax was proposed. In Australia you require 500 members to
register a party, none of whom can be members of existing political
parties. As you would imagine it's a hard task convincing 500
essentially non-political people to sign up to a political party for
the first time in their lives so has taken us until this weekend to
reach the 500 members. And the media typically won't give you too
much airplay until you have those 500 members.
In terms of the political parties list, that entry sounds fine
although I think the first "for" is redundant. Thanks very much for
listing us.
B J Foster
*All* of the things that you cited are *already* fully funded and *none*
of them needs a great big new tax. Every successive administration
thinks up big new taxes and every one has their camp followers who
support their bullshit arguments.
Rudd is annexing future profits of miners which makes up a considerable
portion of our super.
Even if you support the tax - and I *do* agree with a resource rent tax
- it should be:
1. On a level playing field with other industries. It should not cause
economic distortions. Currently the policy of Rudd's Labor party is to
encourage banks and discourage mining - the same policy as he has toward
smoking!
http://www.yourhealth.gov.au/internet/yourhealth/publishing.nsf/Content/factsheet-prevention-01
How silly can you get?
2. On a level playing field with other countries. According to BHP's
estimates total tax is currently around 43%. According to Citigroup,
after Rudd's tax grab, profit taxes will be as follows:
Australia: 58%
South Africa: 33%
Canada: 23%
BHP has 51% of its assets in Australia. Rudd's tax will cause
responsible management to take their investment elsewhere. In this
context, the AWU's support for Rudd's big new tax is simply irresponsible.
3. Existing projects were funded on reasonable assumption of costs and
tax rates. To change the rules mid-stream makes Australia a risky
destination for capital investment. When you can't trust the government
of a country not to grab your assets then you sensibly look for other
countries to invest in. Again, the AWU's support for Rudd's big new tax
is simply irresponsible.
We need a less parasitic government - less socialism - less censorship -
less spending - less blah. Summary: *less* government.
B J Foster
> On Sun, 23 May 2010 11:42:28 GMT, nospam...@mo.com (nospamplease)
> wrote:
>
>> Lawyers are coming out of the woodwork to say the Rudd gov has no idea
>> about Aust mining laws. They like the Premier of WA say that the mines
>> in WA belong to the state of WA not the rest of Australia.
>
> Its irrelevant who the mines belong to. The Commonwealth government
> has a clear constitutional power to make laws with respect to
> corporations and to levy taxes.
It's all very well circumscribing the terms (as you are wont to do).
Are you expressing a legal opinion?
>
> You would think a State Premier would know that.
Indeed. So what is the basis for your claim?
What defines a 'mining' company and 'where' are the profits earned?
If you think that you can recast a *resource* tax as a *company* tax,
all that you're going to do is enrich an army of lawyers. Good luck!
Labor idiots.
David Moss
<bjfo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>David Moss wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 May 2010 11:42:28 GMT, nospam...@mo.com (nospamplease)
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Lawyers are coming out of the woodwork to say the Rudd gov has no idea
>>> about Aust mining laws. They like the Premier of WA say that the mines
>>> in WA belong to the state of WA not the rest of Australia.
>>
>> Its irrelevant who the mines belong to. The Commonwealth government
>> has a clear constitutional power to make laws with respect to
>> corporations and to levy taxes.
>
>It's all very well circumscribing the terms (as you are wont to do).
>Are you expressing a legal opinion?
I am expressing my legal opinion. I caution anyone reading that I do
not have professional legal qualifications and they should not rely on
my opinion alone. That sais, I have looked at the constitution a few
times. (I posted the first Internet available copy in the early 90s)
>> You would think a State Premier would know that.
>
>Indeed. So what is the basis for your claim?
That its irrelevant who the mines belong to?
Isn't it obvious that the federal government can impose any tax regime
it likes on corporations as long as it applies equally in each State?
Ownership of mines is irrelevant to taxing mining corporations.
>What defines a 'mining' company and 'where' are the profits earned?
A mining company is a company that mines. Simple really.
Profits are earned where value is added. In the case of mining the
value is added where the minerals are extracted from the ground and
made ready for transport or transformation.
If you want a detailed and definition of a company I refer you to the
Companies Act 1981.
>
>If you think that you can recast a *resource* tax as a *company* tax,
>all that you're going to do is enrich an army of lawyers. Good luck!
I'm sure an army of lawyers will suit up and prepare to bill, but the
Commonwealth can and does impose different tax liabilites on companies
involved in different activities. I refer you to S23A of the Income
Tax Rates Act 1986, which imposes specific tax rates on Insurance
Companies.
David Moss
wrote:
>Actually the party was founded in early 2009 well before the super
>profits tax was proposed. In Australia you require 500 members to
>register a party, none of whom can be members of existing political
>parties. As you would imagine it's a hard task convincing 500
>essentially non-political people to sign up to a political party for
>the first time in their lives so has taken us until this weekend to
>reach the 500 members. And the media typically won't give you too
>much airplay until you have those 500 members.
In my experience you can get a lot of positive publicity during the
formation stages if you play it right.
500 financial members at $1 a pop is easy. Since the money comes
straight back to the party you can manage it with a single $1 coin. If
you can't organise that you should give the game away ;-)
With a platform of "WA is alright, stuff you Eastern States" you ought
to be able to get 500 signatures on a slow Saturday morning at any
major shopping centre in the west. Prying them away from their
traditional voting patterns is harder though. Expect even some of your
signed on members to vote Labor or Liberal.
You can minimise the slide back to traditional voting patterns by
actively and publicly involving members as much as possible. its hard
work and some founders who only want a party to get themselves elected
don't put in the effort. The psychology is that people who publicly
and overtly support something are far more likely to support it
privately and anonymously than those who have not been seen to support
it publicly.
(I love tactics, its what I miss most about hands on politics)
>In terms of the political parties list, that entry sounds fine
>although I think the first "for" is redundant. Thanks very much for
>listing us.
You are welcome. Thank you for adding interest to the political
process.
nospamplease
>In response to a comment above, I have left the ALP to start WA First
>with former Liberal party member John Goodlad as we believe it there
>is an inherent conflict in being members of national political parties
>and putting WA First. The Party is totally independent and,
>considering our strident opposition to the mining tax, we will be
>preferencing the conservative parties over the ALP whilst this tax
>stands. Of course, voters can still go below the line on the ballot
>paper and preference however they like.
>
>Regards,
>
>Scott Cowans
>WA First Senate Candidate
>www.wafirst.org
Can ytou tell me why no one is taking Rudd to the high court over the
Mining Laws of Aust which says that the minerals belong to each state.
Its only offshore that the fed gov can add rent taxes.
Barnett has picked up on this and now saying that the minerals belong
to WA, not the rest of Australia. Sam egoes for all the other states.
As I understand it the feds can only gram land in the NY and the ACT.
nospamplease
No,not at all. I voted Rudd last time round.
Changing my vote to the Libs
Its why I am so angry over what Rudd is doing. I voted for the sod.
I did vote for the GST and everythihg was going along fine.
Since Rudd got into office he took the $3b that went to WA for Gas per
year which then Premier Alan Carpenter was not happy about as that
meant he had to make up the difference each year. Alan Carpenter was
with the ALP. They since lost the election to the state Libs and
Barnett is the new premier of WA and must say doing a fine job.
Can't see myself ever voting ALP again. When I voted Whitlan in there
was so much promise. He let the nation down. Voted Fraser then later
on changed to Hawke. This Rudd government has scared the witts out of
me. I'll never vote ALP ever again becvause they look like they'll tax
businesses to pay for their mistaskes and the latest mistake is the
worst in our great country history.
Its no wonder that a new party has been formed and why there is so
much anger in the community.
As Premier Barnett says, its a call to arms.
Rudd health plan for WA is a disgrace and why Barnett said no because
GST would have been down to $0.32 in the dollar. That would cripple WA
and state taxes would hav ehad to trebble.
We's be better off splitting from the comonwealth. The Premier here
half jokingly said just that and this statement I think will gather
momentum in the coming months ahead.
If the fed Libs don't win thenI can see WA splitting its tieswith the
rest of Aust. After all recent polls suggest that 70% would be for
splitting away and forming a new country. Yes that brings new
challenges like building an army but as WA brings in a third of all
GST for the country we could fund this quite easily.
nospamplease
wrote:
>On Mon, 24 May 2010 07:03:54 +1000, B J Foster
><bjfo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>David Moss wrote:
>>> On Sun, 23 May 2010 11:42:28 GMT, nospam...@mo.com (nospamplease)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lawyers are coming out of the woodwork to say the Rudd gov has no idea
>>>> about Aust mining laws. They like the Premier of WA say that the mines
>>>> in WA belong to the state of WA not the rest of Australia.
