For or against the social VAT?

Current Economy and Sustainable Development-compatible? GDP growth (at all costs), economic development, inflation ... How concillier the current economy with the environment and sustainable development.
User avatar
jlt22
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 414
Registration: 04/04/09, 13:37
Location: Guingamp 69 years

For or against the social VAT?




by jlt22 » 08/11/10, 14:01

The social vat begins to debate among our politicians.
It would aim to fight offshoring and save our social system.

Wilkipédia explains to us what social VAT is:

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/TVA_sociale

There are pros and cons by 2 economists on the website of Le Monde:

http://www.lemonde.fr/politique/article ... 23448.html

The FOR:

"The principle of social VAT consists in transferring employer charges borne by wages to another source of taxation: the CSG or VAT, with a constant budget. It is not a question of increasing VAT to pay for new expenses of the state or to compensate for tax cuts decided by the government but to finance collective social protection.

Social VAT is beneficial if and only if it is applied in a very specific context. To do this, it is first necessary to distinguish individual social protection from collective social protection (family and health policy).
Individual social protection depends on the income of the individual. The more money you make, the more important your retirement, unemployment benefits and sickness benefits. It is justified that this type of protection is financed by social security contributions from wages, and this has been the case since 1945.

Collective social protection depends on citizenship. You live on French territory whatever your income, your care is reimbursed to you at a fixed rate, ditto for family allowances. In this case, it is inconceivable that this type of service is only funded by salary costs. You have to play on the taxes that all residents pay: VAT.
Family policy costs between 23 and 25 billion euros per year. However, a 2,4% increase in VAT (from 19,6 to 22%) would bring in 23 billion euros. This is why I think that "social" VAT is the solution to finance family policy.

Among supporters of social VAT, it is important to distinguish minimalists (22% VAT) from maximalists, like Senator Jean Arthuis, who go so far as to propose 28% VAT. I am minimalist because if we increase the VAT too much, I think that the French will buy their car in a neighboring country.

For the moment, the family insurance contribution paid by the employer is 5,8%, the idea is to remove it and replace it with "social" VAT. The cost of labor and therefore the cost of production net of tax would fall by 2,4%. The final price including VAT would not change: the structure of production costs would vary. Social VAT would be painless for the consumer. Companies would then take advantage of the drop in production costs to pass this drop on to prices excluding tax and try to win markets, this is the principle of competition. This is what Germany did, which has since experienced low additional inflation (0,3) after increasing VAT by 3 percentage points.

It is obvious that this decrease in the cost of labor would be minimal and incapable of modifying the cost differences between France and China, but Chinese companies would pay the increase in VAT, which would make imports more expensive. But we would thus improve the competitiveness of French work compared to our partners in the euro zone. Social VAT is an anti-relocation weapon. "

Christian Saint-Etienne, Prime Minister's Economic Analysis Council and member of the Circle of Economists

Interview by Anne-Gaëlle Rico


Against the:

The fundamental question in tax matters is: who pays? Due to the weight of proportional taxes (VAT, CSG, etc.), the French tax system is already most unjust. VAT today represents 51% of tax revenue against 17% for income tax. The poor pay it for the first penny spent on their daily bread. The poorest 10% of households concede 8% of their income to the payment of VAT. The richest 10% of households spend only 3% of their income on it. The increase in VAT will make the tax even more unfair by shifting an increasing share of budget funding to the poor.
Despite the expected drop in charges, neither large companies, summoned by their shareholders to maximize their margins, nor SMEs, strangled by their clients, will lower their prices. Ask a restaurant owner if he will lower his prices if he is granted the drop in VAT that he requests from 19,6% to 5,5%, he will answer no. Do you think he will lower them if we increase it to 22 or 25%?

The reductions in social contributions which have been deployed since 1993 have in no way curtailed the "high cost of living". With such a measure, prices will rise and cause a deterioration in the purchasing power of households, which will break down consumption, currently the only engine of growth. The German VAT hike has already boosted inflation by 0,5 percentage points in the first quarter and risks slowing domestic consumption. Apparently, the German strategy is winning in the commercial field because industries across the Rhine are specialized in "non-cost" niches which already guaranteed them global outlets. The tax reform especially allows German shareholders to benefit from rising dividends ...

