OUR SOUTH KOREAN YOUNG ADULTS AS EX-PATS HEADING TO FINLAND----AS FINLAND GOES BASIC INCOME
Yesterday we saw an article on the decline of a once strong left social Democracy ---SWEDEN ----it outlined how a century of immigration policy worked well to integrate refugees, new immigrants from around the world to a DEVELOPED NATION quality of life. Then these few decades saw Sweden's social Democratic Party taken by global banking neo-liberals just as Clinton did the Democratic Party in US----and Blair did the LABOUR Party in UK. Those few decades saw OPEN BORDERS corrupt a working immigration policy swamping the nation with so many immigrants KNOWING THE GOVERNMENT AND ECONOMY COULD NOT ADDRESS THIS. As the article states after a decade of 2008 economic crash economic damage those integrated immigrant citizens---the refugees----the 99% of Swedish citizens ---are suffering and creating factions. Whether EX-PAT or anti-immigrant nationalism----this was a nation that embraced multi-culturalism and does not today because of an orchestrated CIVIL INSTABILITY by global banking neo-liberals.
This same thing is happening these few decades in US only our nation is so large and rich we are a decade behind UK and Sweden but the decade after this coming economic crash will see these same societal conditions with WE THE PEOPLE as EX-PATS.
We saw as well our citizens from a state building global factories---THAT RIGHT TO WORK STATE-----that US workers were being treated as Mexican or Asian sweat shop workers and indeed THAT is to where MOVING FORWARD US CITIES AS FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE policies go. Watching global politics and policies unfold overseas let us know back in the 1990s what CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA had in store for the American people.
We shared as well the voice of South Korean young adults saying----well, at least Finland allows free time after work where in hyper-neo-liberal South Korea they are worked from pre-K through career being tied 15-18 hours a day towards getting and keeping a job. Guess what? Finland is that European nation MOVING FORWARD to ONE WORLD ONE WAGE BASIC INCOME. These South Korean immigrants to Finland will be in the same position as those in Sweden as Basic Income brings wage in developed nations in Europe, UK, Canada, US----to third world levels those South Korean EX-PATS are trying to escape.
Finland is giving 2,000 citizens a guaranteed income
by Ivana Kottasova @ivanakottasova January 3, 2017: 8:35 AM ET
Finland has started a radical experiment: It's giving 2,000 citizens a guaranteed income, with funds that keep flowing whether participants work or not.The program, which kicks off this month, is one of the first efforts to test a "universal basic income." Participants will receive €560 ($587) a month -- money that is guaranteed regardless of income, wealth or employment status.
The idea is that a universal income offers workers greater security, especially as technological advances reduce the need for human labor. It will also allow unemployed people to pick up odd jobs without losing their benefits.
The initial program will run for a period of two years. Participants were randomly selected, but had to be receiving unemployment benefits or an income subsidy. The money they are paid through the program will not be taxed.
If the program is successful, it could be expanded to include all adult Finns.
The Finnish government thinks the initiative could save money in the long run. The country's welfare system is complex and expensive to run, and simplifying it could reduce costly bureaucracy.
The change could also encourage more jobless people to look for work, because they won't have to worry about losing unemployment benefits. Some unemployed workers currently avoid part time jobs because even a small income boost could result in their unemployment benefits being canceled.
"Incidental earnings do not reduce the basic income, so working and ... self-employment are worthwhile no matter what," said Marjukka Turunen, the head of the legal unit at Kela, Finland's social insurance agency.
Related: Switzerland rejects plan to pay every citizen at least $2,500 a month
The idea is not unique to Finland.
Advocates point to the Italian city of Livorno, which started a guaranteed basic income for the city's 100 poorest families in June. The scheme was extended to further 100 families starting Sunday. They are receiving €500 ($525) per month.
Pilot programs are also being discussed in Canada, Iceland, Uganda and Brazil.
Switzerland last year considered giving every adult citizen a guaranteed income of $2,500 a month, but the plan was rejected in a referendum. More than 75% of voters were against the measure.
The best example of a guaranteed income program might actually be in the U.S. Alaska has been giving out annual cash payments to all residents since the 1980s, a dividend from the state's oil revenue.
BIEN, a group that campaigns for universal income, describes it as the first "genuine universal basic income system."
_____________________________________________
Here is our GLOBAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE national public media once a source of local left social progressive public policy discussion having these few decades been nothing but CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA global Wall Street neo-liberalism neo-conservatism.
All our national media is now selling the idea of SWEDEN still being a bastion of left social progressivism WHEN IT WAS CAPTURED TO THIS SAME GLOBAL BANKING NEO-LIBERALISM. Yes, Sweden as Finland will indeed push BASIC INCOME because it is the platform for taking developed nations' wages and quality of life to third world Foreign Economic Zone level. There is a second connection to this model and today's national media in US------BASIC INCOME seeks to end TAXATION -----in other words in lieu of paying taxes the 99% simply gets less wages---that $3-6 a day----that $20-30 a day for global sweat shop professionals----calling the loss of developed nation wages TAXATION. When global corporate campuses and global factories take care of its HUMAN CAPITAL ----that bed and a meal with vocation training pre-K to career becomes that CORPORATE TAXATION.
THIS IS HOW GLOBAL WALL STREET WILL JUSTIFY WHAT TRUMP AND RIGHT WING WILL CALL TAX REFORM. YES, AS TRUMP SAYS HEDGE FUND MANAGERS WILL PAY THE SAME AS 99% OF CITIZENS WHEN 99% OF CITIZENS ARE NOT PAYING TAXES BECAUSE THEY ARE WORKING FOR SIMPLY A BED AND MEAL.
Basic Income is that platform not only to Western nations being brought to third world wage and quality of life---but dismantling any need for taxation -----but know what comes AFTER BASIC INCOME BRINGS WE THE PEOPLE down to third world wages? That tax equity Trump sells today will revert to 99% of citizens getting soaked of any wealth they can earn....that is the DARK AGES.
