There appears to be little limit to the mining industry’s demand for taxpayer assistance. With extensive government investment already in addressing the skills shortages developing because of the sector’s intense demand for labour, today Rio Tinto issued an extraordinary demand for governments to fund social infrastructure for mining communities.
There is no doubt the lack of appropriate housing stock and community infrastructure is a key impediment to Australians relocating to mining communities or regional centres located nearby. That’s why fly-in-fly-out workforces have developed so quickly.
But as the chief beneficiaries of what will be temporary booms in communities in regional and remote towns linked to mining projects, it is the responsibility of mining companies to fund them, not governments.
Such investments are not one-off costs — funding a school, or a hospital, requires significant ongoing funding. Moreover, governments face even greater difficulties than mining companies in staffing social infrastructure, relying on educational and medical professionals to be willing to move into high-cost, distant towns without being able to access the high mining wages that partially offset those costs.
Inevitably, such expenditure pulls money away from under-resourced infrastructure in other areas with higher populations.
Mining companies, it seems, want it both ways — to pay as little tax as possible while governments invest in social infrastructure that supports their mining operations and, ultimately, their profits.
Effectively the mining companies get hold of something for virtually free, turn it into a huge profit by demand created by others doing the heavy lifting, want skilled workers trained at public expense whilst driving wages down, infrastructure provided free then they don’t want to pay tax
@The Pav
So true, but would the mad monk agree to pay, my bloody oath in a flash , anything to stay onside with his biggest backers the three controllers of the lieberal party
@khtagh
1) Where did you get the “handle from?
2) Hence Gina buying Fairfax & Bolt. Needs the influence
3) The crazy thing is I’m reasonably pro-mining I just think our mining companies are greedy & poorly managed.
Don’t ask me to list the thing s BHP stuffed up as well as getting the worst deal imaginable in the merger
What would be the loss to treasury if the Government rescinded fringe Benefits Tax?
Barbara
I assume you are referring to FBT on accommodation.
Remote areas were exempted tears ago. It is no longer a justification for FIFO
By the by I gues Nathan Tinkler’s desrtion to Singapore pretty much sums up the mind set of our mineral magnates.
Happy enough to take. No so happy to pay their fair whack. Remember Australia is a low tax nation in the OECD.
Also bet he will come running back if security in Singapore becomes a concern. Don’t pay tax in Australia but keep it handy as a safe bolt hole