Jump to content
Stefani Tee
Sign in to follow this  
economy

Daily Economy Thread

Featured Posts

KingOfSpain

so if u wanna transport something across Europe by train or trucks u gotta pay tax on every Country you cross? :omg:

No. Schengen Agreement (1985) and many other laws removed trade restrictions. Only France, (West)Germany and the Benelux signed that agreement, but most countries in the UE have joined later, even Switzerland, which you know it's not part of. That's one of the main goals of having a currency union: competing together and in a strong way in a worldwide economy. But I don't know what happens if you transport something from a country where people don't use euros (Denmark for example) to one where it's the official currency.

Edited by KingOfSpain
http://gagadaily.com/forums/topic/227246-ceremony-gagas-videography-megarate/

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Economy

No. Schengen Agreement (1985) and many other laws removed trade restrictions. Only France, (West)Germany and the Benelux signed that agreement, but most countries in the UE have joined later, even Switzerland, which you know it's not part of. That's one of the main goals of having a currency union: competing together and in a strong way in a worldwide economy. But I don't know what happens if you transport something from a country where people don't use euros (Denmark for example) to one where it's the official currency.

ok. im still not sure what restrictionswolfsmck was talking about then. i think hes refering to regulations such as standards on what they allow in the Country and inspections etc.

 

Anyway on another note... i see the benefits of a common currency but i think it does more harm than good...

 

Every Country becomes forced to be subject to the same exchange rate AND monetary policy (money supply, exchange rates etc) even though the economic status is gonna vary from Country to Country and the ideal monetary policy and exchange rate is gonna be different

 

If you have a competitive economy, you can handle a stronger currency without exports and manufacturing being killed, and you get the benefit of more purchasing power. On the otherhand a weak economy and uncompetitive Nation needs a weaker currency to have some level of competitiveness

 

Here in Canada we have so much trade with the US due to proximity and free trade. We didnt need to adopt the same currency to encourage trade which is now nearing $2 billion a day between the Canada-US border :shrug:

Edited by Economy

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Luc

Let's talk about TTIP. I honestly think it will not profit the EU, because products cheaper made in the US will be imported to the EU more, which will lead to job loss in the EU..

 

And Draghi can go on with hyping the QE, but in the end he shouldn't do it imo. Economy growth first, then inflation. And it's not healthy inflation anyways, and it makes governments lazy (which is exactly what caused the debt crisis in South Europe anyways).

 

Can anyone explain what everybody means with the 'bureaucracy of Europe'? The wikipedia page is a little too complicated for me :lmao: what is bureaucracy, and how does it work in things like education and healthcare, how can it be lowered, and what profit will that have?

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Economy

Let's talk about TTIP. I honestly think it will not profit the EU, because products cheaper made in the US will be imported to the EU more, which will lead to job loss in the EU..

And Draghi can go on with hyping the QE, but in the end he shouldn't do it imo. Economy growth first, then inflation. And it's not healthy inflation anyways, and it makes governments lazy (which is exactly what caused the debt crisis in South Europe anyways).

Can anyone explain what everybody means with the 'bureaucracy of Europe'? The wikipedia page is a little too complicated for me :lmao: what is bureaucracy, and how does it work in things like education and healthcare, how can it be lowered, and what profit will that have?

inflation should be created by economic growth not money priting

Lowering interest rates to speed up credit flow, momey velocity, increase demand for goods etc raises inflation with real demand

Raising inflation artificially by simply adding more currency is dumb i dont see the benefits of it... Other than trying to inflate your way out of debt which is a slipery slope to go down :MANiCURE:

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Luc

inflation should be created by economic growth not money priting

Lowering interest rates to speed up credit flow, momey velocity, increase demand for goods etc raises inflation with real demand

Raising inflation artificially by simply adding more currency is dumb i dont see the benefits of it... Other than trying to inflate your way out of debt which is a slipery slope to go down :manicure:

Exactly. But Germany is against it, so I think they're only hyping it to make interest rates lower. The low inflation is mostly a result of low oil prices anyways.

If the greek elections have bad resulted (SYRIZA, communist party, Golden thingy) it'll slow down the whole Eurozone so much and they might even go out of the EU and Euro. Imagine, that'd be disastrous considering all European countries lenden so much money to Greece. They loaned like 15 million from my country, which is like2% of the GDP here :gum:

Now somebody explain to me what bureaucraat is and give examples of it in Europe.

Edited by Luc

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Economy

Exactly. But Germany is against it, so I think they're only hyping it to make interest rates lower. The low inflation is mostly a result of low oil prices anyways.

