Logo
Registered Members Login:
   
Forgotten Your Details? Click Here To Recover +
Welcome to ShareScene - Talk Shares And Take Stock With Australia's Sharemarket Community - New Here? Click To Register >

2 Pages (Click to Jump) V   1 2 >   
 
  
Reply to this topic

Sovereign Risk plus New Resource Tax, Where to invest?
flower
post Posted: Mar 8 2012, 03:16 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 12,565
Thanks: 1067


In Reply To: jogreen's post @ Mar 8 2012, 02:59 PM

QUOTE
don't you believe in the national interest


Ludicrous question, of course I believe in the national interest, which in my case encompasses mass EMPLOYMENT, higher wages, MORE opportunity for EVERYBODY who has half a brain and a little ambition.

What it does not encompass is any Socialistic threat that verges on "Swan"like hysteria---or similiar ultra left nonsense!



--------------------
Combining Fundamental comments with Fundamental charts.
 
jogreen
post Posted: Mar 8 2012, 03:00 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 21
Thanks: 2


In Reply To: jogreen's post @ Mar 8 2012, 02:59 PM

ps don't think I believe in God either

 
jogreen
post Posted: Mar 8 2012, 02:59 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 21
Thanks: 2


In Reply To: flower's post @ Mar 8 2012, 02:50 PM

don't you believe in the national interest...........are you a sell it all off now and stuff the future generations type

 
flower
post Posted: Mar 8 2012, 02:50 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 12,565
Thanks: 1067


In Reply To: jogreen's post @ Mar 8 2012, 02:40 PM

May God preserve us from such thinking!



--------------------
Combining Fundamental comments with Fundamental charts.
 
jogreen
post Posted: Mar 8 2012, 02:40 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 21
Thanks: 2


In Reply To: flower's post @ Mar 8 2012, 02:25 PM

Australia should mimic Indonesia's move in the respect that non democratic countries/sovereign wealth funds (ie China) are limited to maximum 49% stake in national assets - otherwise what is the point of national sovereignty/independence...private ownership to be allowed..

Australia continues the garage sale of its mineral assets .....

Australia's Superannuation funds should be made to invest 0.5% of their assets in Australian infrastructure projects.... they will seek commercial ventures far better than government ever able to.... keeping in mind that these funds exist in large part due to so called generous tax exemptions.... and this would result in quicker more effective investment of funds.... keeping in mind than when the national superfund POT is several trillions the government will steal it from you anyway through leglislative changes.... long term super (those who have 20+ years to wait) is a VERY risky due to this likely theft by government.

A liberal government should also CHANGE THE NAME OF THE FUTURE FUND TO THE PUBLIC SERVICE RETIREMENT FUND..so people easily recognise what the privatisation of national assets really has been about... talk about vested interest groups.......

 
flower
post Posted: Mar 8 2012, 02:25 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 12,565
Thanks: 1067


Indonesia up's the ante
--------------------------------------------------------
JAKARTA, March 7 (Reuters) - Indonesia will take more of the profits from its vast mineral resources by limiting foreign ownership of mines in a move likely to scare off new investment in the world's top exporter of thermal coal and tin.

Under new rules announced on the mining ministry's website, Southeast Asia's largest economy will require foreign companies to sell down stakes in mines and increase domestic ownership to at least 51 percent by the 10th year of production.

The move is part of a global trend of increased resource nationalization that is pushing up the costs of mining for international companies and giving governments in emerging market countries more cash and clout.
--------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/07/...ctor&rpc=43



--------------------
Combining Fundamental comments with Fundamental charts.

Said 'Thanks' for this post: lgrif  
 


Off-the-mark
post Posted: May 20 2010, 07:33 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 78
Thanks: 21


In Reply To: kelpie's post @ May 16 2010, 11:09 PM

Counting chickens before they are hatched. Swann and Rudd are relying on a mineral boom to help them to get the Federal budget back to the black in 3 years. As global economic instability continues and the AU$ lost 8cents in a matter of days, not to mention free fall in Asian stock markets today, the wisdom of Swann even to mention the suplus word appears absurb now. Yes, it was his wisdom that one should applause, for Swann delivered a buget deficit of $40 billion and camouflaged it with the surplus word. The deficit is real, the surplus is highly questionable. And to add more thickness to the smoke screen, the Henry Tax Report, one intended to be open to the public to begin serious public debate on a broad range of issues, was brought into the budget, not for public debate, but for a surprise attack on the mining sector. And the wisdom for introducing this tax was acredited to Ken Henry. Henry is an advisor, he put his advice on the table for public debate, and we must note that Ken Henry is not a policy maker. Mr Swann does not seem to relish the thought of claiming that the policy was his idea. Introducing a resource tax is one of many pieces of advice tabled in the Henry Report, and the Report should be debated in public in total. Parliamentarians of all political persuasions, elected representatives, are there to represent Australians holding a range of opinions. However wise Mr Henry be, Mr Henry did not advice to sidestep public debate and he is now put into the unenviable position for any civil servant, that of selling the resource tax. Is Mr Swann too busy to explain the virtues of imposing a 40% levy on the miners when they make 'super' profit and make our mining industry the most heavily taxed in the world. It is doubtful whether Mr Swann and Mr Rudd are convinced of the virtues of the tax. How can they be when they have yet to engage in parliamentary discussion and vetting of the idea in the first place. And Mr Rudd claims that he is representing the views of the electorate on this....May be after the electorate has had the opportunity to witness a public debate and participate in them where possible, but not before then. Simply asserting that he is speaking for all Australians on this is no more and no less an assertion.

