• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Making Canada Relevant Again- The Economic Super-Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
a_majoor said:
Zartan, the tax cuts are having their effect (even if the Washington Post is loath to admit any good news about the Bush administration):

And they continue to (note that the big jump is in Corporate tax revenues: you'd think the lefties would be creaming themselves, but alas, they get the last (irrelevant scare-mongering) word in this article).  Also funny how the NYT uses "unexepected" as a euphamism for "as demonstrated by Arthur Laffer 30 years ago":
July 13, 2005
Sharp Rise in Tax Revenue to Pare U.S. Deficit
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS

WASHINGTON, July 12 - For the first time since President Bush took office, an unexpected leap in tax revenue is about to shrink the federal budget deficit this year, by nearly $100 billion.

On Wednesday, White House officials plan to announce that the deficit for the 2005 fiscal year, which ends in September, will be far smaller than the $427 billion they estimated in February.

Mr. Bush plans to hail the improvement at a cabinet meeting and to cite it as validation of his argument that tax cuts would stimulate the economy and ultimately help pay for themselves.

Based on revenue and spending data through June, the budget deficit for the first nine months of the fiscal year was $251 billion, $76 billion lower than the $327 billion gap recorded at the corresponding point a year earlier.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated last week that the deficit for the full fiscal year, which reached $412 billion in 2004, could be "significantly less than $350 billion, perhaps below $325 billion."

The big surprise has been in tax revenue, which is running nearly 15 percent higher than in 2004. Corporate tax revenue has soared about 40 percent, after languishing for four years, and individual tax revenue is up as well.

Most of the increase in individual tax receipts appears to have come from higher stock market gains and the business income of relatively wealthy taxpayers.
The biggest jump was not from taxes withheld from salaries but from quarterly payments on investment gains and business earnings, which were up 20 percent this year.

That was similar, though much smaller than a sharp rise in tax revenue during the stock market boom of the late 1990's, which was followed by plunges in revenue when the market bubble burst.

But many independent analysts cautioned that the improvement, though notable, could prove ephemeral and that it did little to eliminate much bigger fiscal problems just over the horizon. "Lawmakers who allow themselves to be lulled into thinking that the economy is growing its way out of the deficit," wrote Edward McKelvey, an economist at Goldman Sachs in New York, "are unlikely to support the painful measures needed to reach a more lasting solution."

For one thing, analysts note, federal spending has continued to climb rapidly, about 7 percent this year. Despite cutbacks in many domestic programs, spending has surged for the war in Iraq as well as in certain benefit programs providing health coverage.

In addition, while a lot of the increase in tax revenue flows from the improving economy and higher incomes, part of the jump stemmed from a special factor: the expiration of a temporary tax break that allowed companies to write off their investment in new equipment much more rapidly than normal.

That tax break reduced revenue by about $61 billion in 2004, but it merely postponed taxes that companies would have to pay once their equipment was fully depreciated.

Other financial hurdles may be down the road. Mr. Bush's intention to extend his tax cuts indefinitely, and to add new ones, would drain more than $1.4 trillion from government coffers over the next 10 years.

As the Medicare expansion into prescription drugs begins to take effect, the cost is estimated at about $33 billion in 2006, with increases every year after that. In 2015, the annual cost of the program is expected to be about $137 billion.

A senior White House official cautioned that it was too early to make definitive judgments about whether the tax cuts had fulfilled the promises of "supply side" economics, a Reagan era concept that posits a direct relationship between lower tax rates and faster economic growth.

"We need to wait for more data," said Ben S. Bernanke, who took over this month as chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, at a conference on Tuesday at the American Enterprise Institute.

But Mr. Bernanke said the tax cuts had undoubtedly contributed to economic growth, which in turn bolstered tax receipts.

"One consequence of strong income growth is that we are enjoying higher-than-expected levels of tax collections," he said.

Critics of Mr. Bush's fiscal policies said the budget outlook seemed good only in comparison with the dire state of affairs a year ago. Given that the recession formally ended nearly four years ago and that overall growth has been quite strong for the last two years, they said, the budget ought to be in much better shape.