Here we have that far-right LIBERTARIAN economist selling BASIC INCOME for these reasons.
MOVING FORWARD TO FAR-RIGHT LIBERTARIAN MARXISM.
Why Sweden, not Switzerland, should be America’s social welfare model
BY Barbara Bergmann April 11, 2014 at 12:36 PM EDT
Instead of replacing public assistance programs with a guaranteed basic income, liberal economist Barbara Bergmann argues, the United States should beef up its social welfare system to be more like Sweden, above, which has universal childcare. Photo by Flickr user Tiberio Frascari.
Editor’s Note: As the midterm elections approach, Republicans and Democrats have fallen into a familiar debate about the role of the federal government, particularly when it comes to addressing income inequality. The fight for a higher minimum wage, for example, is pitting President Obama against unenthused Republican leaders in Congress. But the mere idea of a different kind of federally mandated income adjustment — the guaranteed basic income — is cleaving the ideological spectrum in ways you might not expect.
In Switzerland, such a plan, if approved by the Swiss people, would give 30,000 Swiss Francs to each citizen. In the United States, one of the idea’s main supporters on the right, libertarian Charles Murray, envisions the government giving about $11,000 to each citizen over 21. But the guaranteed income can only work, Murray believes, if it replaces all other social welfare programs.
Liberal economist Barbara Bergmann, professor emerita at American University, makes the opposite argument. She opposes the basic income not because it will make the federal government too large, but rather because she thinks the government should be larger. Instead of paying out a fixed income to all citizens, she would prefer beefing up existing social welfare programs to tackle specific human needs.
The following extended conversation between Making Sen$e producer Diane Lincoln Estes and Bergmann has been edited and condensed for length and clarity. Watch Making Sen$e’s segment about the guaranteed basic income in Switzerland and its appeal in the U.S., in which Bergmann appears, below.
--Simone Pathe, Making Sen$e Editor
Diane Lincoln Estes: What’s your argument against a guaranteed minimum income?
Barbara Bergmann: Well, the problem is that people have different needs and there are programs that attack those needs directly. Let’s talk about college. There are families that have children that need college, or that would benefit from college, and that’s very expensive. And if you give everybody a relatively small income, that doesn’t take care of that problem.
Obviously childcare is a problem for many families. We’ve partially dealt with the health care problem. So what makes sense is a series of government programs that take care of each of these problems. The model for doing that is the Swedish government. They have free college; they have free childcare; they have help with housing; they obviously give health insurance, or health care, to everyone, including mental health care. So those kinds of programs deal with people’s needs, whereas if you give everybody a minimum income, you’re still going to have a lot of people who are in trouble because they have special needs.
Sweden’s a country where, I think, when you do happiness surveys, they come out the happiest, and people don’t feel need there. It’s because the needs, the most important needs, are taken care of directly.
Diane Lincoln Estes: Why couldn’t people use their minimum income to address their own specific needs?
Barbara Bergmann: Well, because a minimum income isn’t enough to address, for example, college expenses for two or three children. It’s just not enough. All of these programs take a lot of money if they’re done correctly.
In every field, we have the same programs that they have in Sweden; it’s just that we’re not funding them very much. To fund them, we would need tax increases, and if you make those tax increases, and you make those expenditure increases, there isn’t enough left in the GDP to give people a minimum income. But people [wouldn’t need it] in the same way they would now [if these programs were stronger].
Diane Lincoln Estes: You’re saying the current system is inadequate?
Barbara Bergmann: Oh, absolutely. I’m coming at this from the more liberal point of view. I’m not against a guaranteed income because I think that it would make the government too big. I think government ought to be much bigger.
You know, a perfect example, by the way, is elementary and secondary education. It wouldn’t make any sense to say, okay, let’s stop giving that to people and let’s instead give them the money. That income would not make any sense.
You couldn’t give everybody enough money so that every family could afford to send three children to college. There isn’t that much money available. If you want to make college available, say, to those who need it and would benefit from it, you have to give [money] directly.
Diane Lincoln Estes: So you’re saying that we need to beef up social welfare programs rather than replace current programs with a guaranteed income?
Barbara Bergmann: We ought to be moving in the direction of the Swedes, of more goods and services from government to the people who need it. Now, you can say, well, that’s a crazy idea, given the current state of American politics, where tax increases are impossible to think about, but I believe that as time goes by, people will realize that filling those needs is the humane thing to do.
It’s increasingly important for the government to beef up other programs like childcare, too. We have a program, but there are huge waiting lists. Many people who are eligible can’t get it. So as single motherhood, for example, grows — 41 percent of babies these days are born to unmarried mothers — and it’s going to continue to grow because of the decline of marriage, what you need is bigger programs of that type to help those families directly.
There is a good chance government beefs up those social welfare programs. Maybe not in the immediate future, as our present situation suggests, but people will understand that social needs are changing, partly because of the decline of marriage and the increase in single parenthood. People are going to see that that kind of help from government is becoming more and more necessary.
Diane Lincoln Estes: Should we worry about the cost of doing this?
Barbara Bergmann: About 30 percent of our national income, our GDP, goes into government. And in Europe, in Sweden for example, it’s 60 percent, so there’s plenty of room for increasing taxes and putting more goods and services through government programs.
Diane Lincoln Estes: One critique of your position is that current government assistance programs are bureaucratic and it would be better to give people a minimum income and let them take care of themselves.
Barbara Bergmann: Well, it’s true that there are a lot of inefficiencies. It is annoying to deal with the government bureaucracy, no question. But the alternative is worse, and if you give out fairly decent sums to people, some of them are going to misspend. It makes much more sense to fill the needs of people than give them money that is not going to be used directly.
Diane Lincoln Estes: Are you concerned that, for instance, an alcoholic would spend his or her minimum income on booze?
Barbara Bergmann: Well, that is a problem if there are very large amounts of money given out. I think, in general, it would probably be some minimal amount.
Diane Lincoln Estes: And would it be a disincentive to work?
