The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


One for Robin Hood - Positive Money

Feel free to talk about anything that you want.

Re: One for Robin Hood - Positive Money

Postby Robin Hood » Sat Jun 18, 2016 5:42 pm

RW:
1. The refrigerator manufacturer will sum up the list of parts that goes into their product to determine its cost, ...................................... the tax an additional sum is added. Imported products that are in competition will be expected to pay the same amount of tax, if their product uses a similar technology. ................ however, now have new variables, in their accounting process, the second column, to evaluate costs........................ but having a significantly lower tax content, because the machine is more efficient, and self sustaining; all its parts recyclable, without toxic waste.


What would happen if factories in two different countries ‘A’ and ‘B’ produced the identical goods and exported them to country ‘C’?

Let’s make it simple and assume all the components in both refrigerators were identical, they both meet the same specification and environmental requirements and the respective products were of equal quality BUT:

• Country A paid €5 hr for labour, limited sick pay, 2 weeks holiday, no Company pension scheme and paid 15% of gross salary as social security tax. Their labour costs are low.

• Country B paid €30 hr for labour, sick pay for say 6 months p.a., 4 weeks annual + 5 days public holidays paid, a Company pension scheme but the same 15% for social security tax. Their labour costs are high.

The item from country A would be far cheaper than the one produced in country B but of equal quality. Would this ‘pre-tax’ be the same for each item or would this system apply the tax to the labour costs as well? If this was so that would be a Tarriff ..... or protectionism. Effectively country A would be paying a high rate of income tax to the client country C, but B would not?

Or am I reading it wrong? :| :?:
Robin Hood
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2537
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 7:18 pm
Location: Limassol

Re: One for Robin Hood - Positive Money

Postby repulsewarrior » Sun Jun 19, 2016 4:11 am

...indeed, an interesting question.

You get the point; using existing technology, the taxes on the components, like the refrigerant will be high, and the tax as a sum of these components could be lowered with advanced designs; the question becomes, who designs, who manufactures?

How, in a Global Market can resources, such as Labour, be most effectively applied? In any case, whether it is A or B, the companies that profit from International Trade have to step-up their game with a population that can see a number, the amount of Tax they are paying inherent in a Total Cost, for any specific product, a value they can change.

...i imagine country C has its own manufacturers, and that they too qualify for an equal evaluation of their Goods and Services, regarding their externalities, the cost of which described as Taxation.

...at every level of production, with such an 'indirect' tax, Labour, Land, and Capital, can also be held to the same scrutiny; and as a result there is the possibility, through action, to lower the tax and to improve.

...in effect the country with such a tax model can say, the consumption of Goods and Services have externalities which are identifiable; to sell a Good or Service, the cost of these externalities are defined.

...ironically, the idea, of an indirect tax, in the 19th century, as a Manufacturers' Tax, originally, was precisely to apply governance (regionally) to machines and the jobs they replaced.
User avatar
repulsewarrior
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 7607
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 2:13 am
Location: homeless in Canada

Re: One for Robin Hood - Positive Money

Postby Robin Hood » Wed Jun 22, 2016 4:13 pm

RW:
I can see that this could be useful but it has one flaw as far as I can see. It is far too complex to apply! The more complex the system the more it can be abused and fiddled. I have always been a great believer in keeping things simple.

Think about something like a mobile/smart phone and the number of separate materials that are in it? From gold, silicon, selenium, plastics, resins, copper, lead, tin, aluminium, steel, rubber etc .... the list is very long and all need to be assessed to determine the impact of its production on the environment from when it is dug out of the ground to the point it ends up as a component in your smart phone. That would be an enormous undertaking.

Better to just make sure they all conform to required standards, those found not too comply are not cleared for world wide distribution. Do what you like locally but the doors to wide spread distribution would be closed.

I still think Positive Money are on the right track as far as money creation is concerned. Get that implemented and we won’t need to worry about income tax but we will still need, similar to your suggestion, a graduated purchase tax where essentials are zero rated or even subsidised and luxury good hit with high level of purchase tax. Import tariffs could be based on a relative cost factor for each country, revised annually, bringing the resale price in line with other countries.

