BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
High taxes on mining and extraction would cause many adverse affects on the country and its citizens.

The ‘Resource Curse’ describes the paradox whereby nations with an abundance of resources tend to have less economic growth than other nations. A large percentage of resource rich nations are countries with weak economies, such as African and some South American nations. Many of the politicians and leaders of these countries are not interested in the long term prosperity of their country, but rather are determined to make a profit out of the nation’s abundance of resources. This is a major factor in the Resource Curse. The taxes that are paid to these nations are swallowed almost wholly by the wants of members of the government and not distributed evenly among civilians in need. [[http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1830]] Imposing higher taxes on mining & extraction would mean handing these people more money to misuse. The citizens of that nation would be exploited even further. Far from using this additional profit to improve health and education, some governments will use this money to create larger defence forces to prevent citizens from protesting against injustices. An example of resource profit abuse is Libya, where Colonel Qaddafi has exploited oil profit to create a larger army. Additionally, current resource taxes demonstrate that these taxes do not benefit the population at all because many investors make deals with local leaders to evade tax. Higher taxes will not benefit citizens. On the contrary it will reduce their quality of life even more and further plunge the government into corruption. Still, the proposition seems to be under the notion that higher taxes will create economic balance within these nations. As seen by the information provided this far, this is false. On the contrary, these nations should be assisted in distributing their current tax income effectively rather than being given more opportunities to create inequalities.
High Mining Taxes would Balance the Economy

In many resource-rich nations, over-reliance on the export of natural resources can make the economy unstable and unbalanced. Especially in the case of commodities, prices may be volatile,... making reliance on exports of a single commodity dangerous. This is certainly the case when a country’s economy is mostly dependent upon one economic sector. The distribution of wealth may be uneven. Those within one industry can become dramatically better off, while many others become worse off. Increasing taxes can help offset these unbalances by allowing a government to redistribute a portion of the wealth gained in mining and resource extraction. If the government is able to invest in other sectors of the economy, or in education for its citizens (human capital), then this reduces the likelihood of it remaining dependent on a single industry for income. When nations fail to diversify and instead remain reliant on the export of resources for income, studies show that their economies don’t develop; they get worse. Because the materials being extracted are often far more valuable to nations with highly developed manufacturing sectors, resource-rich nations may be manipulated (through trade agreements, unfair business deals that take advantage of legal flaws) into selling precious resources at low rates. Particularly poorer countries are tempted to seize any opportunity to make a profit, even if that opportunity is a short-term one – but this can hurt them in the long run, since the loss of natural resources is usually permanent. Tax hikes mean that wholesale liquidation of resources will be discouraged. As well, this gives governments themselves an advantage if they get involved in extraction and manufacturing, as Bolivia is doing with its mineral-rich salt flats. The key is to keep extraction industries in check so they will balance with other sectors.
Domestic and Global impact of such a tax will be too great.

Implementing a high tax for mining and extraction in resource rich nations will lead to a spread of such taxes being implemented throughout the world and will create a standard of high tax on resources on a global scale. However doing this will not, in the global reality we live in, “redistribute a portion of the wealth gained in mining and resource extraction” in a fair, sustainable and reliable way that directly adds value to the lives of a nation’s people [[http://www.businessinsider.com/us-cant-account-for-billions-spent-in-afghanistan-2010-12#ixzz1VVMKZVR3]]. Also, the Prop propose that introducing such high taxes will reduce the ever-growing gap between the rich and the poor. However, in reality, such tax would only further push the poor into poverty and increase the wealth of the rich as the mismanagement of funds cannot be guaranteed by many nontransparent nations in the world [[http://www.africaeconomicanalysis.org/articles/63/1/Rich-countries-and-their-leverage-on-Africa/Page1.html]]. This is counterproductive to the purpose that the proposition wish to achieve through the implementation of this tax. One of the major issues that we as the opposition have been continuously reinforcing is the trust involved in implementing such tax. It is clear that many resource rich nations have a lack of transparency in their governments’ desicions [[http://www.transparency.org/]]. By giving them access to such tax funds we cannot be sure that they will use it to directly help their people. Instead it is more likely that they will be using this tax to further line their pockets as corrupt nations make up well over half of the world’s countries [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index]] We cannot give such a huge responsibility to societies where corruption occurs every day, rather we need to place pressure on companies to act responsibly.
Government's Obligation to Benefit Citizens