>>>
>>> Its irrelevant who the mines belong to. The Commonwealth government
>>> has a clear constitutional power to make laws with respect to
>>> corporations and to levy taxes.
>>
>>It's all very well circumscribing the terms (as you are wont to do).
>>Are you expressing a legal opinion?
>
>I am expressing my legal opinion. I caution anyone reading that I do
>not have professional legal qualifications and they should not rely on
>my opinion alone. That sais, I have looked at the constitution a few
>times. (I posted the first Internet available copy in the early 90s)
>
>>> You would think a State Premier would know that.
>>
>>Indeed. So what is the basis for your claim?
>
>That its irrelevant who the mines belong to?
Mining land belong to the Crown of each state.
Mining out side the 5km zone around Aust belongs to the Fed
government.
Its in the mining laws of Aust.
Some ought to go read the Aust mining laws of Aust.
dechucka
"nospamplease" <nospam...@mo.com> wrote in message
news:4bf9cf29...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> On Sun, 23 May 2010 04:55:23 -0700 (PDT), scott....@wafirst.org
> wrote:
>
>>In response to a comment above, I have left the ALP to start WA First
>>with former Liberal party member John Goodlad as we believe it there
>>is an inherent conflict in being members of national political parties
>>and putting WA First. The Party is totally independent and,
>>considering our strident opposition to the mining tax, we will be
>>preferencing the conservative parties over the ALP whilst this tax
>>stands. Of course, voters can still go below the line on the ballot
>>paper and preference however they like.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Scott Cowans
>>WA First Senate Candidate
>>www.wafirst.org
>
> Can ytou tell me why no one is taking Rudd to the high court over the
> Mining Laws of Aust which says that the minerals belong to each state.
> Its only offshore that the fed gov can add rent taxes.
Mainly because the tax is a tax on prits not a tax on production. Under the
proposal the States will still get their royalties but ineffect from the Fed
Gov not the miners
>
> Barnett has picked up on this and now saying that the minerals belong
> to WA, not the rest of Australia. Sam egoes for all the other states.
True and WA will get paid for them
> As I understand it the feds can only gram land in the NY
The Yanks would have something to say about that
>and the ACT.
dechucka
"B J Foster" <bjfo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:htc582$5pt$1...@bjf.motzarella.org...
easily enough done as it is ready in place with RRT
dechucka
What Fed gov is doing comes under the auspice of the tax act not the mining
act. The states will still get paid for the minerals via royalties, All that
is going to happen now is that the royalties will be rebated to the miningg
companies by the Commonwealth
>
HD
"B J Foster" <bjfo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
How much income tax do you pay?
Do you know that you can earn the same and even more with lower tax in other
countries?
Why are you still in Australia? Why don't you go overseas and pay lower tax?
If it is easy for mining companies then it should be easy for you
personally.
B J Foster
So if a gold miner sells ore to a refiner. The refiner forward sells
it's bullion to a bank at $400/oz for 5 years as collateral for a loan.
The gold price keeps rising but so does inflation & the gold producer
goes bust. The bank makes superprofits.
Summary:
Labor idiots
> Profits are earned where value is added. In the case of mining the
> value is added where the minerals are extracted from the ground and
> made ready for transport or transformation.
Oh I see. So what is the price of the iron ore at the railhead in
BHP/RIO's "integrated" operation?
>
> If you want a detailed and definition of a company I refer you to the
> Companies Act 1981.
Point to the act which defines a "mining company"
>> If you think that you can recast a *resource* tax as a *company* tax,
>> all that you're going to do is enrich an army of lawyers. Good luck!
>
> I'm sure an army of lawyers will suit up and prepare to bill, but the
> Commonwealth can and does impose different tax liabilites on companies
> involved in different activities. I refer you to S23A of the Income
> Tax Rates Act 1986, which imposes specific tax rates on Insurance
> Companies.
Another army of lawyers is preparing loss-making mining operations, sale
to offshore subsidiaries, etc etc.
There is absolutely no reason to treat mining companies differently to
other sectors, like banks or telecommunications, or retail - and in fact
it will cause distortions in the economy - the worst one being
discouragement of our most profitable industry.
The market is not *supposed* to be fair. It is supposed to punish those
companies that engage in uncompetitive industries and reward those that
operate in profitable areas - but then a bunch of Labor fuckwits comes
along and punishes success. Bloody typical.
