Politics and Religion don't mix.
That's a truism spoken for years by many observers. The reality, however, is that it doesn't stop many aspiring leaders from trying to do just that -- play on religious biases for political advantage.
Religious leaders whose churches are the target of discrimination and bias, however, are often the first to endorse separation of church and state. Members of the dominant group see no problem -- not to say hypocrisy -- in demanding that their beliefs form the core of political and governmental activity.
When Al Smith ran for President, and during John F. Kennedy's campaign, dire warnings were sounded that the Pope and his Roman Catholic minions would descend on Washington to run the government. Yet Fundamentalist Protestant groups still see no problem or conflict with their continuing demands that principles central to their religious teachings be incorporated into civil law.
This includes such things as gay marriage and homosexuality as a "lifestyle choice," and a sinful perversion.
Here's a question: Given the extent of bias, bigotry, discrimination and raw violence against gay people, why would anyone choose that as a "lifestyle"?
Friday, May 31, 2013
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Federalizing the EU
A confederation of independent-minded (if not imperious) states does not work. It did not work in America after 1776. It was overturned by a new Constitution in 1789, and later tested by a great Civil War.
But the federal system endures in America, despite challenges by those who hold to supremacy of individual states. In Europe, 27 nations have joined together to try to forge a more perfect union, but the movement is hobbled by nationalist sentiments that may well fracture an already fragile European Union.
French-German suspicions, as well as leftover British attitudes from an imperial age, could stall any moves toward a stronger union. Similarly, devotion in some parts of America toward "states' rights" interferes with efforts by the federal government in Washington to coordinate social benefits.
Granted, the U.S. has the advantage of a recognized common language, as well as the convenience of a common currency and a centralized judiciary with sovereignty over the several individual states.
Europe has been moving slowly in a federal direction, gradually overcoming opposition by fiercely nationalistic figures such as Charles de Gaulle and Margaret Thatcher. In addition, there is French suspicion of German industriousness, British dislike of losing its own currency, and resentment among smaller nations of being told what to do and how to do it.
Sound familiar? It should, because many similar arguments (except for language and currency) are expressed by ultra-conservatives and Tea Party activists in America.
So which in Europe will succeed? Federalism, with a strong centralized government, or Intergovernmentalism, which recognizes the sovereignty of member nation-states?
In America, it took a Civil War to solidify allegiance to one nation, indivisible. Europe is still a collection of nations, each with its own culture, language and allegiance.
Many wars have already been fought over which shall be dominant.
But the federal system endures in America, despite challenges by those who hold to supremacy of individual states. In Europe, 27 nations have joined together to try to forge a more perfect union, but the movement is hobbled by nationalist sentiments that may well fracture an already fragile European Union.
French-German suspicions, as well as leftover British attitudes from an imperial age, could stall any moves toward a stronger union. Similarly, devotion in some parts of America toward "states' rights" interferes with efforts by the federal government in Washington to coordinate social benefits.
Granted, the U.S. has the advantage of a recognized common language, as well as the convenience of a common currency and a centralized judiciary with sovereignty over the several individual states.
Europe has been moving slowly in a federal direction, gradually overcoming opposition by fiercely nationalistic figures such as Charles de Gaulle and Margaret Thatcher. In addition, there is French suspicion of German industriousness, British dislike of losing its own currency, and resentment among smaller nations of being told what to do and how to do it.
Sound familiar? It should, because many similar arguments (except for language and currency) are expressed by ultra-conservatives and Tea Party activists in America.
So which in Europe will succeed? Federalism, with a strong centralized government, or Intergovernmentalism, which recognizes the sovereignty of member nation-states?
In America, it took a Civil War to solidify allegiance to one nation, indivisible. Europe is still a collection of nations, each with its own culture, language and allegiance.
Many wars have already been fought over which shall be dominant.
GDP Holding
For all its troubles, the U.S. has so far evaded the severity of the economic malaise affecting Europe.
