Implicatii
economice ale inegalitatilor de venituri – 1 octombrie 2014
Draghi Puterity Inegalitatea exagerata rezultata in urma aplicarii doctrinei neo-liberale nu e doar o problema de morala si politica, ci si una economica. Chiar si Standard and Poors si Morgan Stanley care nu sunt chiar fortaretze ale marxismului au ajuns la aceasta concluzie:
http://oecd.einnews.com/article/226708378/Sr4SaM9rRfcB3sNmMi-a mai retinut ceva in mod deosebit atentia: "American education has also deteriorated. The US is the only high-income country whose 25- to 34-year-olds are no better educated then its 55- to 64-year-olds."
Nu cumva avem si in Romania o situatie similara? In aceste conditii, nu ar trebui sa corectam cursul, mai spre stanga? Sau problemele din Romania sunt atipice?
Latest
news for global professionals & analysts. Breaking news.
oecd.einnews.com|De IPD Group
Smaranda Dobrescu Despre
SUA si GB campioane ale inegalitatii a vorbit pe larg Piketty. Surpriza cea
mare a venit insa din partea Suediei in urma unui studiu efectuat pe formulele
lui Piketty: Daca nu se vede graficul, aici este linkul: http://www.social-europe.eu/.../look-one-graph.../
D.P Interesant! Bogatii
sunt castigatorii crizei si in Suedia.
S.D Deocamdata ceva mi
se pare in afara regulii: La capitolul rată de impozitare, Suedia este pe
primul loc in Europa, cu o rată de impozit marginală (cota maximă de impozitare
care se aplică veniturilor înregistrate peste un anumit plafon) de 57%,
aplicabilă asupra veniturilor anuale care depășesc suma de 58.755 Euro;
Deci este vorba de impozitare progresiva. care este improprie favorizarii inegalitatilor de venit. Singura explicatie care o gasesc deocamdata este aceea ca venitul aici ca si capitalul in acceptia lui Piketty se refera si la economii, mosteniri, avere mobiliara si imobiliara, pamanturi, etc. Caz in care nici macar Piketty nu mai face fata.
Deci este vorba de impozitare progresiva. care este improprie favorizarii inegalitatilor de venit. Singura explicatie care o gasesc deocamdata este aceea ca venitul aici ca si capitalul in acceptia lui Piketty se refera si la economii, mosteniri, avere mobiliara si imobiliara, pamanturi, etc. Caz in care nici macar Piketty nu mai face fata.
D.P Apropo de impozitarea progresiva, am citit
recent ca si Adam Smith o sustinea. Poate cineva sa confirme sau sa infirme
aceasta informatie?
Ref la situatia Suediei, mi-am adus aminte de ce a spus la un mom dat Ion Tiriac, dupa caderea lui Leeman Brothers in 2008 - cei care au acum bani lichizi vor fi cei care vor castiga foarte mult. Ar putea fi vorba de un efect similar?
Ref la situatia Suediei, mi-am adus aminte de ce a spus la un mom dat Ion Tiriac, dupa caderea lui Leeman Brothers in 2008 - cei care au acum bani lichizi vor fi cei care vor castiga foarte mult. Ar putea fi vorba de un efect similar?
S.D Adam Smith a
promovat echitatea pe verticala si pe orizontala in stabilirea impozitelor:
1.. Sarcina fiscala sa fie stabilita in functie de puterea contributiva a fiecarui platitor, adica cu luarea in considerare a marimii venitului sau averii care face obiectul impunerii, precum si a situatiei personale a acestuia (singur, casatorit, numarul persoanelor aflate in intretinerea sa etc.). Aici este vorba de respectarea cerintelor echitatii pe verticala;
2. La o anumita putere contributiva, sarcina fiscala a unei categorii sociale sa fie stabilita in comparatie cu sarcina fiscala a altei categoriei sociale, respectiv sarcina fiscala a unei persoane sa fie stabilita in comparatie cu sarcina altei persoane din aceeasi categorie sociala. De data aceasta este vorba de respectarea cerintelor echitatii pe orizontala;
Asadar asta inseamna diferentiere si nu cota unica
1.. Sarcina fiscala sa fie stabilita in functie de puterea contributiva a fiecarui platitor, adica cu luarea in considerare a marimii venitului sau averii care face obiectul impunerii, precum si a situatiei personale a acestuia (singur, casatorit, numarul persoanelor aflate in intretinerea sa etc.). Aici este vorba de respectarea cerintelor echitatii pe verticala;
2. La o anumita putere contributiva, sarcina fiscala a unei categorii sociale sa fie stabilita in comparatie cu sarcina fiscala a altei categoriei sociale, respectiv sarcina fiscala a unei persoane sa fie stabilita in comparatie cu sarcina altei persoane din aceeasi categorie sociala. De data aceasta este vorba de respectarea cerintelor echitatii pe orizontala;
Asadar asta inseamna diferentiere si nu cota unica
P.A-z . Un caz
de Schadenfreude sau inca un reper pe cale de disparitie?
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/.../the-end-of-swedish...
Alexis de Pleshcoy
Sometimes in the 90’s the entire socio-economic worldview has changed.
One of the many changes made since then is present in the introduction of the article:
“… marked the end of eight years of center-conservative rule in Sweden … not least because the ruling coalition, led by the Moderate Party, has been hailed for successfully navigating the 2007–08 global financial crisis and then generating respectable economic growth over the last three years.”
while “Sweden’s public finances are among the healthiest in the OECD, and, although the government had to make some cuts to the country’s generous welfare system, it left its basic universal structure untouched.”