Summary:
Labor idiots.
olde.sault
> On Mon, 24 May 2010 08:49:45 +1000, David Moss <dm...@adfa.edu.au>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mon, 24 May 2010 07:03:54 +1000, B J Foster
> ><bjfos...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> >>David Moss wrote:
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> Lawyers are coming out of the woodwork to say the Rudd gov has no idea
> >>>> about Aust mining laws. They like the Premier of WA say that the mines
> >>>> in WA belong to the state of WA not the rest of Australia.
>
> >>> Its irrelevant who the mines belong to. The Commonwealth government
> >>> has a clear constitutional power to make laws with respect to
> >>> corporations and to levy taxes.
>
> >>It's all very well circumscribing the terms (as you are wont to do).
> >>Are you expressing a legal opinion?
>
> >I am expressing my legal opinion. I caution anyone reading that I do
> >not have professional legal qualifications and they should not rely on
> >my opinion alone. That sais, I have looked at the constitution a few
> >times. (I posted the first Internet available copy in the early 90s)
>
> >>> You would think a State Premier would know that.
>
> >>Indeed. So what is the basis for your claim?
>
> >That its irrelevant who the mines belong to?
>
> Mining land belong to the Crown of each state.
> Mining out side the 5km zone around Aust belongs to the Fed
> government.
>
> Its in the mining laws of Aust.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
That being the case, Rudd's super tax will be buried in some unholy
ground, as all of his projects.
If there even has been a case for hanging, Rudd had earned it.
9I've never felt that strongly about anybody before.
OS
David Moss
wrote:
>
>We's be better off splitting from the comonwealth. The Premier here
>half jokingly said just that and this statement I think will gather
>momentum in the coming months ahead.
But only until the election. No matter who wins the secession talk
will dissipate immediately afterwards. The reason is that its being
used as a tool to pry as many votes away from Labor as possible and
there is no real intent to secede by those raising such expectations.
A cunning plan by the Libs. Some might even say "mean and tricky".
David Moss
wrote:
>
>Some ought to go read the Aust mining laws of Aust.
Why do I need to do that in order to understand why the Commonwealth
can tax mining companies any way it likes?
That sort of comment may play well in the pubs in WA, where the
attitude of "stuff the Eastern States" is widespread, but here in
aus.politics it falls flat.
David Moss
<bjfo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
If the miner goes bust owing the bank lots of money, where is the
profit for the bank?
If the miner sells its product to a bank for less than its market
value rather than selling it on the free market and sending a
proportion of the super profit to the bank, its no surprise when it
goes bust.
Neither is likely to behave in this way in the real world.
How about trying for a more realistic straw man next time?
>Labor idiots
>
>
>> Profits are earned where value is added. In the case of mining the
>> value is added where the minerals are extracted from the ground and
>> made ready for transport or transformation.
>
>Oh I see. So what is the price of the iron ore at the railhead in
>BHP/RIO's "integrated" operation?
Interesting point. I would anticipate some sort of market value
calculation would apply to companies selling to themselves in this
situation. I would discount the price as an efficiency bonus to
encourage multinationals to process their minerals in Australia, I
would hope Labor would have such foresight but I wouldn't bet on it.
>> If you want a detailed and definition of a company I refer you to the
>> Companies Act 1981.
>
>Point to the act which defines a "mining company"
I already defined "mining company" above. I anticipated you would try
to muddy the water with a demand for more information, so I pointed
you to the Companies Act.
>>> If you think that you can recast a *resource* tax as a *company* tax,
>>> all that you're going to do is enrich an army of lawyers. Good luck!
>>
>> I'm sure an army of lawyers will suit up and prepare to bill, but the
>> Commonwealth can and does impose different tax liabilites on companies
>> involved in different activities. I refer you to S23A of the Income
>> Tax Rates Act 1986, which imposes specific tax rates on Insurance
>> Companies.
>
>Another army of lawyers is preparing loss-making mining operations, sale
>to offshore subsidiaries, etc etc.
Could be. Some people are so fixated on not paying tax they are
willing to accept a lower total return if it means thay will pay even
a dollar less tax than they would otherwise.
>There is absolutely no reason to treat mining companies differently to
>other sectors, like banks or telecommunications, or retail - and in fact
>it will cause distortions in the economy - the worst one being
>discouragement of our most profitable industry.