The ECB, whose eye is on the price index, would risk raising interest rates once again. Slower growth would reduce tax revenue, already eroded by direct tax cuts. Deficits would widen, justifying new budgetary restrictions on redistribution. A vicious circle would be created and inequalities would widen.
If all European countries were to engage in this strategy of "competitive disinflation", the game would be zero-sum. No gain in market share on either side, but a generalized economic slump which would once again condemn the European project among the people. Positive effects on employment? The number of net job creations caused by these policies of reducing employee contributions over the past fifteen years is estimated at 200, a figure which remains very limited.

Liêm Hoang-Ngoc, lecturer at Paris I and researcher at the Panthéon-Sorbonne Economie center, attached to the CNRS
Interview by Anne-Gaëlle Rico


A full report (316 pages) on social VAT:

https://www.econologie.info/share/partag ... k87kte.pdf

Report summary:

INTRODUCTION

OF THE SHORT-TERM OPPORTUNITY OF A COMPETITIVENESS MEASURE

1 THE CONDITIONS FOR A SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION
2 DOES THE LACK OF COMPETITIVENESS OF THE FRENCH ECONOMY JUSTIFY A DEVALUATION?

SOCIAL VAT FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF FINANCING LOGIC: THE ARBITRATION BETWEEN INSURANCE LOGIC AND NATIONAL SOLIDARITY LOGIC

1 TRENDS AT WORK: ENLARGEMENT OF THE PLATE AND TAXATION
2 THE STRUCTURING PRINCIPLES: UNIVERSAL SPENDING AND INDIVIDUALIZABLE RISKS
3 A WIDE RANGE OF OPTIONS CONCERNING FINANCING TERMS

THE CHOICE OF VAT FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE EQUITY / TAX OPTIMALITY ARBITRATION

1 WHAT TYPE OF EQUITY DO WE INTEND TO PROMOTE?
2 THE VAT TAKEN ISOLATED: AN ANTI-REDISTRIBUTIVE TAX?
3 GLOBALLY ADDRESSING THE REDISTRIBUTIVITY OF THE TAX-SOCIAL SYSTEM

THE CHOICE OF SOCIAL VAT FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF EFFICIENCY AND INSTITUTIONAL CONSISTENCY: WHAT TAX FOR WHAT REGULATION OF THE LABOR MARKET?

1 SOCIAL VAT, AS A SUB-ELEMENT OF FLEXI-SECURITY: SOCIAL VAT, OFFSHIP AND PROFESSIONAL SOCIAL SECURITY
2 SMEs AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP AT THE HEART OF THE ISSUE

SOCIAL VAT WITH REGARD TO THE ISSUES OF THE GOVERNANCE OF THE SOCIAL PROTECTION SYSTEM

1 WHAT CONSEQUENCES ON INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES AND FINANCIAL LEVERS OF SOCIAL PROTECTION
2 WHAT EFFECTS ON SOCIAL SECURITY FINANCING CIRCUITS AND MANAGEMENT COSTS?
3 WHAT RELEVANCE IN RESPECT OF USER RESPONSIBILITY AND CONTROL OF EXPENDITURE?

SOCIAL VAT FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY: WHAT ARE THE ISSUES IN TERMS OF COMPETITIVENESS AND EMPLOYMENT?

1 THE IMPORTANCE OF THE TAX-SOCIAL CORNER IN FRANCE AND ITS IMPACT ON EMPLOYMENT
2 THE PROFILE OF THE DROP IN SOCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS AND THE DILEMMA BETWEEN COMPETITIVENESS AND EMPLOYMENT
3 LESSONS FROM DANISH AND GERMAN TAX REFORMS: THE IMPORTANCE OF THE BUSINESS CONTEXT

SOCIAL VAT: WHAT ECONOMIC EFFECTS FROM THE MODELS?

