Taxați proprietatea imobiliară, JAPIȚELOR!!!

Update: Moştenitorii familiei Onassis îşi vând insulele greceşti din cauza taxelor usturătoare
____________________________________________

Taxați munca cu ~50%!

Taxați consumul cu 24%!

Taxați profitul (declarat) cu 16%!

"Taxați" proprietatea imobiliară cu ~0.0001-0.01%!


Frustrații din documentarul de mai jos spun că 6% ar fi de ajuns.

Într-un astfel de scenariu, japițele securiste ar fi scuturate de "valuoare" brutal, într-o primă fază, (datorită "efectului de bază" asupra raportului dintre cerere și ofertă) și ireversibil până la ultimul metru pătrat, în doar câțiva ani. Asta dacă nu cumva vor deveni peste noapte antreprenori talentați (independent de PDL, PSD sau PNL), fie vor forța nota la blowjob sfârșind în "pârnăi" :).

E important să aveți în vedere o realitate crudă, românii sunt clocarzi, stau claie grămăda... unii peste alții, drept urmare impozitul pe metrul pătrat se împarte la 5... 13 familii. :D

Așadar, care ar fi securiștii cei mai triști din lume... înfrânți, violați și ciuruiți?

What you have had since about 1980 is an inversion of what the classical liberals fought for. The rentier interests have fought back against the reformers, and they have won increasingly radical victories to reverse centuries of seeming reform along democratic economic lines.  The rentier interests have fought back against the reformers, and they have won increasingly radical victories to reverse centuries of seeming reform along democratic economic lines.   If you look back at what writers in the early 20th  century expected to see as a result of technological progress and rising productivity, we should be living in a Utopia by now. Suppose you had been told in 1945 about the breakthroughs in medicine, atomic energy, jet aircraft, electronics, computerized gadgets. If you had been told all this back in 1945 when World War II ended, you would have been justified in expecting that we would have a life of leisure by now. You would have wondered how much anyone would need to work each week. Statistics for productivity growth since 1945 show that agricultural productivity has soared even more than manufacturing productivity in the United States. So has productivity in mining – just the reverse of what Ricardian rent theory forecast.   

So why are employees working longer hours and more intensively? Why are entire families – wives as well as elderly men – being forced into the labour force instead of having the life of leisure that technology seemed to promise? Why are life spans shortening, heart disease rising along with strokes and cardiovascular disease in the post-Soviet economies where neoliberal planners have had the freest hand to reengineer “freemarkets”? Nobody expected this.

People are suffering. They know that something is wrong. But nobody has stepped forth and said that it does not have to be this way. There is an alternative. (I will suggest some later.)   The great problem of our time is financialization of our economic life – our business, our personal life and the government itself. By financialization I mean capitalizing every form of surplus income: personal income over and above basic expenditures, corporate income over and above cash flow (that is, after meeting the break-even cost of doing business), and whatever the government can collect in taxes over and above its outlay. All these flows of revenue can be pledged for bank loans at the going interest rate. From the banker’s point of view, equilibrium is reached at the point where the entire economic surplus is paid out as interest. The whole economy is capitalized, and the capitalized value is taken as the measure of the nation’s financial wealth.   The problem is that paying out all the economic surplus as interest leaves nothing over for living standards and hence labor productivity to rise, nothing for corporations to invest in new tangible capital formation, and no government spending for infrastructure or other social and economic needs. A Dark Age descends. Financialization of an economy thus becomes a form of neofeudalism, especially as bankers prefer to lend against collateral already in place than to finance new enterprise, and to back rent-seeking than more risky new direct investment. 

... 

The maximum market price for real estate, corporate industry and other assets is defined by however much a bank will lend. Housing prices, for example, achieve financial equilibrium when a buyer fully mortgages the property’s rental flow. The same is true of commercial office investment. Corporate raiders make a similar calculation when they sit down with their investment banker to calculate – and pledge – the cash flow to obtain a bank loan or sell junk bonds to the financiers. Market equilibrium is reached where a company’s value is its value to raiders, which in turn is as much as banks and bondholders are willing to lend.  This is what the business schools teach students these days. The idea is to cannibalize an economy by turning over the entire surplus to the financial sector. The problem is that few financial returns are spent on goods and services or invested in new means of production. Most are lent out. The limit is reached and the economy collapses at the point where all the surplus revenue is capitalized to pay debt service. No money is left over for new capital investment, not even depreciation set-asides to replace equipment that is wearing out. No seed money is left, no revenue for governments to spend on infrastructure because all is earmarked to pay bondholders. Families are unable to afford an education or save for their retirement. 

The economy turns down not because of the reason that John Maynard Keynes worried about in his General Theory – the prospect of people saving too much as economies became more prosperous – but because families, industry and the government have run too deeply into debt to afford to buy enough goods and services to keep the circular flow (“Say’s Law”) intact between production and consumption. Market demand and employment shrink. That is the essence of debt deflation, and that is the problem that is plaguing economies today.

...

  I find it remarkable that nobody has pointed out that Adam Smith did not say what neoliberals repeat when they count him as their patron saint. His aim, and that of subsequent classical reformers, was to free society from privatized land rent, from financial interest and fees, and from monopoly rents. It was to isolate these forms of revenue that classical economists developed their analysis and quantified it in the 18 and 19th centuries. These revenues come from purely property rights and privilege, not from basic technological or economic necessity. Inevitably, the rentiers fought back. They naturally preferred a post-classical economics that was careful to avoid looking at what is really important in life, especially at how wealth was being obtained. Wealthy people like to think of themselves as earning income, not extracting it or getting a free ride. They even like to think of themselves as hosts, not as parasites – it is the poor, the welfare recipients and even their employees who are the parasites whose income is to be minimized, not their own privileged rake-off income, which they demand should receive special tax benefits because the wealthy financial classes are so essential for economic survival. ...

Yet I have heard no public discussion here (i.e. Australia) of holding down real estate prices and mortgage debt by increasing the land tax. Politicians avoid this because taxpayers react negatively to any kind of a tax rise. The distinction between economically efficient and inefficient taxes has been lost from public discussion. A revenue neutral tax shift – lowering sales taxes and income taxes on wages by the amount that property taxes are raised – would not take in any more tax revenue than now. But it would levy taxes in a way that holds down property prices. A positive financial  effect would be to leave less revenue available for banks to capitalize into interest  charges. Holding down housing and real estate prices – and debt – would lower the  cost of living and doing business. This would make the economy lower cost. That  should be the aim of every economy – to minimize the cost of living and doing business.

Sursa: The Counter-Enlightenment, its Economic Program – and the Classical Alternative - Michael Hudson 

Despre neofeudalism puteți citi mai mult aici sau pe blogul neofeudalistului Mihai Giurgea.

Despre financiarism și reforme "..." aici.