Comments on: Debts and tax – a small point

By: john

john — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 16:24:31 +0000

Unclear
By wealth I mean your house your savings shares any other property whos value more or less tracks or exceeds inflation.
Nothing much to argue about there then.
£300,000 each so £600,000 for a couple and no inheritence tax.

By: ahimsa

ahimsa — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 11:53:16 +0000

@ Unclear

"What do you mean by wealth?"

Excellent question!

Re the tax debate, has this Michael Hudson Interview been posted already?
Why America Had a 90% Income Tax

By: john

john — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 10:39:32 +0000

In Ellen Browns web of debt its quite clear that those who slid out from under the world bank/imf tyranny [and these are the same revolving door bankstards as the self selecting arbiters of what constitutes a free market or free trade at the wto], did much better than those that accepted 'help'.
The other main defence against these rapacious predators was not having a freely convertable currency thus avoiding speculative raids. Like China.
Whilst I think we should approach things with a global perspective and a commitment to free trade it should be states that decide how best to serve their people within that framework. Surrendering any soveriegnty even if it was clear that the higher 'power' was benign is an acceptance of a yoke, and who wants to be a yokel.
As to corporations since they are non sentient and thus mere vehicles they should be held to a much higher standard of accountability than people, no presumed innocence maybe?
'They' sure know how to hide unpopular news http://thedailybell.com/1887/Silent-Coup-EU-Takes-Over-Europe.html

By: Unclear

Unclear — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 10:24:27 +0000

I'd like to ask John a couple of questions if I may.

What do you mean by 'wealth'?

And what do you think happens to it currently?

By: Golem XIV - Thoughts

Golem XIV - Thoughts — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 19:46:06 +0000

John,

as I have said i am no tax expert but I too feel a tax on accumulated wealth would be fairer. Of course there are all the usual capital flight arguments. And it is those argument that point the way for me to what we really need to consider. Which is rejecting the tenets of globalization - particularly the free flow of capital.

I think we will always be powerless to regulate, never mind control capital unlesss we embrace capital controls and firmly reject, as self serving cant, the arguments which say you cannot protect a nation's financial and economic system from outside predation.

I also think we must roll back the way corporations have gained for themselves rights which should only apply to people. I think this perhaps arcane sounding point is essential to any recovery of democracy.

Thanks for posting your comment.

By: john

john — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 19:31:40 +0000

Since no one else is saying it, wealth should be taxed too, since the rich are the only ones with the collateral to create businesses/jobs impose a tax at a level that covers the basic cost of living in any given society. In our current circumstances allow say £300,000 each before its levied then say 1% on every £500,000 ,or part, over up to a max of 10% but then 10% on everything. With no allowances for any legal entity other than a person.
And how about a turnover tax, 15%?, for mature business sectors say where fewer than 5 players control 67% of the market.

By: JamieGriffiths

JamieGriffiths — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 12:53:30 +0000

Guido,

Making the monetary system transparent and putting it in the hands of the people is a noble goal in and of itself. I'm right behind you there.

By: guidoromero

guidoromero — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 14:32:53 +0000

The key to transparency is to place the authority to manage the monetary system in the hands of the people. Once the monetary system is transparent, the rest follows. The monetary system is the framework within which all other dynamics evolve. There is nothing upstream of the monetary system. Nothing.

But thank you for the debate though we may come from different points of view.

By: JamieGriffiths

JamieGriffiths — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 13:49:40 +0000

Hi Guido,

Thanks for replying - I think we might be coming from different ends of the philosphical spectrum on this one though; our ideas of utopia are wildly divergent, I fear. It's not that I don't get how a free and transparent market SHOULD provide maximum efficiency and freedom, it's just that I don't think free and transparent markets are possible to achieve in any kind of practical way. Any kind of interference, however small, compromises the the whole market. So in my mind they can't ever exist in a human setting because humans just aren't capable of not interfering.

By: guidoromero

guidoromero — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 02:07:04 +0000

This scheme also presumes the use of either a value based monetary system or of a fixed fiat monetary system.

The current debt based fiat monetary system is incompatible with streamlined fiscality or regulation.