That's what I've been saying to the dumb Democrats
for years.
REH
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 12:57 PM
Subject: RE: [Futurework] Exit ramp for
Europe
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
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
|