If the greek elections have bad resulted (SYRIZA, communist party, Golden thingy) it'll slow down the whole Eurozone so much and they might even go out of the EU and Euro. Imagine, that'd be disastrous considering all European countries lenden so much money to Greece. They loaned like 15 million from my country, which is like2% of the GDP here :gum:

Now somebody explain to me what bureaucraat is and give examples of it in Europe.

i dont think its just cuz of oil. Most companies havent passed on savings from lower costs to consumers yet because theres a long delay with that sort of thing

Also inflation was already super low in Europe even before June when oil prices were high. Europe has almost no economic growth and has had outright contractions in some quarters. With virtually no growth theres also little to no inflationairy pressures :shrug:

As for burreocracy... I always thought it had to do with political legalities and legal political processes for approvals of things etc but im not 100% sure. Someone correct me if im wrong :huh:

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Woolfsmck

i dont think its just cuz of oil. Most companies havent passed on savings from lower costs to consumers yet because theres a long delay with that sort of thing

Also inflation was already super low in Europe even before June when oil prices were high. Europe has almost no economic growth and has had outright contractions in some quarters. With virtually no growth theres also little to no inflationairy pressures :shrug:

As for burreocracy... I always thought it had to do with political legalities and legal political processes for approvals of things etc but im not 100% sure. Someone correct me if im wrong :huh:

i think the socialistic regulatory politicial economic blueprint is fine to protect established businesses. Growth is often viewed as a threat to what many already have ... IMO , France is a significant part of the EU and they are completely choked out right now....I think this is I big contribution to the problem .. Edited by Woolfsmck
like a cat in a sil, I observe life, moving and still. My words give a clue,look inside to see whats true

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Luc

If I had all the power in the Eurozone to do stuff :whitney: :

- Raise dividend tax

- Raise tax on net worth

- Raise tax on heritage

 

- Lower tax on the lowest 2 brackets of income by A LOT

- Minimum retirement age of 66 for the whole Eurozone, countries can go above it if they want to

- Anti-corruption done on European level, the EU checks the corruption in all countries to avoid situations like Greece and Italy

- Urge countries to greatly cut government-paid jobs (public sector jobs) and to privatize

- Give fines for the original EU rules (inflation under 4% or so, debt to GDP under 60%, annual debt to GDP under 3%

- Cut EU rules (Frans Timmermans was cutting the amount of rules greatly not too long ago, but I haven't heard about it for a while :huh: )

- Distribute skilled immigrants over Europe based on joblessness and job growth per sector

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Economy

If I had all the power in the Eurozone to do stuff :whitney: :

- Raise dividend tax

- Raise tax on net worth

- Raise tax on heritage

 

- Lower tax on the lowest 2 brackets of income by A LOT

- Minimum retirement age of 66 for the whole Eurozone, countries can go above it if they want to

- Anti-corruption done on European level, the EU checks the corruption in all countries to avoid situations like Greece and Italy

- Urge countries to greatly cut government-paid jobs (public sector jobs) and to privatize

- Give fines for the original EU rules (inflation under 4% or so, debt to GDP under 60%, annual debt to GDP under 3%

- Cut EU rules (Frans Timmermans was cutting the amount of rules greatly not too long ago, but I haven't heard about it for a while :huh: )

- Distribute skilled immigrants over Europe based on joblessness and job growth per sector

what the hell is tax on net worth? is that tax for simply owning assets? thats kinda dumb if thats what it is. So like if you buy something and pay tax on it you dont just pay tax when you buy or sell? u also have to pay tax while you own assets? We have no such tax here :huh:

 

And my changes for EU would be as follows:

 

- Cut corporate taxes and general business taxes

- Cut income taxes (for the Countries that have them high)

 

- raise import taxes (helps raise competitiveness for domestic manufacturers and Europe needs it)

- raise retirement age to 67 (66 isnt enough given Europes old population)

 

- re-evaluate spending on welfare and social assistant programs and see where reasonable cuts can be made

- re-evaluate level of spending on infrastructure (a lot of infrastructure projects on stuff like railways some which have been criticized for not paying back the investment)

- Slow green energy developement to a reasonable level. Europe invested a lot in that which is good but they did it too fast with money they didnt have. Expensive investments need to be balanced

- Privatize where possible (not everything is a good idea to privatize but see whats worth it)

 

- increase immigrants especially skilled immigrants (Europe is worse in demographics than North America in part because of not accepting enough immigrants)

- Deregulate Corporate and business sector where reasonable. Its a free way of encouraging more investment without having to trim revenue from taxes and without having to spend more!

