BWorld 218, Tobacco taxation, smuggling and plain packaging

* This is my column in BusinessWorld on June 04, 2018.

“To cease smoking is the easiest thing I ever did, I ought to know because I’ve done it a thousand times.” — Mark Twain

On May 29, 2018, I attended the “Health for Juan and Juana” conference on universal health care (UHC) at the PICC, jointly sponsored by the DoH, ADB, PHAP, MeTA, Havas, AC Health, others.

It was a big event with many participants and high-powered speakers and facilitators from national and local governments, multilaterals, NGOs, academe and private players.

Listening to the health officials of Davao, Makati, Bataan, and South Cotabato, I got the impression that with the way they provide health care to their constituents, it is possible to abolish the DoH and realign its budget to LGUs.

The keynote speaker was Sen. JV Ejercito, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Health and Demography and he talked about his UHC bill, the public consultations, the financing including his proposal to further hike tobacco tax to P90/pack. It is a far-out number compared with P30/pack in 2017 under Sin Tax law of 2012 (RA 10351), to become P35/pack in 2018, P37.50 in 2019, then P40/pack in 2022 under TRAIN law (RA 10963).

Since corruption in government remains high, higher tax rates mean higher tax avoidance. Lots of cigarette smuggling occurred in 2015-2016 involving billions of pesos of avoided taxes. In February 2017 for instance, the Bureau of Customs estimated that some P50B of foregone taxes in 2016 were due to smuggling, about P16B of it was from cigarette smuggling.

If the numbers are correct and if we divide P16B over P29/pack excise tax in 2016, that was equivalent to 552 million packs of cheap cigarettes. Cheap cigarettes encourage more smoking and, as a result, higher tobacco taxes achieve an opposite result.

With higher tobacco tax this year because of TRAIN law, cigarette smuggling has continued.

For instance, a BusinessWorld report on May 01, 2018 said “DoF warns cigarette smuggling may be helping finance terrorism.”

DoF Secretary Sonny Dominguez was quoted, “Illegal money can end up funding terrorist activities” while Customs Commissioner Caesar Dulay said that “smuggled cigarettes are currently flooding the market.”

High taxation and explicit prohibitions are often two sides of the same coin. One policy done by governments abroad is the prohibition of displaying the tobacco companies’ names, logos, and brands via plain packaging policy. So all cigarette packs by all players, old and new, established or fly-by-night, will display similar designs and graphic warnings.

After implementing plain packaging policies since December 2012, illegal tobacco consumption in Australia has increased from an estimated 11.5% to 13.5% in 2012 to up to 15.0% in 2017 (source: KPMG, “Illicit Tobacco in Australia, Full Year 2017 Report,” April 20, 2018).

This because many new players, including those engaged in criminality and terrorism, have come in, produced cheap cigarettes since plain packaging is much easier to copy, and attracted more buyers and smokers.

The United Kingdom also enacted the plain packaging policy in May 2017 and after one year, (1) no significant decline in smoking incidence happened, partly or largely because (2) cheap counterfeit plain packs surfaced.

The counterfeits were found to have high tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide than those allowed in UK, and in some cases, are found to contain heavy metals such as arsenic, cadmium, and lead, along with other toxic contaminants: asbestos, mold, dust, dead flies, rat droppings — and even human excrement. (Sources: The Times, “Illegal tobacco tainted by asbestos and rats,” May 16, 2017; Evening Standard, “Sniffer dogs with GoPro bodycams help uncover 30,000 fake cigarettes in Soho crackdown,” May 24, 2017).

Meanwhile, the World Justice Project (WJP) produces an annual study, the “Rule of Law Index” (RoLI) and score countries based on their performance on 8 factors and 44 sub-factors. The RoLI 2017-2018 Report involves more than 110,000 households as respondents and 3,000 expert surveyors in 113 countries and jurisdictions.

A summary is shown below, focused on Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement (Government regulations are effectively enforced, applied and enforced without improper influence; Administrative proceedings are conducted without unreasonable delay, etc.)

So if Australia and the UK with better rule of law implementation have experienced high and rising incidence of illicit trade and smuggling of cheap cigarettes, how much more for developing countries like the Philippines?

If the Philippines will consider imposing higher tobacco taxes like the P90/pack proposal by Sen. Ejercito, and/or if it is to consider plain packaging policy, given its low rule of law culture and poor regulatory enforcement, a doubling of current extent of illicit trade and smuggling can be expected.

Which means more fake and cheap cigarettes will come in, and there will be more smoking and smokers, not less.

More government taxation and prohibitions create adverse selection problems; the law of unintended consequences always kicks in as nature abhors a vacuum.

Bienvenido S. Oplas, Jr. is President of Minimal Government Thinkers, a member-institute of Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia.

---------------

See also:

BWorld 211, Intellectual property, innovation, and prosperity, May 20, 2018

BWorld 215, Urban mobility index and transport disruption, May 29, 2018 

BWorld 216, Positive and negative disruptions in the electricity market, May 31, 2018 

BWorld 217, Dutertenomics, TRAIN and high inflation, June 02, 2018

BWorld 217, Dutertenomics, TRAIN and high inflation

* This is my article in BusinessWorld, May 30, 2018.

“There is no art which one government sooner learns of another than that of draining money from the pockets of the people.”

— Adam Smith, The Wealth Of Nations (1776), Book V, Chapter II, Appendix to Articles I & II.

Two columns in BusinessWorld on May 28 jointly defended Dutertenomics’ Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion (TRAIN). These are “Eight former Finance secretaries support TRAIN 2” by Romy Bernardo of FEF and “Coolly explaining inflation” by Men Sta. Ana of AER.

I will quote some phrases from the two pieces and explain the title of this piece.

(1) “TRAIN has been unfairly blamed for the elevated inflation rate we are currently experiencing. By our estimates, fully two thirds of last April’s 4.5% inflation rate is typical of a rapidly expanding economy. The remaining is due mainly to the sharp increases in key imported commodities specifically oil, the realignment of currency exchange rates and a robust increase in domestic demand.” (Bernardo)

(2) “The higher inflation rate we are seeing is mainly a result of the increase in global crude oil prices. The Dubai crude oil price has increased to $68.43 per barrel in April 2018… The tax reforms resulting in higher fuel tax and higher prices of cigarettes and sugary drinks of course have contributed to inflation. But its effect accounts only for 0.4 percentage point of an inflation rate of 4.5%.” (Sta. Ana)

So the main explanation of Dutertenomics and its supporters as to why the Philippines has recently posted an outlier inflation rate are (a) high world oil prices, high sin taxes, (b) rapidly expanding economy, but the impact of (a) is very small while (b) is substantial.

