Video backing Robin Hood tax on banks from a country that still has occasional progressive twitches before elections.
Via Blenderlaw (what? you don't read Blenderlaw.com???)
what? you don’t read Blenderlaw.com???
No, actually, I don’t usually follow Blenderlaw.
But if Caroline Bradley happens to be a friend of yours, then you might want to advise her that her blog looks like it might possibly be pwnd.
Does she know about the hyperlinks she has? All having the form:
<a href=”http://lissi.univ-paris12.fr/~rfournier/rokdownloads/pdf/index.php?p=download-autosketch-9″>download autosketch 9</a>
View the source of any of her pages. And btw, I’d be careful about downloading the target of that link.
If she’s not a friend, then….
Thank you. I’ve gone in and cleaned that up, reloaded the theme, changed all the admin passwords and run the WordPress Exploit Scanner.
And she’s more than a friend so, again, thank you.
I thought I’d better say “you’re welcome”, ’cause people can react in so many different ways after they’ve been told about a compromise.
Unfortunately, in my experience, when you tell some people about an exploit, some percentage of them will turn around and report you to the cops. There’s always a chance that a victim will tell the cops that the person reporting the compromise was the one who |-|a><0r’d them. Even more unfortunately, that chain of events can, from time to time, result in a magistrate issuing a search warrant to seize every piece of electronic equipment and media owned by the person doing the good samaritan deed.
So, you’re welcome. And thanks.
Why do some people seem to think that taxing someone doesn’t have any eventualities besides raising revenues? Why do people think this even though all evidence proves otherwise – Over, and over, and over, and over?
I’m not saying that the idea that maybe those with more should also be expected to DO more (though we might disagree on details), but that even a Liberal thinks this will work in the end is just ignorant.
It’s basic: If you tax someone, and they think it’s over-taxing, they will start thinking about getting out of it, at least partly. If that someone, unlike most of us, can also afford to hire fancy lawyering and accounting to help, they will quickly avoid that way. If that somebody is business saavy and already has their fingers in that pie, and is able to funnel money off to other uses to avoid the tax – like say a bank – they will do so. If the someone is also a business, who can make up for any amount you tax them, without ever taking 1 penny out of their own pocket, by passing the cost on to others (like virtually any business), they will.
Now add to that: If you think that business is evil and full of greedy capitalists – as many liberals do – how can you not ALSO think that those evil capitalists you managed to get the $50 billion in the first place, won’t find a way to get it again? How does this even pass the laugh test? Seriously.
So while this seems like some super “just” and great idea, it’ll only be productive for the time it takes (likely measured in days) for the entire cost to be either avoided or passed on to others. It will never raise anything like the revenue expected by the people that said, “hmmmmm 2% doesn’t seem like a high tax, and on $50 billion it’ll raise a FORTUNE” (greedily rubbing hands together). They are just going to be disappointed yet again when it doesn’t “work.” But of course you’ll never see anybody make a cutesy film about how the expectations are dashed, so a year later, some OTHER “progressive” will just try it again… And so the world turns.
If we’ve learned ANYTHING from history – and clearly we haven’t as a society – it should be that redistribution schemes of any sort, while they seem like a good idea, NEVER really work in a free society. The only way they EVER have worked is in societies that abridge far more freedoms that most Americans will ever stand for, or at gunpoint. People, even liberal, progressive people, when put upon in some way that they can avoid, will avoid it every time – especially when the costs of doing so are negligible.
Sometimes I am utterly dumbfounded that someone as apparently intelligent and historically aware such as yourself, can truely believe some of the things you do, Michael. I would EXPECT someone that’s 18 years old not to have a clue how business actually works, and think that Governments actually have their own money to distribute, but you?.. Astounding.
C’mon, I don’t expect you to agree with me, but I do expect you to think like a lawyer rather than a child. But don’t worry, I’m starting to tire of the fluff, and the fact that you never actually engage anyone in a meaningful way here, so I’ll probably start leaving you alone again. Especially now that Rhodo Zeb is gone. I didn’t agree with him, but at least he engaged once in a while.
I thought it was a cute video. If we’re seriously talking about policy, I support the so-called “Tobin Tax” (google it) not the Robin Hood tax.
And, if we are going to have a de facto policy of bailing out big financial institutions for systemic reasons, then I support taxing them to build up funds to do that.
Neither of those is exactly the Robin Hood tax. But I do like the video as a piece of craft.
The video, “cute” or not has almost all of it’s value as a policy statement, unless you think film students are watching it for tips. As a policy statement, it’s just silly.
Per the Tobin Tax, that’s just more theoretical ideas being tossed out as policy. haven’t we had enough of that already? How about some practical thought based upon the experiences of history for once? One of the biggest critiques of the Tobin tax (as it is for ANY such tax on a sector of “evil” businesspeople doing their thing) is that it will simply become another pass through tax (as it taxes the people MOST capable of passing it on!). It won’t be paid by those intended, it will be passed through to be paid by YOU in the form of fees on your 401K or whatever you might have. That’s how taxes always work on non-individuals. Maybe eventually the left will catch on to that little trick.
And we shouldn’t be just resigning ourselves to a de facto policy if it’s just plain wrong! It’s bad. It should be ended. Adding another epicycle to it won’t help us any more than it did Ptolemy! Besides – it’s just a pass through again.
It’s a basic fact of human behavior that setting up lots of fine-point rules either stifles action to a point of making any action economically pointless, or provides for much more “corruption” by making abiding by the rules a roadmap for avoiding getting in trouble for bad acts. You can’t attack business directly to get money out of them. You have to allow OTHER businesses, not government, to do the regulation upon each other through the markets, then tax greater success smaller, for greater revenues (7% of $200 is greater than 10 of $125 and leaves $173 vs $112.5 in place, while not encouraging sloughing off the taxes onto YOU). It’s the only way to avoid pass through taxes. Taxing a badly run business at a higher rate only encourages tax avoidance and funnels whatever money CAN be collected into its least efficient use: Government.
Even JFK understood this – I’m not sure what has happened to the modern Left – of course JFK would be a Republican if he were around today.
Taxing big financial institutions may not be enough. “PBS Show Probes Government SachsPBS Show Probes Government Sachs”:
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.