"It's only good if you set the bar at $400 billion," said Richard Kogan, a senior economist at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal research organization here. A $300 billion deficit, he said, was "really bad if you remember that we've recovered from a recession and you think we are at or near full employment."

Mr. Bush has faced rising budget deficits almost from the moment he took office in 2001. Though the budget had a surplus of more than $100 billion that year, tax revenue plunged as the economy headed into a recession and as Mr. Bush increased military and related spending.

Deficits shot up for each of the next three years, reaching $412 billion last year or, nearly 3.5 percent of the gross domestic product.

Mr. Bush has pledged to cut the budget deficit by 2009 to about $260 billion, and that goal could be within future grasp. If current trends hold, the deficit could amount to less than 3 percent of the gross domestic product - less than in many West European countries that have been hobbled by slow growth and the heavy cost of supporting social welfare programs.

Democrats, expecting the Republicans to trumpet the good news, said on Tuesday that the long-term fiscal outlook remained almost as grim as before.

The immediate challenge is in the continuing costs of the war in Iraq, which are on track to cross the $200 billion level by the end of this year.

A much bigger problem is the impending retirement of baby boomers, with the oldest in that group eligible for Social Security payments starting in 2008.

Social Security's annual surpluses, which have been running around $150 billion a year, have been a major source of operating cash for the government. But those surpluses will start to decline before the end of the decade, and the program is expected to start running annual deficits in 2017.

Mr. Bush has proposed cutting the growth in future benefits, and has also called for letting people divert some of their payroll taxes to private retirement accounts. House Republicans are pushing a separate proposal to use the Social Security surplus for financing private retirement accounts.

Both proposals would send budget deficits soaring in the next few decades, though supporters say that the government would eventually recoup the money by reducing its benefit costs in the future.

The biggest fiscal threat of all comes from Medicare, the government's health care program for the elderly. Health costs are growing much faster than the economy as a whole, partly because of new technologies and drugs and partly because of the aging population.

"Future presidents and future Congresses," said Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota, the ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee, "are going to be faced with pressure to drastically cut Social Security and Medicare because of the decisions being made now."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/13/business/13deficit.html?ei=5090&en=a410f8c74d4700a5&ex=1278907200&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print
 
Fair enough, I concede.  ;D Well done. Good for the US. I think we can all agree that it's always a good thing when deficits decrease without cutting spending. And I agree with your comments entirely.

"Future presidents and future Congresses," said Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota, the ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee, "are going to be faced with pressure to drastically cut Social Security and Medicare because of the decisions being made now."

Uhm, the next generations having to face the world we build for them. Such is the way it has always been. Besides, thanks the magic of Inflation, our debts will be continually losing real value over time. At the same time, inflation and economic growth would see our goverments take in more money. If our governments can keep our debts controlled (and curtail any Japan-like economic collapses), our descendants shouldn't have that much to worry about. Well, I hope it works that way.

P.S. this thread is fairly confusing now

Environmentally speaking, I believe we should focus on water pollution and keeping our water clean. Every major city in Canada should have sewage treatment plants, rather than dumping it in the ocean. That should help.
 
Too bad our "Chattering class" dosn't understand economics like this:

Being Profitable Is â Å“Giving Backâ ?
Why the estate tax should be repealed.

By John Tamny

The U.S. House of Representatives voted 272 to 162 in April to abolish the estate tax. An editorial in last Friday's Wall Street Journal said that President Bush needs eight Senate Democrats to cross the aisle so that total repeal becomes filibuster-proof in the upper chamber.

Regardless of the Senate outcome, a big cut in the estate tax looms. Unhappy with this inevitability, estate-tax supporters have used the media to spread the false notion that repeal will save the rich from having to â Å“give back.â ?

An April article in USA Today described the belief among estate-tax supporters that â Å“wealthy Americans owe a special debt because their wealth would not be possible without tax-supported schools and regulatory agencies.â ? In the same article, William Gates Sr. voiced his support for the tax as â Å“a fair payback to society for the opportunity to do business in our marvelous economy and society.â ? Leaving aside the questionable value of tax-supported schools and regulatory agencies, not to mention the millions of jobs created, charities funded, and taxes already paid by the wealthiest Americans, Gates and the pro-estate-tax lobby get the whole concept of giving back exactly backwards.

