I said nothing about morality, what are you a priest? REH
----- Original Message ----- From: "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ray Evans Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 10:49 PM Subject: Re: [Futurework] Exit ramp for Europe > Ray, > > Well said. > > The trouble with economics (or the politics that pass for economics) is > that it looks for revenue sources. It doesn't introduce morality. > > In the absence of removing privileges - at least they should be taxed heavily. > > As for the people harmed by the privilege - they should get a subsidy. > > Harry > ---------------------------------------------------- > > Ray wrote: > > >No, the people who would pay the bit-tax are the people who now only have > >the internet for their lives because the rest of the world is too > >expensive. It is the poor who always pay the taxes, whether in rising > >prices or in sales tax. Anything else is just sleazy. When will you > >reconsider the meaning of the word "productivity" in terms of mega > >thinking rather than minimalism. Do you always want to listen to the > >same wallpaper music all of your life? That is why Philip Glass and > >Steve Reich are so correct and that is also why most people either "get > >it" and listen for personal understanding or can't stand the fact that it > >shows how transperent their pants are. In short, you either listen and > >say, "That's right" or you say they are just too dumb to stand and they > >say, "You got it and I got it from you!" > > > >REH > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >To: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED] ; > ><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 8:57 AM > >Subject: RE: [Futurework] Exit ramp for Europe > > > >This is why we need a tax system which is congruent with and takes > >advantage of a networked economy. I have argued for such a system with > >the "bit tax" There are other approaches but the bit tax would be a good > >first step at getting at the productivity of networks for the public purse. > > > >As to tax havens, there is slow, very slow move reform these places. The > >political will is lacking since, I guess, the rich who contribute to > >political parties have given the slow down signal to politicians. Too > >bad, since the tax havens know that a crackdown is in the works. And have > >known for some time. Reforms just seem to die in committee. > > > >arthur > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Keith Hudson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 2:50 AM > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: [Futurework] Exit ramp for Europe > > > >A French think-tank, the Institut Francais des Relations Internationales, > >thinks that, for Europe, "A slow but inexorable movement onto history's > >exit ramp is foreseeable." At the same time, those who want a United > >States of Europe have brought forth a Constitution which is now being > >fiercely debated. This is the background for an excellent article by > >Hamish McRae, the economics editor of The Independent. For those > >interested in Europe or of the likely scope of government welfare spending > >generally in the future, the following article from yesterday's paper will > >be well worth reading. > > > ><<<< > >EUROPE CAN'T BUCK THE MARKET > > > >Hamish McCrae > > > >When economics and politics clash, economics usually wins. Whether or not > >the proposed European constitution means that Brussells will have a say > >over British taxes -- and there is so much obfuscation that I don't think > >it is possible to know at this stage -- economic pressures seem likely to > >push down Europe's taxes to UK levels, maybe beyond. The politics may be > >for higher taxes but the economics are for lower ones.How so? > > > >Well, the pressure on governments across the whole of the continent will > >be huge for the next two generations. Government will be under tremendous > >pressure to spend more but also will find it harder and harder to raise > >revenue. > > > >This is the result of the clash between two forces, demography and > >mobility. The first story can be told quickly. Continental Europe will > >become, after Japan, the oldest region in the world in terms of the > >proportion of people over the age of 65. The UK becomes older too, but at > >a rather slower rate. The effect of this is that, whereas there are > >currently just under three workers for every pensioner in Germany and > >France, in another decade there will be only two and a quarter. In 2050, > >when young people now entering the workforce are drawing their pensions, > >there will be fewer than one and a half workers for each pensioner. In > >Italy and Spain the ratios are even worse, for there will be more > >pensioners than workers by 2050. In the UK they are rather better: we > >are, as a country, getting older, but more slowly than the Continent. > > > >European governments are well aware of the implications of these changing > >ratios on their finances for, not only will the bulging ranks of > >pensioners need their state > >pensions, they will also be a charge on health and care budgets. However > >governments find it hard to make even modest changes. The present bout of > >French > >strikes is one response to minor revisions to pension entitlements. If the > >protesters knew the extent to which their benefits would have to be cut, > >they would be rioting, not striking. The big fights are still to come -- > >and if the pressure is serious in France it will be greater still in > >Germany, Italy and Spain. > > > >If demography adds to the cost of