Tweet
DEBT CRISIS
IMF compulsory levy: The plan for large expropriation is
German Economic News | 06:11:13, 01:53 | 2 comments
The IMF's strategy for the expropriation of large works: The proposal to levy a tax debt of 10 percent of the assets of all European households, a stone was thrown into the water - to explore how large the resistance of the citizens will be. Experts say that the whole thing would never as bad. But beware: The toxic soup already cooked on the stove. If they served, the Germans are also asked to pay.
BFFs Angela Merkel and IMF chief Christine Lagarde. It would be naive if the Germans believe that it is precisely they are exempt from compulsory levy for debt reduction. They are the best savers. (Photo: Reuters)After about a two-week scare the compulsory levy on all assets of the IMF is now also arrived at the traditional media in Germany, in the form of a small dpa report.This is a translation of the press release by the IMF, the IMF published on his website.
The German Economic news had it on 17 October reports ( original is here ) - in fairness it should be noted that quite a few financial blogs and especially large U.S. media such as Forbes magazine in front of us over the corresponding IMF paper had written.
In an analysis paper of the IMF strategists had among other things the possibility of a one-time wealth tax of 10 percent for all European households described.
The IMF now claims that it is only a "purely theoretical thought experiment"handle, as the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung reported. That should have said an IMF spokeswoman. Whether the good woman really speak of a "purely theoretical thought experiment", we do not know: The quote is at the FAZ, interestingly, not in quotation marks.
More revealing is because already the opinion of the IMF itself Unfortunately it is not available in German, because the IMF Germany does not consider important enough to inform on his website the German savers so that they can read in their native language, what is going on.
Therefore, we need to translate the text. It reads:
"In response to false reports about an alleged proposal by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) on property taxes, managing director of the IMF's Fiscal Affairs Department of shares Mr. Sanjeev Gupta, today:
An analytical box in the latest edition of the Fiscal Monitor describes a number of external discussions and experiences on a one-off wealth tax .Attention is also drawn to consider cost disadvantages (downside risks) of such a charge. Such assets tax is not expressly recommended.
The analytical description of the object in Fiscal Monitor should not be regarded as a policy proposal to be misunderstood by the IMF, which does not exist. "
The IMF uses in his appeasement of a refined method - by referring only to the legendary red box on page 49 of the paper.
However, this box is not anywhere on the Himalayas : It is in the context of the search for tax reforms to restructure the debt geratenen out of kilter households.
Tax cuts are not the cause well.
The whole paper is about how the debt crisis will be solved by higher taxes can.It is about nothing else.
In this context, the IMF said the box gets an entirely different meaning.
Here is the speech of the disadvantages of compulsory levy . These disadvantages are not as described, the IMF says that such expropriation is a legally highly problematic idea - and should therefore disappear again in the drawers.
The disadvantages of mandatory levy, the IMF sees only the risk that citizens evade tax by tax evasion could.
It says that there is a wealth of experience with such a compulsory levy as "inEurope after the First and in Germany and Japan after the Second World Warwas conducted. "
The considerations of the IMF go now then, what problems might arise in the levying:
"As analyzed by Eichengreen (1990), experience shows: Much more than a loss of credibility had the simple failure of the debt-reduction (through the compulsory levy, ed), mainly because of the delay in the launch area for substantial avoidance (. tax evasion, avoidance eng) and capital flight was - what a subsequently inflation triggered ".
The concern about tax evasion triebt the financial elite for quite some time around: At the G-20 summit in Moscow a few weeks ago - largely unnoticed by the public - decided that the tax authorities together in future technology worldwide will be: The global access on the asset is available from 2015 ( detail here ).
German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble announced by the Greek country-compulsory levy on ZDF laughing, "that bank deposits are a sensitive thing, therefore making it something on the weekend "( more here ).
The statement that the IMF does not suggest such a duty is only to be true, when said box is in fact an analysis box.
But in the "Executive Summary" is expressly that a capital levy for a solution to the debt crisis continues:
"In principle, offer tax on capital and a significant revenue potential at relatively low cost-effectiveness . Their effectiveness in the past was far from encouraging, but that could change because grant by increasing public interest and increased international support and cooperation to reduce opportunities for tax avoidance . "
So it is clear what the IMF wants: The compulsory levy was not successful in the past, because the taxpayers could escape from it. However, you may return the euro debt crisis on the pre-crisis level: For this purpose, were calculated in the ominous red box, how much the tax on all European assets would result.
Coincidence?
Why did not the IMF calculates the wealth of all Americans, or all Chinese or oil sheiks?
Why do Europeans?
The conclusion in the executive summary says the opposite of what Mr. Gupta is now in its "Notice" claims: A property tax is a realistic option, it only needs to be done so that there is no escape for the savers are.
The - purely random - selection of European assets should the Germans cause of great vigilance be. After all, the IMF experts have a concrete idea: put their calculation, the net assets of all households based.
As the whole world is thinking of Germany.
By day and by night.
In an n-tv interview said Carsten Brzeski, chief economist of ING-Diba, that such a "gimmick" for most of southern Europe comes into question. He concedes, however, that the IMF "initiated the discussion" with the idea had.
The chief economist at Commerzbank, Joerg Kraemer, makes any concrete thoughts. He told the Handelsblatt: "It makes sense could be a capital levy for very highly indebted countries, whose citizens have considerable financial assets." but excluding properties used should be because otherwise the homeowner would have to go into debt for the tax.
The World reported that an expert DIW said that the forced levy in Italy and Greece a " useful tool "could be.
Germany before bankers, experts and media want to keep as far as possible the debate: the DIW-man said that the Germans already pay enough taxes.
And the focus is equal to full-clear :
"In plain English: As long as it goes well the banks in Germany, they make profits and are able to increase their capital buffers as recently happened to have the German savers nothing to fear - neither with a balance of 100,000 euros or beyond. "
That would be nice.
But the facts, facts, facts look different: For the euro-zone 's debt, the needGerman savers are included. Otherwise agreed by the IMF - purely coincidental, but very accurate - created sample calculation not: If you were to pick only Italy in this way out of the debt trap, the Italians would have to pay more like 20 percent. From the Greeks we do not want to talk.
The IMF compulsory levy will only work if the European Community liability is enforced.
The former euro-group leader Jean-Claude Juncker has the mirror given in 1999 for the record:
"We decide on something, then put into the space and wait a while to see what happens. If there is no hue and cry and no uprisings, because most people have no idea what was decided there, then we go on - ., step by step until there is no turning back "
That is what the IMF proposal.
The IMF can not naturally command the world.
But the banks want their money back from the debtors.
The debt have made the governments. You have to find the money.
The specific details are left to the policy - because the IMF will not get their hands dirty.
You need to consider how they get the money, not their own.
Much room do not have the debt-politician.
But they remain a privilege.
They will determine the weekend.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I cannot help wondering why the IMF is not considering 'America, or the Oil Sheiks, or China' in this plan? Is it just not our turn yet?
Comment