Replies to post #820 on The Rising Influence of Rising Affluence

[DewDiligence]

More on the same story…

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704342604575221700829646686.html

›Australia Throws a Curveball at Its Miners

By MOHAMMED HADI AND ALEX WILSON
MAY 4, 2010

Feeling like it missed out the last time around, Australia wants its piece of the next commodities' bull market.

The government is pitching a Resource Super Profit Tax on mining profits. This is part of an overhaul targeting "the proceeds of the next mineral boom," for the broader economy. For example, non-mining corporate taxes will fall.

Had the tax been applied during the decade to March 2009, the Treasury would have collected an additional $32 billion in revenue, Morgan Stanley says. No wonder investors in mining stocks rushed to the exits, even though the proposal could change substantially. It has to pass Parliament first.

Hard hit were speculators who, having seen about $22 billion spent on Australian natural-resource assets this year, have been picking the next target. Such targets, both real and imagined, plunged on Monday. Shares of Macarthur Coal, which has an outstanding $3.8 billion offer from Peabody Energy, slid nearly 10%. The stock ended Monday 12.5% below Peabody's offer. Whitehaven Coal, a subject of recent speculation, fell nearly 7%.

This retreat makes sense. Even if not scared off entirely by uncertainty on key government policies, buyers will pay less. And they can always hunt elsewhere. Citigroup points out that South Africa tops the world for reserves of nonenergy resources, with $2.5 trillion worth.

As always, though, indiscriminate selling provides opportunity. Companies based in Australia, but with mines outside the country, won't be affected. On Citi's list of stocks unlikely to see much—or any—impact to net present value, Lihir Gold and Paladin Energy both tumbled nearly 4% anyway.‹

[Kadaicher1]

Australian rescource tax...
That meathead Rudd will kill Australias boom. Rescources insulated Aust from the recession. Here is some good comment on the subject.
Quoted by : Ross Greenwood of Money News.

Right now the Federal Government is at pains to tell everyone - including us the mug-punters and the International Monetary Fund that it will not exceed its own, self-imposed, borrowing limits. How much? $200 billion. And here's a worry. If you work in a bank's money market operation; or if you are a politician; the millions turn into billions and it rolls off the tip of the tongue a bit too easily. But every dollar that is borrowed, some time, has to be repaid. By you, by me and by the rest of the country.

Just after 5 o'clock tonight I did a bit of maths for Jason Morrison. But it's so staggering its worth repeating now. First though; here's what Chairman Rudd has been saying about - what he calls - these temporary borrowings. Remember Those Words : Temporary Deficit. but the total Government debt could end up around $200 billion. So here's a very basic calculation ... I used a home loan calculator to work it out ... it's that simple. $200 billion is $200,000 million. The current 10 year Government bond rate is 4.67 per cent. I worked the loan out over a period of 20 years.

Now here's where it gets scary ... really scary. The repayments on $200 billion come to more than one and a quarter billion dollars - every month - for 20 years. It works out we - as taxpayers - will be repaying $154 billion in interest and principal every year ... $733 for every man woman and child - every year. The total interest bill over the 20 years is - get this - $108 billion. Remember, this is a Government that just 18 months ago had NO debt . NO debt. In fact it had enough money to create the Future Fund to pay the future liabilities of public servants' superannuation ... and it had enough to stick $20 billion into the Building Australia Fund last year ...



Alan Jones Comment - this is frightening: Hmmmmm??

He continues... a note that was sent to me which explains that the six leading members of the Government from Mr. Rudd down, the top six have a collective work experience of 181 years, but only 13 in the private sector.


If you take out of those 13 years the number that were spent as trade union lawyers, that total 11, of the 181 years only two years were spent in the private sector.

So the people who will rack up a net Federal debt of a minimum of $188 billion, the highest in our history, have virtually no experience in business.


So out of those 181 years:


- no years spent running their own business
- no years spent starting their own business
- no years spent as a director of a family business or a company
- no years as a director of a public company
- no years in a senior position in a public company
- no years in a senior position in a private company
- no years working in corporate finance
- no years in corporate or business restructuring
- no years working in or with a bank
- no years of experience in the capital markets
- no years in a stock-broking firm
- no years in negotiating debt facilities with banks
- no years running a small business
- no years at the World Bank or IMF or OECD
- no years in Treasury or Finance.


But these people have plunged Australia into unprecedented debt, and now threaten to torpedo employee share schemes which they plainly don't understand.

Well, in a way you can't blame them. It's clear the electorate did not do their homework, because the Gov't is there by right.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who started the theory that the competent should become responsible for the incompetent?