If this is true, then other countries that bore the brunt of high oil prices and incurred elevated growth levels should also have rising inflation rates.

But this is NOT true and did not happen as shown in a chart covering Asian emerging and developed economies and the two biggest economies of America and Europe.

On (a), many countries even experienced lower inflation in January-April 2018 compared to December 2017 level despite the rise in world oil prices — UK, Germany, Malaysia, Pakistan, India, Indonesia, South Korea, and Singapore. Others have inflation differential of only 0.2% to 0.6% while the Philippines’ differential was 1.2% or 1.3% depending on the CPI base year used.

On (b), several countries that have reported growth momentums from 2016-2017 and were projected to grow at least 5.3% in 2018 experienced negative or low inflation differentials compared to December 2017 levels — Malaysia, Pakistan, India, Indonesia, Vietnam, China. These countries show that low inflation and fast growth can occur at the same time, no trade off expected (see table).

So are supporters of the TRAIN being less honest?

Moreover, their clamor for higher oil/LPG/coal taxes is directly proportional to their silence in calling for fare hike adjustments. They know 100% that higher oil prices will result in demand for higher fares/tariff by jeepneys, taxi, buses, UV express, trucks, etc.

And since January 2019 is fast approaching, another round of oil/lpg/coal tax hikes will come, prompting another round of demands for hikes in fares, electricity, and wages.

With this in mind, TRAIN supporters should be equally vocal in telling the LTFRB and DoTr to grant the fare hikes very soon, before the second round of energy tax hikes begin, then re-run their numbers on inflation impact and targets.

But there is sound of silence in this aspect.

If government will not grant the necessary fare hikes soon, PUV operators will cut costs elsewhere, like forcing bus drivers and mechanics to work longer hours at little or no extra pay, or using less-reliable but cheaper spare parts, or using old tires. Then we wait for more road accidents and government will blame the PUV operators then penalize them with huge fines or franchise cancellations.

(3) “We also believe that the corporate income tax (CIT) regime, burdened by the highest standard rate among ASEAN countries, at 30%, is in urgent need of reform. We strongly support the reduction of corporate income tax alongside the rationalization of tax incentives.” (Bernardo)

True, there is an urgent need for the Philippines to cut the CIT because our 30% is the highest in East Asia: Indonesia, China and South Korea 25%, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam 20%, Hong Kong and Singapore 16.5-17%.

But TRAIN 2 wants to cut the CIT to only 25% by 2022 or end of Duterte’s term while it will reduce or remove many fiscal incentives by 2019 if they succeed in having TRAIN 2 law this year.

So Dutertenomics is being less honest again on the extent of the Philippines’ taxation distortion.

Aside from the Philippines having the (1) highest CIT of 30% in East Asia, it also has the (2) highest withholding tax on dividends OF 15/30%, (3) highest withholding tax on interest of 20%, (4) highest withholding tax on royalties of 30%, (5) highest VAT/GST of 12%.

One big result of this is that the Philippines has the lowest FDI inward stock (inflows less outflows through the years) of only $64B in 2016 vs. $115B of Vietnam, $122B of Malaysia, $186B of S. Korea and Japan, $189B of Thailand, $235B of Indonesia, $1,096B of Singapore, $1,354B of China and $1,590B of Hong Kong.

A more economically realistic and politically acceptable CIT under TRAIN 2 would be 15%, or max 20% in exchange for reduction/abolition of many fiscal incentives. And such cut should be done in 2019 assuming that TRAIN 2 becomes a law in 2018, and not 2022.

Finally, the last point is that the implicit purpose of TRAIN’s tax-tax-tax strategy is to pay for loans-loans-loans from China and its crony contractors involved in Build-Build-Build as many previously integrated PPP were reversed to become hybrid PPP.

Bienvenido S. Oplas, Jr. is President of Minimal Government Thinkers, a member-institute of Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia.

----------------

See also:

BWorld 213, Disruption, inflation and taxation, May 23, 2018

BWorld 214, Disruption in global economic power, May 24, 2018 

BWorld 215, Urban mobility index and transport disruption, May 29, 2018 

BWorld 216, Positive and negative disruptions in the electricity market, May 31, 2018

BWorld 213, Disruption, inflation and taxation

* This is my column in BusinessWorld last May 17, 2018.

Disruptors tend to be successful in three ways: (1) They dramatically lower historic prices through new cost structures…”

— Accenture, “Disruption need not be an enigma,”

February 2018

“Inflation is taxation without legislation.”

— Milton Friedman, 1974

Disruption is good for consumers. It unsettles many incumbent and entrenched players which may have been lording over the market for decades with expensive and substandard products and services.

Disruptors are often the newcomers, or old players using new and modern production methods that drastically change how things are done.

Inflation is immediately tamed by disruption, ceteris paribus or all other things being equal or held constant. Consumers are given new choices and they tend to flock to products and services with lower prices or similar prices but better quality or more add-ons.

The institutionalization of freer trade in 1995 with the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) has contributed to lower prices across many countries.

As a result, prices in Asia in 1995-1999 were significantly lower than prices in 1990-1994 except in Thailand and Indonesia which were badly hit by the Asian financial turmoil of 1997-1998. Then prices generally declined in the succeeding decades until 2017 (see Table 1).

Higher taxation and more government regulations however, have the opposite effect of market disruption. When a country imposes drastic tax hikes, that country experiences significant inflationary pressure and reverses the gains of disruption.

This is particularly true in the Philippines when it enacted the Tax Reform for Inclusion and Acceleration (TRAIN) law of 2017.

While personal income tax rates have declined, many products (oil, LPG, coal, sugary food and drinks, etc.) and services were slapped with higher excise tax and/or expanded VAT.

While all countries and economies were hit by rising world oil prices, many incurred even lower prices.

But in this case, the Philippines is an outlier.

Inflation jumped even after the sudden rebasing of the consumer price index (CPI) from 2006 to 2012. The two richest economies of North America and Europe are included to widen the scope of comparison, year to date (Ytd) vs. December 2017 as base year (see Table 2).

