Neoliberalisme, wat houdt het in? #9

quote:

Op maandag 5 december 2016 21:51 schreef ludovico het volgende:

[..]

Ojee, VVD discrimineert kansarme mensen.

quote:

Op maandag 5 december 2016 22:04 schreef deelnemer het volgende:

[..]

Kansarm is wat anders. Als het waar is dat deze mensen geen kans maken, dan hebben zelf ook een probleem als ze hierheen komen. Daarom mag jij nu een hartoperatie uitvoeren, want je bent kansarm tav van het slagen van die operatie.

Maar wij zijn uberhaupt geen immigratieland.

quote:

Op dinsdag 6 december 2016 13:51 schreef ludovico het volgende:

[..]

Wauw, nee, je verdraait het een en ander.

Er worden mensen gewoon buitengesloten vanwege bepaalde criteria. In welke mate JIJ dat redelijk acht, neem jij als maatstaf.

Wat ik al de hele tijd probeer uit te leggen is dat dit pure politiek is. Ja iedereen is het erover eens dat niet iedereen een hart operatie moet uitvoeren, maar zo kan het ook zijn dat veel mensen vinden dat je strenger moet selecteren op wie er het land in komt, en eventueel ook minder Marokkanen. Het is politiek... Ik begrijp niet hoe je dat anders zou kunnen zien.

Kansarmen worden benadeeld want die kunnen opeens geen gebruik maken van onze welvaartsstaat, terwijl die toegankelijk zou moeten zijn voor iedereen.... Pure politiek dit.

quote:

Op dinsdag 6 december 2016 13:59 schreef deelnemer het volgende:

[..]

Het eigen land bakent een groep af, een bestuurlijke eenheid, en daarmee is er een grens geintroduceerd. Hoe daarmee om te gaan is zeker een politieke kwestie.

Maar het is geen kwestie van simpelweg naar hartenlust selecteren. Als je moslims geen toegang geeft, dan stel je dat deze mensen niet welkom zijn. Alle moslims die hier al wonen, kunnen daaruit opmaken dat hun 'moslim zijn' ongewenst is. Maar je mag ze volgens de grondwet niet discrimineren. Het rare spagaat. Het is daarom een raar criterium.

quote:

Op dinsdag 6 december 2016 18:23 schreef Bram_van_Loon het volgende:
We dwalen nu echter wel stevig af van het onderwerp neoliberalisme, hoewel de globalisering er wel mee samenhangt.

quote:

Brazil's austerity package decried by UN as attack on poor people

quote:

Brazil is poised to implement the most socially regressive austerity package in the world, a senior United Nations official has warned.

Despite violent street protests against budget cuts, President Michel Temer – who came to power after engineering the impeachment of his former running mate Dilma Roussef – is pushing through a 20-year social spending freeze that will be locked into the constitution.
Ahead of a final senate vote on the measures next Tuesday, the UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Philip Alston, took the unusual step of decrying the plan as an attack on the poor – and a violation of Brazil’s obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
“This is a radical measure, lacking in all nuance and compassion,” he said in a statement on Friday. “It is completely inappropriate to freeze only social expenditure and to tie the hands of all future governments for another two decades. If this amendment is adopted it will place Brazil in a socially retrogressive category all of its own.”
The constitutional amendment, which is known as PEC55, solidifies fears that Temerb’s rightwing government will jerk Brazil back towards its historical position as one of the most unequal countries on the planet.
That reputation had somewhat softened after 13 years of Workers’ party rule, which saw increased spending on healthcare and education, and modest income distribution measures.

quote:

There has been little public debate considering the importance of a measure that will affect the country until 2037. Polls suggest less than half of the population have heard of PEC55.

None of them voted for it because Temer was elected vice-president in 2014 on Dilma’s coattails and a promise of no austerity.

Adding to frustrations, the government remains mired in a corruption scandal with dozens of senior politicians implicated in the ongoing Lava Jato (Car Wash) investigation into bribery and kickbacks at the state run oil company Petrobras.

quote:

Op vrijdag 9 december 2016 17:47 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:

[..]

quote:

Op vrijdag 9 december 2016 18:36 schreef deelnemer het volgende:

[..]