Barbara Bergmann: One of the problems with the minimum income is that it would probably result in women, more than men, leaving the labor force. And if you think about the increase in women’s stature, that has really been almost entirely due to the fact that more women are in the labor force. So I think that would be a relatively bad effect of universal cash payments.
If, as people leave the labor force, the amount the government takes in in taxes goes down, that makes problems for giving out the money. As productivity increases, we ought to be having both fewer people working and also people working less hours.
Diane Lincoln Estes: Some people have argued that the people who would leave the labor force are people who aren’t happy in their jobs and that a guaranteed income would liberate them from unfulfilling work. You don’t see it that way?
Barbara Bergmann: The same thing has been said about the Affordable Care Act, “Obamacare,” that people are leaving the labor force because they don’t have to stay in the labor force to get health insurance. And it’s a good thing if you’re liberating people from bad situations. But the main issue is not really that people would leave their jobs, but that giving everybody a minimum income would not really solve societal problems. It wouldn’t allow people at the bottom to send their kids to college or secure affordable housing.
Diane Lincoln Estes: Could a guaranteed minimum income ever become law in this country?
Barbara Bergmann: Well, it could. But people will see it’s easier to expand the programs we already have than to institute a minimum income. … Now, after we’ve taken care of these minimal needs [through government programs], then you can imagine that we could start a small [minimum income on top of that]. Again, because less is needed. But, you know, the increase in inequality of income suggests that we ought to be redistributing money from people who are at the very top to people lower down. It makes more sense to increase Social Security payments than just universally sloshing out the cash to everybody.
________________________________________
Here is UK's Labour Party-----remember it was taken to global banking neo-liberalism by Blair and has been team global Wall Street since. We are reading in national media that a CORBYN is a real left labor activist as he pushes BASIC INCOME. CORBYN is that same far-right Libertarian Marxist we saw in the PBS media article about BASIC INCOME in US.
Here is the next hit by global Wall Street pols and players pretending to be left social progressives. Here is again a global Wall Street controlled UK LABOUR PARTY calling for LAND VALUE TAX REPLACING BUSINESS TAX. So, instead of getting corporations to pay their taxes----we are MOVING BACK TO DARK AGES when the global 1% and their 2% paid LAND TAXES TO THE KINGS AND QUEENS. This tax policy dates back thousands of years. If we are killing all of centuries of Western history favoring WE THE PEOPLE AS CITIZENS----you would push LAND VALUE TAXATION.
Indeed, London is home of global oligarchs----all land is owned by global rich in UK. These several decades have seen in US and UK what is called REIT-----REIT is that real estate tax loophole policy that has allowed big real estate holders to shed actually paying these real estate taxes. What will LAND VALUE TAX do to REIT?
*********************************************
Medieval taxation-----LAND VALUE TAX
Taxes were usually paid based on the quantity of land you owned, so people like serfs were often exempt from national taxes and paid, instead, tithes in the form (usually) of wheat to their land owners.
August 2014
UK REITs
A summary of the regime
The changing REIT landscape
The UK Real Estate Investment Trust (“REIT”) regime
launched on 1 January 2007, and immediately saw a
number of the UK’s largest listed property companies
convert to REITs. The following years have seen further
REIT conversions as well as the launch of a number
of start-up REITs. As at August 2014 there are over
30 UK REITs.
Significant changes to the REIT regime came into
effect in July 2012. Those changes to the REIT regime
were far-reaching and significantly increased the
attractiveness of the regime to a wider pool of property
investors and providers of capital. The changes reduced
barriers to both entry and investment in REITs. Further
smaller changes in both 2013 and 2014 have continued
to enhance the attractiveness of the regime.
The changes to the REIT regime benefit many
Those benefitting most significantly from the changes
include:
All existing and future REITs
• The abolition of the original 2% entry charge for
companies entering the regime significantly reduces
the cost of entering the REIT regime, and may also
result in more properties being acquired and sold
within corporate wrappers.
• Allowing cash to be a ‘good’ asset for the purposes
of the balance of business assets test makes it easier
for start-up REITs to raise funds to be spent over
time. It also makes it easier for existing REITs to raise
additional capital from shareholders.
Institutional investors
• The diverse ownership rule for institutional investors
enables small ‘clubs’ of diversely-owned institutions
to form REITs, where this previously may not have
been possible (although the REIT’s shares still need
to be either ‘listed’ or ‘traded’ on a recognised stock
exchange).
• The 2013 changes to allow one REIT to invest tax
efficiently in another REIT, and the inclusion of UK
and overseas REITs in the definition of ‘institutional
investors’, are of particular benefit to REITs seeking
to establish their own REITs as joint venture vehicles
or as a platform for UK investments.
Start-up and closely held/family owned property
companies
• The three year grace period for new REITs to meet
the close company condition enables property
companies to build sufficient reputation to attract
new shareholders without prejudicing their ability to
enter the REIT regime at the beginning of the three
year period. There is also a relaxation for the ‘traded’
requirement (see below).
Here is UK's Labour Party-----remember it was taken to global banking neo-liberalism by Blair and has been team global Wall Street since. We are reading in national media that a CORBYN is a real left labor activist as he pushes BASIC INCOME. CORBYN is that same far-right Libertarian Marxist we saw in the PBS media article about BASIC INCOME in US.
Here is the next hit by global Wall Street pols and players pretending to be left social progressives. Here is again a global Wall Street controlled UK LABOUR PARTY calling for LAND VALUE TAX REPLACING BUSINESS TAX. So, instead of getting corporations to pay their taxes----we are MOVING BACK TO DARK AGES when the global 1% and their 2% paid LAND TAXES TO THE KINGS AND QUEENS. This tax policy dates back thousands of years. If we are killing all of centuries of Western history favoring WE THE PEOPLE AS CITIZENS----you would push LAND VALUE TAXATION.
Indeed, London is home of global oligarchs----all land is owned by global rich in UK. These several decades have seen in US and UK what is called REIT-----REIT is that real estate tax loophole policy that has allowed big real estate holders to shed actually paying these real estate taxes. What will LAND VALUE TAX do to REIT?
