a través de : http://tenemosderechoatrabajar.blogspot.com/
Los ricos son muy pocos en cualquier país, pero tienen un enorme poder. Y un indicador de este poder es lo que está pasando con la deuda pública tanto en EEUU como en la Unión Europea, incluyendo España. Su influencia sobre el Estado de tales países implica que sus impuestos han ido descendiendo durante los últimos 30 años (en España durante los últimos 15) de una manera muy notable, haciéndose cada vez más ricos. Esta gran reducción de ingresos a los estados ha significado que estos han tenido que endeudarse, pidiendo préstamos a los bancos donde los ricos depositan e invierten su dinero. O sea que los ricos, en lugar de pagar al Estado (en impuestos), le prestan el dinero que han ahorrado al evitar pagar impuestos al Estado, el cual les tiene que pagar unos intereses. El sistema es perfecto para los ricos (y para los bancos donde los ricos depositan su dinero), transfiriendo así una gran cantidad de fondos del sector público a los ricos y a sus bancos.
The rich people are very few in any country, but they have enormous power. And one indicator of this power is what is happening with the public debt in the U.S. and the EU, including Spain. Their influence on the state of these countries means that their taxes have been declining over the past 30 years (in Spain during the last 15) in a very remarkable way, becoming richer. This large reduction in the revenue of the States has meant they have had to borrow, borrowing from banks where the rich deposit and invest their money. So the rich, instead of paying to the state (in taxes), they lend the money they saved by avoiding paying taxes to the State, which will then have to pay an interest for the loan. The system is perfect for the rich (and those banks where the rich people put their money), thus transferring a large amount of public sector funds to the rich and their banks.
The rich people are very few in any country, but they have enormous power. And one indicator of this power is what is happening with the public debt in the U.S. and the EU, including Spain. Their influence on the state of these countries means that their taxes have been declining over the past 30 years (in Spain during the last 15) in a very remarkable way, becoming richer. This large reduction in the revenue of the States has meant they have had to borrow, borrowing from banks where the rich deposit and invest their money. So the rich, instead of paying to the state (in taxes), they lend the money they saved by avoiding paying taxes to the State, which will then have to pay an interest for the loan. The system is perfect for the rich (and those banks where the rich people put their money), thus transferring a large amount of public sector funds to the rich and their banks.
Veamos los datos, comenzando por EEUU. Según Robert Reich, que fue ministro de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales del Gobierno de Clinton, el tipo máximo de gravamen de los ricos (el 1% de la población con mayor renta) de EEUU era, desde el fin de la Segunda Guerra Mundial, hasta 1980, casi un 70%. O sea, por cada dólar que ingresaba la gente más rica, tenía que pagar 70 centavos al Estado en impuestos. En aquellos tiempos incluso presidentes republicanos como Dwight Eisenhower creían que no era bueno para la sociedad que hubiera desigualdades extremas. Esta creencia respondía a la fuerza que tenían las izquierdas que configuraban la cultura política dominante durante el período 1950-1980. Ni que decir tiene que los ricos intentaban escabullirse de pagar ese 70%. De ahí que, a base de deducciones y otras medidas, este 70% bajaba al 50%. Por otra parte, el impuesto sobre el rendimiento del capital era del 35%.
Let's look at the data, starting with the USA. According to Robert Reich, who was Minister of Labour and Social Affairs of the Clinton administration, the U.S. maximum rate for taxing the rich (1% of the population with higher income) was, since the end of the Second World War until 1980, almost 70%. In other words, for every dollar that the richest people won, they had to pay 70 cents the state in taxes. In those days, even Republican presidents like Dwight Eisenhower believed that it was not good for society that there were extreme inequalities. This belief was a response to the strength of the left wing that shaped the dominant political culture during the period 1950-1980. Needless to say that the rich were trying to wriggle out of paying the 70%. Thus, based on deductions and other measures, this was lowered from 70% to 50%. Moreover, the tax return on equity was 35%.
Let's look at the data, starting with the USA. According to Robert Reich, who was Minister of Labour and Social Affairs of the Clinton administration, the U.S. maximum rate for taxing the rich (1% of the population with higher income) was, since the end of the Second World War until 1980, almost 70%. In other words, for every dollar that the richest people won, they had to pay 70 cents the state in taxes. In those days, even Republican presidents like Dwight Eisenhower believed that it was not good for society that there were extreme inequalities. This belief was a response to the strength of the left wing that shaped the dominant political culture during the period 1950-1980. Needless to say that the rich were trying to wriggle out of paying the 70%. Thus, based on deductions and other measures, this was lowered from 70% to 50%. Moreover, the tax return on equity was 35%.
