Perhaps that answers the question, then, of why these voters don't vote:
they are ignored in future elections because they haven't voted in the
past?
Perhaps the savvy campaign manger might eventually realize that the
untapped (and probably uncontested) source of votes is in the slummier high
rise area?
L
I think she probably knows that. Her husband used to Mayor.
The problem is time. With so little of it, you concentrate on the known
voters.
Ed Weick
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 12:57
PM
Subject: RE: [Futurework] Exit ramp for
Europe
I am thinking not so much that there will be super-angry misguided
people, but that there will be super complacent and passive disgruntled
people, with nothing to ignite or lead an effort to redress the
problem....
What do you think?
Lawry
I'm doing some work with a candidate
for municipal council during the forthcoming election. One of the
first things his campaign manager, a very savvy lady, did was divide the
ward into areas in which people vote and areas in which they don't
vote. She used statistics from the city to help her do this.
About half the people are known to vote and they live in the well
heeled parts of the ward. Naturally, my aspiring politician friend
will concentrate on them and not bother much with the people who live in
the high rises or the slummier areas. Question: How to get the
people from the slummier areas to vote so that the smart young lawyer who
lives in one of them and could change things can get elected?
Ed Weick
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 10:23
AM
Subject: RE: [Futurework] Exit ramp
for Europe
I am thinking not so much that there will be super-angry
misguided people, but that there will be super complacent and passive
disgruntled people, with nothing to ignite or lead an effort to redress
the problem....
What do you think?
Lawry
Lawry:
Is it possible that there may be no flashpoint this time? Is it
possible that the security of the super-greedy and their perceived
legitimacy have been so well-constructed and embedded in the social
consciousness that their depredations will simply remain invisible,
and their bases of power and place hidden.
Usually, super angry people don't go after the right
targets. Like Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma or some of the
militias they're just too primed to blow something up or shoot
somebody. Nothing changes. Innocent people get hurt or
killed and things just become more stupid.
Ed Weick
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 9:45
AM
Subject: RE: [Futurework] Exit
ramp for Europe
Is it possible that there may be no flashpoint this time? Is
it possible that the security of the super-greedy and their
perceived legitimacy have been so well-constructed and embedded in
the social consciousness that their depredations will simply remain
invisible, and their bases of power and place
hidden.
Without cheers,
Lawry
Maybe, Ed, you are part of the problem.
That may be so. Part of
me, the cussed part, tells me that I shoud let things deteriorate
to some flashpoint. Another part, the compassionate, says
yeah but what about the poor mothers and the older guys from the
Ottawa Valley? And yet another part, the guilty, gnaws at me
because I'm retired and have a decent income. God life is
hell when you're comfortable!
Ed Weick
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, May 29,
2003 3:53 PM
Subject: RE: [Futurework]
Exit ramp for Europe
Maybe, Ed, you are part of the
problem.
I'm a masochist. I'll never leave the food
bank.
Ed Weick
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, May 29,
2003 3:09 PM
Subject: RE:
[Futurework] Exit ramp for Europe
Have it your way Ray. But when
the gas tax was first proposed it was fought by vested
interests (autos and highway lobbies). The feds wanted
to introduce it first but backed down under
pressure. It was first introduced, I
believe, by Oregon and later by the federal
government.
An indirect tax, a stealth tax on
network activities if you will, can go a long way to
monetize much of the productivity that is currently
taking place but is not counted anywhere in our system of
national accounts. So we feel poorer than we actually
are. If we could monetize some of this productivity,
tax it in the form of a bit tax and use it to help provide a
Basic Income, then Ed Weick can leave his thankless tasks at
the food bank (some pun on "bank") and can produce his
delightful essays for his web site.
arthur
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
-----
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
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
|