Von Mises once wrote that the entrepreneur who fails to use his capital to the â Å“best possible satisfaction of consumersâ ? is â Å“relegated to a place in which his ineptitude no longer hurts people's well-being.â ? Successful entrepreneurs help consumers, while failures by definition help no one, and often hurt consumers.

Successful people, by virtue of being successful, have met previously unmet market needs, saved lives, saved consumers money, and in general have removed what Von Mises referred to as â Å“uneasinessâ ? from the marketplace. A look at the 2004 Forbes 400 confirms his thinking.

Charles Schwab, the 68th richest American, made investing in the stock market easy and affordable for the middle class. In doing so he helped launch an investment boom that an increasing number of Americans are able to participate in.

Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, the 234th richest American, has developed a drug (Abraxane) that is injected into cancerous tumors. The tumors feed on Abraxane, only to be wiped out by a cancer-killing â Å“Trojan Horseâ ? within.

It is estimated that Wal-Mart stores save consumers $100 billion a year. In other words, Wal-Mart's customers get a raise every time they shop there. Unsurprisingly, Wal-Mart's heirs and executives take up spots four through eight on the Forbes 400.

Can anyone imagine living without Google, Amazon, and travel websites such as Expedia? Internet trailblazers Sergey Brin and Larry Page (43), Jeff Bezos (38), and Barry Diller (215) are all Forbes 400 members.

That the individuals behind the products and companies that improve our lives often reside in the Forbes 400 should not surprise us. Indeed, the greater a person's wealth, the more likely than not that he or she did something extraordinary that benefited others. â Å“Giving back?â ? High profits are the surest sign that someone has given back. Can the same be said for entrepreneurial failures?

Furthermore, it's not just morally wrong for the government to use the estate tax to redistribute wealth, it's also bad economic policy. Wealth by definition is savings. When savings are confiscated for government use, entrepreneurial opportunities in need of capital go wanting in favor of immediate consumption.

Edward Wolff, an economics professor at New York University, told the Wall Street Journal in May that a poll showing a majority of the â Å“richâ ? back estate-tax reform is a sign that â Å“any notion of noblesse oblige is disappearing.â ? Wolff gets it wrong too. As the late Warren Brookes once said, â Å“we are blessed by the genius of the few.â ?

When the brilliant few innovate and improve our existence, we are receiving their very best and being given to in spades. The estate tax penalizes society's greatest benefactors, and for doing so should be repealed.

â ” John Tamny is a writer in Washington, D.C. He can be contacted at jtamny@yahoo.com.
 
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/tamny200507140847.asp
 
Here's an excerpt from a book by a person who undoubtedly knows more about the subject than I do:

"Yes, a family farmer should be able to pass his farm down to his children. Fortunately, that hasn't been a problem. As the law existed before Bush took office, family farms had a $2.6 million exemption. For family farms worth more than $2.6 million, the heirs had a grace period of up to 14 years to pay the tax bill at low interest rates. The fact is that neither the New York Times nor the American Farm Bureau Federation could find a single family farm that has ever been lost to the estate tax"
"In fact, the tax affects less than 2 percent of estates - and nearly half of the revenue it produces comes from taxes on 0.16 percent of estates, worth an average of $17 million, belonging to about 3 300 families each year. In 1999, fully a quarter of the estate tax revenue came from just 467 estates. As David Brooks, who works at the Weekly Standard but is nonetheless a terrific guy, wrote in the The New York Times, the estate tax is "explicitly for the mega-upper class.""
"Bush has said that it is immoral to tax people when they die. Since we are currently experiencing a $450 billion deficit, the amount of the
revenue being lost by the phase-out and eventual re-peal of the estate tax will have to be made up by taxes on you and me. It is arguably more moral to tax an incredibly rich person who is dead than a middle - or working-class person who is still alive. The living person might use the money for medical care, food, travel, or other things that dead rich people don't have to think about."
"However, the repeal of the estate tax will create a way to avoid not just double taxation, but also single taxation. Here's how to do it. Buy an enormous amount of stock or property. Let it accumulate value. Die. Now the money goes to your kids, who escape both estate and capital gains taxes.
"This new tax loophole is not a trivial matter. For estates worth more than $10 million, over 56% of their value comes from unrealized capital gains. Capital gains come from money making money without anyone actually working. Thus, our nation's most generous tax laws will now apply to the children of the very rich inheriting money even their parents didn't earn."