Governments have an obligation to impose high taxes if benefits their people because natural resources are a vital part of a nation’s natural capital, and on some level, they belong to everyone. Outside companies profit, often in billions of dollars, from these resources. Currently, unfair contract conditions come out of unequal trade agreements between resource-rich nations and the home nations of companies that seek to extract raw materials. This may be because of differing levels of development, but it takes away development opportunities by exploiting the resources of nations willing to sell them cheaply. For example, the Zambian government received an estimated sum of only $6.1m (0.61 per cent of a total income of $1b) from Konkola Copper Mines for copper extraction in 2006-7. It was reported that net profits for Konkola Copper Mines in the same period were approximately $301m. (ACTSA) Low costs and huge profits encourage exploitation. So how does taxation benefit the citizens of resource-rich nations? According Intermon Oxfam, countries such as Angola, Chad, Nigeria, Ecuador, and Venezuela could use hydrocarbon exports to significantly increase their public spending per capita on education and health by 2015, investing 20% of estimated tax revenues in education and 16 per cent in health. Furthermore, it can help the country in situations like natural disasters. Chile’s president recently proposed a bill to increase a key mining tax in a bid to raise $1b over three years to help fund reconstruction six months after the country suffered a devastating earthquake. (Financial Times) Taxation only ever works as well as the government does, but governments who are actively working to support the best interests of their citizens will have greater power to manage their economies if they offset the real value of their precious and in most cases, irreplaceable, natural resources and redistribute it.
Sterilising Boom Revenues Helps Saving.

There have been issues about the governments’ over-reliance on mining capitals. However, this problem is not insurmountable. The governments cansterilize their boom revenues, gradually introducing into their countries some of the revenues made abroad in special funds. This will not only allow the governments to save the revenue capitals into their economies for the future generation, but also grant them stable revenue streams, as opposed to not knowing about the revenue flow every year. Examples of these sovereign wealth funds include the Government Pension Fund in Norway, the Stabilization Fund of the Russian Federation or the State Oil Fund of Azerbaijan or the Future Generations Fund of the State of Kuwait established in 1976. Recent talks led by the United Nations Development Programme in Cambodia – International Oil and Gas Conference on fueling poverty reduction – point to the need for better education of state officials and energy cadres linked to a possible Sudden Wealth Fund to avoid the Resource curse/Paradox of plenty. Governments can also encourage citizens to save through lower income taxes. This deals efficiently with the problems of market volatiliity..
The effect a high tax will have on businesses.

If resource rich countries were to impose high taxes, there wouldn’t be many attractive options for mining companies. It is a little late for Opposition’s concern that BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto could start looking towards investing in other countries. BHP Billiton is already doing lots of mining and extraction in other countries - it has over 100 operations in approx. 25 countries worldwide. Rio Tinto’s business also spans the globe. Furthermore, high taxes don’t seem to be a major deterrent to domestic operations. Since the Australia’s Mining Resources Rent Tax (this IS a mining tax) was introduced, BHP Billiton has announced a $9.5 billion investment in new mining projects in Australia. [[http://www.smh.com.au/business/bhp-plan-endorses-mrrt-government-claims-20110325-1c92v.html]] Mineral and other resources are in high demand on this planet, and that doesn’t seem to be changing in the near future. Even though many countries already place heavy excise taxes on the delivery end for fuels, demand for oil and gas hasn’t decreased, nor have companies found it unprofitable to sell them. Mining and extraction industries have wide profit margins, and they are likely to remain highly profitable even with high taxes. On the other hand, the millions and even billions of dollars in revenue the taxes give governments will make a difference in their ability to invest in other sectors, help their own people, and mitigate environmental harms. Comparing the minor losses of already rich companies and the negligible risk that some of them may find taxes too burdensome, to the benefits the taxes will bring, we can logically conclude that the motion should be passed.
There are better, more sustainable options available.