Your opinion differs from that of the Henry Tax Report, and the
opinions stated by Ross Garnaught.
>The market is not *supposed* to be fair. It is supposed to punish those
>companies that engage in uncompetitive industries and reward those that
>operate in profitable areas - but then a bunch of Labor fuckwits comes
>along and punishes success. Bloody typical.
The market for *our* minerals isn't supposed to be fair either. Its
supposed to deliver the people of Australia the highest possible
return possible in a free market situation. That means we, as owners
of a scarce resource, get to set the price at which we are willing to
sell *our* minerals. Mining companies can either pay that price or
find another seller. That is how a free market works, and no, its not
supposed to be fair.
dechucka
=========================
perfectly legal
dechucka
"B J Foster" <bjfo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:htdoal$24h$1...@bjf.motzarella.org...
Sorry once it is out of the ground it is owned by someone. The ore in the
mine is owned by us
Summary: You know fuck all about what you are talking about
>
>
>> Profits are earned where value is added. In the case of mining the
>> value is added where the minerals are extracted from the ground and
>> made ready for transport or transformation.
>
> Oh I see. So what is the price of the iron ore at the railhead in
> BHP/RIO's "integrated" operation?
I suspect that BHP/Rio knows or they are fucked.
>
>
>>
>> If you want a detailed and definition of a company I refer you to the
>> Companies Act 1981.
>
> Point to the act which defines a "mining company"
Those companys currently paying mining royalties is a good start
>
>
>>> If you think that you can recast a *resource* tax as a *company* tax,
>>> all that you're going to do is enrich an army of lawyers. Good luck!
>>
>> I'm sure an army of lawyers will suit up and prepare to bill, but the
>> Commonwealth can and does impose different tax liabilites on companies
>> involved in different activities. I refer you to S23A of the Income
>> Tax Rates Act 1986, which imposes specific tax rates on Insurance
>> Companies.
>
> Another army of lawyers is preparing loss-making mining operations, sale
> to offshore subsidiaries, etc etc.
>
> There is absolutely no reason to treat mining companies differently to
> other sectors, like banks or telecommunications, or retail - and in fact
> it will cause distortions in the economy - the worst one being
> discouragement of our most profitable industry.
Of course there is which is why they are treated differently now
>
> The market is not *supposed* to be fair. It is supposed to punish those
> companies that engage in uncompetitive industries and reward those that
> operate in profitable areas - but then a bunch of Labor fuckwits comes
> along and punishes success. Bloody typical.
The market is meant to be fair
Dr. Sir John Howard, AC, WSCMoF
Yes, it is perfectly legal to hang KRudd. Glad you agree.
--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ipvdBnU8F8
- KRudd at his finest.
"The Labour Party is corrupt beyond redemption!"
- Labour hasbeen Mark Latham in a moment of honest clarity.
"This is the recession we had to have!"
- Paul Keating explaining why he gave Australia another Labour recession.
"Silly old bugger!"
- Well known ACTU pisspot and sometime Labour prime minister Bob Hawke
responding to a pensioner who dared ask for more.
"By 1990, no child will live in poverty"
- Bob Hawke again, desperate to win another election.
"A billion trees ..."
- Borke, pissed as a newt again.
"Well may we say 'God save the Queen' because nothing will save the governor
general!"
- Egotistical shithead and pompous fuckwit E.G. Whitlam whining about his
appointee for Governor General John Kerr.
"SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU DUMB CUNT!"
- FlangesBum on learning the truth about Labour's economic capabilities.
"I don't care what you fuckers think!"
- KRudd the KRude Rat at his finest again.
"We'll just change it all when we get in."
- Garrett the carrott
dechucka
" Dr. Sir John Howard, AC, WSCMoF "
<""does.tholen.have.many.kook.outs\"@kangarooistan.com.au ."> wrote in
message news:4bfc89b8$0$8769$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
B J Foster
> David Moss wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 May 2010 07:03:54 +1000, B J Foster
>> <bjfo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>
>> Profits are earned where value is added. In the case of mining the
>> value is added where the minerals are extracted from the ground and
>> made ready for transport or transformation.
>
> Oh I see. So what is the price of the iron ore at the railhead in
> BHP/RIO's "integrated" operation?
>
>
ROTFL
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/26/2909750.htm?section=business
Labor idiots
Dr. Sir John Howard, AC, WSCMoF
LOL!