Een regering die voor 20 jaar de beleidslijn wil dicteren.

quote:

Home Office forced to defend anti-fracking groups from extremism claims

quote:

The Home Office has been forced to make it clear that anti-fracking campaigners should not be considered extremists after a council and a school in North Yorkshire used the government’s counter-terrorism programme to target environmental protesters.

City of York council included anti-fracking activists in its Prevent programme, the controversial centrepiece of the government’s strategy to tackle extremism and thwart terrorism. In response, the Home Office on Saturday issued a statement saying “support for anti-fracking is not an indicator of vulnerability” to extremism.

The council had placed anti-fracking protesters on a list of “key risks to York”, along with Islamic terrorists and far-right extremists. And an East Yorkshire secondary, Driffield school, was condemned for including anti-fracking campaigers in its counter-terrorism advice for parents.

The information commissioner recently backed the decision by five police forces – Cheshire, Cumbria, Greater Manchester, Lancashire and Merseyside – to refuse to release data about the number of people they viewed as allegedly at risk of being drawn into extremism through their involvement in anti-fracking campaigns.

The use of Prevent’s powers to target anti-fracking campaigners has prompted renewed criticism that the counter-terrorism programme is seriously flawed.

Amrit Singh, senior legal officer at the Open Society Justice Initiative, said: “This is yet another sign that Prevent is structurally flawed and in dire need of independent review and reform. It is a clear example of how Prevent’s sweeping definition of extremism threatens the very British values it seeks to uphold, by penalising free expression on issues vitally important to the public.”

In October the initiative released a detailed report claiming that Prevent presented a serious risk of human rights violations and was so flawed it was counterproductive.

Fiyaz Mughal, director of anti-extremism group Faith Matters, said: “This is a direct attack on democratic opposition and a direct attack on dissent against the state. News that fracking protectors are being lined up with IS- [Islamic State-] inspired extremists is farcical and deeply worrying. Ever seen a fracking protestor set off a bomb? The answer is no, and any attempt to include them is an insult to democratic values, which include the right to dissent.”

This week, the government faces a legal challenge in the high court over claims that parts of its programme go against the right to free speech. The action is being taken by a British Muslim activist who claims he was identified as a “non-violent extremist” as part of Prevent.

In April the UN’s special rapporteur on the right to freedom of assembly said attempts to identify and counter Islamist extremism through the Prevent programme had “created unease around what can be legitimately discussed in public”. Other high-profile critics have included David Anderson QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, and the Commons home affairs select committee, which called for Prevent to be abandoned in favour of a more inclusive “Engage” title.

The Prevent strategy has been described as a counterproductive “big brother” security operation by the UK’s Muslim communities.

Last Monday, a government report into social integration in Britain, which found that some communities had become increasingly segregated, also contained a significant section devoted to Prevent. Commissioned by David Cameron as prime minister and carried out by Dame Louise Casey, the review found that the programme had disrupted more than 150 attempted journeys to Syria or Iraq to join the conflict, including action by the family courts to protect approximately 50 children from being taken to the region last year.

Casey’s review also claimed that the agenda of Prevent’s critics was to alienate Muslims from mainstream society.

One passage stated: “In some cases, local leaders have been too ready to complain about Prevent without any real understanding of its work or knowledge of its community-based projects and partnership working with local people on the ground.

“More worrying are some elements of this lobby who appear to have an agenda to turn British Muslims against Britain.”

The Home Office said: “Prevent is about safeguarding people at risk of being drawn into terrorism – support for anti-fracking is not an indicator of vulnerability.”

quote:

Oxfam: Nederland op twee na grootste belastingparadijs

Nederland neemt de derde plaats in op een lijst die Oxfam Novib heeft opgesteld van de vijftien grootste belastingparadijzen ter wereld. Alleen Bermuda en de Kaaimaneilanden staan hoger op de ranglijst van de ontwikkelingsorganisatie.

Andere Europese landen op de lijst zijn Zwitserland op plaats vier, Ierland op de zesde plek, en Luxemburg op zeven. De Britse Maagdeneilanden, die recent samen met Ierland in verband werden gebracht met belastingontwijking door Europese voetballers, staan op de vijftiende plaats. Ook Curaçao staat op de ranglijst.