Labour looks to replace Council Tax with a Land Value Tax
Party to launch a review into tax backed by many economists due to its efficiency
Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell AFP/Getty
Labour is to examine proposals for a Land Value Tax (LVT) as a possible replacement for council tax and business rates, the party’s manifesto says.
Land value taxes are paid by landowners on the unimproved rental value of their land. They are recommended by many economists – ranging from Adam Smith to the Institute for Fiscal Studies – because they are considered to be economically efficient.
Land ownership is highly concentrated in Britain, with 432 people owning half of all private rural land. One man, the Duke of Westminster, owns 133,199 acres, including 300 acres in central London.
As a result, a move to LVT could see a dramatic shift in property taxation towards wealthy property barons, with most people getting a cut.
The Independent understands that the party are also interested in LVT as a means of encouraging developers to bring vacant or undeveloped land into use to address Britain’s housing crisis.
Taxing land does not discourage any desirable activity – such as work – and increases in its value accrue through not effort of the owner.
Land is also in fixed supply, meaning taxing is does not make it more scarce. It is almost impossible to avoid such taxes, which are also thought to be difficult to pass on to tenants.
The Labour manifesto says: “We will initiate a review into reforming council tax and business rates and consider new options such as a land value tax, to ensure local government has sustainable funding for the long term.”
Large part of Central London are owned by a small number of people and institutions (DANIEL LYNCH)Dave Wetzel, president of the Labour Land Campaign, said: “This is an example of Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party not only listening to us but also other economists across the political spectrum such as the Institute of Economic Affairs, The Adam Smith Institute and the Institute for Fiscal Studies that have all advocated Land Value Tax.
“If Land Value Tax were to replace business rates all productive businesses would benefit, land speculators keeping homes and premises empty would transfer their wealth to productive investments that create jobs and house builders would release their land banks for building new homes at reasonable prices.”
In 2011 the respected think-tank the Institute for Fiscal Studies backed scrapping business rates and replacing it with a Land Value Tax.
“We are proposing to abolish the current system of business rates and replace it with a system of land value taxation, thereby replacing one of the more distortionary taxes in the current system with a neutral and efficient tax,” the institute’s Mirrlees Review said.
“Business rates are not a good tax – they discriminate between different sorts of business and disincentivise development of business property.”
In the most recent parliament Green MP Caroline Lucas brought forward a bill calling for a commission to look at replacing local government taxes with LVT.
_____________________________
Here is the WORLD BANK telling its global banking neo-liberals to install that LAND VALUE TAX being promoted by a UK LABOUR PARTY CORBYN and we can bet all PRETEND LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVES will be the ones pushing these ancient extreme wealth extreme poverty taxation models for global 1%.
When we have BASIC INCOME creating the vehicle that will keep 99% of global citizens from ever being able to gain wealth-----tied to global corporate campuses as the only LOCAL ECONOMY in Foreign Economic Zones---then our 99% who have small businesses will be sending TRIBUTE payments in lieu of real money----only the global 1% and their 2% will have access to REAL MONEY.
ASK CORBYN AND UK GREEN PARTY BACKED LAND VALUE TAX AS WELL---WHY ARE THEY PUSHING WORLD BANK POLICIES?
Now's the time to make value-based property taxation happen in Europe and Central Asia
Submitted by Mika-Petteri Torhonen On Mon, 03/14/2016Photo: Kyrgyz Republic – Mika Torhonen
The World Bank has supported land reform, land administration, and land management projects in 24 countries in the Europe and Central Asia region (ECA) since the 1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union and Central European socialist countries. This has been a period of catalyzed, unprecedented political, economic, and social changes and also a remarkable success story in creating private property rights, and developing land registration and cadastre systems. The results are becoming visible. According to the 2016 Doing Business Index, 7 of the 10 best- performing property registers are found in ECA countries. It is time to think next steps and how to best utilize these data repositories for development.
In the aftermath of 2008 fiscal crisis, which hit the Europe and Central Asia region particularly hard, and facing the challenges of globalization, countries have started to pay renewed attention to equitable and efficient sources of revenue. Recurrent property taxes are being seriously considered as they fall on fixed assets that cannot be moved to another jurisdiction, and are known to be a viable source for financing local services.
However, while it is known that recurrent property taxes can play a significant role in a tax system, they remain underutilized in most countries, with only a minority raising significant amounts in this way. Why is that?
New analytical work by the World Bank and FAO (.pdf) that featured 9 country case studies from ECA, provides some answers. Reasons are in part technical and in part political. Modern property taxes are based on the assessed value rather than the area of a property; therefore, they require the capacity to estimate market values of properties systematically, equitably and comprehensively. Major technical impediments include commonly inadequate valuation capacity (lack of valuer education, standards, accreditation) and associated infrastructure (incomplete tax rolls), and market information (no access to reliable property transaction prices).
The latter technical impediments may have become historical in ECA, which has the world’s leading property registers (in terms of completeness and ability to register transactions) and vivid valuation professionals and valuation infrastructure. In fact, ECA’s digital property registers provide a good and fast improving base for mass property valuations systems region wide. These systems can in turn provide equitable values efficiently for recurrent property taxes. There are several good mass property valuation systems operational in ECA.
The remaining challenges in introducing equitable property taxes in ECA region are political and cannot be underestimated. While mass valuation systems are fully functional in many ECA countries, being introduced in others and considered in most remaining ECA countries, one still has to cross the border to Western Europe to find efficient property taxes. Imposition of property taxes is sensitive, perhaps a political career ending move; even when there is the will, a governmental term is bound to be too short for carrying through such reforms and introducing solutions.
However, the opportunity is real and the trend is clear. We will soon see an era where ECA property registers region-wide are used for mass valuation systems that serve equitable, value-based, property taxation. This is a very positive prospect for the region, as it will eventually translate to better local services. Time to make it happen!
The joint FAO – World Bank Land Tenure Journal (.pdf) features nine cases studies and findings on property valuation and taxation in Europe and Central Asia.
