MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
IMF shocks orthodoxy: tax the rich and target multinationals to fight budget deficits
Tax the rich and better target the multinationals: The IMF has set off shock waves in Washington by suggesting countries fight budget deficits by raising taxes. Tucked inside a report on public debt, the new tack was mostly eclipsed by worries about the US budget crisis, but did not escape the notice of experts and nongovernmental organizations. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesI'm all for everyone paying their fair share and a true believer in income redistribution up to a point.
Oct 15th, 2013 - 01:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0However in our globalised world, who do you tax when the “rich” people and multinationals have moved to another country with lower taxes.
Stroking the goose's head after it lays a golden egg is much more productive than wringing its neck afterwards.
My country has a pretty good balance that could indeed be tweaked but then again we don't have the debt problems that some governments have.
Maybe budget deficits could also be reduced by getting rid of the IMF.
Oct 15th, 2013 - 02:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0At last an idea to a solution that could help, field only for some time.
Oct 15th, 2013 - 06:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0As much as I me this economic system we live in, I can't predict the conscequences of the dollar losing its value.
I”d love for this system to break, but not for the benefit of chaos, and one thing that is crucial for this system to work, is that the money needs to circulate with as little loss as possible. Rich people collecting money only makes the money prints run riot.
But still, this doesn't solve the problem by its root.
We can't have a financial system that is based on constant growth. Because that means constant consumption and constant production.
And we only have one world...
Man stevie....when are you up for the Noble Peace Prize in economists? And you're an engineering mate?
Oct 15th, 2013 - 09:26 am - Link - Report abuse 03 Stevie
Oct 15th, 2013 - 04:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As Churchill said in response to the Labour party immediately after WW2:
“when you tax the rich and give it to the poor, very soon all you have are the poor”
This is still true today.
“We can't have a financial system that is based on constant growth. Because that means constant consumption and constant production.”
So, you are going to stop people having children? Good luck with that one in China, India and all the Muslim countries.
Just think of how much waste, countries waste each year,
Oct 15th, 2013 - 06:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Incompetence, overspending, bad investments and decision making,
Surely the stoppage of waste alone would save billions per country..just a thought.
.
Chris
Oct 15th, 2013 - 06:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Overpopulation is indeed a future issue we will have to deal with, but that is an issue that exists regardless of our financial system.
I'm not sure where my post led you to believe that I wanted people to stop having children...
Overpopulation is not an issue. The UN Low Variant (which is historically the most accurate) has China's population dropping to about 600 million by 2100. Indeed Australia is one of the few countries that will have an estimated higher population in 87 years than it does now.
Oct 15th, 2013 - 09:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The continual publications of estimates that are much higher than now are based on an unfounded assumption that birthrates will rise again to the magical replacement level of 2.1. However no such actual proof exists for this assumption.
UN Low Variant estimates for 2100 (millions):
India 905.2
Nigeria 644.1
China 607.6
USA 300.9
Russia 54.4
Japan 50.9
France 50.5
UK 49.6
Germany 33.9
Canada 33.8
Australia 28.2
Spain 26.1
Brazil 107.2
Mexico 77.8
Colombia 34.4
Argentina 29.3
Venezuela 24.9
Peru 23.3
Bolivia 11.7
Ecuador 14.6
Chile 10.9
Paraguay 7.1
Uruguay 1.8
World 6,750 (400 million decrease from 2013)
Africa 2,826 (1.7 billion increase from 2013)
South America only 266.5 (144.5 million decrease from 2013)
Increasing wealth and education have the exact same effect, no matter what the country or culture; a below replacement birth rate. Countries such as Australia, Canada, UK and US either will increase or drop less than others predominantly due to immigration. Countries such as Paraguay and Nigeria will continue to increase mainly because they have yet to advance through the demographic stages that countries such as Germany passed through decades ago.
China took 25 years to demographically transit what the US and UK took 100 years to do. Therefore there are some that believe that even the low variant might be too high for many countries in their early stages of demographic transition (or that have yet to start) as the birthrate drops even quicker.
Overpopulation is not going to be a problem. Indeed the world is going to have to find a new growth paradigm to deal with decreasing markets, not increasing.
Anyone aged about 40 years and under will live to see ‘peak population’.
8
Oct 15th, 2013 - 10:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are only quoting the low variant......
The United Nations “high variant” has world population growing to 28 billion by 2150; the “medium variant” has growth levelling off at 11.5 billion around 2075, and the “low variant” has world population growth ending at 7 billion around 2050 followed by population decrease.
If it were a weather forecast . . .
A weather forecast like that would have us preparing for a blizzard, rain, and a hot dry spell all at the same time. Which is most likely? The medium variant is usually considered the most likely because it is in the middle.