Uit het onderzoek blijkt dat de landen geen of lage tarieven voor vennootschapsbelasting hebben, oneerlijke fiscale prikkels geven aan bedrijven en niet meewerken aan internationale maatregelen tegen belastingontwijking. Hierdoor bieden de landen volgens Oxfam veel mogelijkheden voor bedrijven om belastingen te ontwijken.

Extreme ongelijkheid

Oxfam verwijt de landen op de lijst dat ontwikkelingslanden door de belastingontwijking miljarden aan belastinginkomsten mislopen. "Het resultaat is toenemende extreme ongelijkheid binnen landen en geldtekort om burgers in ontwikkelingslanden meer kansen op een beter leven te geven", zegt belastingexpert Esmé Berkhout die het rapport van Oxfam mede opstelde.

De organisatie roept regeringen op om samen te werken om belastingontwijking te stoppen en tarieven voor vennootschapsbelasting niet verder te verlagen. Ook wil Oxfam dat bedrijven verplicht worden om transparanter te werk te gaan.

quote:

End race to bottom on tax cuts: Oxfam

Australia is losing more than $4 billion a year through Australian-based multinationals dodging their taxes by using coroprate tax havens, Oxfam Australia says.

In new research it names the "world's worst tax havens" that encourage multinationals to avoid their taxes, revenue that could be spent on schools, hospitals and tackling poverty.

While it says the Australian government has taken steps in the right direction, data released on Friday by the Australian Taxation Office showing more than one in three large companies are paying no tax is evidence more needs to be done.

However, releasing the ATO's corporate tax transparency 2015/16 report, tax commissioner Chris Jordan clarified that no tax paid does not necessarily mean tax avoidance.

These companies may have incurred an accounting and tax loss in the current year or in prior years, and are now using those to reduce current taxable income, Mr Jordan said.

Even so, Oxfam says this is only part of the problem with countries around the world - including Australia - slashing or planning to slash corporate tax rates.

"There is no winner in this race to the bottom on corporate tax," Oxfam Australia senior economist Muheed Jamaldeen said releasing the research on Monday.

"The Australian government has a responsibility to join efforts to stop this race to the bottom on corporate tax rates and demand that companies pay their fair share - at home and abroad."

Oxfam notes the average corporate tax rate across G20 countries was 40 per cent 25 years ago.

Today it is less than 30 per cent.

The Turnbull government continues to pursue its $50 billion 10-year plan to incrementally lower Australia's corporate tax rate from 30 per cent to 25 per cent.

OXFAM AUSTRALIA NAMES "WORLD'S WORST" 15 TAX HAVENS

(1) Bermuda

(2) Cayman Islands

(3) Netherlands

(4) Switzerland

(5) Singapore

(6) Ireland

(7) Luxembourg

(8) Curacao

(9) Hong Kong

(10) Cyprus

(11) Bahamas

(12) Jersey

(13) Barbados

(14) Mauritius

(15) British Virgin Islands.

quote:

This year, Oxfam revealed that just 62 people own the same wealth as the bottom 3.6 billion people. This stark statistic illustrates the scale of an inequality crisis that is undermining economic growth and the fight against poverty, and destabilizing societies across the globe. This report examines one of the key drivers fuelling this inequality crisis: tax competition, and the resultant race to the bottom in the taxation of global corporations. Using new research, this report exposes the world's worst corporate tax havens - the 15 countries which facilitate the most extreme forms of tax dodging. The report looks at the harm caused by falling corporate tax rates and tax giveaways in countries across the world. Finally, the report identifies clear actions governments can take to act in the interest of their citizens and put an end to tax havens and the race to the bottom.

Well-designed tax systems that redistribute wealth and provide spending on public goods are one of the most effective ways for governments to reduce inequality and poverty, while sustaining growth. Taxing profits of companies, particularly large, successful corporations, is one of the most progressive forms of taxation. It raises more income for national budgets, and when this revenue is invested in public services, it reduces inequality because it redistributes the income by putting 'virtual income' in the pockets of poor people. This equips people with the essential tools and skills to escape poverty, such as good health care and education.

Conversely, when governments reduce the tax burden for large corporations, they tend towards two options: to cut back on the essential spending needed to reduce inequality and poverty; or to make up the shortfall by levying higher taxes, such as value-added tax (VAT), on other, less wealthy sections of society. Indirect taxes such as VAT, which fall disproportionately on poor people, make up on average 67 percent of tax revenues in sub-Saharan Africa, impacting women most. At the same time, increased profits as a result of lower corporate taxation benefit the shareholders and owners of corporations who are predominantly wealthy, further increasing the gap between rich and poor.