Yesterday we saw an article on the decline of a once strong left social Democracy ---SWEDEN ----it outlined how a century of immigration policy worked well to integrate refugees, new immigrants from around the world to a DEVELOPED NATION quality of life. Then these few decades saw Sweden's social Democratic Party taken by global banking neo-liberals just as Clinton did the Democratic Party in US----and Blair did the LABOUR Party in UK. Those few decades saw OPEN BORDERS corrupt a working immigration policy swamping the nation with so many immigrants KNOWING THE GOVERNMENT AND ECONOMY COULD NOT ADDRESS THIS. As the article states after a decade of 2008 economic crash economic damage those integrated immigrant citizens---the refugees----the 99% of Swedish citizens ---are suffering and creating factions. Whether EX-PAT or anti-immigrant nationalism----this was a nation that embraced multi-culturalism and does not today because of an orchestrated CIVIL INSTABILITY by global banking neo-liberals.
This same thing is happening these few decades in US only our nation is so large and rich we are a decade behind UK and Sweden but the decade after this coming economic crash will see these same societal conditions with WE THE PEOPLE as EX-PATS.
We saw as well our citizens from a state building global factories---THAT RIGHT TO WORK STATE-----that US workers were being treated as Mexican or Asian sweat shop workers and indeed THAT is to where MOVING FORWARD US CITIES AS FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE policies go. Watching global politics and policies unfold overseas let us know back in the 1990s what CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA had in store for the American people.
We shared as well the voice of South Korean young adults saying----well, at least Finland allows free time after work where in hyper-neo-liberal South Korea they are worked from pre-K through career being tied 15-18 hours a day towards getting and keeping a job. Guess what? Finland is that European nation MOVING FORWARD to ONE WORLD ONE WAGE BASIC INCOME. These South Korean immigrants to Finland will be in the same position as those in Sweden as Basic Income brings wage in developed nations in Europe, UK, Canada, US----to third world levels those South Korean EX-PATS are trying to escape.
Finland is giving 2,000 citizens a guaranteed income
by Ivana Kottasova @ivanakottasova January 3, 2017: 8:35 AM ET
Finland has started a radical experiment: It's giving 2,000 citizens a guaranteed income, with funds that keep flowing whether participants work or not.The program, which kicks off this month, is one of the first efforts to test a "universal basic income." Participants will receive €560 ($587) a month -- money that is guaranteed regardless of income, wealth or employment status.
The idea is that a universal income offers workers greater security, especially as technological advances reduce the need for human labor. It will also allow unemployed people to pick up odd jobs without losing their benefits.
The initial program will run for a period of two years. Participants were randomly selected, but had to be receiving unemployment benefits or an income subsidy. The money they are paid through the program will not be taxed.
If the program is successful, it could be expanded to include all adult Finns.
The Finnish government thinks the initiative could save money in the long run. The country's welfare system is complex and expensive to run, and simplifying it could reduce costly bureaucracy.
The change could also encourage more jobless people to look for work, because they won't have to worry about losing unemployment benefits. Some unemployed workers currently avoid part time jobs because even a small income boost could result in their unemployment benefits being canceled.
"Incidental earnings do not reduce the basic income, so working and ... self-employment are worthwhile no matter what," said Marjukka Turunen, the head of the legal unit at Kela, Finland's social insurance agency.
Related: Switzerland rejects plan to pay every citizen at least $2,500 a month
The idea is not unique to Finland.
Advocates point to the Italian city of Livorno, which started a guaranteed basic income for the city's 100 poorest families in June. The scheme was extended to further 100 families starting Sunday. They are receiving €500 ($525) per month.
Pilot programs are also being discussed in Canada, Iceland, Uganda and Brazil.
Switzerland last year considered giving every adult citizen a guaranteed income of $2,500 a month, but the plan was rejected in a referendum. More than 75% of voters were against the measure.
The best example of a guaranteed income program might actually be in the U.S. Alaska has been giving out annual cash payments to all residents since the 1980s, a dividend from the state's oil revenue.
BIEN, a group that campaigns for universal income, describes it as the first "genuine universal basic income system."
_____________________________________________
Here is our GLOBAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE national public media once a source of local left social progressive public policy discussion having these few decades been nothing but CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA global Wall Street neo-liberalism neo-conservatism.
All our national media is now selling the idea of SWEDEN still being a bastion of left social progressivism WHEN IT WAS CAPTURED TO THIS SAME GLOBAL BANKING NEO-LIBERALISM. Yes, Sweden as Finland will indeed push BASIC INCOME because it is the platform for taking developed nations' wages and quality of life to third world Foreign Economic Zone level. There is a second connection to this model and today's national media in US------BASIC INCOME seeks to end TAXATION -----in other words in lieu of paying taxes the 99% simply gets less wages---that $3-6 a day----that $20-30 a day for global sweat shop professionals----calling the loss of developed nation wages TAXATION. When global corporate campuses and global factories take care of its HUMAN CAPITAL ----that bed and a meal with vocation training pre-K to career becomes that CORPORATE TAXATION.
THIS IS HOW GLOBAL WALL STREET WILL JUSTIFY WHAT TRUMP AND RIGHT WING WILL CALL TAX REFORM. YES, AS TRUMP SAYS HEDGE FUND MANAGERS WILL PAY THE SAME AS 99% OF CITIZENS WHEN 99% OF CITIZENS ARE NOT PAYING TAXES BECAUSE THEY ARE WORKING FOR SIMPLY A BED AND MEAL.
Basic Income is that platform not only to Western nations being brought to third world wage and quality of life---but dismantling any need for taxation -----but know what comes AFTER BASIC INCOME BRINGS WE THE PEOPLE down to third world wages? That tax equity Trump sells today will revert to 99% of citizens getting soaked of any wealth they can earn....that is the DARK AGES.
Here we have that far-right LIBERTARIAN economist selling BASIC INCOME for these reasons.
MOVING FORWARD TO FAR-RIGHT LIBERTARIAN MARXISM.
