- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,844
- Reactions
- 19,165
OK I got no idea here, but if we sell a Australian natural resource in Australia to another Australian company to produce something, Is a royalty still paid to the govt?
If it were why would we do that, couldn't we get rid of that tax (and while we are at it a few others) to help rebuild some manufacturing like some steel production?
We can get the tax back selling exports and some from wages. A working person pays a wage tax and not take a support benefit. A double wammy.
As a broad concept it's not hugely far removed from the idea of government supplying utilities at cost, no profit, and seeing the benefit as developing business and putting people into work rather than gaining any direct profit from the power / water / gas / railways / roads etc as such.
That model is the one which was key to establishing large scale manufacturing in Australia in the first place and its abandonment has played at least some role in the decline.
I don't like this.US study confirms moisture and temperature kills the virus:
The warmer and more humid it is, the lower the transmission
Which is NOT good news for Australia in the coming months...
It's off the subject of this thread but I'll simply say that it's the structure of such things which is crucial far more than who the actual owners are.I have no issue if the Government runs necessary infrastructure and services, as long as they are investing to keep it modern and world competitive, don't burn or waste money or rip off its customers and run it at zero profit.
Several of us over the years on the forum, have derided the signing of the Lima agreement in the 1970's and bemoan the fact that governments abandoned the belief they were there as a training ground for our youth.To my personal view, the abandonment of such strategy was essentially a massive stripmining style crime perpetuated by Government and various oligopolists.
I'd say we should bring it back, but on this forum that is as good as claiming yourself a member of the Stalin Appreciation Club.
OK I got no idea here, but if we sell a Australian natural resource in Australia to another Australian company to produce something, Is a royalty still paid to the govt?
If it were why would we do that, couldn't we get rid of that tax (and while we are at it a few others) to help rebuild some manufacturing like some steel production?
We can get the tax back selling exports and some from wages. A working person pays a wage tax and not take a support benefit. A double wammy.
It's off the subject of this thread but I'll simply say that it's the structure of such things which is crucial far more than who the actual owners are.
Scale is the key, lose that and you're stuffed.
However limited the benefits of the mill are, they're an order of magnitude greater than the benefits of the mine.Sure if you live in a town that where a steel mill got built, you might benefit from the government giving away Australia’s resources for free, but the benefits would drop dramatically as you moved away from that steel mill.
We also can only support a limited amount of baristas and uber drivers..
There is also the problem that Australia has a limited supply of investment capital and Labour available, artificially diverting this Labour and capital into industries that require ongoing subsidy to survive is taking that Labour and capital away from other industries where it may be better employed.
yep, look at Berkshire Hathaway energy, privately owned for profit and in many locations hasn’t risen rates for 10+ years, and supplies cheaper electricity and gas than the state owned businesses just across the river.
Yes and we very nearly bought into a renewable energy project at huge cost, that Berkshire Hathaway were burnt badly on, so just name dropping isn't in itself a recipe for success.yep, look at Berkshire Hathaway energy, privately owned for profit and in many locations hasn’t risen rates for 10+ years, and supplies cheaper electricity and gas than the state owned businesses just across the river.
Yes and we very nearly bought into a renewable energy project at huge cost, that Berkshire Hathaway were burnt badly on, so just name dropping isn't in itself a recipe for success.
However limited the benefits of the mill are, they're an order of magnitude greater than the benefits of the mine.
It varies between minerals but take $5 - $20 worth of ore and turn it into $100 worth of metal is the basic concept.
To the extent there's no benefit in doing so, there's even less benefit in mining it in the first place since that depletes the resource for a very low gain. At least the mill employs and brings in $$$ export revenue far more than a mine does.
Yes and we very nearly bought into a renewable energy project at huge cost, that Berkshire Hathaway were burnt badly on, so just name dropping isn't in itself a recipe for success.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...plant-was-obsolete-before-it-ever-went-online
The S.A government was sold on this technology and a thesis on how Australia could be fully renewable by 2020, was built on this technology and held up to ridicule mainstream power generation.
I'm not saying the process doesn't have merit, but to base the major part of your argument on its ability to replace fossil fuel, is somewhat presumptuous.
Also to compare the U.S to Australia with regard power generation is comparing apples with oranges, the U.S is a big Country with a huge differences to Australia.
Actually IMO many of Australia's problems have arisen from management buying off the shelf U.S products, to justify their own KPI pay rises, when in actual fact it has resulted in a worse outcome for the business and in some case Australia in general.
Competency standards is an example IMO.
We also can only support a limited amount of baristas and uber drivers.
When Australian mines were first exploited in a major way in the 1960's, a condition for the pricing of their royalties was the establishment of towns and value added industries, this has been eroded away and everyone is sleepwalking into the third world IMO
For example from my memory, BHP were given concessions on iron ore royalties in W.A, on the understanding they would build a blast furnace and steel rolling mill at Kwinana, also a steel furnace was to be built by about 1980.
Well from memory the steel furnace requirement was waived and within a year the furnace and 1500 jobs were gone.
Now we are raping the NW of W.A and the Eastern States are riding the wave, it will be a sad day when the wave crashes IMO.
The steel mills profit margin is much smaller it pays $80+ for the ore, plus Coal + Dolomite + other stuff and sells the final steel product for a small mark up, or sometimes a loss.
And do not forget an efficient taxation and regulatory systemAgreed although the context of my comment is far broader than power or indeed any one industry.
I'm seeing that the recent Australian economic model of immigration, tourism, bulk minerals and education exports really does seem to be coming into serious question now, even the current government is making utterances to that effect, so the question is where do we go next?
If we're going to do any sort of large scale manufacturing, either old tech (eg steel) or high tech, then it's a given that we're going to need efficient and cost competitive transport, energy, water, communications etc and a the ability to appropriately skill the workforce.
So I'm really thinking two steps ahead here. Not just "what do we do next?" but "what needs to happen to enable that?".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?