EMR

I do like reading your posts but when you come up with nonsense such as the Greek election is the first taste of real democracy in the EU etc it does weaken any argument you are trying to make.
Please give us examples excl of any dictatorships or one party states since 1945 in any EU member since they joined the EU.
Democracy is not just getting the government you want it is also accepting that sometimes you will be part of a minority viewpoint.
You are right in one thing that we often get the government we deserve rather than what is best for us at that particular time.
I am far more optimistic than some I see the EU evolving to meet the changing demands of the 21st century from the post second world war ethos it was based on.

cricketman

Absolutely. The worm has turned

amideislas

No surprise you'd try to find some distant rationale to discredit the entire premise. But considering your history, that's pretty expectable.

I'm simply pointing out that compared to "mature" democracies, the political risks of voter backlash traditionally hasn't been a major consideration within the EU. And it shows.

Europeans are demonstrably politically apathetic by comparison, and are far more accepting of government impositions than most mature democracies, where imposing too much burden on the population is always risky, and a major consideration in policy making at all levels. In a democracy, government is obliged to be working in favour of the population, not punish it. In a real democracy, governments are punished for that by their employer - the people they are supposed to serve.

But obviously, in this case, voter apathy has been taken a bit too much for granted. The obvious result being that the voters, having been robbed of any evidence that government is working in their favour, has been pushed a bit too far, and are now choosing extreme knee-jerk reactions that (perceptibly) provide short-term relief, whilst wholly disregarding the long-term unsustainability of the entire premise.

My argument is that if there had been less focus on austerity (effectively, penalising the population to avoid burdening the status quo), and far more focus on economic development, including currency manipulation (QE) and major tax relief, ultimately resulting in increase trade, subsequent job creation, and overall greater prosperity for the population, whilst at same time increasing tax revenues to battle those deficits, there would be far less dissent. But that's all history now.

Failing that, it's a little too little, a little too late, and now we're faced with a populist movement that's fixated not on sensible long-term economic development, but short-term relief and generous benefits, which none can realistically afford.

And although I don't blame the people for finally exercising their democratic rights to choose that path, the choice they are making isn't one that will result in any real improvement over the long-term, in fact it's almost inevitable that it will only make things worse down the road.

So, that's why this is perhaps the EU's first real exposure to how a democracy actually works. Surprise! you can't just impose whatever you want on a population living under a democracy. Push them a bit too far, and ultimately, they'll rip you to shreds.

That's the great thing about a democracy, and if nothing else, I'm delighted to see that some are actually beginning to realise their government is supposed to be working for the public, not the other way 'round.

cricketman

What drivel

In the 8 years I have been in Spain I have seen the people fighting, demonstrating and exercising their "democratic rights" on a daily basis. I'm not sure what you would call a "mature" democracy but I absolutely did not see any democratic activity when I lived in the UK where people live in a semi-feudal stupor - and in the US demonstrators get shot down, or if that doesnt work then congress and the senate get bribed

Europe is the cradle of democracy in spite of recent EU centralism

amideislas

Erm... drivel? Well what the hell was that? A sensible, realistic assessment?

In case you hadn't noticed, both are in lot better shape than we are. And I don't see their populations eagerly voting for extreme left-wing ideologies out of desperation.

You can argue that the UK is at *some* risk of losing it all as a result of liberal "feudalism" over atrocities such as the government's limiting of generous benefits ... for example, restricting WFA to people who actually need it...

...but especially now, it's pretty hard to argue that Europe is better off.

We shall see.

EMR

I am not sure what Am and othetrs are advocating. Democracy or Revolution ??
In Greece a popular anti austerity party with Marxist roots had only gained power by forming an alliance with an ultra right wing party.
Is that democracy or opportunism. The majority of the Greek population want to stay in the EU, if the new government through its actions ( unlikely ) is forced out of the EU is that Democracy ?.
Anyone with even a passing knowledge of European politics will know that the systems we have now are infinitely superior to anything that came before or any alternatives on offer.

amideislas

It may not be clear to you, but it's crystal clear to me.

In a democracy, government is supposed to serve the population, not the other way around. I think (hope) we can agree on that.

One of the flaws of liberalism is that it unwittingly encourages government to view itself not as a servant of the population, but as a master of it.

The more socialist a society becomes, the more individuals increasingly give up the burden of responsibility for their well-being in return for "safety net" entitlements provided by a paternal "government". And as long as the population stays reasonably prosperous, most won't object to becoming increasingly subservient to its government.

But there's always a point when government becomes a bit too arrogant, and no longer truly serves the population - happily burdening the population out of convenience rather than necessity - almost always in the interest of the "common good", which by this point, can be defined as anything, really.

Including say, diverting burdens from the ruling class, nepotistic spending on useless vanity projects, exploding bureaucracy, gross inefficiency, employing 3 people or establishing 5 agencies to do the job of one, or whatever senior bureaucrats choose to spend >their< money on. After all, the definition of what's in the public interest isn't the public's responsibility. They gave that up in return for government paternalism.

So, for example, rather than helping the Greeks recover and establish a sustainable economy, let's first bail out the (ruling) German banks and then punish the Greek population by forcing them into poverty - they can live with the consequences. After all, they are subservient to the EU, not the other way around.

But as you can see, in a functioning democracy, the consequences can be far less desirable than if government actually aspired to, and demonstrably served the population, as it is obliged to do.

HBG

The most interesting comment I listened to on the post election Greek discussions was made by an ordinary but perceptive Greek citizen saying that the county’s problems could only be resolved if his people, especially the middle classes, paid their taxes.