-Al Franken, "Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them". 
 
Zartan said:
"In fact, the tax affects less than 2 percent of estates - and nearly half of the revenue it produces comes from taxes on 0.16 percent of estates, worth an average of $17 million, belonging to about 3 300 families each year. In 1999, fully a quarter of the estate tax revenue came from just 467 estates.

So what is the argument here? We need to spend a disproportionate amount of time and energy to get that last dollar from 0.16% of estates? Those statistics alone should put the issue to rest, the amount of money gained by estate tax (particularly when attempting to apply it against families wealthy enough to hire the best tax planners and lawyers to shield it) is hardly worth the candle.

The extreme position is ALL income taxes are immoral, after all, what right do I have to demand the fruits of your effort and energy? Consumption taxes, on the other hand, are "progressive" in the sense that people who have more money tend to spend more money; shopworn arguments about "the poor" can be simply countered by setting the consumption tax at a very low level with no exemptions, or start tinkering with exemptions (for example, a frozen pizza from the supermarket generally is sold without GST, but the same pizza cooked for you at Domino's has GST.)

The other argument that consumption taxes won't raise enough money can be countered by asking "raise enough money for what?" A lean government will have far less ability to indulge in Adscams, Shawinigates or Billion Dollar Boondoggles, and it would be fair to say that any service you can find in the Yellow Pages should not be offered by any government entity or agency.

If Canada wants to become relevant again, governmets at all levels should start disengaging from the population, and allow people to apply their energies to their own projects, instead of paying for bloated and inefficient governments. It has happened successfully in 70 nations around the world, so there is no reason it can't work here as well.
 
a_majoor said:
SoIf Canada wants to become relevant again, governmets at all levels should start disengaging from the population, and allow people to apply their energies to their own projects, instead of paying for bloated and inefficient governments. It has happened successfully in 70 nations around the world, so there is no reason it can't work here as well.
    Governments who disengage from the population have forfeited their right to collect any taxes as they have abrogated the responsibilities those taxes were to support.  Our governement in Canada does those jobs that we the people deem must be done for the common good, and deem best done by those sworn in the service of the crown, not simply the dollar.  This is the job we have asked be done in our names, it is for this that the government is empowered to levy taxes, and the day they cease to do our will, and decide it is thier decision what jobs need to be done, is the day they have lost the right to those taxes.  As a former soldier, I was frequently glad that it was not entirely in the government's descretion to HAVE an army, for whenever they "trim the fat", I see lost transport aircraft, main battle tanks, downgraded helicopters, fewer fighters, smaller regiments, longer deployments, but I see adscam continues full force.  If it was up to the politicians to trim goverment down to the jobs THEY think need to get done, we'd see more porkbarreling, and less military spending; Ottawa's priorities remain the same, no matter who sits at 24 Sussix drive.
 
mainerjohnthomas said:
    Governments who disengage from the population have forfeited their right to collect any taxes as they have abrogated the responsibilities those taxes were to support.  Our governement in Canada does those jobs that we the people deem must be done for the common good, and deem best done by those sworn in the service of the crown, not simply the dollar.  This is the job we have asked be done in our names, it is for this that the government is empowered to levy taxes, and the day they cease to do our will, and decide it is thier decision what jobs need to be done, is the day they have lost the right to those taxes. 

By disengage, I mean disengage from areas that are not the perview of government, such as daycare, advertizing, funding the arts, sports, profitable business etc. etc. Since the Liberal Government has long ago ceased to do our will, perhaps we really do need to dump tea in the Toronto harbour.

The modern nation state took shape in the 15-1600s since it had the most efficient means of raising and projecting force (superior to guilds, churches and all other contenders), and when you get right to the bottom, governments still exist because they have the implicit monopoly on the use of force. (If you choose to withhold your taxes to prevent another Adscam, the government has the power of the police to compell you to pay taxes, and sieze you and your chattel goods to get their due).

