Environment Tax

[gazelle]

It's rumour only at this stage, although I suspect it was deliberately leaked to gauge public opinion, but the Australian government might be imposing an "environment tax" on mining activities.

It is part of a big review on the current over-complicated taxation system, a full "root and branch" reform. The formal review and the accompanying government response is due to be released next weekend. I hope that it contains something like an environment tax, to account for some of those "externalisations" that we have often mentioned.

[gazelle]

What a disappointment (not really, because "disappointment" suggests some sort of expectation, and I didn't really expect the government to do anything).

The proposed "environment tax" is an additional tax to be imposed on the big mining company profits, to be used to fund a whole lot of other initiatives such as higher company-paid superannuation and lower tax for small business. There is no attempt to correct externalised costs, nor to ration the depletion of limited resources, or hold onto them for use by future generations... yet another wasted opportunity.
[Edit: After a bit more reading, I learned that the resource tax will not directly fund the higher superannuation contributions; it will fund a lower company tax rate, thus indirectly offsetting the higher super contributions to be made by the employer. The unspoken rationale is that the mining companies get tax exemptions for high-risk exploration work, and the extra tax on profits is a means of "repaying" this subsidy. Revenue from the current "royalties" (based on output) is strangely decreasing, so it needs fixing.]

Although, one positive light was that one spokesman explained that the mining company should not hold the profits because they did not put the resources in the ground in the first place. Perhaps there is some hope that governments will recognise that some resources are "commonly shared", such as the atmosphere.

The "Tax Review" suggested 138 changes. The government has picked up 5, and has even corrupted those. That is not a very good hit rate. It is about as bad as the "Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme" which has very little resemblance to the Garnaut Report they commissioned.

I would not be surprised if a few more suggestions are proposed later, since there will be a federal election towards the end of the year, but I think it unlikely.

Australia effectively has a two-party system, but neither party has an effective climate change policy. There is another party called "The Greens" that seem okay, but most voters consider them a "wasted vote".

So what do we do when the current government is useless, and the alternative party are just as bad?

[wibble]

Although, one positive light was that one spokesman explained that the mining company should not hold the profits because they did not put the resources in the ground in the first place. Perhaps there is some hope that governments will recognise that some resources are "commonly shared", such as the atmosphere.


You can't go around saying things like that! Next you'll be saying 'all property is theft' and have everyone ignore you in knee-jerk reaction :/


So what do we do when the current government is useless, and the alternative party are just as bad?

You do the same thing as we do here in the UK: see-saw interminably between one lot that doesn't keep its promises, and another lot that doesn't keep its promises.

[776281]

The sad thing is that the executive who started all this is still better off for his risk taking. There is no way all those bonuses will be repaid.

Short sighted, short term profit is still king in the business world, especially when managing boards have no concept of the risks involved. We have seen it before and we will see it again; global financial crisis, gulf disaster, Enron and that chap Nicholas in Singapore (he did go to jail).

The rewards and risks are not in proportion. What is the bet that no individual is charged over the gulf disaster.