The Opp failed to properly prove how their alternatives of a sliding tax system, based on mining profits, are superior to the Proposition’s plan. The only difference is that the transnational companies will pay relatively lower taxes when they reduce their extraction, and the benefits have not yet been proven by Opposition. The only reasoning provided is that domestic producers would pay taxes based on much lower GDPS. But domestic producers aren’t the ones exploiting minerals and etc., so they are unlikely to be subject to any issues related to passing this motion. The only way we can benefit the domestic producers is to allow their industries to grow by controlling the mining industry, which can be done effectively by higher taxes than on those industries. Opp states that the governments would “discourage those companies from investing in their country’s resources,” which is contradictory to so many statements made previously, since here they are weakening their previous arguments on disads of high mining taxes would be mitigated, with the decreased investments by companies. For example, that statement conflicts with “By applying high taxes, governments will become reliant on this revenue, despite the fact that most resources, such as coal & copper, will eventually run out” or “Realistically a raise in tax will only lead to further exploitation as companies desperately try to regain lost profits. They will try various and often questionable methods to regain these profits, resulting in less profit trickling down to citizens.” On the other hand, just because mining taxes are higher than taxes on other industries does not mean a huge downturn in mining industry. It will serve only as a means to balance those industries. Instead of simply forcing companies to take care of the consequences, which often cannot be corrected, the Proposition plan serves to control the environmental destructions, which may be aided by some penalties on consequences.
Sustained Overexploitation Leads to Depletion

While we acknowledge that the mining and extraction process does have a negative effect on the environment, the demand for natural resources makes degradation to some extent unavoidable. The solution suggested by the proposition will not be successful in reducing this impact. Furthermore, high mining and extraction taxes will prevent companies from developing more sustainably. As technology advances the global population increases, so does the demand for raw materials. The proposed solution will only cause mining companies to cut back on employees and increase prices. It will not allow the companies to consider the environment any more than they do at present. As the proposition has kindly pointed out for us: “the companies will buy less in order to stay within their budget.” Hence, there will be a decrease in profits in the resource sector As a result of this, the government will be unable to reach into their pockets for the environment. So this money that the proposition suggest will be designated to the environment is hardly significant – especially since they have already designated a large proportion of this to economic and educational stimulus. This increased tax to natural resources will cause companies to consider the environment less as they try to maintain a significant profit. If taxes are kept as they are now, mining and extraction companies will be more willing and able to implement policies of ecologically sustainable development. BHP for example, is currently implementing biodiversity projects such as working with the Borneo Orangutan Survival Foundation [[http://www.bhpbilliton.com/home/aboutus/sustainability/Pages/Environment.aspx]].Therefore, taxing resources will not provide significant funds to repair the environment as the prop. suggests but will inhibit companies from internally forming strategies to limit damage to the environment.
We need to focus not only on the environment, but also the real life implications on citizens.

We think we have made it pretty clear that our position does not only consider the environment. In our introduction, we have clearly outlined the intended purpose of the taxes we propose and any taxes, for that matter - to help the people of a nation. Yes, governments need to have the means and will to turn taxes into benefits for their people. The question this debate is concerned with is not whether or not our plan WILL be put into practice, but whether or not it SHOULD be implemented. In fact, mining taxes in Australia are in place because it has been decided that people need a greater compensation for all the negative impacts that will come to them through mining and extraction.[[http://www.mining-tax.com.au/]] Opp has conceded to the fact that in the status quo, the citizens of many resource rich nations are suffering. We have presented a way to deal with this problem, which directly relates to people and their everyday lives. We have already shown how our plan will help improve people’s education, their environment, and their economic stability. Furthermore, saving the environment is directly related to helping citizens. A destroyed environment is something that no one wants, and something that brings major negative impacts to everyone, especially to those living in seriously affected areas. Since even the Opp has conceded to the fact that our plan impacts the environment, we can see that the lives of resource rich nations' citizens are likely to be significantly impacted by high mining and extraction taxes.
High taxes protect domestic resources.

We feel it is vital to consider not only the environmental impacts of this tax but the impact that this move would directly have on the people of the resource rich nations in the current world we live in. The fact that there are corrupt governments who are “not interested in the welfare of their people” is a major issue in today’s global climate & better solutions can be found [[http://rivanroyono.wordpress.com/2009/07/17/its-time-to-end-indonesias-resource-curse/]]. After all, money that governments receive is meant to be spent on sustainability & welfare however that does not happen in many countries. To quote the prop. 'If time is factored out of the equation, demand for [natural resources]... is virtually unlimited'. This shows that this is a global issue that needs a global response & as such we need a better, more sustainable solution. What the prop. fails to recognize is that because of this demand, slowing development in one country by implementing high tax will only lead to greater development in less regulated countries as the demand for resources never lessens. Our example of Australia simply shows how the threat of high taxes has led to a loss of foreign investors & a loss of income from exports [[http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-05-03/market-spooked-by-mining-super-tax/419462]]. In actual fact, raising the tax will only increase the loss to nations through unfair commodity prices, because foreign investors will not jeopardise profits due to investor pressure, and will simply look elsewhere. One of the reasons some African countries have experienced loss of foreign investment deals is due to the 'nationalization of resources' [[http://www.unctad.org/Templates/WebFlyer.asp?intItemID=6018&lang=1]]. This is because the concept of using a government to spread the profits across the country is essentially ineffective as foreign investment, employment rates & the cost of living are all positively influenced by the natural growth of the resource sector.
Governments of resource-rich nations should impose high taxes on mining and extraction.

