how to pay for this (globally) when its all over

[Hugo Rune]

Don't usually read The Guardian but this article based on the proposals from Elizabeth Warren was actually quite sensible and reasonable on the whole

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/31/bailouts-coronavirus-state-aid

Agreed. Lot of sense there. A great chance to reset ethics, practices and morals of business when they are on their knees begging.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Fully agree. What annoys me is that his argument is always that the wealthy don't have money floating around, it's all tied up in capital. Er, we KNOW. But capital assets can be sold if they are needed to pay tax.

I underpaid my tax last year and the HMRC had the temerity to tell me I still owed some money. When I said "I'm sorry, it's all tied up in houses and cars", they didn't say "ah well that's that then". Funnily enough, they still expected their money, and if I needed to liquidate my assets, that was no concern of theirs.

The quality of wordsmithery on NSC seems to be inversely proportional to the societal level of social calm and certainty. Out of adversity grows insight.

 

[Weststander]

You've conveniently neglected that there are giant pools of wealth sloshing around the system, which have been created in the last few decades, in no small part because the rate of return on capital has exceeded growth rates. This is why an extremely progressive global tax on wealth is the best answer, as Piketty has been proposing for a long time. If you read him, you might enhance your understanding of economics, moving it away from the neoliberal bubble.
The airline industry is still operating, and will be able to handle an aggressive tax on frequent flyers. They might be 'rationalised' as a result of CV19, but they've achieved remarkable growth in the last half century.

Impossible to achieve globally. To name just 4 countries, Ireland, Netherlands, Luxembourg and the States allow and positively encourage tax ‘avoidance’ to draw in immoral multinationals and their tax avoiding owners. France tried it under Hollande, so the astute made moves to leave France, the economy suffered and he was booted out of office.

 

[Weststander]

Just when I thought I was winning....

My pension is fully paid up. Would you suggest I carry on working, as I had intended, and keep my head down, or rush to take the maximum allowable tax free lump sum now before it is Maxwelled by the zeitgeist, and keep my fingers crossed that whatever I will be able to draw monthly, later, won't be half a pint of cat piss?

You’ll be fine.

The other poster’s idea was proved wrong in the 70’s, few would win, we can’t escape the debt.

 

[beorhthelm]

Piketty isn't proposing to tax billionaires out of existence. You obviously haven't read him, so don't attribute things to him that patently are not the case.
Of course wealth isn't sitting around underneath mattresses. The whole point of capitalism is to put capital to work, and the wealthiest understand that better than most. Your whole argument on a wealth tax is just bizarre (why would it only go from the top 0.1% to the top 1%, for instance?).
But you haven't even offered an alternative. I get it that you don't want the richest to pay, because you're their most effective cheerleader on here. So, what does that leave: the poor? Are you going to be honest enough to admit that, or are you claiming that there is nothing to repay?

i thank you for the kind words, im sure im not so effective. the purpose of 90% taxes he has suggested is to prevent billionaires existing. the point about moving from 0.1% to 1% is they would be who can buy the assets. i may not have read Piketty but i get how the basic economics work, i may even support the notion of doing something about absurd amounts of individual wealth, i just know tax isnt the solution. it has been tried before and failed with assets values trashed and investment drops.

the solution to problem of raising cash for government is broad-based taxation at a steady rate without hundreds of loop holes, that discourages avoidance, everyone pays and the rich still pay more. the problem of inequality is not in my view much of a problem because it doesnt actualy help the income or wealth position of the poor, its about state control. when the state needs to invest, they should do the same as business and raise funds backed with decent return to pay back the capital. in response to this crisis government will need to borrow more, hopefully with spending on solid investments that can make up the burden of the costs.

 

[Machiavelli]

Impossible to achieve globally. To name just 4 countries, Ireland, Netherlands, Luxembourg and the States allow and positively encourage tax ‘avoidance’ to draw in immoral multinationals and their tax avoiding owners. France tried it under Hollande, so the astute made moves to leave France, the economy suffered and he was booted out of office.

Hollande did it in a country, on income. Piketty is talking about wealth, not income. There is a register that is emerging on wealth, and the EU has moved on this front in the past year. Contrary to what you say, the US had moved prior to this (with the exception of the state of Delaware). I'm aware that Trump wouldn't buy this, but we might be shot of him soon. Yes, it will be difficult to achieve globally, but it's not impossible. It's a question of political will.
It seems that the other option is that we get some or all of the disabled, poor, workers, students to pay for it as we did last time or, more likely, throw in other categories too, such as pensioners, the self-employed, small businesses, etc

 

[Weststander]

Hollande did it in a country, on income. Piketty is talking about wealth, not income. There is a register that is emerging on wealth, and the EU has moved on this front in the past year. Contrary to what you say, the US had moved prior to this (with the exception of the state of Delaware). I'm aware that Trump wouldn't buy this, but we might be shot of him soon. Yes, it will be difficult to achieve globally, but it's not impossible. It's a question of political will.
It seems that the other option is that we get some or all of the disabled, poor, workers, students to pay for it as we did last time or, more likely, throw in other categories too, such as pensioners, the self-employed, small businesses, etc

Why don’t we all pay far more in taxes, as they do in Sweden, Denmark and Finland? Online net pay calculators show that on a typical UK/Swedish salary, they suffer 45% in total direct taxes, and we have Swedish friends who confirm this. Perhaps not to that extent, but those above average pay, shirley quite a few more pence in the pound is doable, all the way up to higher and additional rate taxpayers.

 

[Horses Arse]

One thing's for sure. Whereas the great British public were convinced by our wonderful free thinking press that the impacts of the 2008 global banking crash was the Labour governments fault, the fall out from this will have nothing to do with the Conservative government.

Sent from my Pixel 4 using Tapatalk

 

[Machiavelli]

Why don’t we all pay far more in taxes, as they do in Sweden, Denmark and Finland? Online net pay calculators show that on a typical UK/Swedish salary, they suffer 45% in total direct taxes, and we have Swedish friends who confirm this. Perhaps not to that extent, but those above average pay, shirley quite a few more pence in the pound is doable, all the way up to higher and additional rate taxpayers.

I'm more than happy to pay more taxes, especially if it's done progressively, and is oriented towards assets rather than labour/income (because it's the latter that will pull us out of the recession and, in the longer term, reduce the debt). But the ability of national governments to collect taxes has been reduced in recent decades through the growth of the tax avoidance/aggressive evasion industry, and that just can't be done at a national level -- it has to come at a postnational (and ideally global) level, which is already starting to happen (as transparency and a register is the starting point for this to occur). Add in just what will happen to, for instance, sub-Saharan Africa once this reaches them, with poor healthcare provision, self-isolation increasingly difficult with shanty-towns, etc, and that so much of their economies are oriented towards tourism (which will require a coordinated international response in order to get back up-and-running) -- all of this indicates the necessity for increased global cooperation. This happened in 2008, it could happen again. I maintain that we need to get rid of Trump before this has a chance of happening (and even then it'll be difficult, and there will be resistance from certain actors, eg Orban, Putin, Bolsanaro).

 

[Machiavelli]

One thing's for sure. Whereas the great British public were convinced by our wonderful free thinking press that the impacts of the 2008 global banking crash was the Labour governments fault, the fall out from this will have nothing to do with the Conservative government.

Sent from my Pixel 4 using Tapatalk

And what wonderful things the banks are doing in order to get us out of this predicament.