Todo esto cambió con el presidente Reagan, que inició la revolución reaccionaria neoliberal. Tal presidente bajó los impuestos de los ricos de una manera muy notable (aunque subió los impuestos de todos los demás; en realidad fue el presidente que más subió los impuestos en tiempos de paz en EEUU). Se inició así toda una serie de políticas que han llevado a una situación en la que los ricos pagan ahora sólo un 36% al Estado. Del 50% al 36% durante el periodo 1980-2011. Y los impuestos sobre el rendimiento del capital bajaron del 35% al 15%. Tales ventajas fiscales alcanzaron tal nivel que, en 2010, 18.000 familias ricas no pagaron ningún impuesto. En realidad, las 400 familias más ricas de EEUU han pagado únicamente el 18% de sus ingresos en impuestos al Estado federal. Como consecuencia de estas políticas, el 1% de renta superior que en los años setenta ingresaba el 9% de toda la renta nacional, en 2010, ingresó nada menos que un 20% de la renta nacional.
All this changed with President Reagan, who started the neoliberal reactionary revolution. That President lowered taxes on the wealthy in a very remarkable way (though he raised the taxes on everyone else, he was actually the president who made the highest raise on taxes in peacetime in the U.S.). Thus began a series of policies that have led to a situation where the rich now pay only 36% of the State. during the period 1980-2011 the was a reduction from 50% to 36% . And the tax return on equity fell from 35% to 15%. Such tax advantages have reached such a level that, in 2010, 18,000 wealthy families paid no taxes. In fact, the 400 richest U.S. families have paid only 18% of their income in taxes to the federal state. As a result of these policies, the top 1% of income in the seventies who entered the 9% of national income in 2010, entered 20% of national income.
All this changed with President Reagan, who started the neoliberal reactionary revolution. That President lowered taxes on the wealthy in a very remarkable way (though he raised the taxes on everyone else, he was actually the president who made the highest raise on taxes in peacetime in the U.S.). Thus began a series of policies that have led to a situation where the rich now pay only 36% of the State. during the period 1980-2011 the was a reduction from 50% to 36% . And the tax return on equity fell from 35% to 15%. Such tax advantages have reached such a level that, in 2010, 18,000 wealthy families paid no taxes. In fact, the 400 richest U.S. families have paid only 18% of their income in taxes to the federal state. As a result of these policies, the top 1% of income in the seventies who entered the 9% of national income in 2010, entered 20% of national income.
Tal concentración de las rentas crea un enorme problema económico: la falta de demanda que estimule la economía y cree empleo. Los ricos tienen tanto dinero que, cuando consiguen más dinero, en lugar de aumentar su consumo, lo invierten, a fin de acumular más y más dinero, creando un problema grave. En momentos de recesión, se necesita que la gente consuma para que crezca la demanda. Pero si el 20% de la renta nacional la tiene el 1% de la población que (en términos proporcionales) consume menos, se crea un gran vacío en la demanda.
Such concentration of income creates a huge economic problem: the lack of demand to stimulate the economy and create jobs. The rich have so much money that, when they get more money, they invest, rather than increase their consumption, so they accumulate more money, creating a serious problem. In times of recession, people need to consume so that demand grows. But if 20% of the national income belongs to the 1% of the population who (in proportional terms) consume less, a huge gap in demand is created.
Such concentration of income creates a huge economic problem: the lack of demand to stimulate the economy and create jobs. The rich have so much money that, when they get more money, they invest, rather than increase their consumption, so they accumulate more money, creating a serious problem. In times of recession, people need to consume so that demand grows. But if 20% of the national income belongs to the 1% of the population who (in proportional terms) consume less, a huge gap in demand is created.
Y esto es lo que está ocurriendo en EEUU, en la UE y también en España. Es más, como no hay mucha demanda en la llamada economía productiva, donde se producen bienes y servicios (resultado del descenso de las rentas del trabajo como porcentaje de la renta nacional) los ricos no invierten en actividades y áreas productivas sino en actividades más rentables, que son las especulativas, creando las burbujas que nos conducen a los desastres que conocemos. La burbuja inmobiliaria es un ejemplo. Pero, ahora que la burbuja ha explotado, los ricos, a través de los bancos, compran deuda pública, es decir, bonos del Estado. Y, a través de las agencias evaluadoras de los bonos, como Moody’s, Standard & Poors y otros (que son instrumentos de la banca), crean una percepción de alto riesgo, a fin de que los estados tengan que pagarles elevados intereses.
And this is what is happening in the U.S., the EU and also in Spain. Moreover, as there is little demand in the so-called productive economy, where goods and services are produced (the result of declining labor income as a percentage of national income) the rich do not invest in productive activities and areas but in more profitable activities that are speculative, creating bubbles that lead to the disasters that we already know. The housing bubble is one example. But now that the bubble has burst, the rich, through banks, buy debt, namely States' debts ("Bonos del Estado"). And through the rating agencies like Moody's, Standard & Poors and others (which are instruments of banking), they create a perception of high risk, so that states have to pay high interest rates.