  

Note that the outlier inflation rate in the Philippines this year does not yet include fare hikes by land transportation companies and providers (jeepneys, taxi, UV express, buses). If such fare adjustments are granted — and they should be — then the country’s inflation will rise even higher.

The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) noted this unexpected level of price increases and it raised local interest rates to encourage people to spend less and save more and hence, help reduce inflationary pressure.

Rice protectionism and NFA importation monopoly are also slowly being abandoned and the rice import quota will soon be replaced by tariffs and cheaper rice from our ASEAN neighbors will soon become more available to consumers and this will help reduce inflation.

The bad news is that January 2019 is fast approaching and there will be a second round in oil and coal tax hikes. This means another round of inflationary pressure, fare hike pressure, and even larger inflation spikes.

This is a clear case of higher taxation reversing the gains of innovation and disruption in the Philippines. Government as negative disruptor is not good. The TRAIN 2 bill should be an instrument to reverse these disagreeable provisions of TRAIN 1.

Bienvenido S. Oplas, Jr. is President of Minimal Government Thinkers, a member-institute of Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia.

-------------

See also:

BWorld 203, TRAIN, inflation and PPP, April 10, 2018

BWorld 210, Electricity competition, EPIRA, and WESM, May 16, 2018 

BWorld 211, Intellectual property, innovation, and prosperity, May 20, 2018 

BWorld 212, Commodities competition and the mining debate, May 21, 2018

Economic central planners meet ecological central planners

When economic central planners were hoodwinked by, or partner with ecological central planners, one result is lousy economic policy based on crystal-ball predictions. Like this high oil, LPG, coal taxes under TRAIN 1. Dutertenomists believed that world oil prices would never rise high anymore partly because they thought that world demand for oil will flatline or decline soon as more e-cars, e-bikes, e-buses come in. Of course the major reason is they want more transfer of money from private/household pockets to government pockets while they help "save the planet."

Here is an example, economic central planners thought that ecological central planners like UN-Al Gore-CCC, etc would be so right in predicting declining world oil demand and hence, low/stable world oil prices.

Pernia: Gov't did not expect crude price to reach multi-year highs

ABS-CBN News, May 19 2018 12:51 AM

http://news.abs-cbn.com/video/business/05/19/18/pernia-govt-did-not-expect-crude-price-to-reach-multi-year-highs

I talked to one DOF Junior staff and that's what he told me, DOF and the rest of Dutertenomics were thinking that supply-demand of gas engine cars will decline as demand for electric cars will rise fast. Eh 1980s ko pa narinig yang e-cars e-cars na yan, after 3-4 decades mostly press release lang and far out from being a really useful stuff. The reality is the opposite of what the ecological central planners say -- demand for oil-propelled vehicles, planes, boats, will keep rising.

Dutertenomists (DOF, DBM, NEDA, DTI, BSP) were so certain then when TRAIN was still a bill, that the inflationary impact of higher oil prices due to high oil taxes would be only 0.7% max. As of April 2018, ytd jump in inflation was 1.2% or nearly double their projected rates. So NEDA issued another prediction last May 04 that look like based on crystal-ball de manghuhula again.

UPTICK IN INFLATION TEMPORARY – NEDA

May 4, 2018

http://www.neda.gov.ph/2018/05/04/uptick-in-inflation-temporary-neda/

I said "crystal-ball prediction" by NEDA of inflation tapering off because govt, via LTFRB and Malacanang, with implicit silence of all Dutertenomists, will not grant any fare hike adjustments. Govt is good in sucking taxes from owners and operators of jeepneys, taxi, UV express, buses but will never grant fare adjustments.

If the Dutertenomists are responsible and honest, they should voice out granting the fare hike adjustments now and find other means to minimize the impact. Wala eh, pasimple lang.

Then January 2019 is near, round 2 of tax hikes for oil and coal, also LPG I think. Inflationary pressure will build up as early as December or Nov. 2018. Then tatahimik naman mga Dutertenomists for any fare hikes?

To say that PH inflation rate is high because of high world oil prices is dishonesty. If that statement is correct, then many if not all oil-importing countries in the world should have experienced high inflation in 2018 compared to December 2017 or full year 2017. This is NOT the case. Many countries even experienced deep decline in domestic prices despite the rise in world oil prices. See table 2 here,

Disruption, inflation, and taxation

May 16, 2018 | 9:22 pm

http://bworldonline.com/disruption-inflation-and-taxation/

"Inflation, as we have predicted, will be higher in May, June and July but will eventually go down but still at a high level. It will average close to BSP target band, so that should not lead to suspension," Ang said.

He also cautioned against efforts to suspend the implementation of the tax reform law, saying this would affect the country’s credibility as a now investment grade nation. "TRAIN Law cannot be reversed because the cost to economy and credibility is larger," he said, adding that TRAIN is a package for economic growth. "If you suspend it, where will you get the revenues to fund growth and what will investors and ratings agency think."

Suspension of TRAIN may affect Philippines credit rating — economist

Czeriza Valencia - May 21, 2018 - 12:00am

https://www.philstar.com/business/2018/05/21/1817046/suspension-train-may-affect-philippines-credit-rating-economist

I agree with Alvin there, I do not support the suspension of TRAIN 1. What I support is that many ugly and inflationary provisions of TRAIN 1 like high energy taxes (oil, LPG, coal), sugar tax, should be reversed and removed via TRAIN 2.

Du30 needs more TRAIN money so that the huge and many China loans that his administration will contract will be paid someday. I doubt if any of the Dutertenomists will admit the hidden agenda of build-build-build via loans-loans-loans from the China communist government.

"Government may have been too busy or too excited to collect the revenues from TRAIN that it forgot how important it is to prepare for its implementation. How a tax is implemented is equally important, if not more important, than the tax policy itself. Bad administration means bad policies. All the excel formula on the results of the TRAIN on prices and income distribution will come to naught when producers and taxpayers are left on their own to adjust to changes in tax rules." 

-- Nini Guevarra, former DOF USec.