What we see as the main clash points in this debate are 1. Whether high taxes will result in a healthier economy, and 2. Harms vs. benefits of high tax to the country. We have explained how high tax will help balance the economy by allowing the government to redistribute a portion of wealth gained in mining and resource extraction, and turn short-term benefits into long-term growth like education and the environment. Opp emphasized the ‘temporariness’ of this income from the resources, but we suggested that no responsible government is dependent on the taxation of resources. If resources do sometime dry up (this doesn’t seem like it would happen too quickly in a resource-rich nation), we believe there would be some opportunity to plan for a future without tax income, as well as ongoing benefits from redistributed income, particularly in education and environmental development. Opp argued that taxes will decrease profits for companies involved in extraction of resources. However, they also said demand for resources is growing, which we believe will probably offset any decrease in profits for the companies. Whether or not taxes dig into companies’ profits, we have demonstrated that it is highly unlikely companies will do less mining and extraction, given the increased demand for resources that exist in limited quantities. Do the harms of high taxation outweigh the benefits? Opp has argued that it would result in job losses as companies cut down operations. We contended that the same demand that makes their operation sure also means that companies are currently making plenty of profit, enough to sustain even a substantial tax hit. What the Opp has brought up again and again is the danger of high taxes empowering governments that do not work in the best interests of their people, but use taxes for themselves. However, the fact that governments “should” impose high taxes on mining and extraction is not made less by the reality that they also “should” use those taxes to benefit the nation. When we introduced this motion, we explained that before imposing taxes, governments would need to have economic institutions in place that would be able to reliably distribute tax revenue, so this harm does not apply to the plan we have introduced. We have demonstrated the economic, environmental, and social benefits of passing this motion. We have shown why Opp’s harms are either negligible or nonexistent. Even the “sustainable” alternatives they have offered include high taxes, and are simply variations on how our plan might be implemented. Clearly, the understood purpose of taxing resources is to help the people of a nation. We affirm the responsibility of governments to impose high taxes on resources at their source in order to compensate citizens for the loss of their nation’s natural capital, and to allow governments the financial means to offset environmental harms, and to invest in the development of other sectors of the economy.
The effect a high tax will have on businesses.

The Prop have continuously reinforced the idea that imposing high mining & extraction taxes (M&ET) will provide profit to the governments which in turn will help the citizens of that nation. However, they have failed to highlight the negative impacts that such taxes will have on the domestic businesses involved as well as other international foreign investors. Large transnational companies such as BHP Billiton & Rio Tinto will look towards investing in other countries if such taxes were to be implemented in resource rich nation’s like Australia. This will have a negative effect & will scare off big investors which will greatly affect & weaken a country’s economy in areas like housing, infrastructure & employment. If this tax were to be implemented in all resource rich nations, many of which are some of the poorest nations of the world, the country will become an unattractive destination for both domestic & foreign investment. This will be destabilising to their economies & result in inflation in commodities which will negatively impact all citizens. Australia is a prime example on how such taxes will have an immediate negative impact on resource rich nations. Currently, transnational companies from China are trying to change their resource markets to reduce further alliance with Australian Resources. It wishes to do this to avoid the proposed carbon tax & the MRRT. If a high M&ET were to be added to the current taxes then it will definitely ward off investors. Mr Hugh Tobin, Director of the North Australia Project at the Institute of Public Affairs said that, “the last thing we should be doing is putting in place a new tax on a strong growth sector of the Australian economy that helped us avoid a recession during the GFC" [[http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/195375/20110810/australia-s-resource-boom-not-inevitable-after-all.htm]] Overall the implementation of these high taxes will have a severe negative impact on all businesses involved.