I’ve always thought exactly the same argument could be applied to Spain. For the Eurozone to succeed, all its member states would have to pay their taxes, and Greece and Spain don’t.

Yet the austerity measures imposed on them by their outraged neighbours don’t work either.

Realistically, neither country, even with the crooked numbers put forward by Goldman Sachs and others, should have been allowed into the Eurozone in the first place.

Like the UK; Spain and Greece, they could still be important members of the EU, while retaining their own currencies and independent internal political control. Perhaps it could still happen and I would be rolling in Pesetas.

Fredbargate

"This time next year we'll be millionaires", "Lovely Jubbly!

But only peseta millionaires

cricketman

Pablo Iglesias, the leader of Podemos says that the most patriotic thing a Spaniard can do is declare their income and pay their taxes

Obviously when you see PP and PSOE politicians stealing your hard earned money then that puts you off somewhat

amideislas

Well, tax evasion is most prolific where taxes are most oppressive. The more oppressive the taxes, the more people to try to evade them.

Governments can't spend public money without either a) going into debt or b) collecting enough taxes to pay for the spending.

So, I reckon the options are something like:

1. Spend as though your fountain of money is never-ending - lovely government buildings and vanity projects, a huge bureaucracy, broad-ranging entitlements for everyone, impose oppressive taxes, increase cost of living and trade, elevate unemployment and resulting benefits spending, lower standard of living, inherently incubate distrust of government, foster corruption & black economy, and give people every incentive to avoid paying taxes.
   
   
2. Spend more reasonably and transparently, impose more palatable taxes, carefully manage the economy, keep trade reasonably competitive and unemployment & benefits claimants as low as practical, and provide less incentive to avoid paying taxes.
   
   
3. Spend responsibly, wisely and frugally, mandate efficiently operated government with the ideal that government is a public service, subscribe and mandate a "lowest possible burden on the public" code of ethics (e.g., low taxes and other burdens), keep efficiency high, and bureaucracy at a minimum, facilitate low cost of living and highly competitive trade, low unemployment, vibrant economy, and ultimately far more willingness to pay taxes.

Surely bracket 2 would be unfair to those living in bracket 1, and bracket 3 would be wholly unfair to all those in brackets 1 and 2, which might help explain why most of us live in bracket 1 or 2. It's just fairer.

cricketman

You just made that up. Maybe you should link to your data source?

Tax evasion is prolific when people know they can get away with it

Or when actually it is part of the system and therefore "legal"

Let's not forget, the real issue is big companies evading tax, Amazon, Starbucks, Apple and co. none of which are Spanish or Greek

Fredbargate

Present government thinking is borrow as much as you can.
Spend on anything you can to create inflation.
Payback present spending when the value of the debt is sufficiently low and affordable due to inflation

amideislas

OK, you asked.

Well, the topic itself is rather broad and inspecific, so it's not easy to find a simple (qualified) list, but based on research I've done in the past, and the few (briefly stated) reports you can find, it appears that in terms of first-world economies, Russians and Europeans seem to top the list in terms of percentages (no surprise there).

Italy, France, UK, Germany and Spain being hotspots in terms of overall size of tax-evasion economy. Brazil is a biggie. The US has a much lower percentage of evasion, but is equated to have a higher overall tax loss in monetary units. Also not surprising, as their GDP is much larger than any of the others.

And that seems more or less consistent with most of what I've learned in the past. Here's a couple of quickies:

10 Worst Countries for Tax Evasion | InvestorPlace

The Countries with the Biggest 'Shadow Economies': Global Tax Evasion - BusinessWeek

Really that's more your opinion of anyone who unfairly makes enough to have any incentive to evade taxes.

Surely you'd believe Americans are the #1 tax evaders in the world (as they are by far the greediest and most dubious IYO), but the facts show that the vast majority of Americans happily pay their taxes in full (far more in terms of percentages than most Europeans). It's probably worth pointing out that they are also obliged to pay substantially less tax, so there's simply less reason to evade it.

But in the view of some, anyone who lives in a place that does not impose the high taxes we pay would qualify as a "tax evader" anyway. And that view is good for Europe, because if you don't like paying the high taxation, then you're clearly dubious.

Again, see previous reply. None of which have been convicted of tax evasion, because they aren't committing tax evasion. All of them are indeed legally minimising their tax burden as much as they legally can do, just like I do and most everyone else on the planet. If the UK or anywhere else doesn't like it, they should make tax minimisation illegal. But be careful what you wish for. If it applies to them, it also applies to you.

But I reckon you deliberately pay as much as possible, because it's the "right thing to do". You are astronomically rich, after all. Surely you can afford it. And that makes it better for me. Thanks.

Oh, and I should mention that the oddly prolific occurrence of a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steuerberater on virtually every street corner in Germany is not an anomaly. There's a reason for it. And if you think their function is simply to fill out forms for people, think again. Their sole purpose is to find ways minimise the oppressive taxation imposed on Germans. Virtually everyone hires a steuerberater, or else they'd get slammed on their tax bill.

EMR

If the basic rate of tax was reduced to 10% and universally applied then those who could find schemes and employ accountants and advisers would still find ways of avoiding it.
Tax or non payment will always be an issue when the unfairness of tax systems mean those in employment and at the lower end of the income scale will always pay a higher % of income in tax and indirect taxes. They only alternative they have is to take advantage of the black economy when the opportunity presents itself.