1 THE MAIN ECONOMIC MECHANISMS IN GAME
2 THE RESULTS OF MACRO-ECONOMIC SIMULATIONS

CONTRIBUTIONS

G. THIS AND COE-REXECODE

NOTES
Annexe 1
Social VAT studies: retrospective synthesis of empirical studies
Louis-Paul Pelé (COE)

Annexe 1
“Social VAT” in Denmark and Germany
Bertille Delaveau (CAS)

Annexe 1
Macroeconomic assessment of social VAT
DGTPE

Annexe 1
Macroeconomic assessment of social VAT
Éric Heyer, Mathieu Plane, Xavier Timbeau (under the direction of Jean-Paul Fitoussi - OFCE)

Annexe 1
Macroeconomic assessment of social VAT
NEMESIS (ERASME) model - under the direction of Paul Zagamé
(Paris 1, CAS)

Annexe 1
Redistributive challenges of setting up a social VAT
DGTPE


0 x
User avatar
Philippe Schutt
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1611
Registration: 25/12/05, 18:03
Location: Alsace
x 33




by Philippe Schutt » 14/11/10, 23:58

Reduction in social security contributions since 1993 ?? Only on the salary share, which has no effect on the sale prices. So to say that prices should have gone down is intoxicating.

The French system is most unjust ?? This is why the wealthy expatriate en masse. The poor consume basic necessities taxed at 1%, the rich consume 5,5%.

What is the political color of Mr. Liêm Hoang-Ngoc? Or does he work for China? A lecturer should not present truncated figures. All his study is suspect, and moreover worthless.
0 x
bernardd
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2278
Registration: 12/12/09, 10:10
x 1




by bernardd » 15/11/10, 07:53

This passage :
Despite the expected drop in charges, neither large companies, summoned by their shareholders to maximize their margins, nor SMEs, strangled by their clients, will lower their prices.


shows me that this guy has understood NOTHING about social VAT. The aim of social VAT is that the net salary increases and is equal to the gross salary.

Not only does salary management become transparent and companies only earn a fortune on this point.

But the gain in purchasing power of employees is greater than the increase in VAT, since the base of VAT on all consumption is wider than human wages alone.

In particular, all services without human employment are taxed like other consumption, again promoting human employment.

And in addition, local businesses are gaining competitiveness on the internal market (less charges + imported products pay VAT) and on exports (less charges, VAT is not paid on export).
0 x
See you soon !
User avatar
elephant
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6646
Registration: 28/07/06, 21:25
Location: Charleroi, center of the world ....
x 7




by elephant » 15/11/10, 08:54

Of course, we are constrained by the International Trade Organization and all antiprotectionist policies, but indeed if we could repair the damage of relocation through this means.
Twenty years ago, Belgium already reached the record rate of 20% VAT on all luxury products (audiovisual, vehicles), but was forced to backtrack.
0 x
elephant Supreme Honorary éconologue PCQ ..... I'm too cautious, not rich enough and too lazy to really save the CO2! http://www.caroloo.be
User avatar
Philippe Schutt
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1611
Registration: 25/12/05, 18:03
Location: Alsace
x 33




by Philippe Schutt » 15/11/10, 09:11

bernardd wrote: The aim of social VAT is that the net salary increases and is equal to the gross salary.

Not only does salary management become transparent and companies only earn a fortune on this point.

But the gain in purchasing power of employees is greater than the increase in VAT, since the base of VAT on all consumption is wider than human wages alone.

In particular, all services without human employment are taxed like other consumption, again promoting human employment.

And in addition, local businesses are gaining competitiveness on the internal market (less charges + imported products pay VAT) and on exports (less charges, VAT is not paid on export).


The difference between gross and net is the salary share, and is not ultimately payable by the employer. So companies do not earn anything if crude does not fall, only incomes and prices rise, this is called inflation.
If we want to favor companies, we must act on the employers' share too.

The state has only studied social vat to partially finance social security (because, at the top, in Europe the T% is limited to 25% - to be checked). This creates an additional calculation with all the associated costs, both for the state and for companies. In addition, it is not very defensible to charge for retirement or family allowances for imports.
On the other hand, no one spoke of the employment center, which could have been fully funded by such a mechanism. Morally defensible, technically simpler. Probably too much for our big heads.
0 x
bernardd
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2278
Registration: 12/12/09, 10:10
x 1




by bernardd » 15/11/10, 09:52

Philippe Schutt wrote:The difference between gross and net is the salary share, and is not ultimately payable by the employer. So companies do not earn anything if crude does not fall, only incomes and prices rise, this is called inflation.
If we want to favor companies, we must act on the employers' share too.


Of course, I was not clear enough: the net salary must be equal to the gross salary for all. By net salary, I meant the salary paid by the employer.

And I indicated a gain in the management of pay slips, which should happen at the simplest level: salary paid = gross salary. Nothing else, the employer is not responsible for the country's social policy.

There will be an increase in prices, but a higher increase in the income of employees, and an increase in the competitiveness of businesses.

But beware: inflation is not only about rising prices. The biggest part of inflation is monetary inflation.

And the funding of a minimum income for each also goes through the egalitarian management of money and money creation, to neutralize the effect of monetary inflation.

Philippe Schutt wrote:The state has only studied social vat to partially finance social security (because, at the top, in Europe the T% is limited to 25% - to be checked). This creates an additional calculation with all the associated costs, both for the state and for companies.


It was not a social vat, it was a misuse of vocabulary, usual political strategy.

Philippe Schutt wrote:In addition, it is not very defensible to charge for retirement or family allowances for imports.


Above all, it is not acceptable to make the social policy of a country paid for by foreign countries, which is the current case where exports pay social charges.

Payroll taxes means ensuring a minimum standard of living that is sufficient for everyone to live on. What could be more natural than indexing this minimum standard of living to the real standard of living, ie consumption, which is the basis of VAT?

Imports participate in consumption, it is normal that they participate in the distribution of the minimum standard of living.

Philippe Schutt wrote:On the other hand, no one spoke of the employment center, which could have been fully funded by such a mechanism. Morally defensible, technically simpler. Probably too much for our big heads.


sticking plaster on a wooden leg. All of these gas factories consume more money than the services it provides, further creating a feeling of exclusion and guilt.

The simplest and most effective is to create a basic income for all, fueled by:
- distributed monetary creation,
- full social vat (gross salary paid).

With an additional insurance system for accidents at life at extraordinary cost.

And there is a final essential component: human capital must be evaluated in monetary terms in the capital of companies. If I am an employee, I bring him the human capital built over many years. The company also has the exclusivity of my possible inventions. This capital contributed to the company has a value, like other fixed assets, and gives rise to actions on the company.

When I am hired, the capital of the company increases. And if I leave, the capital of the company decreases. I estimate this capital at € 250000 per person currently, on average.
0 x
See you soon !
User avatar
Philippe Schutt
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1611
Registration: 25/12/05, 18:03
Location: Alsace
x 33




by Philippe Schutt » 17/11/10, 22:03

bernardd wrote:And I indicated a gain in the management of pay slips, which should happen at the simplest level: salary paid = gross salary. Nothing else, the employer is not responsible for the country's social policy.

wow! Not a union member who will accept that. We will have to go through an ultra-totalitarian regime : Cheesy:
bernardd wrote:There will be an increase in prices, but a higher increase in the income of employees, and an increase in the competitiveness of businesses.

But beware: inflation is not only about rising prices. The biggest part of inflation is monetary inflation.

If we are not entering a spiral of increases, why not. Monetary inflation only serves to avoid deflation, which all economists fear like the plague, because because of the social rigidities in place they do not know how to control it.
bernardd wrote:
Philippe Schutt wrote:The state has only studied social vat to partially finance social security (because, at the top, in Europe the T% is limited to 25% - to be checked). This creates an additional calculation with all the associated costs, both for the state and for companies.


It was not a social vat, it was a misuse of vocabulary, usual political strategy.

Can you develop?
bernardd wrote:Above all, it is not acceptable to make the social policy of a country paid for by foreign countries, which is the current case where exports pay social charges.

Foreign countries only buy if they want to. they have the freedom to buy elsewhere. The value is created by French work and part of this value is diverted. The foreign customer does not pay more. it pays at market prices.
bernardd wrote:Payroll taxes means ensuring a minimum standard of living that is sufficient for everyone to live on.