Edited by Economy

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Luc

what the hell is tax on net worth? is that tax for simply owning assets? thats kinda dumb if thats what it is. So like if you buy something and pay tax on it you dont just pay tax when you buy or sell? u also have to pay tax while you own assets? We have no such tax here :huh:

 

And my changes for EU would be as follows:

 

- Cut corporate taxes and general business taxes

- Cut income taxes (for the Countries that have them high)

 

- raise import taxes (helps raise competitiveness for domestic manufacturers and Europe needs it)

- raise retirement age to 67 (66 isnt enough given Europes old population)

 

- re-evaluate spending on welfare and social assistant programs and see where reasonable cuts can be made

- re-evaluate level of spending on infrastructure (a lot of infrastructure projects on stuff like railways some which have been criticized for not paying back the investment)

- Slow green energy developement to a reasonable level. Europe invested a lot in that which is good but they did it too fast with money they didnt have. Expensive investments need to be balanced

- Privatize where possible (not everything is a good idea to privatize but see whats worth it)

 

- increase immigrants especially skilled immigrants (Europe is worse in demographics than North America in part because of not accepting enough immigrants)

- Deregulate Corporate and business sector where reasonable. Its a free way of encouraging more investment without having to trim revenue from taxes and without having to spend more!

67 is too much of a change for some countries. France is already on the verge of going out of the EU, and imagine if they raised the retirement age by 5 years in one year :giveup: all election votes would go to anti-EU parties. Same with Lithuania, Malta, Latvia and Slovakia (how the **** can some countries still have retirement age at 62 or even 60? :wtf: )

 

I don't know the right word for it, so I used net worth. I mean that people who have a lot of money (whether it be in assets, houses, pensions, banks or investments) should have tax on that. I don't think it exists right now, but honestly, all leveling in income is useless and should be moved to leveling in net worth, considering that that's where the inequality is. It'd make rich people consume more, raise tax profits (-> lower taxes for income), make high income more important (and thus motivate people more to get good education and high pay) and most importantly level in a way that there's more equality.

Corporate and business taxes in my country are already extremely low tbh. Corporate taxes can be as low as 1% here for big businesses (Royal Dutch Shell, Unilever, Philips, Heineken IKEA, ING, etc.), but they should support small businesses more, too.

 

Raising import taxes is a no from me :shrug:

Edited by Luc

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Economy

67 is too much of a change for some countries. France is already on the verge of going out of the EU, and imagine if they raised the retirement age by 5 years in one year :giveup: all election votes would go to anti-EU parties. Same with Lithuania, Malta, Latvia and Slovakia (how the **** can some countries still have retirement age at 62 or even 60? :wtf: )

I don't know the right word for it, so I used net worth. I mean that people who have a lot of money (whether it be in assets, houses, pensions, banks or investments) should have tax on that. I don't think it exists right now, but honestly, all leveling in income is useless and should be moved to leveling in net worth, considering that that's where the inequality is. It'd make rich people consume more, raise tax profits (-> lower taxes for income), make high income more important (and thus motivate people more to get good education and high pay) and most importantly level in a way that there's more equality.

Corporate and business taxes in my country are already extremely low tbh. Corporate taxes can be as low as 1% here for big businesses (Royal Dutch Shell, Unilever, Philips, Heineken IKEA, ING, etc.), but they should support small businesses more, too.

Raising import taxes is a no from me :shrug:

i disagree with that. U already pay tax on ur income and in most countries tax when u buy a house... Why would u have to pay a net worth tax? It wouldnt be worth owning anything then

U could buy stocks but if ur having to pay tax before selling them just for owning them, then you never make any money off of them.

Or if u own a home, even if it goes up in value... U dont end up making any money

I feel like if u already pay income tax, and sales tax... It makes no sense to keep paying tax for owning things.

If u did that most ppl wouldnt wanna own a lot of things anymore and ud kill the economy and investment

I think that tax doesnt exist for a good reason :shrug:

And retirement at 60 is so dumb. Canada and USA have younger demographics than most of Europe and Japan because weve always accepted a greater number of immigrants and even we are having a hard time sustaining retirement age at 65

Life expectancies have gone up, and birth rates down. Im sorry ppl need to accept that retirement at 60-65 is out of date. That standard was made decades ago when living to 80 was a rare thing only for healthy ppl

I think ppl in blue collar jobs (physical jobs like construction) should be exempt from an increase however.

Thats as long as they worked there a certain number of years. Otherwise everyone would quit their jobs and work in a blue collar job for a year or two close to age 65 so they can retire earlier :rip:

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Luc

i disagree with that. U already pay tax on ur income and in most countries tax when u buy a house... Why would u have to pay a net worth tax? It wouldnt be worth owning anything then

U could buy stocks but if ur having to pay tax before selling them just for owning them, then you never make any money off of them.