Low corporate tax rates or further tax giveaways are promoted because they are supposed to attract investment. Yet evidence shows that corporate tax rates are not the main consideration for companies when seeking where to invest. There are 12 reasons why companies choose to invest in a country, according to the World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness report. The most important are the quality of the country's infrastructure, the availability of an educated, healthy workforce, and social stability. Corporate tax contributions are vital to ensuring the revenue for these investments.

quote:

Over the last few decades, however, figures show that the tax contributions of large corporations are diminishing as governments compete in a race to the bottom on corporate taxation. Over the last thirty years, net profits posted by the world's largest companies more than tripled in real terms, from $2 trillion in 1980 to $7.2 trillion by 2013. This increase has not been matched by a rising trend in corporate income tax contributions, partially because of tax havens.

Ending the corporate tax race to the bottom and protecting corporate tax revenues is articularly important to developing countries. In poor countries, corporate tax revenues as a proportion of total tax revenues are twice as important as they are for rich countries. In 2014, IMF research showed that developing countries are up to three times more vulnerable to negative effects of other countries' tax rules and practices than rich countries. Research by the United Nations University recently suggested that the poorer a country is, the more likely it is that corporations will shift their profits out of the country in response to incentives (e.g. lower rates) offered by other countries.

Developing countries lose around $100bn annually as a result of corporate tax avoidance schemes. This amount is more than enough to provide an education for all of the 124 million children currently out of school, and to pay for health interventions that could save the lives of six million children. Action Aid has estimated that developing countries lose a further $138bn due to tax incentives offered by developing countries to large businesses.

quote:

Op maandag 12 december 2016 07:17 schreef Perrin het volgende:
Joepie, wij staan nummer drie.

quote:

HS2 accused of 'brainwashing' schoolchildren on high-speed rail route

quote:

The company behind the HS2 rail project has been accused of using Orwellian propaganda tactics after it awarded a £280,000 contract to promote the high-speed rail project to children at primary schools on the proposed route.

HS2 Ltd has contracted London-based Hopscotch Consulting to develop an education programme aimed at young children.

Primary schools near the route have received an email from Hopscotch inviting them to “come aboard Zoom Rail, HS2’s Primary School Engagement Programme”.

quote:

“The concept of state-sponsored propaganda, which is tailored so children in communities impacted by HS2 must come to the conclusion HS2 is a brilliant idea, is truly Orwellian.”

Jonathan Pile, a spokesman for Yorkshire against HS2, whose family home in Crofton, Wakefield, is 265 metres from the proposed high-speed train line, said that many teachers in the region were furious that the company had decided to target schools.

“If this wasn’t so sinister and unacceptable it would be funny, but to the hundreds of families facing enforced relocation by HS2, and the thousands being financially blighted and facing years of noise and construction pollution, it is anything but a joke,” he said.

A spokesperson for HS2 said the goal of the education programme was to “provide Britain with a legacy of skills and experience that will benefit the whole industry.

“We are committed to ensuring that young people receive access to learning and skills opportunities which will enable them to play a role in the construction, development and ongoing operation of HS2 and other transport and infrastructure projects.

quote:

Op maandag 12 december 2016 07:17 schreef Perrin het volgende:
Joepie, wij staan nummer drie.

quote:

Op maandag 12 december 2016 13:49 schreef deelnemer het volgende:

[..]

The Netherlands:
- tax incentives,
- 0% withholding taxes,
- evidence of large-scale profit shifting.

Tax incentives
The complex array of different types of tax incentives created to attract and satisfy investors and foreign business often do damage to countries' tax bases.

Withholding tax rates
Tax collected at source on the dividends, interest, etc. made by corporations in one country and sent to corporations that reside in other countries.

Over the past few years, the OECD average corporate income tax as a percentage of GDP has remained relatively stable at 2.9 percent. Personal income taxes on the other hand, have increased from 7.8 to 8.5 percent of GDP since 2011. The OECD recently concluded that:

'the structure of tax revenues continues shifting towards labour and consumption taxes. The combined share of personal income taxes, social security contributions and value-added taxes were higher in 2014 than at any point since 1965, at 24.3% of GDP on average in 2014'.

quote:

Bedrijven kunnen belastingkorting aanvragen voor winsten die verkregen zijn uit immateriële activa waarvoor zij een octrooi of buitenlands patent hebben gekregen. Deze winsten worden niet met 25%, maar slechts met 5% belast. Volgens Oxfam maken veel bedrijven oneigenlijk gebruik van deze regeling. Het gebruik van deze regeling zou ons ¤1,2 miljard aan belastinginkomsten kosten, wat volgens de ontwikkelingsorganisatie gelijkstaat aan 7,6% van Neerlands totale inkomsten uit bedrijfsbelastingen. Nu is er vaker kritiek op de regeling. Het CPB onderzocht, samen met een paar andere clubjes, het nut van belastingvoordelen voor innovatie. Hieruit bleek dat belastingvoordelen niet bepalen hoe innovatief een economie is, maar dat de innovatiebox wel ongeveer de meest zinloze regel is. Het belastingvoordeel wordt namelijk bepaald door octrooien die een bedrijf heeft. 'Bij gepatenteerde innovaties zal een bedrijf al een groot deel van de maatschappelijk opbrengsten kunnen incasseren. Het is daarom onduidelijk wat de maatschappelijk opbrengst van een belastingvoordeel op winst uit octrooien is'.

Uit een evaluatie van onderzoeksbureau Dealogic bleek dat voor elke euro aan belastingvermindering via de innovatiebox er ¤0,54 extra aan R&D en innovatie wordt besteed. Dealogic concludeerde verder dat de innovatiebox 'aanzienlijk bijdraagt aan een verlaging van de effectieve belastingdruk en een gunstig vestigingsklimaat'. En precies dit was voor Wiebes de reden om de innovatiebox in een Kamerdebat te verdedigen. Hoewel hij aangaf de spillovereffecten hiervan niet te kunnen kwantificeren, heeft hij in gesprekken met bedrijven gehoord dat het 'een belangrijk ding' is. Wiebes ziet het fiscale vestigingsklimaat als een middel om bedrijven naar Nederland te lokken. En hiermee staat hij lijnrecht tegenover Oxfam Novib. De ‘race to the bottom’ vindt volgens deze organisatie zijn wortels in 'the prevailing economic worldview that defines all competition as inherently good'. Helder. Onze podiumplek lijkt dus nog wel even gegarandeerd, tenzij u in maart massaal op de SP of PvdA stemt.

quote:

Op maandag 12 december 2016 22:46 schreef GSbrder het volgende:

Uit een evaluatie van onderzoeksbureau Dealogic bleek dat voor elke euro aan belastingvermindering via de innovatiebox er ¤0,54 extra aan R&D en innovatie wordt besteed.

quote:

Dealogic concludeerde verder dat de innovatiebox 'aanzienlijk bijdraagt aan een verlaging van de effectieve belastingdruk en een gunstig vestigingsklimaat'. En precies dit was voor Wiebes de reden om de innovatiebox in een Kamerdebat te verdedigen. Hoewel hij aangaf de spillovereffecten hiervan niet te kunnen kwantificeren, heeft hij in gesprekken met bedrijven gehoord dat het 'een belangrijk ding' is. Wiebes ziet het fiscale vestigingsklimaat als een middel om bedrijven naar Nederland te lokken. En hiermee staat hij lijnrecht tegenover Oxfam Novib. De ‘race to the bottom’ vindt volgens deze organisatie zijn wortels in 'the prevailing economic worldview that defines all competition as inherently good'. Helder. Onze podiumplek lijkt dus nog wel even gegarandeerd, tenzij u in maart massaal op de SP of PvdA stemt.

quote:

Op maandag 12 december 2016 23:04 schreef deelnemer het volgende:

[..]

Bedrijven noemen de gekste dingen innovatie, daarom hecht niet teveel waarde aan dat getal van 54%.

[..]

Dat is wederom belastingconcurrentie.

quote:

Op maandag 12 december 2016 23:05 schreef GSbrder het volgende:

[..]

Tsja, die ruimte hebben ze toch ook?
Of wil jij scherper definieren wat telt als innovatie?