The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
Universal progressive income taxes together with VAT (a form of sales tax) is a lot more effective, and VAT can be made progressive enough by having different rates for specific product categories, like food. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
There is currently discussion on lowering the alv on food. You can't be me, I'm taken
The other side of expensive food is, of course, greater consumption of cheap crap food that brings its own problems at the healthcare end. I am sure it is a very elastic equation.
One key factor to remember in deciding progressive use of taxes of any kind is that while they are designed for one frame of mass mind, the change itself will cause another frame of mass mind. This always reminds me of Mr Hulot in Mon Oncle, struggling to right a perfectly manicured bush that has lost a branch to the activities of his nephew :-) You can't be me, I'm taken
I dunno if it'd work, but watching the Paulites lose their shit after hearing of it would be hilarious. Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
So, good luck globally. A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
global government
Bingo.
Pie in the sky at the moment, but consider the advantages:
Equalisation of opportunity - people could move as freely as capital, subject to common sense limits The instant removal of a $1 trillion annual military tax Closing of all so-called off-shore tax loopholes, which would put yet more wealth into play for productive social investment
The current system of competing nation states is ruinously expensive.
Of course you'd need the strongest democracy in history to prevent a slide towards feudalism and oligarchy. You could create that with absolute limits on personal wealth and influence and semi-random sortition of public representatives.
Most retail transactions are going to occur on the soil of one company, and there's no way that's going to change to something that's going to occur offshore.
People buy cars and computers from distributors. So long as we operate on a principle of point of purchase, there's less opportunity for arbitrage. And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
Liability limitation insurance is something that can be handled on a national basis. So that Swiss RE can only issues policies on liability in the US through its US subsidiarity. So if you can create walls for liability limitation at the national border, then in order to enter a market, a company must agree to the levy as the price of admission. And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
By separating out the charge for limited liability insurance from the idea of taxation, the double taxation argument collapses, and you can defeat the neo-libs in the market. Because no private insurer is going to offer policies that limit liability to market capitalization at the rate that the government can.
Make the neo-libs eat their own shit. They want the market to provide these things, let them try to show that it can be done. Then laugh when they are forced to come crawling back to the government to ask that they be allowed the privilege of what they now feel entitled to. And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
The neolibs don't give a crap about markets, or about small government, or about any of the other talking points they vomit up regularly. There's a cadre of useful idiot apparatchiks who have been through the MBA mill who will repeat - and believe - this nonsense on cue because it makes them feel grown up. But the real players know the talking points are a show for the gullible and have no more substance than a McCain stump speech. (You think it's a coincidence that Bush, Palin and McCain lie about everything?)
The real aim of this kind of 'conservatism' has always been to loot national economies using whatever ideological or military excuses come to hand. This isn't conservatism, it's old-fashioned imperialism, with the empire as the entire planet.
The 'crisis' was manufactured by Greenspan, Gramm, Paulson and others. Greenspan may be a toad but he's not stupid, and the regret and woe which he's wailing out now, have to be contrasted with the palid and oily reassurances about the bubbleicious state of all things financial he spewed out during his term.
He was lying then, and he's still lying now. He knew damn well what was happening, and he didn't just ignore it, he helped engineer it.
So this is not a financial crisis, it's a constitutional crisis. It doesn't need a financial remedy, it needs a restoration of the constitution, and jail terms for the thugs who deliberately ran the car into a wall so that they could make an insurance claim on a shinier one.
No amount of financial re-engineering is going to fix this problem unless law and order are restored, and most of the population decides that Wall St's 'serious people' are thugs and criminals in sharp suits. Once that reality has sunk into public consciousness and cleaned out some of the festering corruption from the Anglo political systems, it may be possible to start legislating fixes. But the real need now is for pressure on Washington and London to start moving back towards genuine populist democracy.
Obama may make some tiny baby steps in that direction. But it needs a much wider cultural change, and even with the current sense of outrage among some of the left in the US, I'm not sure that we're done with the disasters yet.
I make no claim to clairvoyance, I don't read tarot cards, but I've got this grand gut feeling that the bigger disasters are just waiting offstage, regardless of what transpires this week.
Do we do this before or after we find and slaughter all of the ultra-rich Republican types, because while they're still alive, they will use ALL of their substantial resources to keep things going just the way they are now. They tried to assimilate me. They failed.
There's a cadre of useful idiot apparatchiks who have been through the MBA mill who will repeat - and believe - this nonsense on cue because it makes them feel grown up.
The first reference to a Limited Liability Levy I can find was thanks to Colman's provocation which gave rise to this debate back in January 2007
Iraqi oil etc
complete with the obligatory fisticuffs with HiD.
More recently in the
Risk Risk
thread on 5th April this year I posted this
Well what happened is that partners did (and still do, in the large number of professional partnerships still left unconverted to LLP's)insure themselves against these risks using Professional Indemnity Insurance. These premiums started to rise rapidly, and led to the demand for limitation of liability. The government refused until they were essentially blackmailed into doing so when PriceWaterhouse and Ernst & Young paid City lawyers Simmons & Simmons around £1m in respect of the legislation that went through in Jersey in 1997 for a Jersey LLP. Prem Sikka tells the story. Essentially the UK government is handing out free insurance - as they do to every shareholder in a limited company. ie the LLP does not quite "do way with that" it socialises what were private risks. In my view, there should be a "Limited Liability Levy" or tax applied to gross revenues of any entity which has limited liability. Jersey actually got one thing right in the end. They insisted on a bloody great bond being lodged by LLP's (either £5m or £10m) and this somewhat limits their appeal as a vehicle.....
These premiums started to rise rapidly, and led to the demand for limitation of liability. The government refused until they were essentially blackmailed into doing so when PriceWaterhouse and Ernst & Young paid City lawyers Simmons & Simmons around £1m in respect of the legislation that went through in Jersey in 1997 for a Jersey LLP.
Prem Sikka tells the story.
Essentially the UK government is handing out free insurance - as they do to every shareholder in a limited company.
ie the LLP does not quite "do way with that" it socialises what were private risks.
In my view, there should be a "Limited Liability Levy" or tax applied to gross revenues of any entity which has limited liability.
Jersey actually got one thing right in the end. They insisted on a bloody great bond being lodged by LLP's (either £5m or £10m) and this somewhat limits their appeal as a vehicle.....
Plus a good few more references by me in the last couple of weeks....
So, more power to MfM's elbow in developing the argument so much better than I could, but I think I can claim precedence on the concept... "The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson
by IdiotSavant - Jan 15 14 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 14 12 comments
by Oui - Jan 16 4 comments
by Oui - Jan 13 57 comments
by Oui - Jan 17 1 comment
by gmoke - Jan 16
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 8 77 comments
by Oui - Jan 14 21 comments
by Oui - Jan 171 comment
by Oui - Jan 164 comments
by IdiotSavant - Jan 1514 comments
by Oui - Jan 1421 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 1412 comments
by Oui - Jan 1357 comments
by Oui - Jan 1177 comments
by Oui - Jan 1046 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 877 comments
by Oui - Jan 772 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 710 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 668 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 611 comments
by Oui - Jan 659 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 229 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Dec 3151 comments
by Oui - Dec 3122 comments
by Oui - Dec 2834 comments
by gmoke - Dec 28