Zadnji se ziveci stalinov fan.

Dokler ga imamo za klovna, ok. Ampak da ne bi kdo idej jemal resno...

Neposredna demokracija je, da vsi idioti lahko neomejeno gobcajo. Obdavcitev pomeni zmanjsanje investicijskih sredstev. Piketty je sodobni Marx, ki bi rad bolje zivel na tuj racun, zato izumlja toplo vodo. Pobrat, vse imet pa gobec vrtet. Nesposobni suntajo proti sposobnim, pihajo na cloveska najnizja custva kot je fovsija, zavist, namesto da bi vzpodbujali ustvarjalnost, racionalnost porabe. Potem tudi smeti ne bi bilo vec toliko. Fizicnih in intelektualnih.

IMF - ZELENA LUČ ZA 10% KONFISKACIJO

BOX 6.A One-Off Capital Levy?

The sharp deterioration of the public finances in many countries has revived interest in a “capital levy”— a one-off tax on private wealth—as an exceptional
measure to restore debt sustainability.1 The appeal is that such a tax, if it is implemented before avoidance is possible and there is a belief that it will never be repeated, does not distort behavior (and may be seen by some as fair). There have been illustrious supporters, including Pigou, Ricardo, Schumpeter, and—until he changed his mind—Keynes. The conditions for success
are strong, but also need to be weighed against the risks of the alternatives, which include repudiating public debt or inflating it away (these, in turn, are a particular form of wealth tax—on bondholders—that also falls on
nonresidents).

1 As for instance in Bach (2012). There is a surprisingly large amount of experience to draw on, as such levies were widely adopted in Europe after World War I and in Germany and Japan after World War II. Reviewed in Eichengreen (1990), this experience suggests that more notable than any loss of
credibility was a simple failure to achieve debt reduction,
largely because the delay in introduction gave space for extensive avoidance and capital flight—in turn spurring inflation.
The tax rates needed to bring down public debt to precrisis levels, moreover, are sizable: reducing debt ratios to end-2007 levels would require (for a sample of 15 euro area countries) a tax rate of about 10 percent
on households with positive net wealth.

2 IMF staff calculation using the Eurosystem’s Household Finance and Consumption Survey (Household Finance and Consumption Network, 2013); unweighted average.

* IMF predlaga, da bi ta davek v 15 državah z evrom znašal 10 % za gospodinjstva, ki imajo več premoženja od dolgov.

stran 49
www.imf.org/external...fm1302.pdf
bos.zrc-sazu.si/cgi/...nfiskacija
sh.wikipedia.org/wik...nfiskacija

Svet se polni s sanjači hitreje, kot se pa mi zadolžujemo. O svojih sanjah zdaj spletajo že "znanstvene" štorije in se kregajo o taktiki. Njihov idol, Švedska (takrat še z Norveško), se lahko zahvali za svoje bogastvo samo liberalnemu prevratu v drugi polovici 19. stoletja. Do sredine 19.stoletja so bili evropski reveži, 10% ljudi je umiralo od lakote in to samo zaradi viskoh davkov, ogromne regulative, carin, nemogočih pogojev za zdravo ekonomijo. Potem pa prevrat :

V 100 letih se je dohodek posameznikov povečal 8x, smrtnost dojenčkov je padla iz 15 na 2%, 1900 je bil del države v BDP samo 6.% Od 1950 - 1960 je bil še znosnih 19-30 %. Potem pridejo scialisti in davke dvignejo na perverznih 90% in zadeva je šla spiralno v 3PM. Zadolževanje, deficit....skratka Slovenija danes. K sreči so se državljani zbudili iz socialistične kome in zdaj že od 2008 malo normalnejša politična opcija čisti socialistični hlev.

Res pa je, da po Marxu Slovenci (in še kdo) nismo zgodovinski narod, kar ima žal prav. Zato bi pa pričakoval od naših lokalnih veseljakov, da vsaj nehajo trobiti o nacionalnem interesu.