And, as global economic instability rocks Europe and Asia, how real is that expectation of "stronger for longer". The convenience for the Labor Government to attone for its repeated demonstrations of incompetence in spending public money is now slippery, assuming a safe passage for the new tax, and that safe passage is anything but sure.

Giving away some $20 billion when there was such a sum in the coffers, gratis to the careful financial management of the Howard-Costello years, was claimed to have spared Australia from the impacts of the GFC? Let those grateful recipients tell us how the "free gift" benefitted their visits to Harvey Norman, JB Hifi, David Jones, Coles and Woolworth. The $20 billion of largesse financed a surge in the import of consumer goods, the largesse did not strengthen the productivity of the Australian economy in any way! May be the cabinet does not need anyone to remind them of the folly of spending all of the hard earned savings in one go and with nothing much to show for it other than some comforting statistics to confirm that Australians enjoyed Christmas as usual. Why, would Australians be deprived of Christmas festivities if the $20 billion savings were not passed into their bank accounts? There were no jobs created! and the talk of having stopped job losses is just talk. Just because we did have an extra drink over Christmas was no proof that jobs that should have been lost were not lost. What were those jobs that should have been lost? There is one notable one, the job that Peter Garritt was holding. The fiasco of the "free insulation" scheme is just laughable if not for the fact that it was OUR PUBLIC MONEY that was being squandered! And his job was protected as the PM stepped in that ultimately he was responsible. Why, did the PM contemplated resigning from office for the incompetence of his Minister? No, Mr Rudd did not resign. He contemplated nothing of the kind. But he was genuine with the promise that he was responsible.

Now the proposed new tax has definitely cost jobs. And this time is Mr Rudd responsible or Mr Swann, or is it Mr Ken Henry who submitted a range of advice in his Tax Report.

The absence of public debate prior to announcing the Resource Tax is the issue. Only then are our parliamentarians, representing the views of all Australians, given the opportunity to weigh the pros and cons of the proposal and, in the course of an open public debate, the public can also participate and enjoy the experience of making up our own minds in stead of being told that our minds have already been made for us by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer.


Said 'Thanks' for this post: flower  arty  
 
kelpie
post Posted: May 16 2010, 11:09 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 535
Thanks: 85


In Reply To: flower's post @ May 16 2010, 08:24 PM

Hi All,
Not wishing to be too pedantic but another perspective could mean that thinking long term
the following "the uncertainty will delay projects and may even result in cancellations," ought really to be "may delay projects" because the mineral resources that are there will remain until such time as they are dug up, so the digging up of them will only ever be delayed, never cancelled and perhaps delayed until such time that supply and demand ensures they are far more valuable than they are now!....... Could be a plus!


Said 'Thanks' for this post: flower  
 
watchmaker
post Posted: May 16 2010, 08:48 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 739
Thanks: 44


In Reply To: flower's post @ May 16 2010, 08:36 PM

It may have some truth Flower, nevertheless there's some evidence to suggest Rudds band of brothers in Canberra want to reduce Australia's reliance on mining. Thus their stance.

 
flower
post Posted: May 16 2010, 08:36 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 12,565
Thanks: 1067


In Reply To: watchmaker's post @ May 16 2010, 08:26 PM

W: Ive got a horrible feeling this tax proposal has far more to do with politics--the politics of getting K.Rudd re elected than any wellbeing for the greater public--or is that far too cynical?

Why was the actual announcement delayed from Christmas time till now--could it have been that "they" knew nobody would pay any attention till after Easter?---a few months nearer the election and after all the policy failures?

It a high risk strategy if it's just pure election politics!



--------------------
Combining Fundamental comments with Fundamental charts.
 
 


2 Pages (Click to Jump) V   1 2 >

Back To Top Of Page
Reply to this topic


You agree through the use of ShareScene.com, that you understand and accept the TERMS OF USE.


TERMS OF USE  -  CONTACT ADMIN  -  ADVERTISING