Canada has chosen to turn the defense of our nation over to the United States, we no longer pay many of our tax dollars to fund the Canadian Armed Forces, but we do indeed pay a considerable price for Uncle Sam's protection services.
 
>Our governement in Canada does those jobs that we the people deem must be done

It seems to me that what happens is government does jobs it thinks will be neato and we the people become lazy and accustomed to having them done and never directly seeing the bills.
 
a_majoor said:
So what is the argument here? We need to spend a disproportionate amount of time and energy to get that last dollar from 0.16% of estates? Those statistics alone should put the issue to rest, the amount of money gained by estate tax (particularly when attempting to apply it against families wealthy enough to hire the best tax planners and lawyers to shield it) is hardly worth the candle.
The issue is the very top of American society being able to continue living in wealth without having to create any wealth. If you'd like governments to disengage so people can work on their own projects, removing such laws will result in the opposite. The people in society with the best ability to fund and/or organize such projects won't, because they don't need to. The role of a government is to protect the people it governs. If you chose not to pay your taxes, you are damaging the country. Your taxes may not have gone to a scandalous issue in the first place, no less every single dollar of it. However, in choosing to do so, you could be affecting the funding of such visibly important things, such as funding for police or the military, or even someone's surgery. We may be in a surplus now, but how about down the road? or in a deficit situation; somebody is going to have to make up for it at some point.
 
Investment creates wealth. There are no counter arguments that can withstand evidence crossing hundreds of years and multiple nations, political systems religions or any other factor or grouping you can name. If you confiscate wealth, you inhibit investment; therefore you lower everyone's standard of living.
 
without having to create any wealth

At 17, I'm curious as to what experience you have in real world economics? Of course, there is still some "old money" around, but even so - do you think the "wealthy" have some secret money magnet that just sucks currency into their treasure rooms, from out of the sky?

Do you think that the "wealthy" don't bother to invest capital, build buildings, buy cars and boats and planes, or start more companies? The wealthy, aside from taxes, make more money and "create wealth" (or lose it), by dumping it back into the economy.....
 
>The issue is the very top of American society being able to continue living in wealth without having to create any wealth.

Do you plan on retiring one day, or do you intend to work until you drop dead?  Why would it matter to you if one person creates enough wealth during his productive years to permit a few generations of descendants to effectively live in retirement?

>The people in society with the best ability to fund and/or organize such projects won't, because they don't need to.

If they are content to run the tank dry, they won't - and even in that case, so what?  If they want to perpetuate their standards of living, they will invest.  Investors, in case you forgot, are the people who fund projects when the people with the best ability to dream up and organize such projects don't have the financial wherewithal to do it themselves.

If someone set out to destroy his accumulated wealth, do you believe you have a right to stop him and seize his assets?

>The role of a government is to protect the people it governs.

Close.  The role of a government is to protect the freedoms of the people it governs.

>If you chose not to pay your taxes, you are damaging the country.

How?  In this respect there is no measurable difference between someone who avoids paying taxes and someone who doesn't have to pay taxes.  From the point of view of the burden they impose on the country, they are almost equal.  (Not quite equal, because the tax avoider is probably at least self-sustaining.)  You have just stated that everyone who pays no taxes is damaging the country.  Should we get rid of them?  Also, people who pay a lesser share of income as taxes must be partially damaging the country.  Should we rectify that as well?

>However, in choosing to do so, you could be affecting the funding of such visibly important things

Everyone who advocates spending on "unimportant things" is affecting the funding of "visibly important things", and completely guilty of the same crime to an equal degree.  It doesn't matter whether a dollar is diverted or never arrives in the first place.  As long as there is one dollar available for pork barrel, discretionary, or non-core spending, the government is by definition already collecting more money than it needs.
 
Brad Sallows said:
>The issue is the very top of American society being able to continue living in wealth without having to create any wealth.

Do you plan on retiring one day, or do you intend to work until you drop dead?
Yes, in fact I do plan on retiring someday, lest I be fortunate with a job I could tolerate, if not enjoy, until I die. In such a situation as a world without such taxes, could not the question also be: "Do you plan on working one day, or do you intend to live in retirement for your whole life?"

