Look, I have valiantly tried to keep politics out of this lovely quiet and peaceful little corner of the Internet. However, I now find that I do feel the need to express my opinion about this.
As I have often said. "If you don't have an opinion then you haven't turned your brain on. If you have an opinion and don't express it then you may as well not have had the opinion in the first place - FG 2009"
There are many many issues regarding this matter. I will only address a couple of them here.
Firstly, the name of this tax. Clearly, including the word "SUPER" in the name of the tax is a blatant attempt to somehow implant the idea that this tax in some way relates to SUPERannuation. It doesn't. It's great political spin to create the impression that what this is all about is being "Robin Hood" - taking from those greedy, mean and nasty miners and putting it into your Superannuation Fund. As it happens, only a small fraction of the $10bn or so that the Government hopes to collect from this tax each year will indirectly finance additional superannuation contributions. It's a very tenuous link and is purely a blatant attempt to paint an incorrect picture for political gain only.
As an aside, I personally feel that encouraging people to provide for their future by increasing their superannuation contributions is a good thing. However, doing it as a disguised pay rise is deceptive. Our business economy is fragile and will remain so for some time. Placing the burden of this largely on employers will be counter-productive in the long run. Everybody should be encouraged to provide for their own retirement - however they should not see it as something that somebody else should do for them. We should encourage individual responsibility - we all have to be educated and encouraged to make value decisions about spending our money now or building a nest egg for our future.
Anyway, I digress.
Before I get into the meat, let me make one other observation. The selling of this tax has largely relied upon selling the concept of somebody named "Miner" who is unjustly running away with huge amounts of money for their own benefit. I can say it in no other way than "Codswallop!". I really doubt that "Miner" has accumulated fleets of Ferraris and Luxury Trimarans out there in the desert. (And this is the concept that needs to be understood by everybody), "Miner" does not exist. He/She is not a person. The entities that develop, own and run these mines are Companies. The vast majority of these companies are listed entities that any of us can own part of, today and thereby share in the wealth (even the Government could do that). I should point out that when thinking about this, it is important not to confuse the mythical person "Miner" with the senior employees of the mining Company - they may well be paid salaries well above what most of us can ever expect to earn. They may even buy Ferraris with their wages. A judgement of their wages has nothing at all to do with this current argument - such a discussion would be much wider and would go well beyond just the mining Companies.
As it happens, I am a small holder of BHP shares. My return (as a dividend) from this investment is about 3% per annum. That is pitiful, of course. I hold the investment because I believe that the profits that are made by the company will be reinvested in the company and ultimately give me increased dividends and perhaps a capital gain. (Ain't looking so great this week!). I am absolutely no different than every other shareholder in BHP - we all get that same return and between us we own every last piece of BHP . None of BHP is owned by the mythical character "Miner". "Miner" gets nothing, zero, zilch.
Okay. So our Government have decided that, as a country, we own the potential wealth that is beneath the dirt and we should therefore charge the mining Companies for exploiting that potential wealth. It is even quite possible to put up a cogent argument for that. Today, I'm not embarking upon that part of the discussion.
My major concern with this whole concept is one that I have not seen expressed elsewhere. It's about what sort of economy and society we the Australian people want.
Allow me to explain.
For all the fiddling around the edges, discussion of exploration rebates etc etc this tax is really a tax based on Return on Equity. Our Government have arbitrarily decided that (for the miners only!) a return on equity of about 6% is reasonable, anything above that is just plain greedy. Others have made the arguments about the quantification and impact of this on investment etc. I am personally concerned about where this takes our wonderful country. This tax based purely on ROE is something totally new. We need to understand exactly what this means. In simple terms it means that the Government is telling us how much profit we are permitted to make on our investment before we are severely penalized. It does not take into account the risk that we take in making the investment and it does not take into account the choices we have made with our hard earned money - whether to buy the latest 3D LCD TV or to invest for the future of our family.
We all know that Governments rarely remove or reduce taxation - if this tax is implemented in this way then it is only a matter of time before it becomes justified by the Government in other investment endeavours.
A society where the Government tells us how well our investments, businesses and endeavours are allowed to reward us? I won't say the word - you know what it is.
Now, you may be happy with this. The majority of Australian people may want us to go along this path - I doubt it but I don't know. All I ask is that we all have the opportunity to understand exactly what this tax means for our society, to express our opinions about it and, most importantly, to vote on it (after all, we are still a democracy last time I checked). I am sick of obfuscation, spin and outright lies. I want the unvarnished truth out there for everybody to understand. I can only hope that in this instance our Parliamentary system will work and the Opposition will take up the challenge of treating the Australian people as thinking adults who can understand what is going on here once it is explained to them.