Why Sweden, not Switzerland, should be America’s social welfare model
BY Barbara Bergmann April 11, 2014 at 12:36 PM EDT
Instead of replacing public assistance programs with a guaranteed basic income, liberal economist Barbara Bergmann argues, the United States should beef up its social welfare system to be more like Sweden, above, which has universal childcare. Photo by Flickr user Tiberio Frascari.
Editor’s Note: As the midterm elections approach, Republicans and Democrats have fallen into a familiar debate about the role of the federal government, particularly when it comes to addressing income inequality. The fight for a higher minimum wage, for example, is pitting President Obama against unenthused Republican leaders in Congress. But the mere idea of a different kind of federally mandated income adjustment — the guaranteed basic income — is cleaving the ideological spectrum in ways you might not expect.
In Switzerland, such a plan, if approved by the Swiss people, would give 30,000 Swiss Francs to each citizen. In the United States, one of the idea’s main supporters on the right, libertarian Charles Murray, envisions the government giving about $11,000 to each citizen over 21. But the guaranteed income can only work, Murray believes, if it replaces all other social welfare programs.
Liberal economist Barbara Bergmann, professor emerita at American University, makes the opposite argument. She opposes the basic income not because it will make the federal government too large, but rather because she thinks the government should be larger. Instead of paying out a fixed income to all citizens, she would prefer beefing up existing social welfare programs to tackle specific human needs.
The following extended conversation between Making Sen$e producer Diane Lincoln Estes and Bergmann has been edited and condensed for length and clarity. Watch Making Sen$e’s segment about the guaranteed basic income in Switzerland and its appeal in the U.S., in which Bergmann appears, below.
--Simone Pathe, Making Sen$e Editor
Diane Lincoln Estes: What’s your argument against a guaranteed minimum income?
Barbara Bergmann: Well, the problem is that people have different needs and there are programs that attack those needs directly. Let’s talk about college. There are families that have children that need college, or that would benefit from college, and that’s very expensive. And if you give everybody a relatively small income, that doesn’t take care of that problem.
Obviously childcare is a problem for many families. We’ve partially dealt with the health care problem. So what makes sense is a series of government programs that take care of each of these problems. The model for doing that is the Swedish government. They have free college; they have free childcare; they have help with housing; they obviously give health insurance, or health care, to everyone, including mental health care. So those kinds of programs deal with people’s needs, whereas if you give everybody a minimum income, you’re still going to have a lot of people who are in trouble because they have special needs.
Sweden’s a country where, I think, when you do happiness surveys, they come out the happiest, and people don’t feel need there. It’s because the needs, the most important needs, are taken care of directly.
Diane Lincoln Estes: Why couldn’t people use their minimum income to address their own specific needs?
Barbara Bergmann: Well, because a minimum income isn’t enough to address, for example, college expenses for two or three children. It’s just not enough. All of these programs take a lot of money if they’re done correctly.
In every field, we have the same programs that they have in Sweden; it’s just that we’re not funding them very much. To fund them, we would need tax increases, and if you make those tax increases, and you make those expenditure increases, there isn’t enough left in the GDP to give people a minimum income. But people [wouldn’t need it] in the same way they would now [if these programs were stronger].
Diane Lincoln Estes: You’re saying the current system is inadequate?
Barbara Bergmann: Oh, absolutely. I’m coming at this from the more liberal point of view. I’m not against a guaranteed income because I think that it would make the government too big. I think government ought to be much bigger.
You know, a perfect example, by the way, is elementary and secondary education. It wouldn’t make any sense to say, okay, let’s stop giving that to people and let’s instead give them the money. That income would not make any sense.
You couldn’t give everybody enough money so that every family could afford to send three children to college. There isn’t that much money available. If you want to make college available, say, to those who need it and would benefit from it, you have to give [money] directly.
Diane Lincoln Estes: So you’re saying that we need to beef up social welfare programs rather than replace current programs with a guaranteed income?
Barbara Bergmann: We ought to be moving in the direction of the Swedes, of more goods and services from government to the people who need it. Now, you can say, well, that’s a crazy idea, given the current state of American politics, where tax increases are impossible to think about, but I believe that as time goes by, people will realize that filling those needs is the humane thing to do.
It’s increasingly important for the government to beef up other programs like childcare, too. We have a program, but there are huge waiting lists. Many people who are eligible can’t get it. So as single motherhood, for example, grows — 41 percent of babies these days are born to unmarried mothers — and it’s going to continue to grow because of the decline of marriage, what you need is bigger programs of that type to help those families directly.
There is a good chance government beefs up those social welfare programs. Maybe not in the immediate future, as our present situation suggests, but people will understand that social needs are changing, partly because of the decline of marriage and the increase in single parenthood. People are going to see that that kind of help from government is becoming more and more necessary.
Diane Lincoln Estes: Should we worry about the cost of doing this?
Barbara Bergmann: About 30 percent of our national income, our GDP, goes into government. And in Europe, in Sweden for example, it’s 60 percent, so there’s plenty of room for increasing taxes and putting more goods and services through government programs.
Diane Lincoln Estes: One critique of your position is that current government assistance programs are bureaucratic and it would be better to give people a minimum income and let them take care of themselves.
Barbara Bergmann: Well, it’s true that there are a lot of inefficiencies. It is annoying to deal with the government bureaucracy, no question. But the alternative is worse, and if you give out fairly decent sums to people, some of them are going to misspend. It makes much more sense to fill the needs of people than give them money that is not going to be used directly.
Diane Lincoln Estes: Are you concerned that, for instance, an alcoholic would spend his or her minimum income on booze?
Barbara Bergmann: Well, that is a problem if there are very large amounts of money given out. I think, in general, it would probably be some minimal amount.
Diane Lincoln Estes: And would it be a disincentive to work?
Barbara Bergmann: One of the problems with the minimum income is that it would probably result in women, more than men, leaving the labor force. And if you think about the increase in women’s stature, that has really been almost entirely due to the fact that more women are in the labor force. So I think that would be a relatively bad effect of universal cash payments.