>Why would it matter to you if one person creates enough wealth during his productive years to permit a few generations of descendants to effectively live in retirement?
Personally, it would not matter in the least if that happened. Some could argue that it already is happening. It's not like Estate Taxes seize every single asset of the individual in question. I could imagine there would be more than enough wealth carried over in the inheritance for their descendants to live comfortably, for many a year, if not generations.

>>The people in society with the best ability to fund and/or organize such projects won't, because they don't need to.

>Investors, in case you forgot, are the people who fund projects when the people with the best ability to dream up and organize such projects don't have the financial wherewithal to do it themselves.

Doesn't the sentence you replied to prove I did not forget?

>>If you chose not to pay your taxes, you are damaging the country.

>How?  In this respect there is no measurable difference between someone who avoids paying taxes and someone who doesn't have to pay taxes.  From the point of view of the burden they impose on the country, they are almost equal.  (Not quite equal, because the tax avoider is probably at least self-sustaining.)  You have just stated that everyone who pays no taxes is damaging the country.  Should we get rid of them?  Also, people who pay a lesser share of income as taxes must be partially damaging the country.  Should we rectify that as well?

Having used the term 'chose', I am stating that people who chose not to pay taxes are a possible source of problems for the country. Some people pay no taxes because they don't have the means to be taxed, ex. an income, if one choses not to pay taxes, it is likely that that person had the following ability:
-To pay taxes.

>>However, in choosing to do so, you could be affecting the funding of such visibly important things

>Everyone who advocates spending on "unimportant things" is affecting the funding of "visibly important things", and completely guilty of the same crime to an equal degree.  It doesn't matter whether a dollar is diverted or never arrives in the first place.  As long as there is one dollar available for pork barrel, discretionary, or non-core spending, the government is by definition already collecting more money than it needs.

I agree.
 
Zartan said:
Having used the term 'chose', I am stating that people who chose not to pay taxes are a possible source of problems for the country. Some people pay no taxes because they don't have the means to be taxed, ex. an income, if one choses not to pay taxes, it is likely that that person had the following ability:
-To pay taxes.

Ya know, I just never understood that line of argument.   What you're basicaly saying is that those who are rich enough to contribute to the economy by creating jobs and investing in new companies are actually DAMAGING the country...whereas those who can't afford to pay taxes and instead collect welfare checks are....what, good for the country?   Sorry, you'll have to explain that one again...
 
Ah, shite!! Sorry everyone.
48Highlander said:
Ya know, I just never understood that line of argument.   What you're basicaly saying is that those who are rich enough to contribute to the economy by creating jobs and investing in new companies are actually DAMAGING the country...whereas those who can't afford to pay taxes and instead collect welfare checks are....what, good for the country?   Sorry, you'll have to explain that one again...
I didn't mean it in regards to that. I had thought somebody had written about ignoring their taxes earlier due to the adscam. I was referring to that, not the estate taxes. For the record I believe in Work-for-Welfare, and I hereby retire from this thread in ignominy.

As a final note, Work-for-Welfare is not present in Canada, at least to my knowledge, so perhaps that's another start.
 
The economics of Rock Stars. Even if they are publickly i favor of having our hard earned money sent to the cause of the week, they certainly know (both implicitly and explicitly) about how to be hard charging capitalists:

What rocks is capitalism... yeah, yeah, yeah
By Mark Steyn
(Filed: 05/07/2005)

'To sneer at such events," cautioned The Sunday Telegraph apropos Live8, "demeans the generosity which they embody".

Oh, dear. If you can't sneer at rock stars in the Telegraph, where can you? None the less, if not exactly a full-blown sneer, I did feel a faint early Sir Cliff-like curl of the lip coming on during the opening moments of Saturday's festivities, when Sir Paul McCartney stepped onstage.

Not because Sir Paul was any better or worse than Sir Elton or Sir Bob or any other member of the aristorockracy, but because it reminded me of why I'm sceptical about the "generosity" which these events "embody".

Seven years ago, you'll recall, Sir Paul's wife died of cancer. Linda McCartney had been a resident of the United Kingdom for three decades but her Manhattan tax lawyers, Winthrop Stimson Putnam & Roberts, devoted considerable energy in her final months to establishing her right to have her estate probated in New York state.