I owe our Treasurer, Wayne Swann an apology. Last week, when he announced that this taxation change was the biggest change to taxation in living memory, I snorted with derision. Having now thought it through, I realize that he is right - this new taxation method has the potential to totally change our country.
Comments?
Send your excellent posting to Tony Abbott...just in case he has not cottoned onto it all yet!!!
ReplyDeleteBut but but forrest, BHP already pay a RRT, its called the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax.
ReplyDeleteThe proposed RRT will bring all resources into line and with all the offsets for exploration and royalties the only 'negative' I see is that foreign investors will have to make a contribution to the Australian economy ie they will have to pay rent.
Essentially the RRT is a Ricardian tax
I think you have missed the point Forrest that point being that hether you are a "Miner"' or a mining company ( a matter of orfuscation by your good self) you have access to the country's irreplacable resources that lie under the ground to sell for a profit. The government has decided that these resources belong to the citizens of Australia as do the beaches the mountains etc and that at the moment you and your fellow investors are not paying enough for the exploitation of those resources and that the Australian people ought to have a greater share of the profits from those resources. Such reasoning could not be applied to a company such as CST and that is a clear difference. That is fundamental to their argument and you admittedly chose not to address that point but that IS their point and I agree with them. miners or mining companies ARE different. Once the resources are gone, they're gone. It's my land you ( or your company) are digging up. I think you should pay more for the priviledge
ReplyDeleteI think that Kelpie has put the point correctly and succinctly. But I can't help offering the following.
ReplyDeleteYou will hear the contrary view being put that there is no value in rock until the miners dig it up as ore. And, therefore, since they have created this value it should remain all theirs apart from normal comany tax on profits. That is, they should not pay anything for the rocks they dig up. (State royalities aside - these are seen by this mob as an irritant; it's like paying bribes to state officials, they would like to see it cleaned up but only so long as no more is being paid.)
This is a bizarre argument but has been expressed by otherwise intelligent people. Using the same logic it would follow that ore has no value until it processed and therefore only the processor is entitled to all its value and pay nothing for the ore. And if you believe that then you should also believe that metal has no value until it is made into cars and, therefore, the car manufacturer should not pay anything for the metal!
That rocks in the ground do have value before being dug up is known even by miners. Because a miner tries to assess this value for every proposed project. They decide if the rocks in the ground are worth more than state royalties and the infrastructure and other costs associated with digging them up. That is, whether or not there is a profit to be made and how much that profit will be.
The national government is proposing that all citizens in contributing the rocks to the project should share in the profits after tax. That is, we should be paid for the rocks based on deriving their value from the end profits made. This is a crucial point. This is much better than the current method of putting an arbitrary price per tonne as per state royalties (we can see how arbitrary this method is by comparing the different royalty regimes and the price per tonne against returns per tonne obtained over the years). The miners have argued for along time now that the value of their ore should not be constrained by long term fixed prices. And they have successfully move buyers onto short term contracts. Their is a similar principle at work in the resource tax. That is, let's determine the value of our rock by the price the ore will obtain in the marketplace less the costs of exploiting the rock.
The miners are currently saying that there won't be enough take home profit and that they will do better elsewhere. Perhaps, but they would say that wouldn't they? Moreover, they have previous form in mounting scare campaigns predicting dire futures that fail to eventuate. For instance, the tax on gold mining and then later the resource rental tax on off-shore petrochemical exploitation. In both cases, exploration was predicted to stop and capital to flow elsewhere with loss of jobs etc.
About 20% of my portfolio is in BHP. I am in it for the long term. Yes, there has been a loss in value of my shares but that will be more vastly than made up in the long term by a resources boom that has a few more decades to run. I have no problem with the owners of the rocks that BHP wants to dig up wanting to share more in the results of that boom by more accurately valuing the value of their rocks.
Cheers
Good points on both sides of the debate.
ReplyDeleteWhile I tend to side more with Puzzled than not I don't agree that "the miners" are bluffing when they threaten to take their future projects offshore. I think there'll be a significant degree of this but it may not be a bad thing if it has the effect of smoothing the rate of exploitation of Aust's resources. Too much too soon isn't really desirable.
By the way, Forrest, I don't think you have the "Super" thing right although the govt may have some cunning subliminal effect in mind in promoting it thus. "Super" is a well established term applying to what are seen by some to be excess profits - easily extended to the taxation thereof!