While the European Union has posted six straight quarters of negative GDP data, the U.S. kept its first quarter 2013 growth rate, according to revised figures released today by the government. A second look at the first three months of this year showed GDP growing at 2.5 percent, compared to 2.4 percent posted earlier. In the fourth quarter of 2012, the growth rate was 0.4 percent.
The question now is, will expansion hold?
The U.S. is the world's largest producer of goods and services -- the definition of Gross National Product -- but not all of it is sold domestically. If overseas markets collapse, they can drag down the U.S. economy, and American producers will have to cut production as exports diminish. Either that, or they'll have to trim domestic prices to make up the difference in sales.
At the same time, they could face competition from overseas suppliers, who will also cut prices to maintain sales.
So two fiscal quarters of economic growth is good news, but if the rest of the world continues its downward trend, the spiral may engulf the U.S. as well.
While the European Union has posted six straight quarters of negative GDP data, the U.S. kept its first quarter 2013 growth rate, according to revised figures released today by the government. A second look at the first three months of this year showed GDP growing at 2.5 percent, compared to 2.4 percent posted earlier. In the fourth quarter of 2012, the growth rate was 0.4 percent.
The question now is, will expansion hold?
The U.S. is the world's largest producer of goods and services -- the definition of Gross National Product -- but not all of it is sold domestically. If overseas markets collapse, they can drag down the U.S. economy, and American producers will have to cut production as exports diminish. Either that, or they'll have to trim domestic prices to make up the difference in sales.
At the same time, they could face competition from overseas suppliers, who will also cut prices to maintain sales.
So two fiscal quarters of economic growth is good news, but if the rest of the world continues its downward trend, the spiral may engulf the U.S. as well.
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
Politics and Government
Government is about getting something done. Politics is about getting elected.
One way to get elected and/or re-elected is to make the other candidate lose. And the way to do that is to prevent the incumbent from getting anything done, even if it's something that your side has already proposed and endorsed. You certainly don't want the opposition to gain credit for getting anything done, especially if it's something that you want credit for.
So to a large extent, that explains the situation in Washington. Whatever one side suggests or proposes, the other side says, "We're against it, it's un-American and will destroy the economy and everything loyal Americans stand for."
Consequently, nothing gets done.
One way to get elected and/or re-elected is to make the other candidate lose. And the way to do that is to prevent the incumbent from getting anything done, even if it's something that your side has already proposed and endorsed. You certainly don't want the opposition to gain credit for getting anything done, especially if it's something that you want credit for.
So to a large extent, that explains the situation in Washington. Whatever one side suggests or proposes, the other side says, "We're against it, it's un-American and will destroy the economy and everything loyal Americans stand for."
Consequently, nothing gets done.
Apple Bites
Some taxing thoughts from our Dublin correspondent:
There has been a lot of news recently involving Ireland and claims that it is a tax haven that encourages tax evasion. I find it curious that American lawmakers are complaining about American companies taking advantage of a loophole in American laws and trying to blame another country. One must remember that American lawmakers are hugely influenced by the lobbyists that are employed by those same American companies.
Let's look at some of the issues.
Apple executive Tim Cook acknowledged that the company set up some subsidiary companies in Ireland and do not pay tax in the U.S. on the profits of those companies. In fact, Apple do not pay tax anywhere on the profits of those companies.
There are a few issues here. The Irish tax laws state that the corporate tax is liable at 12.5% on profits made on trading within Ireland. Another corporate tax rate of 25% applies to profits made on investments. The fact that Apple set up these subsidiary companies is in total conformity with US law. Apple are using a loophole in U.S. law to get around paying the much higher US corporate tax rate. The loophole is in U.S. law and not in the laws of Ireland.
Tim Cook claimed that a special tax rate of 2% for Apple was negotiated with the Irish government and tax authorities. This is strongly repudiated by the Irish government and Irish tax authorities. Whom do you believe, the politician or the businessman?