Right or wrong, the average person will never consider generic “respectable economic growth” a great socio-economic success, while his or her economic well-being are affected. People don’t engage in socio-economic activities just to celebrate economic success for the few, as the author acknowledges: “In other words, the neoliberal trickle-down economics of the governing coalition didn’t work -- a major problem for the coalition throughout the election campaign.”
In our media, these eight years of socio-economic changes in Sweden have been heralded as a major achievement of the Swedish people, from tax cuts to school vouchers, an example to be followed, along the lines of the storied Laffer curve and Milton Friedman’s “Free to choose” anti-Keynesian manifesto; turns out that the reality is not that rosy.
The article elaborates more on some contradictions: ”why did the center-conservative government lose despite its successful management of the economy?” while “Unemployment is particularly high among young Swedes…” and “The increase in economic inequality during the last decade was greater in Sweden than in almost all other OECD countries.” Again, this doesn’t sound like a success for many, especially those directly affected, and I would add that these are serious economic issue, not just lifestyle and identity issues.
There might be a reason “why most of the people who used to vote for the Social Democrats -- blue-collar workers and the lower middle class -- now vote for the Sweden Democrats.” Those who have found “themselves on the losing side of a new globalized service and high-tech economy” know that the Social Democrats were also around when this begun, and in fact have no solution. They probably perceive the immigration wave as immediate competition, in Sweden, rather than from remote shores; they can touch globalization. The Sweden Democrats promise to at least stem this tide.
I would also put the change in Sweden in line with similar trends across Europe, UKIP, The Alternative, FN. I would add that the comparison with the rise of authoritarian regimes in Europe after WWI (it started earlier, not in the 30’s) is misplaced. All over Europe people were told for years that they live in liberal democracies, that they have a say in their lives, including economics; now they wake up to realize that it might not be exactly accurate.
As a side note, I would even challenge the construct “neoliberal”, which reminds me of the Bolsheviks (translated “one of the majority”), a minority party calling themselves majority; liberal used to mean something else, and is used by the author in that sense also. Moreover, the Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel was awarded to Milton Friedman for "for his achievements in the fields of consumption analysis, monetary history and theory and for his demonstration of the complexity of stabilization policy" and not for his popular “Free to choose” series, which can be easily connected to these economic polices. So “neoliberal” could be safely replaced with “friedmanist”, although better wording should be found.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/.../the-end-of-swedish...
Alexis de Pleshcoy
Sometimes in the 90’s the entire socio-economic worldview has changed.
One of the many changes made since then is present in the introduction of the article:
“… marked the end of eight years of center-conservative rule in Sweden … not least because the ruling coalition, led by the Moderate Party, has been hailed for successfully navigating the 2007–08 global financial crisis and then generating respectable economic growth over the last three years.”
while “Sweden’s public finances are among the healthiest in the OECD, and, although the government had to make some cuts to the country’s generous welfare system, it left its basic universal structure untouched.”
Right or wrong, the average person will never consider generic “respectable economic growth” a great socio-economic success, while his or her economic well-being are affected. People don’t engage in socio-economic activities just to celebrate economic success for the few, as the author acknowledges: “In other words, the neoliberal trickle-down economics of the governing coalition didn’t work -- a major problem for the coalition throughout the election campaign.”
In our media, these eight years of socio-economic changes in Sweden have been heralded as a major achievement of the Swedish people, from tax cuts to school vouchers, an example to be followed, along the lines of the storied Laffer curve and Milton Friedman’s “Free to choose” anti-Keynesian manifesto; turns out that the reality is not that rosy.
The article elaborates more on some contradictions: ”why did the center-conservative government lose despite its successful management of the economy?” while “Unemployment is particularly high among young Swedes…” and “The increase in economic inequality during the last decade was greater in Sweden than in almost all other OECD countries.” Again, this doesn’t sound like a success for many, especially those directly affected, and I would add that these are serious economic issue, not just lifestyle and identity issues.
There might be a reason “why most of the people who used to vote for the Social Democrats -- blue-collar workers and the lower middle class -- now vote for the Sweden Democrats.” Those who have found “themselves on the losing side of a new globalized service and high-tech economy” know that the Social Democrats were also around when this begun, and in fact have no solution. They probably perceive the immigration wave as immediate competition, in Sweden, rather than from remote shores; they can touch globalization. The Sweden Democrats promise to at least stem this tide.
I would also put the change in Sweden in line with similar trends across Europe, UKIP, The Alternative, FN. I would add that the comparison with the rise of authoritarian regimes in Europe after WWI (it started earlier, not in the 30’s) is misplaced. All over Europe people were told for years that they live in liberal democracies, that they have a say in their lives, including economics; now they wake up to realize that it might not be exactly accurate.
As a side note, I would even challenge the construct “neoliberal”, which reminds me of the Bolsheviks (translated “one of the majority”), a minority party calling themselves majority; liberal used to mean something else, and is used by the author in that sense also. Moreover, the Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel was awarded to Milton Friedman for "for his achievements in the fields of consumption analysis, monetary history and theory and for his demonstration of the complexity of stabilization policy" and not for his popular “Free to choose” series, which can be easily connected to these economic polices. So “neoliberal” could be safely replaced with “friedmanist”, although better wording should be found.
This week’s election marked the
end of eight years of...
foreignaffairs.com
Niciun comentariu:
Trimiteți un comentariu