by MrBill » Wed 26 Sep 2007, 06:00:41
Concerned, never the less within three generations the distribution of wealth would probably look very similar once again. Given post peak oil depletion probably more of a smaller economic pie.
If you did have globalized labor unions then jobs would flow to only those countries that possess sustainable competitive advantages. That would impoverish those that do not. Forget Africa or Latin America with their lack of infrastructure, or even France with its adversion to hardwork, you would only want your factory in Germany where labor productivity is its highest.
If income was taxed worldwide at one uniform rate then investment would gravitate only to those countries with the absolute lowest costs. Again forget France or even America you would only locate your factories in low cost countries like Chindia. A level playing field is exactly that, but what do under-performers do when they are up against a superior team? They lose.
The only reason some companies might have operations in high cost, high tax regimes is if they can offset those higher costs by booking profits elsewhere either through subsidiaries or internal pricing. And tax competition between countries keeps tax and spend politicians honest. This tends to lower the rate for all rather than clustering at the top marginal rate where the incentive to innovate or invest is blunted by punitively high tax rates.
Governments need on average taxes of approximately 25-percent, which is still three working months out of each year per citizen, to fund basic infrastructure and social spending. Anything over and above 25-percent is just a tax grab and is a wealth transfer from its most to its least productive citizens. The rest is just wasted on big government and pork barrel politics.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')There seems to be almost universal agreement that one of the great ills of the United States is that wealthy people do not pay enough taxes. The facts, however, suggest that higher income people in the US are anything but under taxed.
According to an Op/Ed piece in the April 2007 Wall Street Journal, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reports that in 2004, people making more than $43,000 (the upper 40%) pay 99.1% of all taxes. That, of course, means that the lower 60% of the American population pay under 1% of federal taxes.
But there is more. The top 10% earners in the United States, those families making more than $87,300, pay almost 71% of all federal taxes. What makes this so remarkable is that in 1979 the top 10% paid only 48%.
Heaven forbid that a person be in the top one percent of earners in this country; according to the same CBO report, their part of the total federal tax bill was 37%.
Source:
Soaking the Rich Will Backfire on the PoliticiansNow I do not know about you, but I do not consider $43.000 a year gross, what approximately $25.800 or just $2150 per month net, a great deal of take home pay for my hardwork everyday. And neither should anyone else that studied, works hard, pays their taxes and tries to build a life for themselves and their families. Why would I want some parasitic politician or world labor congress trying to get an even bigger slice of my sweat equity?
A flat-tax for all with no exceptions and no deductions is the fairest, easiest and cheapest to collect tax regime, but it remains unpopular amoung the closet socialist crowd. Unfortunately, as along with mandatory balanced budgets it would unlock a lot of productivity and wealth creation, while draining funds away from inefficient, big government machines.
If we are all going to be paid the same for our efforts then I want to work as a ski patroller in the winter, and maybe in summer I can paint socialist realism paintings glorifying our benevolent leaders who make us all equal, just some more equal than others. Oh yah, and I want to live & work somewhere nice. Not too cold, not too hot, temperate and close to the mountains. No Kruchev era apartment block and 10-hour shift at the tractor factory in Norilsk for me thank you very much, comrade.
But as I said, within three generations all that collective wealth would probably all end up back in the hands of the quick, clever and most industrious. Well, those and our 'new' corrupt elites. Read Ayn Rand's 'Atlas Shrugged' for a good primer on grabbing for a larger share of a shrinking economic pie.
Speaking of financial innovation you just cannot stop it can you? Find a niche and fill it. Or create a new one. That is the market economy at work. New ideas. More innovation.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')Barclays Capital, the investment banking unit of Barclays Plc, created the European Borrowing Unit, or Ebu, based on a portfolio of 10 major currencies and aimed above all at corporate and institutional borrowers, the Financial Times reported.
It's a basket of long and short currency positions against the euro; weightings within the portfolio will be generated monthly using a statistical technique aimed at minimizing volatility for a given level of return, the newspaper said.
The Ebu is intended to be an alternative to low-yielding currencies such as the Yen and the Swiss franc, the FT said.
Phillipos Kassimatis, Barclays Capital's co-chief of foreign-exchange structuring, told the newspaper that the Ebu is designed to optimize clients' funding costs on foreign-exchange loans.
Source: Sept. 24 (Bloomberg)
And...
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')Foreign-exchange trading rose 65 percent to a record $3.2 trillion a day on average, led by growth in hedge funds and foreign investors, the Bank for International Settlements said in its triennial survey.
The increase in the value of transactions from 2004 was the biggest in the survey's 18-year history, the Basel, Switzerland-
based BIS said today. At current exchange rates, turnover rose
71 percent. The Central Bank Survey of Foreign Exchange and
world's central banks and monetary authorities.