reply to post by noonebutme
Well in this particular case, its a tax on profits made from selling resources. The core of the premise is that the price of resources has
skyrocketed and 10 years ago the mining companies were paying a ratio far different than it is today. I can't remember the exact figures, but the
example being.
2000 - 7:1 - 7 profit, 1 tax
2010 - 21:1 - 21 profit, 1 tax
Make sense? They are getting a far more disproportional wealth from the resources than they were 10 years ago - so its only fair that this is
rectified.
There is a major difference between making wealth and inheriting wealth. I'm not one to scream
"OmG!!!1! teh Nw0 iz cuming 2 getz m3!!1!!!"
- But if you don't think 99% of billionaires have a relationship with government - you're fooling yourself.
This tax has nothing to do with them paying for the lack of vision in others (except maybe the previous Gov) - it has to do with them going back to
reinvesting a proportional amount of wealth back to the people living in Australia, of whom the resources belong.
I'm still wondering whether the 40% will stand - I personally don't think it goes far enough - we should just nationalise the whole
kit-and-kaboodle.