And this is what is happening in the U.S., the EU and also in Spain. Moreover, as there is little demand in the so-called productive economy, where goods and services are produced (the result of declining labor income as a percentage of national income) the rich do not invest in productive activities and areas but in more profitable activities that are speculative, creating bubbles that lead to the disasters that we already know. The housing bubble is one example. But now that the bubble has burst, the rich, through banks, buy debt, namely States' debts ("Bonos del Estado"). And through the rating agencies like Moody's, Standard & Poors and others (which are instruments of banking), they create a perception of high risk, so that states have to pay high interest rates.
Los bancos españoles poseen el 52% de la deuda española. Reciben préstamos de dinero del Banco Central Europeo a intereses muy bajos (1%), y con este dinero compran bonos públicos del Estado español que les dan una rentabilidad de un 6%. Es difícil diseñar un sistema que sea más favorable para los ricos y para sus bancos. Y mientras se hacen superricos, piden a la ciudadanía que se apriete el cinturón bajo la excusa de que “no hay alternativa”. Y los mayores medios le dicen a la población que la “presión de los mercados financieros” (la frase más utilizada en la cultura dominante del país) obliga al Estado español a seguir políticas públicas enormemente impopulares, presentándolas como necesarias e inevitables. Pero esta presión, en el caso español, deriva primordialmente de los bancos y de los ricos españoles, que causaron la crisis (sus especulaciones en el mercado inmobiliarios), y ahora se están beneficiando de tales políticas, exigiendo dinero al Estado (con intereses elevados de los bonos) para prestarles su dinero, el mismo dinero que consiguieron pagando menos impuestos.
Spanish banks have 52% of the Spanish debt. They receive money loans from the European Central Bank at a low interest (1%), and with this money they buy the Spanish state "Bonos" that give a return interest of 6%. It is difficult to design a system that is more favorable to the rich and their banks. And while they become superrich, they ask the citizens to tighten their belts under the excuse that "there is no alternative." And the major media tell the public that the "pressure of financial markets" (the phrase used in the dominant culture of the country) requires the Spanish government to follow policies enormously unpopular, presenting them as necessary and inevitable. But this pressure on the Spanish case, derived primarily from banks and the rich Spanish, which caused the crisis (their speculations in real estate) and now they are benefiting from such policies, demanding money from the state (asking for high interests to buy the "Bonos") to lend money, the same money they have because they paid less taxes.
Spanish banks have 52% of the Spanish debt. They receive money loans from the European Central Bank at a low interest (1%), and with this money they buy the Spanish state "Bonos" that give a return interest of 6%. It is difficult to design a system that is more favorable to the rich and their banks. And while they become superrich, they ask the citizens to tighten their belts under the excuse that "there is no alternative." And the major media tell the public that the "pressure of financial markets" (the phrase used in the dominant culture of the country) requires the Spanish government to follow policies enormously unpopular, presenting them as necessary and inevitable. But this pressure on the Spanish case, derived primarily from banks and the rich Spanish, which caused the crisis (their speculations in real estate) and now they are benefiting from such policies, demanding money from the state (asking for high interests to buy the "Bonos") to lend money, the same money they have because they paid less taxes.
Es obvio que hay alternativas. De este análisis se deduce que la mejor manera de evitar el endeudamiento del Estado no es bajando el gasto público (muy bajo en el caso español), sino subiendo los impuestos de los ricos y superricos a los niveles del periodo anterior (y en el caso español a niveles homologables a los países nórdicos). Un trabajador de la manufactura paga ya el 78% de lo que paga su homólogo en Suecia. Un rico (el 1% de renta superior) paga en impuestos un 20% de lo que paga su homólogo en Suecia. Y así nos va.
Obviously there are alternatives. This analysis suggests that the best way to avoid the debt of the State is not to lowering the ammount of money used to accomplish the social welfare (already very low in the Spanish case), but raising taxes for the rich and super rich to the levels of previous periods (and in the Spanish case to levels comparable to the Nordic countries). A manufacturing worker is already paying 78% of what his /her counterpart pays in Sweden. A rich person (the top 1% of higher income) pays 20% in taxes than his / her counterpart pays in Sweden. And so it goes [that's why we are the way we are].
Obviously there are alternatives. This analysis suggests that the best way to avoid the debt of the State is not to lowering the ammount of money used to accomplish the social welfare (already very low in the Spanish case), but raising taxes for the rich and super rich to the levels of previous periods (and in the Spanish case to levels comparable to the Nordic countries). A manufacturing worker is already paying 78% of what his /her counterpart pays in Sweden. A rich person (the top 1% of higher income) pays 20% in taxes than his / her counterpart pays in Sweden. And so it goes [that's why we are the way we are].
Vicenç Navarro
Translator's note: there might be parts where the translation is not perfect, I always try to keep the original sense.
Translator's note: there might be parts where the translation is not perfect, I always try to keep the original sense.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario