Thursday, September 18, 2014
   
Text Size

Search our Site or Google

The Cyprus-Steal Versus Wealth Taxation

Articles & Blogs - International Commentary

User Rating: / 7
PoorBest 

There are many things which need to be said about the deliberately provocative move by European bankers to engage in a sovereign version of an “MF-Global” style bank-heist. Unfortunately none of these things are being said by anyone in the mainstream media.

To start with, this “plan” was intended to fail. It was simply another staged event. In this case, the goal was first to isolate Cyprus politically/economically, and then “make an example” out of it to other Western governments, and their peoples.

Regular readers will recall a previous commentary about how Iceland successfully stood up to the banksters, threw them out of their nation; and has since prospered economically. Since that time I have iterated the mantra of the Financial Oligarchs on many occasions “no more Icelands.”

Thus first these Oligarchs engage in a blatant act of theft which was intentionally intended to be as punitive as possible to the masses. This would ensure maximum outrage within the Cyprus population, and thus make it political suicide for any politician to support the measure. A Bloomberg article spells this out clearly:

France’s Pierre Moscovici said he had wanted an exemption for accounts worth less than 100,000 euros ($129,500). Austria’s Maria Fekter said ECB demands made that impossible.

The central bank, Fekter said on Monday, wanted to lowball the tax on larger depositors, magnifying the hit on the smaller ones. [emphasis mine]

This is nothing less than a written confession. Individual European governments were pushing for the bank-robbery to at least be structured fairly – stealing the most from those who could most afford it. It was the ECB (the “front” organization for the Oligarchs) which vetoed those intentions, and insisted on “magnifying the hit” on ordinary people.

The final vote taken by the Cyprus government is ultimate, empirical proof of this staged event. Every member of the Opposition parties voted against the bank-robbery; every member of the government abstained. Obviously a proposal which fails to obtain the support of a single member of government was never a serious proposal to begin with.

Now (most likely) Cyprus will be driven out of the EU (i.e. separated from “the herd”), and then the jackals of the Western banking oligopoly will go to work. Forced to use its own currency (if it wants true, economic sovereignty); that currency will be manipulated to near-zero. Indeed with more than a decade of “competitive devaluation” under their belts, there is nothing that these banksters are better at than destroying the value of a currency.

Along with that will be more of the same fraudulent manipulation of interest rates on Cypriot debt (via the same credit-default swap fraud which Wall Street has used so successfully on the rest of Europe). With the capacity to drive those interest rates to any number they desire; they can totally freeze Cyprus out of international debt-markets.

With a virtually worthless currency, and no access to credit to help restructure its economy; the economic devastation of Cyprus will even dwarf what these same banksters had previously inflicted upon Greece. However, this is only one half of what is truly significant about this episode.

 

The other notable point here is that this attempted bank-robbery was acknowledged as an attempt at some form of “emergency taxation.” In this respect, it is yet more of the same heinously unfair taxation policy which has been characteristic of Western economies for the past several decades.

It targets not all Cypriots, but rather a specific demographic: those who tend to have relatively large percentages of their wealth in the form of ordinary bank deposits. This would include primarily middle-class families and wealthy widows.

Obviously poorer individuals have little-if-any savings; while the Very Wealthy (who can most afford to pay and who have most-benefited from the current system) tend to have only a tiny percentage of their wealth sitting in (domestic) bank accounts. Yet another “free ride” for the richest-of-the-rich.

If our corrupt governments are now trying to tell us that they belatedly plan to genuinely (try to) “finance” our massive, fraudulent debts – by confiscating our wealth – then at the least such confiscation must be done in a fair manner (i.e. no more free rides for the Billionaires).

Regular readers should know from past commentaries that as a matter of simple arithmetic that wealth taxation is the only, possible form of fair taxation in any economy. Nothing is hidden from the tax-man. No more “free rides” for the Billionaires.

In the case of Cyprus, understand that this is a manufactured “emergency”. Cyprus didn’t suddenly become “insolvent” in March 2013; and this phony bail-out (i.e. lending more money to an insolvent economy) won’t solve anything – it’s just another temporary band-aid to delay inevitable debt-default.

Thus there was no possible need/reason for the banksters to act in such a dramatic (and illegal) manner. If it was/is feasible to extract enough wealth to make Cyprus solvent again (it isn’t); then the same banksters who have been engaging in serial bail-outs for the past four years could have simply cobbled together some mini-bandaid which would provide enough time for wealth to be extracted out of the people of Cyprus in a fair-and-transparent manner --  as opposed to robbing their bank accounts while they slept.

Note that along with being the only, possible fair form of taxation that wealth taxation is also the only efficient form of taxation. Since nothing can be hidden from a wealth tax; it replaces all other taxes. No more income tax. No more sales tax. No more corporate tax. No more capital gains tax.

In other words, we would have capitalist/consumer economies which (for the first time in history) would not be harshly penalizing income, profit, and consumption. What a radical concept!

Why do we not already have wealth-taxation across all of our economies? The reason is obvious: it’s because it’s the only form of taxation which does not provide the Billionaires with their accustomed free ride. This reflects the persistent belief amongst these Billionaires themselves that the only thing which has allowed them to acquire (and maintain) such unimaginably huge hoards of wealth in the first place is a taxation system which provides a free pass to the richest-of-the-rich.

A (flat) wealth tax is the only way to tax our economies fairly and efficiently. It is a form of immediate economic “stimulus” which doesn’t cost a penny. There can be no possible objection to such positive tax reform. Note that a wealth tax would also encourage these Billionaires to actually use their vast hoards of wealth; rather than having $trillions in capital parked in “idle wealth”: antique paintings/cars; endless mansions; etc.

Use it or lose it. If the Billionaires had their “free ride” taken away from them, and their antiques, and yachts, and other valuable trinkets they accumulated were exposed to taxation today; then they would suddenly have a direct monetary incentive to invest that capital productively – so that it produced (untaxed) income. More, free stimulus.

Among the many reasons our economies are all on the brink of outright bankruptcy is that we have the largest percentage of capital (in the history of our capitalist economies) sitting in these idle hoards of wealth. Our “bloodless” economies are about to die from anemia.

Tax the Billionaires – and go easy on the bank-accounts of the widows.

Trackback(0)
Comments (7)Add Comment
Jeff Nielson
...
written by Jeff Nielson, March 23, 2013
When this question came up on UK BBC 'Question Time' on Thursday evening, one of the panelists (Mark Littlewood of the Institute of Economic Affairs) quite correctly observed that we would have been better off without the government-backed bank guarantee schemes, which have just further encouraged gambling by the banks. A no guarantee approach would have disadvantaged a few people when some banks went under, but overall it would have made people wake up to understanding risk and it would have reduced the gambling by the banks.

What's going on with Cyprus is a precursor to what is going to happen everywhere.
ANd to add a further comment: Bitcoin is getting a lot of press all of a sudden: even more than gold and silver. The US is looking at ways of controlling it. Cypriots and Greeks are said to be flocking to it. Personally, it looks a bit like a Ponzi scheme with a mathematically controlled wind-down, allowing the early adopters to make a fortune. Could it be the ultimate "Click and vapourise" currency??????



Norbull, this is a lot to try to chew on in a "comments" section. With respect to discussion of the (evolving) Cyprus situation, I think readers are best off heading direct to the Forum where we can discuss events as they occur:

http://www.bullionbullscanada.com/bulletin-boards/21-geopolitcal-news-talk/22774-open-seizure-of-depositor-funds-begins

Regarding the last half of your comment, that is MORE than complex enough to attempt to tackle (lol). Having gotten more explanation about the Bit-coin system; my understanding is that this system is not INHERENTLY fraudulent/illegitimate.

That said, even IF the system remains entirely honest; there are no internal mechanisms in place which can prevent such a system from "bubbling" (and then ultimately imploding) IF large numbers of users enter the system in a short period of time...and that doesn't even deal with the potential for OUTSIDE manipulation and/or hackers.

A (literal) cyber-currency is MUCH too unstable a mechanism to be used in a criminal/corrupt economic system.
Norbull
...
written by Norbull, March 23, 2013
Thought I'd repeat my comment from the Cyprus thread here:
When this question came up on UK BBC 'Question Time' on Thursday evening, one of the panelists (Mark Littlewood of the Institute of Economic Affairs) quite correctly observed that we would have been better off without the government-backed bank guarantee schemes, which have just further encouraged gambling by the banks. A no guarantee approach would have disadvantaged a few people when some banks went under, but overall it would have made people wake up to understanding risk and it would have reduced the gambling by the banks.

What's going on with Cyprus is a precursor to what is going to happen everywhere.
ANd to add a further comment: Bitcoin is getting a lot of press all of a sudden: even more than gold and silver. The US is looking at ways of controlling it. Cypriots and Greeks are said to be flocking to it. Personally, it looks a bit like a Ponzi scheme with a mathematically controlled wind-down, allowing the early adopters to make a fortune. Could it be the ultimate "Click and vapourise" currency??????
Jeff Nielson
...
written by Jeff Nielson, March 23, 2013
What we are witnessing is a return to the feudal days of Robin Hood where the Sheriff of Notingham(Banksters & Government) took anything(bank accounts to livestock and grain) he wanted whenever he wanted from the serfs (Poor people and Middle class). This is the begginning of Class warefare delibertly being started by the Banksters and Governments. They could print more money instead but they want to get real personal in the public face. Raping and pillaging the people will eventually and regretable lead to Civil war across the planet. And to think its mostly due due to the super rich's banking & investment losses.