Or if u own a home, even if it goes up in value... U dont end up making any money

I feel like if u already pay income tax, and sales tax... It makes no sense to keep paying tax for owning things.

If u did that most ppl wouldnt wanna own a lot of things anymore and ud kill the economy and investment

I think that tax doesnt exist for a good reason :shrug:

And retirement at 60 is so dumb. Canada and USA have younger demographics than most of Europe and Japan because weve always accepted a greater number of immigrants and even we are having a hard time sustaining retirement age at 65

Life expectancies have gone up, and birth rates down. Im sorry ppl need to accept that retirement at 60-65 is out of date. That standard was made decades ago when living to 80 was a rare thing only for healthy ppl

I think ppl in blue collar jobs (physical jobs like construction) should be exempt from an increase however.

Thats as long as they worked there a certain number of years. Otherwise everyone would quit their jobs and work in a blue collar job for a year or two close to age 65 so they can retire earlier :rip:

You're very right-wing, of course you'd disagree. But how else would you face inequality without demotivating workers and destroying the economy?

 

I don't see how putting a small tax (like 1.5%?) on net worth above a certain amount (let's say €100.000 or $130.000) would badly impact the economy. Next to that, a much bigger heritage tax for high amounts of money would be great. It's not you that worked hard for the money, it's your parents or grandparents or even higher. The people will likely spend A LOT of money when they're retiring, there will be way more tax revenue which can be used to lower income tax and that will stimulate the economy a lot.

 

The reason why it hasn't happened yet is because of right-wing parties and their voters. 

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Economy

You're very right-wing, of course you'd disagree. But how else would you face inequality without demotivating workers and destroying the economy?

I don't see how putting a small tax (like 1.5%?) on net worth above a certain amount (let's say €100.000 or $130.000) would badly impact the economy. Next to that, a much bigger heritage tax for high amounts of money would be great. It's not you that worked hard for the money, it's your parents or grandparents or even higher. The people will likely spend A LOT of money when they're retiring, there will be way more tax revenue which can be used to lower income tax and that will stimulate the economy a lot.

The reason why it hasn't happened yet is because of right-wing parties and their voters.

if ur gonna tax the rich, theres better ways to do it than a net worth tax. Very few Countries if any have a net worth tax. Not to mention some assets are hard to calculate a certain value on top of that. I just dont see this being practical at all :shrug:

Income taxes being a little higher for high income earners, a dividend tax are ways to tax the rich and dispearse some income without a crazy tax like a net worth tax that would be difficult to implement and tbh very destructive as an incentive to work hard to own a lot :shrug:

Im also a believer in decent minimum wages as a way to help dispearse income. Make people work instead of collecting welfare, but make minimum wages decent. Businesses need employees they wont stop hiring cause minimum wage is a little higher. And if business taxes are kept low u can easily still be competitive

And im not right winged on everything. I support free healthcare for instance because its good for the economy

Healthcare is an inelastic business to supply and demand because ppl will spend what they need to get healthy so exploitation is common. Plus u gotta cover insurance premiums which include a profit margin for insurance companies, and hospitals also need a profit margin as well. But withfree healthcare the Government just pays operation costs and no profit margin

People pay less on healthcare with taxes if its free than on insurances if its privatized because of profit margins. And healthcare isnt a wealth producing industry like manufacturing or energy sector and it has little ripple effect so its an industry thats a drain i think

Remember, the best way to fight poverty is having a strong economy with good incomes. Good Minimum wage helps that but keeping taxes low and regulation reasonable is a good way to encourage business investment.

With lower unemployment u get more labor competition which leads to higher wages, more production, and fewer ppl need to drain the system on welfare

Edited by Economy

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dayum

- Anti-corruption done on European level, the EU checks the corruption in all countries to avoid situations like Greece and Italy

 

How do you propose they tackle anti-corruption at that level?

 

I think tax is only effective if the government is trustworthy, effective and efficient. They plan the things that are actually beneficial for the country and carry them out.

 

What about instead of increasing income taxes of the wealthier, the government obliges people who have income/net worth that exceeds a certain amount to invest a set of proportions in different areas of the economy. New property is fine, but not those already existing. it feels like a vicious cycle LOL, if people invest in those existing property and gain value from it through sales/rent, and then buying more of these already existing old property, unless for renovation.

 

I guess what I'm saying in the last few lines is that the investment must involve the society inputting labour, and not just the effort of time increasing a value of the investment, except interest of course.

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
×
×
  • Create New...