If, as people leave the labor force, the amount the government takes in in taxes goes down, that makes problems for giving out the money. As productivity increases, we ought to be having both fewer people working and also people working less hours.
Diane Lincoln Estes: Some people have argued that the people who would leave the labor force are people who aren’t happy in their jobs and that a guaranteed income would liberate them from unfulfilling work. You don’t see it that way?
Barbara Bergmann: The same thing has been said about the Affordable Care Act, “Obamacare,” that people are leaving the labor force because they don’t have to stay in the labor force to get health insurance. And it’s a good thing if you’re liberating people from bad situations. But the main issue is not really that people would leave their jobs, but that giving everybody a minimum income would not really solve societal problems. It wouldn’t allow people at the bottom to send their kids to college or secure affordable housing.
Diane Lincoln Estes: Could a guaranteed minimum income ever become law in this country?
Barbara Bergmann: Well, it could. But people will see it’s easier to expand the programs we already have than to institute a minimum income. … Now, after we’ve taken care of these minimal needs [through government programs], then you can imagine that we could start a small [minimum income on top of that]. Again, because less is needed. But, you know, the increase in inequality of income suggests that we ought to be redistributing money from people who are at the very top to people lower down. It makes more sense to increase Social Security payments than just universally sloshing out the cash to everybody.
________________________________________
Here is UK's Labour Party-----remember it was taken to global banking neo-liberalism by Blair and has been team global Wall Street since. We are reading in national media that a CORBYN is a real left labor activist as he pushes BASIC INCOME. CORBYN is that same far-right Libertarian Marxist we saw in the PBS media article about BASIC INCOME in US.
Here is the next hit by global Wall Street pols and players pretending to be left social progressives. Here is again a global Wall Street controlled UK LABOUR PARTY calling for LAND VALUE TAX REPLACING BUSINESS TAX. So, instead of getting corporations to pay their taxes----we are MOVING BACK TO DARK AGES when the global 1% and their 2% paid LAND TAXES TO THE KINGS AND QUEENS. This tax policy dates back thousands of years. If we are killing all of centuries of Western history favoring WE THE PEOPLE AS CITIZENS----you would push LAND VALUE TAXATION.
Indeed, London is home of global oligarchs----all land is owned by global rich in UK. These several decades have seen in US and UK what is called REIT-----REIT is that real estate tax loophole policy that has allowed big real estate holders to shed actually paying these real estate taxes. What will LAND VALUE TAX do to REIT?
*********************************************
Medieval taxation-----LAND VALUE TAX
Taxes were usually paid based on the quantity of land you owned, so people like serfs were often exempt from national taxes and paid, instead, tithes in the form (usually) of wheat to their land owners.
August 2014
UK REITs
A summary of the regime
The changing REIT landscape
The UK Real Estate Investment Trust (“REIT”) regime
launched on 1 January 2007, and immediately saw a
number of the UK’s largest listed property companies
convert to REITs. The following years have seen further
REIT conversions as well as the launch of a number
of start-up REITs. As at August 2014 there are over
30 UK REITs.
Significant changes to the REIT regime came into
effect in July 2012. Those changes to the REIT regime
were far-reaching and significantly increased the
attractiveness of the regime to a wider pool of property
investors and providers of capital. The changes reduced
barriers to both entry and investment in REITs. Further
smaller changes in both 2013 and 2014 have continued
to enhance the attractiveness of the regime.
The changes to the REIT regime benefit many
Those benefitting most significantly from the changes
include:
All existing and future REITs
• The abolition of the original 2% entry charge for
companies entering the regime significantly reduces
the cost of entering the REIT regime, and may also
result in more properties being acquired and sold
within corporate wrappers.
• Allowing cash to be a ‘good’ asset for the purposes
of the balance of business assets test makes it easier
for start-up REITs to raise funds to be spent over
time. It also makes it easier for existing REITs to raise
additional capital from shareholders.
Institutional investors
• The diverse ownership rule for institutional investors
enables small ‘clubs’ of diversely-owned institutions
to form REITs, where this previously may not have
been possible (although the REIT’s shares still need
to be either ‘listed’ or ‘traded’ on a recognised stock
exchange).
• The 2013 changes to allow one REIT to invest tax
efficiently in another REIT, and the inclusion of UK
and overseas REITs in the definition of ‘institutional
investors’, are of particular benefit to REITs seeking
to establish their own REITs as joint venture vehicles
or as a platform for UK investments.
Start-up and closely held/family owned property
companies
• The three year grace period for new REITs to meet
the close company condition enables property
companies to build sufficient reputation to attract
new shareholders without prejudicing their ability to
enter the REIT regime at the beginning of the three
year period. There is also a relaxation for the ‘traded’
requirement (see below).
Here is UK's Labour Party-----remember it was taken to global banking neo-liberalism by Blair and has been team global Wall Street since. We are reading in national media that a CORBYN is a real left labor activist as he pushes BASIC INCOME. CORBYN is that same far-right Libertarian Marxist we saw in the PBS media article about BASIC INCOME in US.
Here is the next hit by global Wall Street pols and players pretending to be left social progressives. Here is again a global Wall Street controlled UK LABOUR PARTY calling for LAND VALUE TAX REPLACING BUSINESS TAX. So, instead of getting corporations to pay their taxes----we are MOVING BACK TO DARK AGES when the global 1% and their 2% paid LAND TAXES TO THE KINGS AND QUEENS. This tax policy dates back thousands of years. If we are killing all of centuries of Western history favoring WE THE PEOPLE AS CITIZENS----you would push LAND VALUE TAXATION.
Indeed, London is home of global oligarchs----all land is owned by global rich in UK. These several decades have seen in US and UK what is called REIT-----REIT is that real estate tax loophole policy that has allowed big real estate holders to shed actually paying these real estate taxes. What will LAND VALUE TAX do to REIT?