Yes, Paxjds, neo-feudalism indeed.

However, Prince John and the Sheriff could only drool in envy at a system which allows the 'tax-man' to TAKE the government's cut with a mere point-and-click.

Conversely Robin Hood would have found it infinitely more difficult to "liberate" the Rich from their excess wealth -- as their wealth is inside the same electronic system. Except as the Keepers of the Electronic System; no one can "point-and-click" to them... smilies/wink.gif
paxjds1
...
written by paxjds1, March 22, 2013
What we are witnessing is a return to the feudal days of Robin Hood where the Sheriff of Notingham(Banksters & Government) took anything(bank accounts to livestock and grain) he wanted whenever he wanted from the serfs (Poor people and Middle class). This is the begginning of Class warefare delibertly being started by the Banksters and Governments. They could print more money instead but they want to get real personal in the public face. Raping and pillaging the people will eventually and regretable lead to Civil war across the planet. And to think its mostly due due to the super rich's banking & investment losses.
Jeff Nielson
...
written by Jeff Nielson, March 22, 2013
Econ 101 (the Samuelson edition at any rate teaches that "Savings is the engine of investment." An interesting concept, and one in which the saver is also rewarded. A social contract. Today's trend (with loud huzzahs from the MSM, and notably CNBC ( the portrait of Lenin in the background of the world of Cramerica belongs there) is not just anti-social, it is National Socialist, or perhaps Supranational Socialist. The liquidation of the rentier proposed by Marx has morphed into the liquidation of the saver, first by starvation (i.e., no interest), and next by out and out confiscation. Nielson's analysis is penetrating, but Cyprus, like Iceland need not be considered defenseless against the depredation of its currency on leaving the EU- it merely has to balance its future budgets. What a quaint idea.
This was more or less the basis for the gold standard (i.e., some standard!)- and for that matter the euro: no one was supposed to run greater than 3% deficit. Tiny problem- no monitoring, no enforcement, but huge paychecks and bonuses for bankers and bureaucrats.
Cyprus might start by nationalizing its banks and making them al civil servants. Honest banking is a pretty basic affair, the needn't be paid more than useful sorts like engineers, machinists or electricians. Letds the private bankers gamble weith their own money



Robert, you're making the same (common) mistake also made by Sneedo below: confusing communism/socialism with fascism. This is understandable since most of the so-called "Communist" regimes in our history were nothing but closet-Fascists.

What we see today is that the Ultra Wealty (via Big Business) are STEALING EVERYTHING -- with the full assistance/cooperation of our criminal governments.

Obviously stealing from the poor and giving to the rich has nothing to do with either communism or socialism -- but it's the textbook definition of Fascism.
Robert
...
written by Robert, March 22, 2013
Econ 101 (the Samuelson edition at any rate teaches that "Savings is the engine of investment." An interesting concept, and one in which the saver is also rewarded. A social contract. Today's trend (with loud huzzahs from the MSM, and notably CNBC ( the portrait of Lenin in the background of the world of Cramerica belongs there) is not just anti-social, it is National Socialist, or perhaps Supranational Socialist. The liquidation of the rentier proposed by Marx has morphed into the liquidation of the saver, first by starvation (i.e., no interest), and next by out and out confiscation. Nielson's analysis is penetrating, but Cyprus, like Iceland need not be considered defenseless against the depredation of its currency on leaving the EU- it merely has to balance its future budgets. What a quaint idea.
This was more or less the basis for the gold standard (i.e., some standard!)- and for that matter the euro: no one was supposed to run greater than 3% deficit. Tiny problem- no monitoring, no enforcement, but huge paychecks and bonuses for bankers and bureaucrats.
Cyprus might start by nationalizing its banks and making them al civil servants. Honest banking is a pretty basic affair, the needn't be paid more than useful sorts like engineers, machinists or electricians. Letds the private bankers gamble weith their own money
sneed
...
written by Sneedo, March 21, 2013
"Obviously a proposal which fails to obtain the support of a single member of government was never a serious proposal to begin with.Obviously a proposal which fails to obtain the support of a single member of government was never a serious proposal to begin with."

Just like comrade zero's budget proposals.

Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.

busy

Latest Commentary

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12

Latest Comments

Disclaimer:

BullionBullsCanada.com is not a registered investment advisor - Stock information is for educational purposes ONLY. Bullion Bulls Canada does not make "buy" or "sell" recommendations for any company. Rather, we seek to find and identify Canadian companies who we see as having good growth potential. It is up to individual investors to do their own "due diligence" or to consult with their financial advisor - to determine whether any particular company is a suitable investment for themselves.

Login Form