Disagree. the "all" has only to work. And we are not talking about funding, or illegal immigration to take advantage of the system.
bernardd wrote:Imports participate in consumption, it is normal that they participate in the distribution of the minimum standard of living.

Philippe Schutt wrote:On the other hand, no one spoke of the employment center, which could have been fully funded by such a mechanism. Morally defensible, technically simpler. Probably too much for our big heads.


sticking plaster on a wooden leg. All of these gas factories consume more money than the services it provides, further creating a feeling of exclusion and guilt.

The simplest and most effective is to create a basic income for all, fueled by:
- distributed monetary creation,
- full social vat (gross salary paid).

With an additional insurance system for accidents at life at extraordinary cost.

By wanting only extremes, we are sure that it will never be applied. Limiting yourself to an organization such as a job center has the advantage of remaining within the VAT limits of the European Union.
bernardd wrote:And there is a final essential component: human capital must be evaluated in monetary terms in the capital of companies. If I am an employee, I bring him the human capital built over many years. The company also has the exclusivity of my possible inventions. This capital contributed to the company has a value, like other fixed assets, and gives rise to actions on the company.

When I am hired, the capital of the company increases. And if I leave, the capital of the company decreases. I estimate this capital at € 250000 per person currently, on average.

we can always dream. human capital is worth nothing except specific and scarce skills. Otherwise, the offer is far too vast. Finally, over-evaluating humans in relation to the rest of the planet is a major cause of the looting of natural resources and their waste.
0 x
bernardd
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2278
Registration: 12/12/09, 10:10
x 1




by bernardd » 17/11/10, 22:51

Philippe Schutt wrote:Monetary inflation only serves to avoid deflation, which all economists fear like the plague, because because of the social rigidities in place they do not know how to control it.


Monetary inflation, ie monetary creation, has 2 necessary and important roles, provided that the money created is distributed fairly over citizens to compensate for inflation, ie the loss of value, or dilution, of each unit of money relative to the total mass.

These 2 roles are:

- to bring as much monetary power to newborns as to older humans, so that the monetary system is fair over time,

- to make the storage of money uninteresting, by favoring its use to finance projects.

Recently, we can even calculate that monetary creation must theoretically be between 5 and 8%, to have a fair monetary system.

cf Relative Currency Theory 1.0

Philippe Schutt wrote:
bernardd wrote:It was not a social vat, it was a misuse of vocabulary, usual political strategy.

Can you develop?


The government only lowered the employer's share of payroll taxes, and called it social VAT: it's just a semantic diversion.

Philippe Schutt wrote:
bernardd wrote:Above all, it is not acceptable to make the social policy of a country paid for by foreign countries, which is the current case where exports pay social charges.

Foreign countries only buy if they want to. they have the freedom to buy elsewhere. The value is created by French work and part of this value is diverted. The foreign customer does not pay more. it pays at market prices.


All the more reason not to include social security charges in the price: it is not for foreigners to pay French social policy, social policy is an internal choice in the country.

Philippe Schutt wrote:
bernardd wrote:Payroll taxes means ensuring a minimum standard of living that is sufficient for everyone to live on.

Disagree. the "all" has only to work. And we are not talking about funding, or illegal immigration to take advantage of the system.


Social security and retirement are good for letting those who cannot work live, right?

And unemployment is good for letting those who have no more work live, too? Because if the work of 30% of the working population is enough to feed, house and care for 100% of the population, how do we do it?

Philippe Schutt wrote:
bernardd wrote:The simplest and most effective is to create a basic income for all, fueled by:
- distributed monetary creation,
- full social vat (gross salary paid).

With an additional insurance system for accidents at life at extraordinary cost.

By wanting only extremes, we are sure that it will never be applied. Limiting yourself to an organization such as a job center has the advantage of remaining within the VAT limits of the European Union.


Why extreme? It is above all simplicity: today, "social" organizations seem to consume more than the aid they redistribute ... You might as well keep it simple and give everyone a minimum income, at least equality is respected and no one feels wronged.