Cheers
I agree with you Forrest. This move is akin to a 40% nationalisation of the mining industry. Typical socialist policy of covetousness of the success of entrepreneurs. The banks will be next in line. What about the small businesses which make huge profits ? What about the risks taken over many years and at huge costs ? We are all taxed in proportion to what we earn, the miners pay substantial tax, but this is discrimination. Yes it is Australian rock. But it would be just rock without the vast efforts of mining and finance to bring out the mineral potential. It is a windfall that the world competes for these minerals in ever increasing quantities, causing the supply and demand equation to escalate prices. Why should successful businesses of any calibre be selectively punished taxwise. Will our dispossessed indigenous population get much out of it ? Will our struggling families get much ? If you saw Penny Wong, on Q & A last week, ducking and weaving to avoid saying how much, if any, of this super tax would actually reach the people, you may surmise that it will mostly go towards paying for this government's "entrepreneurial" disasters, and the escalation in the number of public servants.
ReplyDeleteGood Morning.
ReplyDeleteWell that got some discussions and thoughts flowing! Thank you all.
I'll try to offer my opinion on some of the matters raised. I doubt that I can address every issue but let's just see how this debate develops.
Kelpie, I apologize if you feel that I dealt with the distinction between shareholders and Companies in a manner that obfuscated. That would be my last intention. I actually believe that the distinction is an extremely important one that is frequently overlooked. As investors, this distinction probably comes quite naturally to us. However, I suspect that there are many people to whom the distinction is unclear. A confusion that is ably assisted by the simplistic statements made by our politicians and the 10 second sound bites beamed into our homes by the media.
As you say, "The government has decided that these resources belong to the citizens of Australia as do the beaches the mountains etc and that at the moment you and your fellow investors are not paying enough for the exploitation of those resources and that the Australian people ought to have a greater share of the profits from those resources."
I did specifically say that there may well be valid arguments for this. My real point is that, if we as a country are to have this conversation then it should be conducted with a light shining upon the actual true facts and with a resonable understanding of the predictable consequences.
The current argument for the implementation of this tax is extremely emotive and is being presented with two prime justifications. The first is that this tax is about taking money from the (implied "greedy") mining companies to put into our Superannuation Funds and the second is that it is about preventing foreigners from unduly benefiting from their investments in our mining industry. I personally find these justifications overly emotive and do the authors of them no credit. Of course the mining companies are equally capable of distorting the truth, using hyperbolae and emotive argument.
It is worthwhile pointing out that according to Marius Kloppers (CEO BHP) that ALL of the profits made in Australia by BHP last year stayed in Australia. I assume that the "leakage" of profits to overseas investors is counteracted by the profits that BHP generates overseas that are repatriated to Australia.
(continued in next comment - apparently there is a size limit)
(continued)
ReplyDeleteAs our Federal Treasurer himself has said, this is the biggest change to taxation in living memory. If that is so then should we not have a national examination of and debate upon this - with real facts presented. The Australian people need to be treated as thinking people. The current debate seems to be more about who can win the debate, rather than what is the best outcome.
Puzzled, you offer some form of analogy in your description of the chain of processing of ore.
"Using the same logic it would follow that ore has no value until it processed and therefore only the processor is entitled to all its value and pay nothing for the ore. And if you believe that then you should also believe that metal has no value until it is made into cars and, therefore, the car manufacturer should not pay anything for the metal!"
I have often used analogies myself in presenting a case. Unfortunately I have come to the realization that they rarely, if ever, actually stand up to examination. Nobody, not even the mining companies, have said that they should pay nothing for the ore that they mine. Furthermore, if we were to overlay the proposed new tax on your analogy then the car manufacturer who uses the steel to manufacture a Rolls Royce should pay more for the steel than a manufacturer who manufactures a Holden. Maybe that's the way it should be? However it would represent an entirely new economy and would employ a lot of Accountants.
I note the often raised argument that these "rocks" belong to all Australians and the profits from their exploitation should be shared amongst all Australians. Of course that argument itself raises some interesting issues. We did nothing to "create" those rocks. It is purely by happenstance that we find ourselves the custodians of them. The question that this argument raises is "exactly who should benefit from these rocks?" Why do we arbitrarily decide that they belong to all Australians. Surely if the justification is only that we happen to live on these rocks then arguments could be raised that the rocks "belong" to a different geographic segmentation. Maybe they belong to the people of Western Australia (for example) and they should receive the benefit. Or maybe we should consider them as belonging to the world as a whole and the benefits should be shared amongst all the people of the planet? Maybe, as Fang Farrier says, the benefits should go to the Aboriginal people - they have contributed just as much to the creation of the rocks as the rest of us (ie nothing) and have been "custodians" far longer than we have.