That way she could set up a "qualified domestic marital trust" that would... Yeah, yeah, yeah, in the immortal words of Lennon and/or McCartney. Big deal, you say. We're into world peace and saving the planet and feeding Africa. What difference does it make which jurisdiction some squaresville suit files the boring paperwork in?

Okay, I'll cut to the chase. By filing for probate in New York rather than the United Kingdom, Linda McCartney avoided the 40 per cent death duties levied by Her Majesty's Government. That way, her family gets all 100 per cent - and 100 per cent of Linda McCartney's estate isn't to be sneezed at.

For purposes of comparison, Bob Geldof's original Live Aid concert in 1985 raised £50 million. Lady McCartney's estate was estimated at around £150 million. In other words, had she paid her 40 per cent death duties, the British Treasury would have raised more money than Sir Bob did with Bananarama and all the gang at Wembley Stadium that day.

Given that she'd enjoyed all the blessings of life in these islands since 1968, Gordon Brown might have felt justified in reprising Sir Bob's heartfelt catchphrase at Wembley: "Give us yer fokkin' money!" But she didn't. She kept it for herself. And good for her. I only wish I could afford her lawyers.

I don't presume to know what was in her mind, but perhaps she figured that for the causes she cared about - vegetarianism, animal rights, the usual stuff - her money would do more good if it stayed in private hands rather than getting tossed down the great sucking maw of the Treasury where an extra 60 million quid makes barely a ripple.

And, while one might query whether Sir Paul (with his own fortune of £500 million) or young Stella really need an extra 15 million or so apiece, in the end Linda McCartney made a wise decision in concluding that her estate would do more good kept out of Mr Brown's hands, or even re-routed to Africa, where it might just about have defrayed the costs of the deflowering ceremony for the King of Swaziland's latest wife.

And that's why the Live8 bonanza was so misguided. Two decades ago, Sir Bob was at least demanding we give him our own fokkin' money. This time round, all he was asking was that we join him into bullying the G8 blokes to give us their taxpayers' fokkin' money.

Or as Dave Gilmour of Pink Floyd put it: "I want to do everything I can to persuade the G8 leaders to make huge commitments to the relief of poverty and increased aid to the Third World. It's crazy that America gives such a paltry percentage of its GNP to the starving nations."

No, it's not. It's no more crazy than Linda McCartney giving such a paltry percentage of her estate - ie, 0 per cent - to Gordon Brown. And, while Britain may be a Bananarama republic, it's not yet the full-blown thing.

Africa is a hard place to help. I had a letter from a reader the other day who works with a small Canadian charity in West Africa. They bought a 14-year-old SUV for 1,500 Canadian dollars to ferry food and supplies to the school they run in a rural village. Customs officials are demanding a payment of $8,000 before they'll release it.

There are thousands of incidents like that all over Africa every day of the week. Yet, throughout the weekend's events, Dave Gilmour and Co were too busy Rocking Against Bush to spare a few moments to Boogie Against Bureaucracy or Caterwaul Against Corruption or Ululate Against Usurpation. Instead, Madonna urged the people to "start a revolution". Like Africa hasn't had enough of those these past 40 years?

Let's take it as read that Sir Bob and Sir Bono are exceptionally well informed and articulate on Africa's problems. Why then didn't they get the rest of the guys round for a meeting beforehand with graphs and pie charts and bullet points in bright magic markers, so that Sir Dave and Dame Madonna would understand that Africa's problem is not a lack of "aid". The tragedy of Live8 is that its message was as cobwebbed as its repertoire.

Don't get me wrong. I love old rockers - not for the songs, which are awful, but for their business affairs, which so totally rock. In 1997, David Bowie became the first pop star to hold a bond offering himself. How about that? Fifty-five million dollars' worth of Bowie "class A royalty-backed notes" were snapped up in minutes after Moody's in New York gave them their coveted triple-A rating.

Once upon a time, rock stars weren't rated by Moody, they were moody - they self-destructed, they choked to death in their own vomit, they hoped to die before they got old. Instead, judging from Sir Pete Townshend on Saturday, they got older than anyone's ever been. Today, Paul McCartney is a businessman: he owns the publishing rights to Annie and Guys & Dolls. These faux revolutionaries are capitalists red in tooth and claw.