Philippe Schutt wrote:
bernardd wrote:And there is a final essential component: human capital must be evaluated in monetary terms in the capital of companies. If I am an employee, I bring him the human capital built over many years. The company also has the exclusivity of my possible inventions. This capital contributed to the company has a value, like other fixed assets, and gives rise to actions on the company.

When I am hired, the capital of the company increases. And if I leave, the capital of the company decreases. I estimate this capital at € 250000 per person currently, on average.

we can always dream. human capital is worth nothing except specific and scarce skills. Otherwise, the offer is far too vast. Finally, over-evaluating humans in relation to the rest of the planet is a major cause of the looting of natural resources and their waste.


If you get run over tomorrow, will your family get compensation from your killer's insurance? Well that's your monetary value. If you are an employee of a company, you make this value available to the company, which "immobilizes" it. It is therefore fair that you receive in return a "share" of the company, with the related rights: dividends and voting rights.

It is precisely because natural resources are not valued at their fair price that they are looted. They are largely unevaluated or undervalued: if Niger made its uranium pay the price that this treasure is worth, nuclear electricity in France would be at its fair price and would not be wasted on heating.
0 x
See you soon !
User avatar
Philippe Schutt
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1611
Registration: 25/12/05, 18:03
Location: Alsace
x 33




by Philippe Schutt » 17/11/10, 23:38

bernardd wrote:Monetary inflation, ie monetary creation, has 2 necessary and important roles, provided that the money created is distributed fairly over citizens to compensate for inflation, ie the loss of value, or dilution, of each unit of money relative to the total mass.

These 2 roles are:

- to bring as much monetary power to newborns as to older humans, so that the monetary system is fair over time,

- to make the storage of money uninteresting, by favoring its use to finance projects.

this is the role you would like her to have

bernardd wrote:Recently, we can even calculate that monetary creation must theoretically be between 5 and 8%, to have a fair monetary system.

cf Relative Currency Theory 1.0

It is one theory among others. There is no evidence that it is fair. For the moment, creating 5 to 8% of money supply annually is inflationary.
bernardd wrote:The government only lowered the employer's share of payroll taxes, and called it social VAT: it's just a semantic diversion.

If companies are to become more competitive, the employers' share must fall.
bernardd wrote:
Philippe Schutt wrote:
bernardd wrote:Above all, it is not acceptable to make the social policy of a country paid for by foreign countries, which is the current case where exports pay social charges.

Foreign countries only buy if they want to. they have the freedom to buy elsewhere. The value is created by French work and part of this value is diverted. The foreign customer does not pay more. it pays at market prices.


All the more reason not to include social security charges in the price: it is not for foreigners to pay French social policy, social policy is an internal choice in the country.
Weird, I just explained to you that they don't pay her, and you answer "more reason", followed by repeating your opinion. Dialogue of the deaf?
bernardd wrote: social security and retirement are good for letting those who cannot work live, right?

And unemployment is good for letting those who have no more work live, too? Because if the work of 30% of the working population is enough to feed, house and care for 100% of the population, how do we do it?

I do not agree to mix security (health insurance) and retirement or family allowances. On the one hand it is insurance, as for unemployment, on the other it is a levy for redistribution with the aim of paying political promises.
100% of the population works 30% of the time. that's fair. But what if I want to work more? and what about foreign competition?

bernardd wrote:Why extreme? It is above all simplicity: today, "social" organizations seem to consume more than the aid they redistribute ... You might as well keep it simple and give everyone a minimum income, at least equality is respected and no one feels wronged.

Extremes are often very simple indeed. equality yes, injustice also for the benefit of the lazy, smuggling and clandestine work. And of course we should leave Europe.
bernardd wrote:If you get run over tomorrow, will your family get compensation for your murderer's insurance? Well it's your monetary value.

it is your value for the family, not that for the business, which is not compensated, unless you have taken out insurance on your head. So yes, you would have value for it. Besides, stock prices move when the leaders change.
bernardd wrote:If you are an employee of a company, you make this value available to the company, which "immobilizes" it. It is therefore fair that you receive in return a "share" of the company, with the related rights: dividends and voting rights.