A number of years ago the Irish tax laws were changed to promote advances in innovation by making the income from patents tax free for a number of years. A number of businesses have been able to benefit from this and generally these businesses reinvest the profits in further research and development. These concessions are available to anyone
who has a patent and doing business in Ireland.
Some non-Irish companies have transferred (sold) Intellectual Property Rights to their Irish subsidiaries in order to avail of these benefits. Apple, Microsoft, Google, and Yahoo are only some of the companies that have done this. Perhaps these transfers should not be allowed, but that is a matter for the countries in which the parent company operates. If that were to happen I believe the laws restricting these transfers would be struck down as unreasonable restraint of trade.
Ireland have been under pressure to increase its tax rate from countries that have much higher corporate tax rates. The bigger problem in defining corporate tax rate is the income that may be exempt from taxation. For example, France has a nominal corporate tax rate in excess of 30%, but they readily admit that the effective tax rate is closer to 8 %. The nominal tax rate for Ireland is 12.5% and the effective tax rate is about 11.9%.
Sales tax in Europe is called VAT (value added tax) and Ireland has a VAT rate of 23% (near the upper end of VAT rates in Europe) while some other countries have rates as low as 10% to 12%. Sales over the Internet are taxed at the location where the seller is based, not the buyer. As a result, companies that operate Internet sales are usually more profitable in low VAT rate countries and not high VAT rate countries like Ireland. Ireland has been fairly successful in recent years in attracting foreign companies into Ireland, The low corporate tax rate is one element of the attractiveness of Ireland, but other things are a well educated workforce, being located in the EU, English being the most widely used language in the country, the availability of speakers of other languages, good telecommunications networks, the availability of new factories and offices, and access to international trade routes by air or ship.
Each country of the European Union makes a contribution to the EU based on the GDP of the country. The corporate tax system in Ireland generally excludes profits for exports. GDP does include exports in the calculation. It is estimated that Ireland is paying an extra 100 million euros annually for the export driven part of the economy, the part of the economy that has not been taxed.
So maybe the Apple logo should be redesigned, to show a green apple with a smaller bite.
There has been a lot of news recently involving Ireland and claims that it is a tax haven that encourages tax evasion. I find it curious that American lawmakers are complaining about American companies taking advantage of a loophole in American laws and trying to blame another country. One must remember that American lawmakers are hugely influenced by the lobbyists that are employed by those same American companies.
Let's look at some of the issues.
Apple executive Tim Cook acknowledged that the company set up some subsidiary companies in Ireland and do not pay tax in the U.S. on the profits of those companies. In fact, Apple do not pay tax anywhere on the profits of those companies.
There are a few issues here. The Irish tax laws state that the corporate tax is liable at 12.5% on profits made on trading within Ireland. Another corporate tax rate of 25% applies to profits made on investments. The fact that Apple set up these subsidiary companies is in total conformity with US law. Apple are using a loophole in U.S. law to get around paying the much higher US corporate tax rate. The loophole is in U.S. law and not in the laws of Ireland.
Tim Cook claimed that a special tax rate of 2% for Apple was negotiated with the Irish government and tax authorities. This is strongly repudiated by the Irish government and Irish tax authorities. Whom do you believe, the politician or the businessman?
A number of years ago the Irish tax laws were changed to promote advances in innovation by making the income from patents tax free for a number of years. A number of businesses have been able to benefit from this and generally these businesses reinvest the profits in further research and development. These concessions are available to anyone
who has a patent and doing business in Ireland.
Some non-Irish companies have transferred (sold) Intellectual Property Rights to their Irish subsidiaries in order to avail of these benefits. Apple, Microsoft, Google, and Yahoo are only some of the companies that have done this. Perhaps these transfers should not be allowed, but that is a matter for the countries in which the parent company operates. If that were to happen I believe the laws restricting these transfers would be struck down as unreasonable restraint of trade.