The system that enriched them could enrich Africa. But capitalism's the one cause the poseurs never speak up for. The rockers demand we give our fokkin' money to African dictators to manage, while they give their fokkin' money to Winthrop Stimson Putnam & Roberts to manage. Which of those models makes more sense?

© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2005.

Of course the same system could enrich us as well....
 
Good article. Makes you think.

However. I did see after the whole thing was over, an interview with Bono on the fact that the organization he works with on this Africa debt thing doesn't actually give the money directly to the countries that need it. They actually have quite a list of qualification that must take place within that country before they get any money. In other words, totally corrupt dictatorships need not apply. In fact, I think they dangle the money in front of them and say "until you change, your not seeing a red dime of it."

It would be interesting to look further into it and see just what the qualification really are?
 
Whether they are giving money directly to corrupt dictators is immaterial.

The reason these individuals can carry on with displacing people with war, starvation etc. is that they know that the NGOs will step in and buy food/supplies locally, in order to feed the people the war displaced in the first place.

Are you aware that 74% of the aid money that goes to relieve the misery of sudanese refugees is spent in Sudan? It has the best infrastructure and market to buy the supplies needed.

Soooooo. The Sudanese government supports (militarily) the janjaweed, who rape, torture and kill. We support the Sudanese economy and thus the government through taxes with millions in aid and spin off industries.

End result? Darfur is good for business. Even better, now that the Black africans have been corralled into concentration camps (dont fool yourself, thats what they are) the do gooder UN wants to broker a truce, which will have it's basis in the black africans being forced from their ancestral land, which, fortunately for it's new owners (the arab africans) is rich in both oil and diamonds.

Our aid sure made a difference.
 
  Not only that, but dictatorships are generaly great at exploiting any situation to their own advantage.  Take the sanctions in Iraq for instance.  Our theory was that if we enforced sanctions against them the people would either overthrow Sadam or he'd have to change the way he did business.  Instead he tightened the yolk and allowed massive missuse of the system by his military officers and politicians.  The sanctions intentionaly allowed first aid supplies to be delivered as well as food and other humanitarian supplies.  The people in charge of the distribution of such materials ofcourse immediately seized them, stockpiled them for their own use, and sold them to whoever could afford them at exuberant prices.  At the same time they preached about the evils of the Americans and the western nations whose horrible sanctions were causing hundreds of thousands of deaths.

  The same thing went on with humanitarian shipments in Somalia, and pretty much anywhere else where it's been tried without first pacifying the country.  Whoever has the guns will always appropriate the supplies, while at the same time screaming at anyone who will listen about the millions of people who are dying of desease and hunger.  So unless the UN grows some balls and sends in forces with usable ROE's to restore some kind of order, we can send all the aid we want and these countries will only continue to get worse - in effect we'll be feeding and equiping their military forces, which will only lead to more conflict.  Over the last few decades that the world has been sending aid to Africa, something like 10 trillion dollars has been infused into the region, yet it is undeniably in a worse state now than it was when we began.
 
48Highlander said:
The same thing went on with humanitarian shipments in Somalia, and pretty much anywhere else where it's been tried without first pacifying the country.  Whoever has the guns will always appropriate the supplies, while at the same time screaming at anyone who will listen about the millions of people who are dying of desease and hunger. 

And of course the millions and billions of Canadian Tax dollars were diverted by people with guns (the Government, which has the legal monopoly on the use of force) to enrich their friends while screaming about the need for "Heathcare", "The Poor", "Aborigional rights", "Regional Development"....vast inefficiencies and economic distortions occur because we are compelled to pay for goods and services which the providers could not entice us to purchase or support in the free market. Even a supposed dummy like George W Bush understands that lowering taxes increases the incentives to work, and thus the American economy (despite the many and varied government controls and regulations there) can still grow at almost twice the rate of the Canadian economy, and have almost 1/2 the unemployment.

One day a real crisis will overstress the brittle, overcentralized structures that have been erected by multiple levels of government, and who knows what will happen in the chaos that follows?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top