You get paid for it.
bernardd wrote:It is precisely because natural resources are not valued at their fair price that they are looted. They are largely unevaluated or undervalued: if Niger made its uranium pay the price that this treasure is worth, nuclear electricity in France would be at its fair price and would not be wasted on heating.

Exactly, and by increasing wages you further amplify the phenomenon.
0 x
bernardd
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2278
Registration: 12/12/09, 10:10
x 1




by bernardd » 18/11/10, 00:53

Philippe Schutt wrote:
bernardd wrote:Recently, we can even calculate that monetary creation must theoretically be between 5 and 8%, to have a fair monetary system.

cf Relative Currency Theory 1.0

It is one theory among others. There is no evidence that it is fair.


Read the document and let's talk about it again? A simple mathematical proof is true or false.

Philippe Schutt wrote: For the moment, creating 5 to 8% of money supply annually is inflationary.


Yes, but this is already the current situation in the euro zone since 1997, you can check on the ECB data: therefore no change in the rate.

The important thing would be to change who receives the money created each year ... Because today the basic income exists ... but only for banks!

Philippe Schutt wrote:If companies are to become more competitive, the employers' share must fall.


But that's exactly what I wrote: where's the problem? Payroll taxes must disappear completely from wages.

Philippe Schutt wrote:Weird, I just explained to you that they don't pay her, and you answer "more reason", followed by repeating your opinion. Dialogue of the deaf?


I didn't understand, sorry, where did you write that they don't pay her? They will really not pay it when there are no more payroll taxes, replaced by a VAT. But today, any foreign buyer of our exports pays the social charges paid on the corresponding wages.

Philippe Schutt wrote:I do not agree to mix security (health insurance) and retirement or family allowances. On the one hand it is insurance, as for unemployment, on the other it is a levy for redistribution with the aim of paying political promises.


Except in the case of life accidents, such as expensive illnesses for which an insurance mechanism is required, everything else is only the guarantee of a minimum income sufficient to live on.

Philippe Schutt wrote:100% of the population works 30% of the time. that's fair. But what if I want to work more?


Where is the problem ? you can do what you want, i don't understand?

Philippe Schutt wrote: and what about foreign competition?


Precisely, levying on VAT helps rebalance foreign competition, this is one of the big advantages.

Philippe Schutt wrote:Extremes are often very simple indeed. equality yes, injustice also for the benefit of the lazy, smuggling and clandestine work. And of course we should leave Europe.


Sorry, I don't understand how extreme this would be, can you explain? What is contraband and clandestine work doing? and why should we leave europe? I seem to have missed a step in your reasoning.

As for the lazy, they are more the result of an illness than of a will.

Philippe Schutt wrote:
bernardd wrote:If you get run over tomorrow, will your family get compensation for your murderer's insurance? Well it's your monetary value.

it is your value for the family, not that for the business, which is not compensated, unless you have taken out insurance on your head. So yes, you would have value for it. Besides, stock prices move when the leaders change.


You questioned the fact that any person has a monetary value: I show you that it is indeed the case.

If an employee disappears, the company loses part of its capital.

And if it is valid for an executive employee, there is no reason why it is not valid for each human, it is all the same the currency of the republic: equality.

Philippe Schutt wrote:
bernardd wrote:If you are an employee of a company, you make this value available to the company, which "immobilizes" it. It is therefore fair that you receive in return a "share" of the company, with the related rights: dividends and voting rights.

You get paid for it.


But a salary has nothing to do with a share. If you make a contribution in kind to a company in creation, in the form of a machine tool, you have shares in action, and the company will pay its operating costs: its salary.

A salary is additive, a dividend is multiplicative.

Philippe Schutt wrote:
bernardd wrote:It is precisely because natural resources are not valued at their fair price that they are looted. They are largely unevaluated or undervalued: if Niger made its uranium pay the price that this treasure is worth, nuclear electricity in France would be at its fair price and would not be wasted on heating.

Exactly, and by increasing wages you further amplify the phenomenon.


Sorry, I don't see the link between higher wages and the looting of natural resources.
0 x
See you soon !

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Economy and finance, sustainability, growth, GDP, ecological tax systems"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 129 guests