How not to do a tax reform

Published May 15, 2018, 10:00 PM  By Milwida M. Guevara

https://business.mb.com.ph/2018/05/15/how-not-to-do-a-tax-reform/

Meanwhile, Du30 already reversed financing of Kaliwa Dam, other big projects from integrated PPP to hybrid PPP so that more China loans, China contractors will be committed/involved by his admin. Now even building coal power plants to be given to CN communist govt and its crony firms? #TRAIN money will pay for these new big loans, http://bworldonline.com/china-may-build-clean-coal-power.../

TRAIN, DOF and AER

The DOF/Dutertenomics and what I think is its front-NGO, Action for Economic Reforms (AER). Very vocal and noisy in tax-tax-tax (oil, lpg, cars, coal, sugar, cigarettes, etc; expanded VAT), saying that TRAIN will not be inflationary and any inflationary impact is just bogeyman (panakot lang) and not real. Now vocal in supporting TRAIN 2 and defending TRAIN 1.

If you guys are noisy at raising oil taxes, you should be equally noisy at making fare hike adjustments because you know that high oil prices will result 100% in the need for higher fares. But you are silent. You know that fare hikes will result in even higher inflation rate. And January 2019 oil and coal tax hike Part 2 is near. Sometimes Govt and "non-govt" like AER can be similar or one and the same?

See this news story:

  

The burden of TRAIN law on Filipino mothers

Eloisa Lopez

Published 11:37 PM, May 13, 2018  Updated 11:38 PM, May 13, 2018

https://www.rappler.com/nation/202404-train-law-mothers-protest-government-appeal?

"Sobrang laki ng pinagbago," Nancy said. "Ibang-iba talaga. Halos lahat ng bilihin nagtaas." (It has changed a lot... It's really different. Almost all items became more expensive.)

One crate of 12-ounce Coca Cola products now retails for P132, from P108. A tank of gas is now sold from P600-650, as opposed to the former P450."

I believe that instead of calling for suspension of TRAIN 1, TRAIN 2 should reverse some of the ugly provisions of TRAIN 1 like oil-lpg-coal tax hikes. But AER has none of it, they argue to retain those tax hikes and blame something else like high world oil prices, etc.

Keep the TRAIN on track

May 13, 2018 | 8:26 pm

Yellow Pad By Zak Yuson

http://bworldonline.com/keep-the-train-on-track/

Many of the AER officials are anti-Du30 drugs war, anti-China a__licking, good. But they really believe that Du30's additional tax money via TRAIN won't be used to bribe legislators and SC people to remove the CJ, Ombudsman? That TRAIN money won't be used to contract big loans and favors from the China communist dictatorial government?

Anti-Du30 but pro-Du30? Nahihilo siguro.

AER has a weekly column in BWorld, "Yellow Pad." I think 95% of their column is about singing rah-rah-rah, tax-tax-pah.

If Dutertenomics simply cut the personal income tax, they simply corrected the historical injustice of CTRP of 1997, they would have won the hearts and minds of many people including the anti-Du30 groups, me included. But they were tax-hungry with all sorts of bleeding heart arguments why they want more transfer of money from private pockets to government pockets.

In the earlier debate bet IBON/Bayaan Mo Na ("TRAIN is pro-rich, anti-poor") and AER ("TRAIN is pro-poor, anti-rich"), both are wrong. TRAIN is anti-rich, anti-poor, only pro-government.

TRAIN is also pro-China communist government. Big integrated PPP projects were reversed by Duterte to become hybrid PPP so that the construction phase can be given to China contractors, O&M to be given to Filipino contractors. TRAIN money will make sure that new big loans with China will be paid in the future.

Even my haircut cost in a public market barber shop, the P40 (non-aircon, open air with electric fan) has become P50. The air-con haircut rose from P50 to P70. People raise their own prices because their cost of living has increased anywhere.

From IEA and WHO data, as of 2015 estimates showed that some 61 M Filipinos or 60% of total households were still using firewood/charcoal for cooking, lighting, ironing, other energy needs. Cheaper oil and LPG allowed many poor households to use LPG for cooking, this saved perhaps millions of trees from being butchered, the price of charcoal or uling declined. With recent world oil price hikes + tax-tax-tax of TRAIN, LPG prices rose, many poor people are going back to using charcoal and firewood, indicated by the rising prices of charcoal -- about P100-120/sack in 2017, now P130-150/sack. This means millions of trees will be stolen and butchered in the public forest lands.

And the "raise oil taxes to save the planet" bleeding hearts now implicitly argue for killing many trees "to save the planet"? Lousy hypo___s.

Source: IEA, SE Asia Energy Outlook 2017, p. 41.

Inquirer business reporter and a friend Ben de Vera twitted his story,

DOF: No collateral for China loans

By: Ben O. de Vera - Reporter / @bendeveraINQ Philippine Daily Inquirer / 05:10 AM May 15, 2018

http://business.inquirer.net/250842/dof-no-collateral-china-loans

Ben posted it on twitter, I replied:

@Noysky  Replying to @bendeveraINQ @DOF_PH @SecSonnySays

Come on DOF, #TRAIN tax-tax-tax is the collateral. Our oil, lpg, cars, coal power, electricity transmission, sugary drinks, etc are rising bec of current spending and future spending to pay more China loans. Why is the #DOF evasive about this?

From the above Inquirer report,

"We borrowed $200 million, there was no collateral,” Dominguez said, referring to the Philippines’ first-ever panda bond issuance.

In March, 1.46 billion renminbi or about P12 billion in three-year panda bonds were issued by the government in China at a “tight” yield of 5 percent."

At 5% interest rates -- DOF will need more tax-tax-tax so that present and future generations of Filipino taxpayers will be able to pay those expensive China loans. Because Du30 told the DOF and Dutertenomists to get more loans from China? And some NGOs like AER would justify all tax-tax-tax by Duterte? Magaleeeng.

Post-Holy week penitence

Belated holy week penitencia. High taxes and politics never fail to inflict pain on the public. At least five instances here. 

(this photo I got from SunStar)

(1) Economist sees nearly 6% inflation in May-June

Czeriza Valencia (The Philippine Star) - March 28, 2018

https://www.philstar.com/business/2018/03/28/1800911/economist-sees-nearly-6-inflation-may-june

“(Alvin) Ang said inflation for 2018 is expected to peak in May to June which coincides with the opening of the new school year and the financial preparations for such, during which inflation is expected to peak “close to six percent.”

“The effect of TRAIN (Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion) is still not fully felt, so this is a continuing impact of TRAIN. The full-blown impact of TRAIN will be in May to June so  there will be two more months of adjustments,” he said.

Malacanang horror-comedy...

