I haven’t analysed the details thoroughly so maybe they are correct. I suspect that it’s more dogmatic following of views from those who don’t understand the pros and cons well enough to change their mind.

For example, if higher taxes are bad for employment and investment, surely lower taxes would be good for employment and investment? I doubt that the DA is arguing that the current level of taxes is exactly optimal, so shouldn’t they have been campaigning more loudly for lower taxes?

The reality is that, considered on their own, higher taxes will reduce rates of return to shareholders. This will make marginal operations unecnomical, which could result in job losses. The lower after-tax profit may also push  operations with marginal rates of return to below the required hurdle rate of some investors, reducing total investment in the sector.

This is, of course, true for all taxes. Hopefully there aren’t too many people left who believe that taxes should not exist.

So one real question is whether the tax rate is optimal, given the funds that can be directed towards government revenues in general and to specific employment creation and industrial development programmes specifically.

A second real question is whether the “price” for the permanent removal of natural resources being charged is appropriate (a combination of taxes and royalties) and from a philosophical perspective, who “owns” our country’s natural resources?

This leads to the third question or point that the DA really should be more aware of. Nationalisation, the Freedom Charter, and vast income inequalities are all part of a potent political conversation in South Africa. With nationalisation almost entirely off the table at the moment, being able to demonstrate in some manner that the “riches under the ground” are better being shared with everyone is an important political point to counter the more extreme political views.

The DA, in this instance, is blind to the subtler political benefits of this approach, blind to the definite benefits of increased revenues, blind to the possible benefits of focussed attention on this industry cluster, but completely convinced of the first-year economics free market principle of “tax leads to deadweight loss of consumer and supplier surplus” and thus lower employment and investment.

I always maintained that “nationalisation” isn’t necessarily appropriation of assets without compensation, although the popular views and worst fear-mongering viewed this as the only possibility. It’s refreshing to hear that “nationalisation” was considered on its merits against private operation of firms rather than just as a way to redistribute wealth. (Ok, at least one article wasn’t mad panic.)

The increase in taxes is also basically expected. Although new and changing taxes does add uncertainty, it provides a sense that the rules are being followed.  Tax rates on energy companies in many Middle Eastern countries is high – sometimes near 50%. So the government fiscus does benefit from the energy that belongs to all its citizens.

It’s also a, slightly sneaky, way of re-settting historical land ownership and mineral right royalties and licensing. If “we got it wrong and sold them too cheaply in the past, we can always recoup through higher or new taxes”. Maybe a little cynical but not surprising.

The real free market fanatics will no doubt be in uproar about higher taxes destroying jobs and misallocating resources. There is a debate here, but the free market fanatics all too quickly forget that it’s hard to argue that the value of the minerals under our country have been fairly priced. Those markets can easily be described as “failed markets” with a number of externalities involved.

Even the hardest neoclassical economist will recognise these are very real limitations on Adam Smith’s invisible hand.

“Medical Schemes are non-profit entities are don’t make profits for shareholders.” There are administration companies that charge administration fees that have shareholders and make profits. However, if my medical scheme pays me a greater benefit, they will be removing a benefit from someone else or making everyone pay more in contributions.

It really is a simple idea, but clearly this misguided “GP” doesn’t understand the first thing about the organisation he is criticising.  Note that I’m not commenting on a particular medical scheme’s practices, but rather the universal reality of medical schemes.

This is progress.

It’s not really a practical issue since recent history has shown that not all beneficiaries of land restitution ultimately want to work the land. This is also entirely reasonable given the change of our economy from a primary economy to a secondary and tertiary economy over the last 50 years.

So when I read that the SA Institute of Race Relations states that more land could have been returned to black beneficiaries if money was not offered instead, I just wonder what the point is.

If people are accepting cash rather than land, it may well be because they want the cash rather than the land. Given land, I’m not aware that there is a prohibition on selling that land (which would be a poorer form of property right than they originally had so surely can’t be allowed) so we could end up in the same situation.

The danger for me is that the measures of land restitution could so easily, accurately and misleadingly, refer to the amount of land that has been restituted, or the amount of land currently in the hands of black South Africans, when this is clearly not an accurate measure of what progress has been achieved.

Meanwhile, it seems the FSB is still committed to a 2014 deadline for SAM. Given the range and size of stumbling blocks still to be traversed, I expect if we do go live in 2014 it will be with some transitional measures.