50 Pence In A Cork Mean

The carbon tax

That a right-wing government says the reports to a prominent personality on the left as it is, it is undoubtedly an evil strategy of openness initiated by President Sarkozy, who did not stop shedding the socialist party. However, I doubt that we can one day see the opposite, with a leftist government assigning responsibilities to right-wing personalities.

The left almost always the opening to the far left while the right opens to his left, but the line is from the intolerant leftists ...
In any case, it is no wonder the result: when one says a report from an expert on the left (whether qualified or not for that matter), the resulting conclusion is always the same: a new tax will come . In the 1990s, faced with the drift of accounts, the same Michel Rocard, who was at the initiative of the General Social Contribution (CSG). This new tax was aimed at redressing the social security accounts. Since then, social deficits have set new records but we have additional taxes that weigh on economic agents. The problem at the root of the fee has not been resolved, but the tax is still there and it was increased .
This precedent should be used sparingly to motivate the fiscal weapon by playing a kind of precautionary principle tax. But no, nothing works. The politicians starved imagination. A course of ideology, they do not know think otherwise. Faced with a problem, they summon experts, prepare reports and conclude that they must create new samples, while ensuring of course that these additional levies are legitimate, "citizens" and they never will be charged against the purchasing power of households. And if you object to tax "carbon" when you switch to an accomplice for "environmental crime". Generally, if you criticize the tax, you are treated "Poujadist" supporter of FN or reactionary. Why bother with a debate in this area? Yet it is not to criticize the tax burden per se, they are necessary. But it comes to discussing their level of legitimacy (for if they are legitimate, why hide them?) and their effectiveness .

When the state needs money, it takes more money because he enjoys the monopoly of "legitimate violence", the latter giving him the right to levy taxes. But when a household needs money, he should spend less because he can not declare additional income. Recognize that the present government has launched reforms - and that's why he was elected - with the aim of improving the functioning of the state. This is to provide better public service while spending less money public. And is the only way to stop the spiral of debt. But resistance to reform are strong.

decisions taken by economic agents are at the root of many economic flows that make up the vitality and prosperity of a nation. Of course, the state has a role to play in providing public goods and services that are positive externalities and thus benefit the economy . It is not meant to challenge the affirmative action of the State. But financing public goods and services through public levies which are themselves a source of negative externalities (wedge, capital flight, economic development parallel) . The state must therefore be careful not to take with one hand what it pretends to give the other hand. In other words, the burden of compulsory contributions should not exceed a threshold beyond which the positive externalities would be completely offset by the negative effects of taxation.

This balance requires never hit several times the same economic flow . When the household is working, it is to earn an income (net of payroll taxes). As such, he shall pay a tax on income. Then 80% of its disposable income will be used for consumption. As such, he will pay VAT, we are told it is a tax on value added. But the result is there, whatever name we give it. The household has had to endure three samples: the payroll which cut its gross income, tax on income which reduced its net income, VAT and hitting his disposable income. And the part of income saved will not escape a levy that will be taken care of baptizing " tax on capital." But this is not the capital that pays is the household that sees the return of their savings eroded by the tax levy, which makes saving less attractive. In total, the income stream, initiated by the decision to work in the household, has been hit at least four times by taxation.
Make no mistake, we may well play on words by naming the taxes with names sympathetic or misleading, but the samples always hit and only the tax households, so households. And the more one has to bear the levies, the less becomes rational economic decisions.

Yo Lolta Image New Board

Newspeak and official decree

the name of defending the French language, should replace the word "email" with its French equivalent "email" on official documents. Indeed, "email" is a contraction of the English "electronic mailing," meaning "electronic mail". But then he would no longer use the term "Internet" itself, is a contraction "international network" for him to prefer the French equivalent "Resinter" or "InterRes. But what does "web" ? For in the wake of this cleaning vocabulary, forget your "weekend" and lose your "feeling" do not buy more "playstation" or other "Game Boy" to your children over the "camping" and " baby-sitter, "and that became our" stars "our" managers "and other" supporters "?

But why stop at English? For what do we do with Latin phrases, our convenient and valuable postscript CV, casus belli and other status-quo? Delete count Arabic and Greek letters of our math very French. Just ... Is not a kind of eugenics language?

languages live and evolve through brewing and innovation, not by decree.

Any innovator named his creation, is the moral right of the first mover. The American continent owes its original name European Italian navigator Amerigo Vespucci was the first to go around.

In the field of technology and science, it is rare that the imitators are able to rebrand the techniques they adopt.

At the same time, the administrative language, in undertaking and a convoluted twist opaque vocabulary, similar to a nov-language increasingly incomprehensible, which is more an instrument of power as a means of communication.

What The Horoscope In Bull Woman

Demography and growth

The economic theory of growth developed by R. Solow (Nobel Prize in Economics in 1987) shows the importance of demography as a source of growth. In the economic model, it is actually the "active demography, that is to say, the evolution of the quantity (size) and quality (qualification, competence, motivation) of the workforce.
While demographics dynamic is the necessary condition for renewal of the workforce, but it is by no means sufficient condition: is more generational replacement of assets that the replacement of generations as such which is decisive for the economic health of a country . If, for assets, we must give birth to new generations or welcome new immigrants, new generations and new immigrants do not become spontaneously active, especially if the system of education, training and integration is failed. Making babies is one thing, to assets is another.

It is true that nature is well done. When a baby is born, there is a mouth (consumption) to feed more, but a baby is normally made up too - and happily - with members of (labor) and brain (knowledge and skills). Every human being from birth is a creator of wealth potential. But this is a potential while the needs are immediate. Society (and parents) has at least 16 years to turn this potential into an active worker and competent as she is already and immediately a tyrannical and dissatisfied consumers. And all new parents know how much a baby who is hungry can be tyrannical or capricious as a child ... a true dictator
Migration flows also affect the active population within a territory because they will change the number of mouths to feed, the number of arms and the number of brains in varying proportions depending on the policies in force in the host country. In our country, social policy (financing of pensions, family policies) and migration have combined to undermine the basis of the active population. In this context, they are no new births or immigration that are likely to rebalance our system of financing pensions.
A country is doomed when its population is not renewed. In this sense, the Malthusian policies are to be banned. But it's even worse when they are the generations of workers who are vulnerable. Have babies, live longer, welcome new immigrants should not be bad news. These are bad news in the context of a welfare state whose policies lead to multiply the outlets at the same time they paralyze the arms and offset the brain.

B-low Fingerboardtrucks

Hunger in the world: international trade issues

The governments of wealthy countries met at the G8 summit to discuss their plans for assistance to poor countries. In this context, they decided to mobilize 15 billion dollars to fight against hunger in the world.

Yet at the same time and for decades, they finance systems to protect their own agriculture that are likely to distort the rules of international trade in this vital sector for many developing countries that do not an industry or service sector sophisticated enough to trigger a significant development and diversified. However, poor countries can not afford to establish and maintain such protection systems, which shows that protectionism is the weapon of the rich countries. In a duel, if both fighters can only have one shield, the nobility imposed for not taking the shield for a level playing field. Alas, the picture is unfortunate, suggesting that trade is a war then he is the substitute. But international trade can degenerate into economic war if we forget the rules underpinning the international exchange and which have been established at Bretton Woods on the occasion of the creation of the GATT (now WTO).

This case is precisely a deadlock in the negotiations of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Today it is emerging that require dismantling of the protective systems in force in major industrialized countries (USA, Europe, Japan).

The best help that can make rich countries is to stop this double game No amount too big or it will never be enough if we do not touch the system that profoundly disrupts international trade. It's like the famous hole in Social Security, no money ever fill hole if it does not change the system whose mode of operation is at the very origin of abyssal deficit.

In 1944, the countries gathered at Bretton Woods knew that free trade is a prerequisite for fairer trade and win for all participants, hence the signing of an international free trade (GATT ). At that time, nobody had forgotten that during the inter-war years, the world had sunk into a deep depression on a background of economic warfare nurtured by the withdrawal of all countries. No one had forgotten to prepare for war, Hitler's Germany had taken care out of international trade to ensure autonomy (self-sufficiency) may make it independent of those it intends to attack. The confrontation of national protectionism leads to economic warfare which is the opposite of the exchange, which is often a precursor to war at all. And in the economic war, only emerge victorious countries who can afford to raise an army (tariff barriers, standards).

But ultimately no one wins a war economy. The economy is not a war but a competition. Companies are racing to compete for customers not kill them. No country has interests to impoverish its partners who are likely to be new markets.

From this point of view, even if they are essential to ensure food safety and hygiene or to protect the environment, abuse of standards and regulations is a disguised form of protectionism whose first victims are developing countries.