Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[Gervassen]

Yeah, but taxing bank deposits per se ain't a problem, only the surprise part is bad.

How do you tax bank deposits while not keeping it a surprise exactly? That wealth is highly liquid, and surprise is kinda key to the whole concept. Otherwise, everyone simply puts their money in a different country's banks.

[Zangi]

Yeah, but taxing bank deposits per se ain't a problem, only the surprise part is bad.

How do you tax bank deposits while not keeping it a surprise exactly? That wealth is highly liquid, and surprise is kinda key to the whole concept. Otherwise, everyone simply puts their money in a different country's banks.

Or in their mattresses when it comes to the more common folk.

[PanH]

Or in their mattresses when it comes to the more common folk.

They are generally not taxed when it comes to wealth tax. In France, the ISF applies if you have 1.3€ million or more. Also, you don't get interest for your cash.

How do you tax bank deposits while not keeping it a surprise exactly? That wealth is highly liquid, and surprise is kinda key to the whole concept. Otherwise, everyone simply puts their money in a different country's banks.

E.g. USA has worldwide tax juridiction, so it isn't an issue. In the case of France, it's estimated to have caused a loss in tax revenue, with capital flight, as there is no worldwide tax.
One of the aim of wealth tax is that it encourages the use of money. Your pile of money will slowly decrease if you do nothing with it, meaning it's more interesting to invest it, so it encourages the circulation of money.

[andrea]

Yeah, but taxing bank deposits per se ain't a problem, only the surprise part is bad.

the law was passed during the night, and money was taken the next morning. can't do such a thing without surprise

[PanH]

Yeah, but taxing bank deposits per se ain't a problem, only the surprise part is bad.

the law was passed during the night, and money was taken the next morning. can't do such a thing without surprise

The law was refused. No money were taken, but simply suspended (and only the funds corresponding to the tax).

Now, to see what happens to Cyprus, and if it becomes like Greece.

[Gervassen]

How do you tax bank deposits while not keeping it a surprise exactly? That wealth is highly liquid, and surprise is kinda key to the whole concept. Otherwise, everyone simply puts their money in a different country's banks.

E.g. USA has worldwide tax juridiction, so it isn't an issue. In the case of France, it's estimated to have caused a loss in tax revenue, with capital flight, as there is no worldwide tax.

Actually, the tax jurisdiction of the USA is a red herring. People do renounce American citizenship to avoid American taxes anywhere in the world, just as Gerard Depardieu renounced his French citizenship. What happened in France could happen exactly the same in America, too. The extended tax jurisdiction only applies to citizens. You can renounce that in ten minutes at a consulate.

At any rate, the USA does not have jurisdiction to "tax" the bank savings of foreigners. You're conflating this bank deposits tax with a wealth tax on citizens of the same country, and it definitely is not, because it takes money from foreigners that may never have set foot in the country or used a single government service therein, or even made any income inside that country outside of a little bank interest. With a wealth tax, you can rationalize that it's "fair" to help fellow "countrymen" but this is simply absurd.

The point stands, that when you tax bank deposits, it simply doesn't work without surprise. Wealth taxes can work without surprise because most people are used to a certain culture and will remain, but bank vaults have no particularly culture to speak of.

[10ebbor10]

Just a note, but what does everyone think will happen if the ECB/EU/IMF decides to drop any of the problem countries.

Cyprus is in such problems at the moment, with the ECB cancelling emergency loans* on Monday if there's no agreement.

*The emergency loans are the only thing keeping the national bank afloat, which is the only thing keeping their banking sector afloat. Should they be cancelled, the banks will not have enough money to open/operate.

[Owlbread]

I think if the EU starts "dropping problem countries" we're going to see fracturing within the EU on a big scale.

[10ebbor10]

I was thinking more about the national consequences rather than the international ones. What happens when a country go bankrupt.

[Guardian G.I.]

(I'm not sure if it goes here)
According to unconfirmed reports, Russian oligarch and a political enemy of Vladimir Putin, Boris Berezovsky, died today.

[Luke_Prowler]

For those of you who already haven't, Here's a petition to sign

[Scoops Novel]

Thank you.

[Owlbread]

Labour are an empty shell of who they once were. A few months ago I heard a Labour leader stand up in a parliament building and tell the world we live in a "Something for nothing society", so we need to get rid of free prescription charges and free university education, simply because "they're not viable". She can stand and tell us that we need to give up hard earned social reforms because we don't have the money. She can do that whilst supporting the reintroduction of a nuclear defence system to protect ourselves from nobody besides 1970s Russia (the planning alone will cost over 300 million), and after voting in favour of the Iraq war. She claims that means testing is essential for these benefits if we're going to have them at all, but Universalism is one of the great pillars of Socialism. Universalism is also a damn sight cheaper than means testing.

"Something for nothing society"... what the hell was the point of 1945 then?

Labour are a backward thinking, antiquated, highly disagreeable party. They concentrate on building support on a pseudo-tribal basis of anti-tory, pro-"working class" nonsense when their strategy would only serve to divide our societies further into social classes again - means testing in particular. I'd spoil my ballot sooner than vote Labour. Find another alternative.

[Sheb]

Do you have a source for mean-testing being more expensive than universalism? It seems like a pretty good way to avoid wasting money (rich people don't need child benefits.

[Owlbread]

Do you have a source for mean-testing being more expensive than universalism? It seems like a pretty good way to avoid wasting money (rich people don't need child benefits.

You would think that, I know I used to. It's a big debate in the UK as a whole.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/social-care-network/2013/jan/14/means-testing-benefits-not-efficient-fair