We could literally swap systems overnight as we did when we suddenly started using the Euro instead of the CY pound but national currencies would become worthless outside the borders of that country. They would have to be changed to move them around ....... maybe something like BitCoin but certainly not a currency that is created by just one country as is the dollar, pound, euro etc. No more reserve currencies and even better no more currency traders! :roll: :wink:
Robin Hood
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2537
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 7:18 pm
Location: Limassol

Re: One for Robin Hood - Positive Money

Postby repulsewarrior » Wed Jun 22, 2016 9:42 pm

...indeed, it is the complexity of life that has exploded. This, because of the complexity of our thinking.

General System Theory is able in its application to define this world as it is, kind of a Catch-22, one does not exist without the other.

The manufacturer of a cell phone has a Bill of Material, two columns, to describe the monetary details of these items will be needed, rather than one; this is the difference to them.
...and as for the Tax that they are obliged to impose additionally, many factors would be involved, but whatever they are, all manufacturers would face the same criteria;
transparency will make evasion difficult, and avoidance only possible by reducing the externalities in the products they sell.

...think about the myriad of Income Tax Law, you must remain informed about to pay this tax. A tax like this allows for evasion, and avoidance, because it can be seen as unfair; what is evaded, and avoided is allusive, with nothing specific that this tax is attributable to, but, General Funds. Income Tax Law that is simple, based on a Flat Tax (between 5 and 11 percent), will encourage productivity, especially if it strictly represents the cost of Good Government. Having few deductions and credits, may reduce its effectiveness as a behavioural tool. Retirement funds, and the like may be encouraged, however, with the Governments' offering of (long-term) Medical Care, and (better) Pension/Saving Funds, with each tax season.

Eliminating the complexity of Income Tax will allow for the same government resources to be put toward a "GST" (Goods and Services Tax); with effects and affects that are measurable, and subject to change, with changing consuming habits. The Government can be seen as an "arm-length" broker, providing to consumers their actuarial skill, so that as informed consumers, they make their choices. Revenue, is offset by equal and identifiable Government Programs; their effectiveness will also be exposed, for the concerned Citizens' consideration. Improvements to them, the Programs, will be more likely, being compared to objectives that have been clearly stated as a tax rate.

Changing "Money", what it means is necessary; but as Ben Franklin once said, Death and Taxes are two things you can be sure of.
Taxes are more easily changed, i think, because changing money would require an even greater revolution of confidence and thought.
Whether money is 'Free' or not, Taxes should identify what 'it' costs, with the motive of getting 'it' done.
User avatar
repulsewarrior
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 7607
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 2:13 am
Location: homeless in Canada

Re: One for Robin Hood - Positive Money

Postby repulsewarrior » Sat Jun 25, 2016 12:30 am

The International Monetary Fund has called for comprehensive US tax reform that would reduce statutory income tax rates, make individual tax more progressive, and re-balance the tax code from direct to indirect taxes.

The IMF noted "an urgent need to tackle poverty," which could be helped by "a more generous earned income tax credit (including eligibility for workers without dependents, those under 25, and older workers that are not yet eligible for social security)." The progressivity of income taxation could also be increased by "capping itemized deductions, including for mortgage interest, to lessen the tax benefit for the most well off."

"Reform of the corporate income tax is badly needed and could help revitalize business dynamism and investment," the IMF continued. "In addition to rate reduction and a streamlining of business tax expenditures, tax avoidance opportunities should be reduced by tightening income-stripping rules through limits on interest deductions."

"For outbound investment," it added, "the US corporate tax system should adopt a territorial system but impose a minimum rent tax on the foreign earnings of US corporations. There should also be a mandatory tax on the existing stock of un-repatriated, foreign-sourced earnings (with payment spread over the next several years)."

"Finally," the IMF concluded, "as has been advocated in past consultations, additional revenues should be generated through the introduction of a federal-level value-added tax and a broad-based carbon tax, including an increase in the federal gas tax."