Kelpie, you say that a company like CST could never have such a "super tax" justified. Actually, it would be possible to justify it. Given that we seem to be determining that the benefits of the resources of Australia should be shared amongst all Australians I believe it would be possible to mount the argument that those Scientists that CST have used to build their business were educated at our Scools and Universites which were funded by the Australian people. Perhaps that "resource" could be seen as being owned by the Australian people. In fact, in this case (unlike the rocks) we did actually contribute to generating that resource.
I apologize that the above jumps all over the place. I have written it in bits and pieces between living my "real life". I just figure I should publish it now before it becomes TOO unwieldy.
One more quick one.
ReplyDeleteMacduffy, you say:
"By the way, Forrest, I don't think you have the "Super" thing right although the govt may have some cunning subliminal effect in mind in promoting it thus. "Super" is a well established term applying to what are seen by some to be excess profits - easily extended to the taxation thereof!"
I do understand the use of the word "Super" to describe something being large or excessive. However, I still feel that the name is just plain wrong. If it was indeed a "super tax" applied to "excess profits" then it would apply to any entity that generates "excess profits". Clearly it isn't. The name and justification have created a misleading impression that this is about taxing those who make "excess profits". It isn't - it's a tax that is trying to charge mining companies for the minerals they dig out of the ground.
The discussion that the people of Australia should be engaging in should be based upon a real understanding of what the tax is about. Allowing the impression that this is about taking back egregious profits is distorting the argument.
But but but forrest (here we go again) location is a factor in taxation; royalties are paid to the Crown (the State) eg the people of West Australia do well out of royalties. Of course it could be argued that they then miss out on some of the GST but that is another argument. And aborigines do gain additional benefits as miners on traditional lands usually have to strike a deal and pay additional royalties.
ReplyDeleteJudging by the data available (ABS, treasury etc) miners' resource tax contributions, as a percentage, have not kept pace with pre tax profits - in other words they are not paying their fair share for a non renewable resource owned by the Crown.
Miners should not be exempt from taxation - they use infrastructure paid for by taxpayers and in many cases the miners profits are exported leaving the taxpayer to pay the bills and clean up their mess.
The 20 year old petroleum resource rent tax didnt stop Chevron investing in the Gorgon project and hasnt stopped development in the NW shelf.
I'll leave it to that bastion of conservatism, John Howard to explain it "The Petroleum Resource Rent Tax plays a key role in allowing investors to earn good returns, while ensuring the Australian people are compensated for the use of public resources."
Rog,
ReplyDeleteYou say:
"But but but forrest (here we go again) location is a factor in taxation; royalties are paid to the Crown (the State) eg the people of West Australia do well out of royalties. Of course it could be argued that they then miss out on some of the GST but that is another argument. And aborigines do gain additional benefits as miners on traditional lands usually have to strike a deal and pay additional royalties."
That's exactly my point. Once you start down the track of assigning some form of "ownership" by location, there are a myriad of interests to be addressed. I'm not using this as an argument against a tax - merely pointing out some of the inconsistencies in the justifications.
Who decided that I (an Australian by choice) am more entitled to the benefit of those resources than somebody in New Zealand? In fact, if we somehow do decide that national boundaries are appropriate (as seems likely) then why should a West Australian benefit more from those resources than me? (and they still will under the RSPT).
"Judging by the data available (ABS, treasury etc) miners' resource tax contributions, as a percentage, have not kept pace with pre tax profits"
I must admit to having difficulty in understanding the mechanics of how that can come about. Surely, by definition, "pre-tax" profits are profits after all income and expenses have been accounted and will be taxed at the flat company tax rate of 30%. Therefore as the profits increase the tax contribution of the miners, as a percentage, should remain the same (30%). I can only presume that State excise is somehow being thrown in there as "post-pre-tax"?
Let's be honest here, this is a big tax grab by a government that is seeing a temporary opportunity at a time when it is palatable to the electorate. Not many Australian Mum's and Dad's would be jumping up and down saying the 'Miners' deserve a fair go because there is a perception in the electorate (right or wrong) that 'Miners' are making a motza at the moment.