(2) 'Apostle' Andanar likens Duterte to Jesus

Updated as of Oct 06 2016 11:42 PM

http://news.abs-cbn.com/news/10/06/16/apostle-andanar-likens-duterte-to-jesus

And the "Jesus of the Philippines" has this mouth....

(3) Duterte: Yan mga NPA naglalaway sa mga baril natin, tayo sa babae lang

https://tnt.abante.com.ph/duterte-yan-mga-npa-naglalaway-sa-mga-baril-natin-tayo-sa-babae-lang/

(4) DOTR horror-comedy. Sec. Tugade, nagpapara ng bus to lecture the driver of his violation – bus overloading. But the bus is near empty (March 30, 2018)

https://www.facebook.com/kodphilippines/videos/414552702326281/?hc_ref=ART18Y7J9xObNm7gPF0cQSAHrFycVLQkWxc5DOGck4Jf-40e43EJHmb2vAC6I3L6xKM

(5) As recommended closure nears, fate of almost 30k Boracay workers hangs in balance

Published March 30, 2018 4:10pm

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/specialreports/648347/as-recommended-closure-nears-fate-of-almost-30k-boracay-workers-hangs-in-balance/story/

Boracay closure for 6-12 months, I think there is plan by Duterte business cronies to force the bankruptcy of some or many resorts there, the non-chain hotels especially, then local cronies + China Communist Party cronies will come in big swoop, gobble up the fledgling and losing resorts, then Boracay will be "open to the world" again.

On rising inflation, this comedy is not from Malacanang but from TRAIN rah-rah boys Action for Economic Reforms (AER). Governmentt and NGO, they speak and argue the same language, blurred difference bet govt and "non-govt", jokers. http://bworldonline.com/inflation-become-bogeyman/

Notice that this rising inflation does not include yet fare adjustments by jeepneys, bus lines, truckers, shipping lines, airlines. I think Malacanang and LTFRB/MARINA/CAB will not grant those fare hikes this year, "CSR" na lang daw ng oil companies. Then by January 2019, another oil price hikes by TRAIN law, then rah-rah boys will produce again another article of "inflation bogeyman", ayos. Govt and "non-govt", they speak the same.

Ateneo Economics Department should produce more Alvin Ang who can objectively see the inflationary pressure of energy tax hikes. Another Ateneo economist and former NEDA chief has been pushing hard for higher electricity price hikes via huge coal tax, P600/ton (vs P50/ton in 2018, P100 in 2019, P150 in 2020). Make coal power become expensive, silent on natgas which is another fossil fuel, because he is a Board of Director of FirstGen and silent about it, does not disclose it when he writes. Unlike Romeo Bernardo who honestly and transparently discloses his affiliations with Ayala, Aboitiz Power, Phinma Energy, before he opens his mind about energy policies.

Ytd, PH stockmarket is 3rd poorest performer in AsPac

Year to date (Ytd), January 01 to March 23, 2018, PH stockmarkets 3rd poorest performing in Asia Pacific after Japan and Shenzhen, China.

http://markets.wsj.com/asia

Buddy-buddy Duterte-Xi Jinping in spooking investor sentiment.

PH markets cheap already? Maybe, maybe not enough yet given continuing political uncertainty pulling down investor confidence. Below 8,000 is breached, it might go down further to 7,800.

Unnecessary uncertainties must go -- forcing the resignation of the SC CJ, her impeachment moves in Congress. Cha-cha de federalism and TRAIN 2, TRAIN 3, etc are already big uncertainties for businesses.

A friend Patrick noted, “the market has been expensive for sometime...trading at the upper quintile of its historical P/E range. so it's "priceyness" was even there way, way before CJ issues, TRAIN, cha-cha or federalism were even an idea. As you may not know, markets can remain irrationally expensive for sometime then go on selloffs once the sentiment turns. I think the Trump trade war pushed the market over the edge as it's economic. Domestically the economy has very few problems. Also foreign funds are selling ahead of China being added to MSCI EM index so if I were a foreign PM, I'd sell the expensive markets like PH and prepare for the massive China inclusion.”

Latest inflation rate data for Asia dragons and emerging markets are there. Out of 13 countries, PH has 2nd highest inflation jump in Feb 2018 vs Dec 2017, +1.2 percentage points, 2nd only to HK which experienced an outlier jump of 3.1% infl in Feb 2018 vs only 1.7% in Dec. 2017, also in Jan. 2018.

Not included in this big jump in PH inflation rate are fare hike adjustments by jeepneys, taxi, truckers, bus lines, shipping lines, airlines, no thanks to tax-tax-tax de TRAIN.

This "close Boracay" drama of Malacanang is unnecessary. Outright demolition of illegal structures might suffice. Big and small hotels, local and foreign airlines, big and small travel agencies, big and small boat enterprises, all affected by "close Boracay" pronouncements.

About the so-called US "trade war", I think it is just sensational media term. For now it's trade positioning, no actual "war" of high tariff vs high tariff yet. At $2B+/day of US trade deficit, for many years, this was ok with Bush administration, then Obama 8 years of "hope and change" but not ok with Trump.

See also: Ytd, PH stockmarket is the poorest performer in AsPac, March 15, 2018.

BWorld 197, Estimating electricity price hikes because of TRAIN, Part 2

* This is my article in BusinessWorld on March 19, 2018.

Part 1 of this short study was published in this column on Feb. 15. Some corrections and adjustments are made here because of (a) lower coal consumption for power generation, and (b) using an incremental increase in coal excise tax.

Total coal consumption in 2016 was 23.2 million tons but one industry player informed me that not all of these were used for coal power plants. Some were used for cement plants and other industrial uses. The estimated amount used for coal power generation is 20 million tons.

Coal excise tax before TRAIN (Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion) was P10/ton, the law has increased this per ton to P50 in 2018, P100 in 2019, and P150 in 2020. The incremental increase is used in the table below.

Meralco computation of oil cost for their captive customers based on November 2017 data was 0.6 centavos/kWh in 2018 when oil tax is only P2.50/liter. There are no projections for 2019-2020 so I estimated the numbers for these years using the respective oil tax rates of P4.50 then P6/liter.

Oil share in Meralco power distribution that period was only 0.9% of total. In 2016, oil share to total power generation nationwide was 6.2%. So a multiplier of 7x (= 6.2/0.9) is used for the national oil tax rate.