government, mobility cuts its revenues. > >One form of revenue, company taxation, is already in serious decline, as > >corporations have started to move their activities to low-tax countries. > >For the winners this has been wonderful. Ireland has transformed its > >economy by attracting mainly US companies with tax holidays. It does not > >get revenue directly from the firms, but it does from the people they > >employ locally. > > > >The next stage looks like being the movement of company headquarters. > >There have been examples of German companies moving to Switzerland and US > >ones to Bermuda. But the greatest gainer may well be the States, with this > >administration's new plans to cut tax on dividends.You can see why the > >European Union is anxious to have a reasonable measure of company tax > >harmonisation to stop Ireland scooping more than its share of Europe's > >pool of foreign investment. But the big game is not within Europe; it is > >between Europe and North America and it is hard to see much tax > >harmonisation there. For a firm such as DaimlerChrysler or > >GlaxoSmithKline, the legal headquarters could rationally be on either side > >of the > >Atlantic. If the tax advantages became big enough, they could move. > > > >Over the past 10 years there has already been a sharp fall in company tax > >rates. This, > >I suspect, is a trend that has only just begun. Company taxes are, > >however, only a small proportion of government revenues. Here in Britain > >the rate is less than 8 per > >cent. The big money comes from income tax (including social security > >contributions) and consumption taxes, in particular VAT. So what matters > >is where people earn money, and where they spend it. > > > >For the very rich, the choice of where to live is already very largely > >determined by tax. Tax havens including Monaco and the Channel Islands do > >a great business. There are people who live in the Channel Islands but > >work, in effect, a full week in > >London without, technically, ever being there for tax purposes. > > > >Much more significant is the mobility of the young. You can see this best > >in London, > >which has become a magnet for young professionals from all over Europe and > >indeed North America. The South-east of England has the largest expatriate > >professional community on the globe. Continued professional inward > >migration is one of the reasons why me UN now expects the population of me > >UK to grow by 12 per cent over the next half-century. This compares with a > >rise of 8 per cent in France and falls of 4 per cent and 22 per cent in > >Germany and Italy. > > > >Tax is not the only reason for professional mobility but it is a > >significant one. Young professionals are a hugety attractive proposition > >for any country They bring skills, they create growth, they pay tax both > >on their income and their spending -- and they are not big burdens on > >social security systems. I suspect that one of the main areas of > >competition within Europe will be for just these people and, of course, > >with the EU's single job market they are free to move anywhere. > > > >If that is great for Britain, it is not so much fun for, say, Italy or > >Germany. The nigh-eartimg young move out, leaving an even greater burden > >on the taxpayers who stay. The only way to keep them will be to cut taxes. > >And the more the European economy becomes like the American one, the > >greater the mobility of labour.It follows that if Europe is to become a > >more dynamic economic region, the result will be population movements that > >force down tax levels everywhere. > > > >You can see early signs of this already. In Sweden, the highest-taxed > >country in the > >world, spending has afready fallen from its 1993 peak of 67 per cent of > >GDP to about 52 per cent. The top marginal tax rate is down to about 60 > >per cent (it varies depending on where you live), me same as Britain in > >the 1980s. > > > >In a more or less closed economy, countries are free to choose the size of > >the state sector -- if they want to pay higher tax and get better services > >they are free to vote for that But in an increasingly open economy this > >choice closes off. It is already, in effect, closed for company taxation. > >It is starting to dose for personal taxation too. > > > >So whatever the provisions of the European constitution on tax powers, the > >reality will be set by the market. Of course it can try to buck that > >market. The result could then be rather on the lines suggested by the > >Paris think-tank, the Institut Francais des Relations Internationales. In > >its recent report World Trade in the 21st Century, it warned that the EU, > >even after enlargement, might shrink by 2050 from its present 22 per cent > >of the worid economy to a mere 12 per cent. "A slow but inexorable > >movement onto history's exit ramp is foreseeable." It painted other > >somewhat more optimistic scenarios -- but it makes a sombre backdrop to > >grand ideas about the European constitution. > > >>>> > > > > > >Keith Hudson, 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath, England > > > **************************************************** > Harry Pollard > Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles > Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 > Tel: (818) 352-4141 -- Fax: (818) 353-2242 > http://home.attbi.com/~haledward > **************************************************** > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.484 / Virus Database: 282 - Release Date: 5/27/2003 > _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