ReplyDeleteThere are arguments for and against the tax and also for and against the concept that the mineral wealth of this country belongs to all Australians.
I believe that the two biggest issues with the proposed tax are:
1. the incentive to invest offshore is much higher
2. it becomes very difficult to draw a line about what constitutes 'ownership' by Australians and this has lots of ramifications.
Concerning the incentive to invest offshore, Marius Kloppers today said that Australian tax rates under the proposed new arrangements would mean miners are taxed at double the rate of comparative countries around the world, such as Canada, Brazil, and South Africa. Now I personally own shares in BHP and if they are considering a project in Australia that is taxed at $60 for each $100 of profit compared to $30 tax in another country, then I know where I would like them to invest my capital thanks very much. Offshore = 1, Australia = 0.
The second issue relates to the fact that governments will always want to grab more tax, and where do you draw the line. Do we tax the fisherman's profits because the fish belong to all Australians? Do we tax the shipping company profits for sailing through 'our' waters? The tourism industry for benefiting from 'our' landmarks and 'our' culture? The airline industry for using 'our' airspace? The waste industry for dumping in 'our' landfill? What about the farmers and graziers for using 'our' soil, sun, and water?
It all gets a bit silly really, but that's politics for you. It can all be spun to sound like a great idea at the time.
Yes but Ray, I would expect Marius Kloppers to say that as that is his job.
ReplyDeleteAs for the meme 'grab more tax,' what also needs to be taken into consideration is that there are offsets for state royalties and exploration and in the wider community there are to be reductions in company tax - this should have an impact.
Company tax aside, the miners are not paying a proportionally fair rent for the use of property that they do not own. An example of profit taxing would be Westfield, they argue that a rent tax plus a tax on profits is justified because they have provided the resources to make those profits. Complaints have been made about Westfield rents but I never see any empty shops and they keep building new centres and Westfield are not posting any losses - it seems to be a win-win situation
The concept was put neatly by Prof John Quiggin; "Suppose a foreign company sets up a plant in Australia, bringing in $1 billion of its own capital equipment. Suppose further that the business is sufficiently capital-intensive that the impact on employment can be disregarded, and that any input materials used would otherwise have been exported unprocessed.
Suppose that the business yields the standard return on capital obtained in the international market, say 8 per cent. Then it’s easy to see that annual Gross Domestic Product has increased by 8 per cent of $1 billion, or $80 million. How about Net National Income? The $80 million in capital income all flows overseas, so the impact on NNI is a big round zero."
Rog,
ReplyDeleteBut, but, but ... there are a lot of "supposes" in there. None of which represent anything close to reality.
Been away for a short while and just catching up. Just following on a little from macduffy's point re Super Profits being a well established term, I stil have an Accounting text book ("fourth edition - 1959) where "super profits" is given as a method of valuing business goodwill.
ReplyDelete"Purchase of Super Profits:
In this method of valuing goodwill, attention is focused upon super profits, i.e., those profits remaining after deducting from the estimated annual future profit:-
(a) reasonable remuneration of proprietors
and management,
(b) an amount considered to be a reasonable
return on the amount of capital invested
in the tangible assets. etc. etc."
So if gets mentioned in a 1959 4th. edition, presumably it was around in earlier editions, that's taking us back well over fifty years. I guess Kevin and or Wayne and or their advisors thought it nice sounding and have adapted it for their own spin purposes.
Please keep up the excellent work Forrest.
Mulgoaman.
Forrest, or anyone else, if the miners have got it right:
ReplyDelete1.How do you explain that the petroleum resource rent tax did not result in the disaster that was predicted by miners when it was introduced?
2.How do you explain why the introduction of taxation to gold mining did not result in the disaster that was predicted by miners when it was introduced?
And a few more "thought-bombs":
Just as in the past, the reason why BHP and others will continue to mine in Oz is that the profits that they will make under a new tax regime will be a sufficient incentive to do so.
The hysteria that is being whipped up by conservative forces is not extraordinary. It's been done before and no doubt we will see it again. In fact the very same arguments are being trotted out e.g., the nationalisation bogey.
Some advice for those watching the wider debate. Very frequently you will see responses from one side that focus on the character of the other side rather than answering or enaging with their particular arguments and claims. This method of attack is as old as the trial of Socrates, and we know how powerful it is because Socrates lost not only the trial but also his life. I won't provide any examples, just read and listen carefully, you will see them easily enough for yourself.
Cheers and best wishes as the drama of the overseas markets unfolds.