Before, VAT on transmission charge was minimal, it applied only on ancillary service. With TRAIN, the VAT is applied on other transmission costs (power delivery, system operator, metering, etc.).

Hike in universal charge is not included here but this might be minimal. Many island provinces and remote islands of big provinces get electricity from gensets running on diesel. The generation cost is naturally high, from P10-20/kwh but residents there are not charged that full amount, a big portion is subsidized and passed on to all other consumers nationwide via the universal charge.

Last month, the Energy Policy Development Program (EPDP) published a new study, “Electricity prices and TRAIN” by Dr. Ramon L. Clarete. It is a neat study because it considered variations in heat content per coal type (Yes, not all coal are the same, the same way that not all dogs are the same). For brevity purposes, I added only a portion of his table 5 which summarize the projected hikes in electricity prices because of TRAIN (see table).

So from my estimates, there will be a projected electricity price hike in centavos/kWh of 13.4 this year, nearly 20 in 2019, and 24.6 in 2020.

The estimates by Dr. Clarete are much higher. By 2020, 14 centavos/kWh for coal plants and P1.67/kWh for diesel plants. VAT on these hikes are not included yet, and VAT on transmission charge also not included.

In addition, Dr. Clarete used coal price for 2016 in his study. The average price per ton of thermal coal was $70 in 2014, $58 in 2015, $66 in 2016, $85 in 2017 (Q1-Q3), data from statista.com. In the first three months of 2018 it is around $100 average.

So with 2018 prices about 50% higher than 2016 prices, the projected rise in electricity price from coal plants would be higher than his estimated 14 centavos/kWh, perhaps could go up to 18 centavos or higher.

These costs are for direct household electricity consumption alone. Not included are pass-on rates in the form of higher prices by factories, schools and universities, shops and malls, hotels and restaurants, hospitals and airports, etc. These enterprises consume tens of thousands of kWh per month, the additional electricity cost will be passed on the consumers, which might affect sales and hence, affect future salaries and benefits of workers.

The tax hike for coal and oil products is among the worst mistakes of TRAIN law. Retaining the high 12% VAT is another. Government has no justification in making cheaper energy become expensive. We hope that these mistakes will be recognized soon so that succeeding TRAIN 2, TRAIN 3, etc. will either reverse them, or at least not make them even worse.

---------------

See also: 

BWorld 193, TRAIN, inflation and emerging DOE price control, March 16, 2018 

BWorld 194, How ‘pro-labor’ policies work against labor, March 17, 2018 

BWorld 195, Health alarmism in TRAIN sin tax hike, March 19, 2018 

BWorld 196, Mining tax and TRAIN, March 20, 2018

BWorld 196, Mining tax and TRAIN

* This is my column in BusinessWorld last week, March 15, 2018.

“Government does not tax to get the money it needs; government always finds a need for the money it gets.”

 — Ronald Reagan, former US president

Under the Mining act of 1995 (RA 7942), mining firms pay, among others, an excise tax 2% of sales. For many years and decades, this has been deemed “too low” despite the presence of many other taxes, fees, royalties, mandatory contributions, obligatory community expenditures.

So under the new law Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion (TRAIN), RA 10963, the mining excise tax has been raised from 2% to 4%. And this was a belated insertion because this idea was not present in both House and Senate bills before the Bicameral Committee meetings.

Now there is TRAIN 2 bill in Congress and the Department of Finance (DoF) has voiced out that it wants all tax reforms ratified by December 2018. The DoF wants a “comprehensive mining tax that will give the government a bigger share of miners’ revenues.” Translation: another round of mining tax hikes.

Philippine mining taxation is not exactly modest or low. Globally, it is somehow midway based on taxes, fees and royalties paid to the government, national and local. Or high if mandatory and obligatory expenditures for communities are included, like the Social Development Management Program (SDMP) that amounts to hundreds of million pesos yearly.

One international non-governmental organization, the Natural Resource Governance Institute (NRGI), produces an annual report called the Resource Governance Index (RGI) that measures how good or bad the governance of extractive industries are — oil, gas and mining (metallic and nonmetallic). The index is constructed using a framework of 149 critical questions answered by 150 researchers, drawing upon almost 10,000 supporting documents. Scores are on a scale of zero to 100 at each level of the index.

The RGI is composed of three components and several sub-components:

1. Value Realization — sub-components are licensing, taxation, local impact, and state-owned enterprises.

2. Revenue Management — national budgeting, subnational resource revenue sharing and sovereign wealth funds.

3. Enabling Environment — open data, political stability, control of corruption, rule of law, regulatory quality, government effectiveness, voice and accountability.

The RGI 2017 report was released last year covering 89 country-level assessments (in eight countries, both oil-gas and mining sectors were assessed). In the table below, I did not include countries in the oil-gas sectors, also low-score African, S. American countries after S. Africa, but I included low-score ASEAN countries to have a regional overview (see table).

So in the overall score, the Philippines ranked 21st out of 89 country-assessments, it belonged to the top, which is good. In the component Value Realization, it scored a midway 55 and in sub-component taxation, it scored high at 60. Which means that the statement “Philippines mining taxation is low” is not correct.

In that report, I was surprised to see that there is a government-owned Philippine Mining Development Corporation (PMDC). It is not involved in actual mining exploration and extraction though, perhaps one of those white elephants among the remaining government-owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs).

Among the big state-owned mining firms in the world are Codelco (Chile, 2016 revenue was $11.69 billion), Erdenes Mongol (Mongolia, $1.25 billion 2016 revenues) and Antam (Indonesia, $680-million revenues).

Aside from TRAIN’s tax-tax-tax in the sector, there are other proposals that seem idiotic and too interventionist. Like a bill in Congress, HB 5674, requiring a legislative franchise as prerequisite to the issuance of a Mineral Agreement or Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement (FTAA) for any mining project in the Philippines. Why bring in the legislators and politicians on top of national and local bureaucracies inspecting and investigating companies even before they can do mining exploration and extraction?

Then there are other bills declaring this and that province to be a “mining free zone and providing penalties therefor.” Example: HB 6727 for Nueva Vizcaya. Not all provinces have big mining potential and even in provinces which have such potential, not the entire province is resource-endowed.

Mining is either good or bad. If it is bad, people should stay away from using materials that use mining products so that they can reduce or avoid creating new demands for mining. Like cars, TV, mobile phones, computers, watches, electrical wires and cables.