Ireland have been under pressure to increase its tax rate from countries that have much higher corporate tax rates. The bigger problem in defining corporate tax rate is the income that may be exempt from taxation. For example, France has a nominal corporate tax rate in excess of 30%, but they readily admit that the effective tax rate is closer to 8 %. The nominal tax rate for Ireland is 12.5% and the effective tax rate is about 11.9%.
Sales tax in Europe is called VAT (value added tax) and Ireland has a VAT rate of 23% (near the upper end of VAT rates in Europe) while some other countries have rates as low as 10% to 12%. Sales over the Internet are taxed at the location where the seller is based, not the buyer. As a result, companies that operate Internet sales are usually more profitable in low VAT rate countries and not high VAT rate countries like Ireland. Ireland has been fairly successful in recent years in attracting foreign companies into Ireland, The low corporate tax rate is one element of the attractiveness of Ireland, but other things are a well educated workforce, being located in the EU, English being the most widely used language in the country, the availability of speakers of other languages, good telecommunications networks, the availability of new factories and offices, and access to international trade routes by air or ship.
Each country of the European Union makes a contribution to the EU based on the GDP of the country. The corporate tax system in Ireland generally excludes profits for exports. GDP does include exports in the calculation. It is estimated that Ireland is paying an extra 100 million euros annually for the export driven part of the economy, the part of the economy that has not been taxed.
So maybe the Apple logo should be redesigned, to show a green apple with a smaller bite.
Foxy Bankers
News item: Banking lobbyists help Congress write new legislation to improve bank regulation. The New York Times reports that many parts of the proposed law are taken verbatim from lobbyist documents.
The explanation, of course, is that the industry representatives are "just helping," since they know more about the intricacies of the financial industry than the average politician. That's probably true. It's also true that clowns know more about the circus industry than the average politician. But we don't elect clowns to run the government.
Or do we?
Meanwhile, the fox is guarding the henhouse, so us chickens need not fear getting plucked.
The explanation, of course, is that the industry representatives are "just helping," since they know more about the intricacies of the financial industry than the average politician. That's probably true. It's also true that clowns know more about the circus industry than the average politician. But we don't elect clowns to run the government.
Or do we?
Meanwhile, the fox is guarding the henhouse, so us chickens need not fear getting plucked.
Monday, May 27, 2013
Irony and Coincidence
Coincidence is not Irony.
The fact of one event following another is not in itself ironic. Nor is the fact of two events occurring at the same time. Quite often, they are coincidences and nothing more -- by chance, two events occur, related or unrelated.
Moreover, a standard college freshman English composition list of terms defines irony as "a contrast of some sort."
An irony, however, is a contrast of a specific sort, namely, when one expects one event but something different happens. The key here is expectation.
Example: When an arch-conservative, outspoken Tea Party activist opponent of additional taxes votes for a bill that increases government revenue through higher taxes, that's ironic, because we would have expected the delegate to vote against anything that brings higher taxes.
Similarly, when a gun lobby activist acts to strengthen laws against multiple purchases of firearms, that's ironic, because gun lobbyists are typically against stiff controls. And some are opposed to controls of any kind.
The fact of one event following another is not in itself ironic. Nor is the fact of two events occurring at the same time. Quite often, they are coincidences and nothing more -- by chance, two events occur, related or unrelated.
Moreover, a standard college freshman English composition list of terms defines irony as "a contrast of some sort."
An irony, however, is a contrast of a specific sort, namely, when one expects one event but something different happens. The key here is expectation.
Example: When an arch-conservative, outspoken Tea Party activist opponent of additional taxes votes for a bill that increases government revenue through higher taxes, that's ironic, because we would have expected the delegate to vote against anything that brings higher taxes.
Similarly, when a gun lobby activist acts to strengthen laws against multiple purchases of firearms, that's ironic, because gun lobbyists are typically against stiff controls. And some are opposed to controls of any kind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)