This is one complicated issue. As indicated by the varied comments there are many aspects to this "Super Tax".
ReplyDeleteI would like to add the following comments and please don't think I am stating them in a trite manner.
Firstly, the indirect benefit to superannuation for Australia's working folk confuses me as an employee. It is in fact people like me who actually pay the super for my staff not the govt.
Secondly, the contentious issue of digging up rocks and putting a value on the finished product is exactly the same as any other manufactured product. Should a "super" tax be introduced for Toyota because they sell more vehicles in Australia.
Thirdly, I am a shareholder in both BHP & RIO so the tax will effect my return on my investment. I don't necessarily disagree with the new tax regime but I worry because as others have mentioned; who decides what is an acceptable profit.
And if you want to share in the profit, why not purchase shares in the company and then you are entitled to the return because you are also exposed to the downturns and risks involved with putting your hard earned money up front.
Hi Stephen G
ReplyDeleteMy comments addressing your ones:
1. The link to super is on two fronts: the increased revenue from the tax will offset the direct lump sum contributions that government will now make to low income earners super accounts and the biggest offset will be the reduced taxation that will occur from increases in income that will be taxed at concessional rates as earnings from super and as super contributions.
2. The "finished product" in the case of mining is ore and it is very much unlike any other manufactured product in that it comes directly from something that is owned by all of us i.e., rocks in the ground. The use of the "super tax" is a better way of valuing that source than a royalty on tonnage, as it is a market responsive value.
3. I think that we will see negotiations about this up until legislation is introduced. And the government has flagged that the details would be worked through with miners. While the headline 40% probably won't change, I think that it would make sense to increase the uplift to match that used in the tax treatment of off-shore petroleum and gas.
4. Yes, if people want to have a piece of the profit that miners make they can invest in mining companies. But everybody, irrespective of their capacity to buy shares, deserves proper recompense for the natural resources that are developed by miners. Everyone "deserves" this recompense because it is their resource to start with as shown by the fact that miners only lease the ground from the owners, the state, and that only because the state wants the resource to be developed. The new tax mechanism brings mining closer to other large scale infrastructure developments - the so-called private-public projects
5. By the way, the proposed regime does involve the nation sharing in some of the same risks as miners. Two instances: the tax take is dependent on the miner making a profit - royalties aren't and any state royalties paid are being returned to the miner by the Feds; if a mine does fail after making a profit then the tax take is returned to the miner.
This is my lat post on the issue. It's been interesting reading and responding to the thoughts of other.
And thanks Forrest for the opportunity to do so. Over the years I've detected a certain generosity of spirit emanating from your discussion board activities and this blog provides more of the same. So, cheers.
Puzzled
I earlier posed the question:
ReplyDelete"I must admit to having difficulty in understanding the mechanics of how that can come about. Surely, by definition, "pre-tax" profits are profits after all income and expenses have been accounted and will be taxed at the flat company tax rate of 30%. Therefore as the profits increase the tax contribution of the miners, as a percentage, should remain the same (30%)."
I've had to go away and find the facts for myself.
It now turns out that the statement and associated graph that stated that in the last decade, "Mining company earnings have gone up by $90m and the Government take has only gone up by $9m" is a little deceptive.
It explicitly does not include the Income Tax paid by the mining Companies on their profit. That would change the picture significantly.
Hi Forrest and others,
ReplyDeleteHaving just returned to this forum I was interested to see the ongoing discussion that has followed. I have found it interesting and enlightening. Clearly there are many viewpoints and arguments to be discussed and viewpoints seem to reflect the political philosophy of each respective writer. I don't wish to add much to what I've already said but I thought this bit by Puzzled most poignant.
"Some advice for those watching the wider debate. Very frequently you will see responses from one side that focus on the character of the other side rather than answering or enaging with their particular arguments and claims."
Of course and sadly, this tactic is to be expected in all political debate but gives support to the teaching of clear thinking in our schools if political debate is to be more that the 2 second soundbite, the 24/7 staging of the hollow men and the personal jibes and personal abuse we see emanating from "The Meeting Place", Canberra. Thank you Forrest for initiating this discussion and giving your views frankly. ... such discussion makes worthwhile time passing as we await the CDC and the proverbial "herd-turning"!
G'day kelpie,
ReplyDeleteAnd can I just add how enjoyable it has been to be able to have this intelligent conversation here without anybody resorting to the behaviour that you describe - "...that focus on the character of the other side rather than answering or enaging with their particular arguments and claims."
Long may it stay that way.