Tuesday, August 02, 2011



Tit for Tat + jobs - tax

...
Con i repubblicani che si oppongono a qualsiasi aumento di tasse per gli alti redditi e i democratici che non vogliono tagli allo stato sociale. Queste posizioni ruotano da secoli una intorno all’altra, attraendosi e respingendosi, ma una cosa è certa: entrambe le proposte portano, presto o tardi, comunque al default.

Perché non risolvono il vero problema dell’economia americana: la produzione di posti di lavoro.
...
Si può fare con facilità dietrologia cercando di spiegare chi ha speso nel passato i fondi in guerre, in inutili sovvenzioni, chi ha disperso il know how calvalcando l'outsourcing o quale lobby ha fatto più pressione sui governi per spremere –conseguentemente- i cittadini, ma non finiremmo mai l’analisi.

E allora iniziamo da una proposta: proviamo a tassare le imprese in modo decrescente per numero di lavoratori. Con questa iniziativa, se aumenta il numero degli impiegati non si pagano più tasse, anche se crescono i fatturati e i profitti. Così si favorisce la scalabilità, la crescita dimensionale dell’impresa.
...
Probabili benefici:
- attrazione imprese estere
- aumento dell’occupazione (pensiamo soprattutto alle donne)
- PIL e profitti aziendali allineati con l’interesse nazionale
- si incentivano le imprese a crescere, a diventare medie imprese
- riduzione delle tasse
- ridotta l’evasione fiscale (non c’è bisogno di nascondere i profitti)
- emersione dal lavoro nero (e dati più netti e trasparenti).

Probabile criticità: se l’azienda diventa più produttiva (meno operai e più macchine) sarà penalizzata?

No, a patto che esporti di più. Più esporta e meno tasse paga. Questo è un modo per non sfavorire le imprese ad alta intensità di capitale (comparate con quelle ad alta intensità di lavoro).

Tutto ciò è solo una proposta che ha l'obiettivo di far crescere occupazione e profitti. Qui ed ora.
...

...
the logic of republicans and democrats solves "absolutely nothing"
because is based on completely "false premises"
the "two" options presented by the elephant and the donkey, are in order:
-steal from the poor, keeping a tax exempt holy banksters racket
-steal "a bit less" from the poor, keeping a tax exempt holy banksters racket

nobody goes to the bottom of the question "the racket"
because both the elephant and the donkey are "part of the racket"
"in the pockets" of the racket
betraying their country and their election mandate "for the racket"

nobody argues the budget "should" be balanced
the argument is "at who's cost"
the proposals of the two casts, in the pockets of the godly banksters
is always "take from the people" "from the bottom of the pyramid"
and it is not a casual circumstance
it is the same wall street "who has created"
the pyramids of genocides
Bolshevism and Nazism
(besides their own domestic genocides)

there are equally valid proposals "nobody talks about" because of "conflict of interest" of a political class "in the pockets of the banksters and churches":
-"usury", cap the usury rate, to start with
-"tax exemption cow milking", flat rate "for all", just enough
-"useless wars cow milking", such as the "new Anglo-Chinese" "opium war" protecting a trillion a year wall street drug money laundering business, close down
-"inhuman cow milking", protecting an health industry speculating over the life of people (quo pro ?, if Germany has the same level of care, with "half" cost, trough a one payee system ?), here, does the GOP trusts the Military ?, "one payee system under the Veteran Administration" ? or we have "conflict of interest" to preserve in DC ?
-"government waste in appropriation", the government that wants to cut grandma pension to pay Halliburton 100 dollars for a quart of water, "indecent", and some other Texas crooks 20 dollars per nail, the General Accounting Office should start rounding up people.
-"morals cow milking", the government racket subcontract business of a justice that "needs to increase crime" to increase wall street revenues, this would just be solved stopping the bigots madness on persecuting "crimes with no victims" that are basically "not real crimes" but as stupid as the "morality" of the godly thugs who invented them and just exist to perpetuate wall street skim and the holy godly racket

also the real "cuts to the social state" needed
are to the ones that benefit of privatization of profit and socialization of losses
the top ones, banks, multinationals, churches and non profit, politics
then, right under, "useless bureaucracy" regulating things
it is not the government business to regulate every single crap
and charge the people for their skim

"and", by the way, in 1929 the problem of creating jobs was solved with "more public spending"
that means "increase taxation" other than cuts
the ones that hope to create jobs cutting taxes are dreaming
the US has cut taxes for 30 years
the result ?
more crime, more illegal immigration, "less jobs"
"this is history" not "opinions"
the "failed system" of the "moral" "godly" "tax exempt parasites" almost collapsed in 2007
if the system was so good, then why it went "almost" belly up ?
"after 30 years of cutting taxes"
please explain
...
the decreasing tax is an idea, but "only" "inside the country"
get the contributions from India, for the jobs you create there, so long charlie
the second part, is you need laws on "minimum wage"
otherwise the usual crooks will only create jobs that pay ten cents an hour
the third part is that a job is defined, under this parameter, something "productive"
banking jobs, church jobs, tarot reading jobs, "don't qualify"

the next part is that we must enter in the merit of the type of enterprise
the age of "free and irresponsible" is over
the new age is "free and responsible"
what "the market" is "today" is irrelevant
because "most" of this market is due to be bankrupt before 2020

to take advantage of "privileges" as the above proposal
there must be a set of "qualifying rules"
such as:
-a factual increase of "energy efficiency" and "quality" in the product or service
-a factual increase of quality, volume "and" efficiency, of a "food product"
-a factual reduction of cost to the community of equivalent "qualifying" goods or services

the above to be measured in comparison to the best available product at the time of registration of tax exemption for occupational increase of each number of units qualifying for exemption

also, the above to be measured against a minimum "threshold level" of what society is going to need (e.g. one mile per gallon reduction won't do)
...
and as far as credit for technology and increase of export
same as above
set of "qualifying rules"
is not time any longer to finance makers of obsolete junk
for third world export aid skims

again the age of "free and irresponsible" is over
the new age is "free and responsible"
what "the market" is "today" is again irrelevant
because "most" of this market is due to be bankrupt before 2020
and "the two issues are related"

if the products match the above criteria, just as for employment
there is no reason not to provide tax premiums for advanced results in export
at the bottom line, as long as they bring back profit
possibly the incoming profit is the measure metric of the export success

under the point of view of labor
exchanging one laborer for one technician is a wash
the ones that are dismissed count against the ones hired for credit purpose
the difference between the two is the number of units entitled to credit
it is understandable that some sort of either turnover
or retraining has to occur continuously in production
...
one thing not addressed in the proposal
is the fairly high possibility
of a worldwide collapse of the society of currency
and once the currency collapses
there would be "no alternative"
to an energy count based unit of trade

another concept that may be wiped away from the crash of currencies
it may be the concept of "interest"
and the concept of "unlimited time" in tender
the standard unit of tender may expire in the time necessary to commercial transactions
and "monetary" accumulation and speculation may become "impossible"
those are issues that "should" be considered
for the ones that don't have all the answers of dogmas
such as economists and philosophers

amun(ra)
:)

Labels:






<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]