If mining is good, then get the good practices in other countries and have them applied here. But blanket prohibitions like “no open-pit mining,” “no mining in this province,” “over-tax mining” should be avoided because they are based on emotions, not reason and economics.

Government should prioritize reason and economics in its legislation and implementation. Create values and consumer products from nature, create lots of jobs for the people, generate taxes for its social-economic programs.

------------

See also: 

BWorld 192, Cobalt mining and TRAIN, March 16, 2018
BWorld 193, TRAIN, inflation and emerging DOE price control, March 16, 2018 

BWorld 194, How ‘pro-labor’ policies work against labor, March 17, 2018 

BWorld 195, Health alarmism in TRAIN sin tax hike, March 19, 2018

BWorld 195, Health alarmism in TRAIN sin tax hike

* This is my column in BusinessWorld last March 11, 2018.

“When a new source of taxation is found it never means, in practice, that the old source is abandoned. It merely means that the politicians have two ways of milking the taxpayer where they had one before.”

— H. L. Mencken, American journalist, satirist

As the public still has to adjust to the inflationary pressures of the new law called Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion — Package 1 (TRAIN 1), TRAIN 2 is already in Congress. Among the targets are further tax hikes in “sin” products, and some NGOs that speak, write, and argue like government have been calling to further raise alcohol and tobacco taxes.

  

Such calls are based on certain premises and hypothesis like: (1) Philippines tobacco and alcohol consumption per capita is among the highest in Asia and the world; and, (2) the overall health of Filipinos is stagnating if not deteriorating because of high alcohol and tobacco use. Thus, consumption of sin product must be discouraged further via higher taxes plus other measures like graphic warnings.

How true are such premises and hence, how valid is the more-taxes-please measure as the purported solution?

The good news is that some basic data — like smoking incidence — are available and can be found at Our World in Data, a project of the University of Oxford. The bad news is that the data does not seem to support or corroborate those two premises and hypothesis (see table).

The numbers in the table show the following:

1. Philippines tobacco use as of 2012 was not that high and was lower than tobacco use of our richer and healthier neighbors like Japan and South Korea. Alcohol use in 2015 was lower than the global average of 6.3 liters per person per year.

2. Philippines life expectancy keeps rising, not falling or remaining steady, although it is among the lowest in the region.

3. People in countries with a high incidence of smoking also have high life expectancies. Brunei, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, China, the Philippines, and Singapore have high cigarette use — at least 18 sticks per day per smoker in 2012 — and their life expectancy was at least 76 years in 2015 — except in the Philippines where it was only 68 years.

4. People in countries with low cigarette use (less than 12.5 sticks per smoker per day) also have low life expectancies of only 69 years or less.

These observations tend to contradict the two premises and hypothesis mentioned above. There are many possible explanations for this, two of which would be the following:

1. People in rich countries can afford to buy more tobacco and alcohol products despite the rise in prices due to rising sin taxes; and,

2. People in poorer countries consume “less tobacco” referring to the legal and branded products, but in reality, they consume “more tobacco” from illegal, illicit, and fake/counterfeit products and suppliers. And such consumption is not captured by official government data.

So the statement “more sin taxes = less alcohol and tobacco use” can be wrong.

Another possibility is that higher sin taxes can lead to more smuggling, more illicit trade of counterfeit products that are cheap and more affordable to more people, which can lead to more smoking and drinking.

Even rich and developed Australia, which has more strict regulations against tobacco use, has experienced a rise in cigarettes smuggling. In a KPMG report in March 2017 entitled “Illicit Tobacco in Australia, 2016 Full Year Report,” the estimated share of illicit and smuggled tobacco was 10.8% of total tobacco consumption, average for 2007-2012. This rose to 14% average for 2013-2016.

Instead of calling for higher sin tax rates, the government should focus on significantly controlling smuggled and illicit products that are cheap and readily available. This alone will significantly reduce the incidence of smoking and drinking.

Another compromise would be a rise in sin taxes but income tax rates (personal and corporate) and/or VAT rates should go further down. The people should be spared from government’s policy and mentality of endless tax hikes, regardless of administration.

--------------

See also: 

BWorld 192, Cobalt mining and TRAIN, March 16, 2018
BWorld 193, TRAIN, inflation and emerging DOE price control, March 16, 2018 

BWorld 194, How ‘pro-labor’ policies work against labor, March 17, 2018

BWorld 193, TRAIN, inflation and emerging DOE price control

* This is my column in BusinessWorld on March 5, 2018.

More countries are reporting their January 2018 inflation rate and it is becoming clearer that majority of them have reigned in the inflationary pressure of the big rise in world oil prices. West Texas Instrument (WTI) prices, for instance, rose from $43.2/barrel in 2016 to $50.9/barrel in 2017, and $63.7/barrel in January 2018.

Of the 13 major Asian economies in the table, 10 have experienced a decline in their inflation rate compared to their December 2017 level and only three, including the Philippines, have experienced an increase. But the rise in the Philippines was big 0.7 percentage points (see table).

The big question is: Why is the Philippines the outlier in Asia in inflation rate movement?

The proximate reason is the recent tax law, RA 10963, known as the Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion (TRAIN). The cut in personal income tax was good, but it was more than negated by the tax hike in oil and other commodities — coal, sugar beverage, etc. The anticipated pass-on effects of such tax hikes should be big.

How about Japan, which experienced a 0.3% point increase? There are two possible explanations.

One, it is experiencing a re-inflation trend after deflation in 2016 of -0.1%, then 0.5% in 2017. Two, it has a tax reform bill in 2018 that includes a 15% tax credit for corporations if their workers have higher pay of at least 3%, and if domestic investment in depreciable assets is equal to or more than 90% of depreciation. This means there will be expected higher household consumption due to higher salaries for workers and managers, and higher re-investments.

TRAIN’S IMPACT ON ELECTRICITY PRICES

The effect of TRAIN on electricity prices would be felt in four avenues.

1. Oil tax hike (for peaking plants in WESM), about 1 centavo/kWh.

2. Coal tax hike (P10/ton to P50/ton in 2018), another 1 centavo/kWh.

3. VAT application on electricity transmission charge, about 6-7 centavos/kWh.

4. Rise in universal charge (a big hike in electricity cost for many islands and provinces running on gensets/oil, subsidy passed on nationwide), perhaps another 1 centavo/kWh.