Haha I was going to look into this further.....but.....
Thank you US Congress.......Get your act together.....
Due to the lapse in government funding, census.gov sites, services, and all online survey collection requests will be unavailable until further notice.
A_Voice please reread my full comment!
Oct 16th, 2013 - 12:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0Specifically the second sentence.
Well, overpopulation was never the issue to begin with.
Oct 16th, 2013 - 12:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0Overproduction out of need is...
10
Oct 16th, 2013 - 12:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0.....second sentence
”The UN Low Variant (which is historically the most accurate) has China's population dropping to about 600 million by 2100. ”
......like I said quoting the low variant.....???
BTW.....all assumptions are unfounded ...a clue is in the word assume.
A_Voice
Oct 16th, 2013 - 01:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0I clearly stated I was using the Low Variant and I clearly stated the reason.
I also clearly stated why higher estimates, than the Low Variant, estimate a much higher population.
“The continual publications of estimates that are much higher than now are based on an unfounded assumption that birth-rates will rise again to the magical replacement level of 2.1. However no such actual proof exists for this assumption.”
In your reply, as you are wont at times, you deliberately misconstrue.
Unfortunately for you, you chose to quote only selectively from this website (it's called plagiarism when you quote verbatim without referencing):
http://www.siue.edu/~rblain/worldpop.htm
You said:
“A weather forecast like that would have us preparing for a blizzard, rain, and a hot dry spell all at the same time. Which is most likely? The medium variant is usually considered the most likely because it is in the middle.”
The website you plagiarised said:
“A weather forecast like that would have us preparing for a blizzard, rain, and a hot dry spell all at the same time. Which is most likely? The medium variant is usually considered the most likely because it is in the middle. BUT THERE IS ANOTHER METHOD FOR FINDING THE MOST LIKELY PATH OF FUTURE WORLD POPULATION GROWTH.”
I have capitalised the part you conveniently left off.
Further down on the same website, after explaining his statistical methodology (least squares), the author clearly states:
“The least squares method is more likely to give us a reliable projection than the principal components method and that method corresponds most to the United Nations low variant.”
I was replying to Stevie's claim that “Overpopulation is indeed a future issue we will have to deal with” which he now seems to have back downed from in just under 6 hours.
And, of course, any prediction for 2100 will be wrong, however based on statistical trends it looks as if it will be closer to today's world population than any other estimate.
Nah Anglolatino, you'll have to keep fishing, all I said is that overpopulation is a future issue, never said how far in the future or how a big issue it will be.
Oct 16th, 2013 - 01:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0Now, you can guess and predict all you want, using all kind of methods and websites, but fact is, none of you have a clue as to how many children people will be having the next 50 years, or 100.
But by all means, keep guessing and making facts out of clouds, I'm still talking about overproduction, the one that introduced population growth was Chris...
13
Oct 16th, 2013 - 10:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0heh heh! Skip
You have got it wrong....I liked the weather analogy that's all....the last bit was just another wiseguy spouting another mathematical model.....based on assumptions and guesswork. There are dozens of them Skip...the optimists.....
The only facts you can rely on is the graph that shows the human population taking thousands of years to reach a billon...then skyrocketing to 7 billion in no time at all.....haha it's almost like a flatline that goes vertical at the end...
“The world population has experienced continuous growth since the end of the Great Famine and the Black Death in 1350, when it stood at around 370 million.”
In other words ...it has not decreased at all since 1350....and we are to assume that trend will suddenly change and begin to fall.....??
Look at the facts.....or believe the guesswork.....my money is on the “increase”....the middle variant.....
.....did you think you got away with that sentence gaffe Skip?.....You should know the difference between a sentence and a paragraph. You meant second paragraph...;-))))
”(it's called plagiarism when you quote verbatim without referencing):“
.....you have made that up....
Ho hum....btw.....”Plagiarism is the “wrongful appropriation” and “purloining and publication” of another author's “language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions,” and the representation of them as one's own original work.“
Cut and paste that's all....I don't see a claim anywhere to them being original or my own.....and before you say it...there is no rule that says I need to enclose a quote in quotation marks ...
It's acceptable to use others words as long as there is no attempt to claim them as your own...
Are we there yet?.....
Oh dear.....”Are we there yet?”......a quote from a 2005 movie starring Ice Cube.....
Though I was using it in a different context to mean ...if you understand how ridiculous it would be to reference everything I write.....
All three of you seem to have overlooked an obvious trend: when a country gets richer (China) the people have greater expectations and will no longer settle for a ball of rice three times a day (if they are lucky).
Oct 16th, 2013 - 12:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Even if the population of China drops 600 million the overall consumption will probably be greater than it is now.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!