- See more at: http://www.tax-news.com/news/IMF_Presse ... YPHuC.dpuf
User avatar
repulsewarrior
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 7607
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 2:13 am
Location: homeless in Canada

Re: One for Robin Hood - Positive Money

Postby Robin Hood » Sat Jun 25, 2016 6:20 am

So ..... WE are not alone? :D

I will post later .... a bit busy for the last few days but you have made some good points. I think we are on the same road, going in the same direction ..... just in different lanes! :wink:
Robin Hood
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2537
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 7:18 pm
Location: Limassol

Re: One for Robin Hood - Positive Money

Postby Robin Hood » Tue Jul 05, 2016 4:06 pm

RW:

Our thoughts on the subject of income tax and a tax on goods are similar. You want to see a reduction in income tax, I want to see it disappear completely and both of us want a shift to putting the tax on goods on services. The system you detail seems to me to be too complex. It may be a fair way of applying tax but its complexity will open it up to avoidance just as the complexity of income tax makes that avoidable if you know how.
Changing "Money", what it means is necessary; but as Ben Franklin once said, Death and Taxes are two things you can be sure of.

But of course in Ben Franklin’s day ..... I don’t believe the US had income tax. That only came into being with the creation of the First National Bank a forerunner to the FED.
Taxes are more easily changed, i think, because changing money would require an even greater revolution of confidence and thought.

I don’t agree with that statement. Both income tax and money are changeable and really in a very simple way.

As Positive Money suggests, the creation of money has to revert to being a responsibility of the Central Bank instead of being created by private commercial bank. This is the way bank notes are created and have been so for generations, why not electronic money as well. The method of money creation whether by banks or the Central Bank, is identical This change has nothing but advantages for both bank borrowers and ultimately Government borrowing.

A commercial bank creates new money every time it makes a loan. It does this simply as a data entry on a keyboard ...... effectively it creates a number on a ledger. Because the loan had no origin other than a few key strokes, the bank has no liability to repay. When it recovers the loan it simply writes this number to zero ...... it destroys the ‘money’.

At the bank nothing will change as far as the customer is concerned. He will still go to the bank to borrow money, but now the bank will have to borrow it from the Central Bank. The government controls both the interest rate and the mark up by the banks.

This of course will radically change the accounting system of the banks! They no longer have loans as 'assets'; they now have a liability to repay the Central Bank. Bank deposits become assets of the customer not a bank liability and the bank just charges you for looking after it by charging for services. The banks are now intermediaries, not the source of money. They will still make a profit but the inherent risks within the current system, disappears. No more risk of bank runs. NPL’s would be resolved by transferring the customers debt to the Government and they make the decisions as to how to deal with each NPL on a case-by-case basis.

If the function of the creation of money is done by the Central Bank, in exactly the same way, it also creates new money. One huge difference ....... it is not created as a loan, it is created as a perpetual currency. It is in continuous circulation ‘ad infinitum’. No need for income tax as there is no loan or interest to pay. The tax on goods is collected by the treasury and they then re-spend the same money back into the economy. The taxes are now imposed on spending rather than income and can be graduated according to their ‘luxury vs necessity’ rating, rather than an ‘environmental’ based tax.

This requires a Sovereign currency which only has value within the State. Like the Cyprus pound used to be. To convert it to a trading currency, the conversion has to be through the Central Bank where they have the foreign currency reserves.

If someone hoards large quantities of the sovereign currency and decides he wants to take it abroad, the Central Bank imposes a transfer tax on behalf of government. A small amount for a holiday or business trip ..... no problem .... tax free. But if you want to move many thousands to invest elsewhere, you pay a tax on the basis of ‘the-more-you-have-the-more-you-pay’. So it is, in a way, similar to income tax but only payable when you want to convert it and take it abroad. If you want to bring a foreign currency into the country you declare it, the Central Bank converts it to Sovereign currency at a predetermined rate ...... no tax. If you just pile up the money in the bank it is of no use as it is not spent into the economy .......... so you may just as well spend it and benefit.
Whether money is 'Free' or not, Taxes should identify what 'it' costs, with the motive of getting 'it' done.