Labour looks to replace Council Tax with a Land Value Tax
Party to launch a review into tax backed by many economists due to its efficiency
- Jon Stone Political Correspondent
- @joncstone
- Tuesday 16 May 2017 16:42 BST
Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell AFP/Getty
Labour is to examine proposals for a Land Value Tax (LVT) as a possible replacement for council tax and business rates, the party’s manifesto says.
Land value taxes are paid by landowners on the unimproved rental value of their land. They are recommended by many economists – ranging from Adam Smith to the Institute for Fiscal Studies – because they are considered to be economically efficient.
Land ownership is highly concentrated in Britain, with 432 people owning half of all private rural land. One man, the Duke of Westminster, owns 133,199 acres, including 300 acres in central London.
As a result, a move to LVT could see a dramatic shift in property taxation towards wealthy property barons, with most people getting a cut.
The Independent understands that the party are also interested in LVT as a means of encouraging developers to bring vacant or undeveloped land into use to address Britain’s housing crisis.
Taxing land does not discourage any desirable activity – such as work – and increases in its value accrue through not effort of the owner.
Land is also in fixed supply, meaning taxing is does not make it more scarce. It is almost impossible to avoid such taxes, which are also thought to be difficult to pass on to tenants.
The Labour manifesto says: “We will initiate a review into reforming council tax and business rates and consider new options such as a land value tax, to ensure local government has sustainable funding for the long term.”
Large part of Central London are owned by a small number of people and institutions (DANIEL LYNCH)Dave Wetzel, president of the Labour Land Campaign, said: “This is an example of Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party not only listening to us but also other economists across the political spectrum such as the Institute of Economic Affairs, The Adam Smith Institute and the Institute for Fiscal Studies that have all advocated Land Value Tax.
“If Land Value Tax were to replace business rates all productive businesses would benefit, land speculators keeping homes and premises empty would transfer their wealth to productive investments that create jobs and house builders would release their land banks for building new homes at reasonable prices.”
In 2011 the respected think-tank the Institute for Fiscal Studies backed scrapping business rates and replacing it with a Land Value Tax.
“We are proposing to abolish the current system of business rates and replace it with a system of land value taxation, thereby replacing one of the more distortionary taxes in the current system with a neutral and efficient tax,” the institute’s Mirrlees Review said.
“Business rates are not a good tax – they discriminate between different sorts of business and disincentivise development of business property.”
In the most recent parliament Green MP Caroline Lucas brought forward a bill calling for a commission to look at replacing local government taxes with LVT.
_____________________________
Here is the WORLD BANK telling its global banking neo-liberals to install that LAND VALUE TAX being promoted by a UK LABOUR PARTY CORBYN and we can bet all PRETEND LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVES will be the ones pushing these ancient extreme wealth extreme poverty taxation models for global 1%.
When we have BASIC INCOME creating the vehicle that will keep 99% of global citizens from ever being able to gain wealth-----tied to global corporate campuses as the only LOCAL ECONOMY in Foreign Economic Zones---then our 99% who have small businesses will be sending TRIBUTE payments in lieu of real money----only the global 1% and their 2% will have access to REAL MONEY.
ASK CORBYN AND UK GREEN PARTY BACKED LAND VALUE TAX AS WELL---WHY ARE THEY PUSHING WORLD BANK POLICIES?
Now's the time to make value-based property taxation happen in Europe and Central Asia
Submitted by Mika-Petteri Torhonen On Mon, 03/14/2016Photo: Kyrgyz Republic – Mika Torhonen
The World Bank has supported land reform, land administration, and land management projects in 24 countries in the Europe and Central Asia region (ECA) since the 1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union and Central European socialist countries. This has been a period of catalyzed, unprecedented political, economic, and social changes and also a remarkable success story in creating private property rights, and developing land registration and cadastre systems. The results are becoming visible. According to the 2016 Doing Business Index, 7 of the 10 best- performing property registers are found in ECA countries. It is time to think next steps and how to best utilize these data repositories for development.
In the aftermath of 2008 fiscal crisis, which hit the Europe and Central Asia region particularly hard, and facing the challenges of globalization, countries have started to pay renewed attention to equitable and efficient sources of revenue. Recurrent property taxes are being seriously considered as they fall on fixed assets that cannot be moved to another jurisdiction, and are known to be a viable source for financing local services.
However, while it is known that recurrent property taxes can play a significant role in a tax system, they remain underutilized in most countries, with only a minority raising significant amounts in this way. Why is that?
New analytical work by the World Bank and FAO (.pdf) that featured 9 country case studies from ECA, provides some answers. Reasons are in part technical and in part political. Modern property taxes are based on the assessed value rather than the area of a property; therefore, they require the capacity to estimate market values of properties systematically, equitably and comprehensively. Major technical impediments include commonly inadequate valuation capacity (lack of valuer education, standards, accreditation) and associated infrastructure (incomplete tax rolls), and market information (no access to reliable property transaction prices).
The latter technical impediments may have become historical in ECA, which has the world’s leading property registers (in terms of completeness and ability to register transactions) and vivid valuation professionals and valuation infrastructure. In fact, ECA’s digital property registers provide a good and fast improving base for mass property valuations systems region wide. These systems can in turn provide equitable values efficiently for recurrent property taxes. There are several good mass property valuation systems operational in ECA.
The remaining challenges in introducing equitable property taxes in ECA region are political and cannot be underestimated. While mass valuation systems are fully functional in many ECA countries, being introduced in others and considered in most remaining ECA countries, one still has to cross the border to Western Europe to find efficient property taxes. Imposition of property taxes is sensitive, perhaps a political career ending move; even when there is the will, a governmental term is bound to be too short for carrying through such reforms and introducing solutions.
However, the opportunity is real and the trend is clear. We will soon see an era where ECA property registers region-wide are used for mass valuation systems that serve equitable, value-based, property taxation. This is a very positive prospect for the region, as it will eventually translate to better local services. Time to make it happen!
The joint FAO – World Bank Land Tenure Journal (.pdf) features nine cases studies and findings on property valuation and taxation in Europe and Central Asia.
RSS Feed