Sources for the first three points are Meralco as reported in the papers.

EMERGING DOE PRICE CONTROL

Last January, the Department of Energy (DoE) directed all distribution utilities (DUs) to require their power suppliers, the generation companies (gencos) to explain any additional charges that will arise from TRAIN.

Then last February, the DoE suggested that gencos should absorb the initial cost of higher oil and coal taxes. Meaning there will be no pass-on to the consumers. This was never done before.

In addition, the DoE also mandated the oil companies extend subsidies to public utility vehicles (PUVs) as a “cost cushioning mechanism.” This is another no pass-on policy.

These are price control measures. These are ugly policies to make the ugly tax hikes under TRAIN appear “less ugly” and “non-inflationary.”

TRAIN DOUBLE TALK

The architects and apologists of TRAIN are confused and are engaged in double-talk.

First, they make cheaper oil and coal become expensive, then deny the potential big inflationary pressure of such a measure.

Second, when inflationary pressure is higher than their projected and concocted figures, they blame speculators and not the law that created speculation.

Third, TRAIN exhibited favoritism and cronyism for renewable energies (REs) like wind-solar because their feed-in-tariff (FiT) revenues from WESM, then FiT-All, were again exempted from VAT. Natural gas is also fossil fuel but TRAIN did not slap it with excise tax, only oil and coal.

Fourth, TRAIN’s architects deny that additional revenues were largely meant to favor Chinese contractors and suppliers because many big projects that were already under the integrated PPP were reversed and put under “hybrid” PPP to be financed by ODA and foreign loans from China.

Fifth, they now propose price control measures in energy and other sectors to make TRAIN look “less ugly” and “non-inflationary.”

The Communist Party of China and Xi Jinping’s “thoughts on socialism” could be a rising influence in the economic and energy policies of the Philippines. This is wrong.

The Philippines should stay the course of more market reforms, not more state interventions and taxation. China’s communism and dictatorship is a lousy “model” that should never be entertained by the Philippines and other developing economies.

Bienvenido S. Oplas, Jr. is President of Minimal Government Thinkers, a member-institute of Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia.

--------------

See also:

BWorld 188, Estimating electricity price hikes resulting from TRAIN, March 10, 2018.

BWorld 190, TRAIN, inflation and the stock market, March 15, 2018 

BWorld 191, Solar insecurity, energy stability and affordability, March 15, 2018 

BWorld 192, Cobalt mining and TRAIN, March 16, 2018

BWorld 192, Cobalt mining and TRAIN

* This is my article in BusinessWorld last March 01, 2018.

Many people are enamored — and rightly so — with consumer electronics and gadgets like smartphones, iPads, laptops, and so on. Then, there is new and huge global demand for electric cars and bikes, even electric buses and trucks.

All these products and equipment need batteries, which, in turn, require large volumes of cobalt, considered by some analysts as the “new oil.”

This is good news for the Philippines.

First, cobalt prices seem to be skyrocketing. Second, the Philippines has the 4th largest cobalt reserves (#1 is Congo) and the projected reserves/production (R/P) ratio is 70, meaning at 2017 estimated production level, it will take 70 years for our cobalt reserves to be depleted.

Another good news for the Philippines is in nickel. First, world prices are also rising high though not as fast as cobalt prices. Second, we have the 5th largest nickel reserves (#1 is Australia) although our R/P ratio for nickel is only 21 years (see table).

Why have cobalt prices risen too fast recently?

According to Darton Commodities projections as cited in a Bloomberg report, cobalt use in electric vehicles and other lithium-ion battery applications was around 55,000 tons in 2017 and this is projected to rise to around 160,000 tons in 2025 and 330,000 tons in 2030.

Mining exploration and drilling technology keeps improving so new reserves for cobalt, nickel, gold, copper, and other metals that the Philippines has will be discovered soon and this will raise the R/P ratio for these commodities.

During the BusinessWorld Stockmarket Roundtable last Feb. 20, at Shangri-La Hotel, about two or three of the four speakers that afternoon (Gus Cosio of First Metro, April Tan of COL Financial, Jun Calaycay of Philstocks Financial, and Mike Gerard Enriquez of Sunlife Financial) mentioned the short- and medium-term potentials of the Philippines mining sector. These finance guys see the trend in global commodity supply and demand and hence, their global prices.

BMI Research also showed optimistic outlook for the sector: metallic mining output 6% growth to $3.98 billion in 2018, 5% growth to $4.18 billion in 2019, $4.34 billion in 2020, $4.47 billion in 2021 and $4.56 billion in 2022.

As of end-2016, estimated Philippines reserves are: 1.854 billion MT of gold, 1.696 billion MT of silver, 1.761 billion MT of copper, 116.136 million MT of nickel, 116.001 million MT of iron and 47.264 million MT of chromite.

Various uncertainties in the sector should be relaxed if not ended soon. The good potentials are there in terms of corporate income, jobs generation, mandatory community development projects, and government (national and local) tax and nontax revenues.

These uncertainties range from (a) resource nationalism (“keep out foreign capital in mining” or “export only processed minerals, not raw ores”), (b) more regulations (“ban open pit mining,” “suspend or close more metallic mining”), and of course, (c) more mining taxes (“raise the mining excise tax from 2% to 4%, 6%…,” “raise mining royalties…”).

The recent Tax law RA 10963 known as Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion (TRAIN) has, out of nowhere, raised the mining excise tax from 2% to 4%. It seems that this was not contained in the original House and Senate versions prior to the Bicameral Committee meetings but were just inserted along the way, along with the coal tax hike and tobacco tax hikes.

Now TRAIN 2 is in Congress and there are moves to further raise the mining excise tax on a per-commodity basis, but without reducing or removing other taxes, royalties and mandatory community expenditures.

There should be a limit to the politics of envy via high and rising taxation. When companies create lots of direct and indirect jobs, give lots of social and economic services to their personnel and community residents who are not even company employees, pay lots of taxes, regulatory fees and royalties to the government, the itch of tax-tax-tax should be tempered.

---------------

See also:

BWorld 185, Lower taxes via more mineral exports, February 06, 2018 

BWorld 189, Distortions in TRAIN 1 should be corrected by TRAIN 2, March 14, 2018 

BWorld 190, TRAIN, inflation and the stock market, March 15, 2018 

BWorld 191, Solar insecurity, energy stability and affordability, March 15, 2018