Rather than what it costs being the basis of a goods and services tax, maybe its level of luxury should determine the goods/services tax rate. Quite easy to implement if you have just a digital currency because every transaction has to be electronic and software would prevent tax avoidance ...... no more ‘cash-under-the-table’ deals because there would be no cash.

With rose coloured spectacles on :roll: ........... with the UK out of the EU and with the casino banks separated completely from the commercial banks, this could be implemented in exactly the same way as Cyprus went from the CY£ to the € over a weekend. With modern computer system a single ‘enter’ could achieve the transfer in seconds.

There is only one problem :? :shock: ....... The Bankers would never allow it to happen as it would demolish their power base. All the trillions they hold as Government debt would become a sovereign currency overnight and their unlimited wealth would evaporate. Many have tried to wrench the power from the Bankers and most have paid with their lives ..... several US Presidents among them.

But it’s nice to dream but I'm keeping a low profile just in case! :? 8)
Robin Hood
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2537
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 7:18 pm
Location: Limassol

Re: One for Robin Hood - Positive Money

Postby repulsewarrior » Sat Jul 09, 2016 12:19 am

...but luxury is not the problem, what 'it' costs is the problem, or at least, in the price of the good or service, the 'costs', along with a total price are revealed.

what is a luxury good?

...a refrigerator that when disposed of costs a great deal to be handled properly, or a refrigerator when taken apart has other uses; which merits a higher tax?

a cigarette which is harmful as are the cigarettes manufactured today, or a cigarette which is edible, does not cause horrible diseases, and does not burn houses down?

a glass of milk is not a luxury bought from a grocery store to drink at home, i would think, and yet that same glass of milk in a bar should be, in my mind, because the milk, beside the 'tax' inherent in its cost (which remains unchanging), there exists the tax that will be charged at point of purchase; bars are luxuries.

And as i have said before, the GST as a theory makes living as we do, possible. It is the same mathematical model governments use to determine the value of said economy, and it is not hard to imagine it effectively used to determine an economy's externalities by its goods and services.

Money, and taxes do not serve the same function; although the GST that i am suggesting would define the externalities related to Money being treated as a good.
User avatar
repulsewarrior
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 7607
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 2:13 am
Location: homeless in Canada

180,000 vote for london to be a CITY STATE in the EU

Postby Paul ZKTV » Sat Jul 09, 2016 9:37 am

Petitioning Mayor of London Sadiq Khan
Declare London independent from the UK and apply to join the EU.

London is an international city, and we want to remain at the heart of Europe.
Let's face it - the rest of the country disagrees. So rather than passive aggressively vote against each other at every election, let's make the divorce official and move in with our friends on the continent.

This petition is calling on Mayor Sadiq Khan to declare London independent, and apply to join the EU - including membership of the Schengen Zone (Umm, we'll talk about the Euro...).

Mayor Sadiq, wouldn't you prefer to be President Sadiq? Make it happen!
User avatar
Paul ZKTV
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 376
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2015 10:16 am
Location: Zürich

Re: 180,000 vote for london to be a CITY STATE in the EU

Postby Robin Hood » Sat Jul 09, 2016 10:48 am

Paul ZKTV wrote:Petitioning Mayor of London Sadiq Khan
Declare London independent from the UK and apply to join the EU.

London is an international city, and we want to remain at the heart of Europe.
Let's face it - the rest of the country disagrees. So rather than passive aggressively vote against each other at every election, let's make the divorce official and move in with our friends on the continent.

This petition is calling on Mayor Sadiq Khan to declare London independent, and apply to join the EU - including membership of the Schengen Zone (Umm, we'll talk about the Euro...).

Mayor Sadiq, wouldn't you prefer to be President Sadiq? Make it happen!


Has any one a clue what this brain dead idiot is on about? :roll:
Robin Hood
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2537
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 7:18 pm
Location: Limassol

PreviousNext

Return to General Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests