These euro-fanatics really are stupid

Of course there also need to be far-reaching changes in the way the EU budget is funded. At present it is precariously dependent on direct transfers from national budgets with only a tiny range of EU fiscal \”own resources\” such as customs duties and other levies. This would mean the introduction of EU-wide taxes – perhaps starting with a financial transaction tax, for which there is significant public support. An agreement by states to raise a higher rate of marginal tax on the largest incomes and other extremes of wealth would also help provide the means to drive forward a sustainable investment-led growth and job recovery.

Lessee: we\’re going to increase investment by taxing wealth, the product of investment are we? When the basics of taxation tell us that when you tax something you get less of it? And those high incomes: remember the marginal propensity to spend? That means that it\’s the high earning buggers who actually save from which we finance investment. So nicking more of their money is going to increase investment is it?

And then of course there\’s the complete stupidity of the FTT. The EU\’s own damn report into it tells us that it will reduce GDP. The mechanism being that it will lower share prices, thus lower investment.

This is the way to boost investment is it?

I never really do know with these people. Are they simply stupid and ignorant? Or lying through their teeth?

9 thoughts on “These euro-fanatics really are stupid”

  1. Stupid. The money to take tax from is there. They cannot see that it might be influenced by the tax to not be there in future. The left were always weak on cause-and-effect.

    Alan Douglas

  2. I assumed this was from one of the EU bods who wants to get rid of the UK given that under this plan the City would end up providing half the EU budget.

  3. Well if you want government spending you have to have tax. Whatever tax it is it is going to cause some deadweight cost so you just have to live with it.

    One observation, I believe it was tarrifs and duties that started off as the sole revenue source for the US federal government. Like all government it might just work out and be a good thing except all government in western democracies tends towards (and sometimes exceeds) 50% of GDP.

  4. ……At present it is precariously dependent on direct transfers from national budgets…….

    Translated:

    At present it is precariously dependent on having to justify itself to governments that are accountable to the great unwashed.

  5. Tim,
    You don’t understand what they mean by investment.
    I think they mean Government spending.
    I know it is a load of rubbish but now you understand
    what they are saying.

    David

  6. “I never really do know with these people. Are they simply stupid and ignorant? Or lying through their teeth?”

    That you ask the question does great credit to your faith in human nature. The truth is they would say anything that fed their power.

  7. ‘ …a financial transaction tax, for which there is significant public support.’
    This is the same public of whom only some 20% even think they understand politics, I assume. And the basis of the ‘poll’? ‘Would you rather pay 15% more income tax or would you rather we hit those greedy bankers for a little, say less than 1%, tax on their money making deals?’
    That will get you ‘significant support’. It might even get you ‘overwhelming support’.

  8. Dear Mr Worstall

    “Of course there also need to be far-reaching changes in the way the EU budget is funded.”

    Very true and the most far-reaching change would be to reduce its budget to zero.

    I’ll drink to that!

    DP

  9. Tim

    I don’t recall the Politburo of the former USSR being the cleverest- and the EU’s institutional structure, at least within the bureaucracy is near identical – why expect anything different?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *