EKIP– Expert Club for Economics and Politics A Different Opinion
From a moral perspective, what are you forbidden to do to a stranger? You can't kill him. You can't assault him. You can't enslave him. Also, you can't rob him.
Brian Kaplan
(Превел Майкъл Тончев)
From the same perspective, what are you obligated to do for a stranger? Not much. Even if he appears hungry and begs you for food, you are probably within your rights to refuse to feed him. If you have ever been to a big city, you have more than once refused to help homeless people. Even if you thought you were violating your moral obligation to donate, that moral obligation was certainly not strong enough to justify the homeless robbing you.
Notice that these apparent ethical norms regarding strangers - norms that almost everyone accepts - are unambiguously libertarian. Yes, you have an obligation to let strangers live in peace, but charity is optional.
Last question: What percentage of your fellow countrymen do you know? Close to zero. The vast majority of your fellow countrymen are actually complete strangers to you. When you teach your children "Don't get into strangers' cars," you don't make an exception for anyone who shares your citizenship. The modern state – (and to a large extent political philosophy) – is a massive pretense that the above is not true.
This pretense has two purposes: first, to make unjustified demands in favor of some strangers: [You will help the Bulgarian elderly, poor and sick whether you want to or not]; second, to make it easier for us to forget our obligation to leave strangers alone: [We have never met you, but you still owe us various things].
When libertarians talk about this, people spit on them as cold and cruel. Even staunch anti-libertarians would be surprised if a homeless person said, "Give me your money!" instead of asking, "Do you have a few pennies?" After all, the beggar is a stranger. Libertarians are simply pointing out that the rest of your "fellow countrymen" are strangers too. You are not cold and cruel when you refuse to help. The beggars are being pushy and totalitarian when they refuse to take "no" for an answer.
It would be bad enough if modern states forced rich strangers to give money to poor strangers. But it is outrageous when the direction of the violence is reversed. The most egregious example, of course, is immigration restrictions. Third World people are strangers, but we still have a moral obligation to leave them alone. Instead, we pass draconian laws that prohibit these strangers from working for other complete strangers. And why? To fulfill our absurd obligation to maintain the wages of our fellow countrymen, whom we don't even trust enough to drive our children.
The original essay in English, "The Stranger," by Bryan Caplan, is located at http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/01/the_stranger.html
Nice article. However, in my opinion, the author did not address the real problem. And it stands like this in the eyes of society:
"If we don't help these people, they will starve to death. You don't want to help, therefore you want them to die. And whoever wants people to die is bad."
Consequence: libertarians and liberal-minded people in general are bad people. Even the Bible says that if you have two shirts, you should give one to your neighbor.
In my opinion, if one does not address and put in place the above statement and the obvious conclusion, then it is unnecessary to write articles like the one above. No one will pay any attention to them. At most, you will turn society against yourself.
Well, Kaplan can't refute all the moral fallacies that exist in one article.
Let's answer this real problem:
1) We are not saying that libertarians are unwilling to help. We are saying that helping should not be mandatory. Many libertarians help the poor. And there are others who help almost everyone (Jimmy Wales with the free and quality Wikipedia).
2) There is a difference between personal moral norms and interpersonal moral norms. Personal moral norms cannot be applied to others (for example, the idea that indulgence is a sin). Interpersonal moral norms can be applied (do not kill, do not steal, etc.). See http://thelibertyhq.org/learn/index.php?articleID=259&parentID=32 for more information.
Let's assume for a moment that all libertarians really want the poor to die. Even if they are bad, they haven't caused anyone's death, so they have no moral duty to the poor. To give another example, if a doctor is woken up at 3 a.m. and asked to cut out an inflamed appendix, and he refuses, the doctor is not to blame for the patient's death. Who is to blame? Surely no one is to blame. One might say that nature is to blame. But since no one is to blame (i.e., no one *caused* the patient's death), no one owes him anything. Just as the doctor is not to blame for the patient's death, so people are not to blame for the death of a poor person who starves to death. It is not fair that he died, and no one likes death, but you can't fix injustice by violating someone else's rights. "Oh, poor thing - born without a hand. Let's cut off someone else's hand and give it to you." Yes, I realize that in one case we are talking about a hand, and in the other about material property that is not part of the body (money). The idea, however, is the same - we don't like looking at you so poor thing, then we will violate someone else's rights so that we don't feel so bad when we look at you.
Again, I must emphasize that I am talking about compulsory assistance. I wholeheartedly invite readers to help the poor out of their own pockets. But as Walter Williams says, "I have never been able to understand how a man can be greedy when he wants to keep his own money, but not greedy when he wants to take other people's money."
3) This whole discussion is about morals. There is also the "practical" question of whether, in a free market, the poor would starve to death. The answer, once you look at the data, is "certainly not." The market is the only way to create a lasting, high standard of living. Furthermore, there is evidence that the poor have organized themselves to provide some of the same services that the state provides. See "After the Welfare State": http://studentsforliberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/After-the-Welfare-State-PDF1.pdf
4) Let's not quote the Bible - we can pull anything from there and interpret it in 30 different ways.
@Michael Tonchev
Look, I completely agree with everything you say. But above I tried to show how I think society (not me) perceives the problem. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that what I have described corresponds to the public way of thinking.
I'll try to describe again what I think the problem looks like:
Currently, there are a huge number of unemployed, disabled, etc. people for whom it is impossible to find a job or in any way take care of themselves on their own. And they cannot take care of themselves because there are no opportunities for this. The economy does not offer such opportunities. This is an absolute fact and people understand it very well. And they do not approve of it (absolutely rightly).
In 99.999% of cases, however, people do not understand why the system works the way it does and what the reasons are. Accordingly, they cannot imagine a system in which everyone would have the opportunity (but not the obligation) to take care of themselves. And such a system is what libertarians want. And within this correct system, the behavior of a libertarian would be correct and other people would not suffer from this behavior in any way. There are no unemployed, people with disabilities mostly take care of themselves or receive help from relatives or private charitable foundations. In this correct system, the behavior of a libertarian is impeccable.
But let's now look at how it is perceived at the moment: If you live like this in modern times, people will die. It's just the way the system is organized. It's crooked and the only decisions it makes are crooked. And within this system, the morally correct behavior of the libertarian turns out to be wrong. It looks like the behavior of a criminal let loose.
Libertarians understand that if everyone chose to live like them, then there would be no problem for anyone. But society does not understand this. And it describes them as: heartless, faithless and generally bad people.
In short: my personal opinion is that when talking about correct behavior from a libertarian perspective, the emphasis should be on the society for which it would be appropriate.
Without describing the context in question, one directly reaches bad conclusions. Unfortunately, modern public thinking is unable to imagine another context. This is a parallel (but completely possible) reality.
Libertarian ethics in Bulgaria cannot be understood and made sense of. The reason is that there are no libertarians in our country. There are people who are paid to wear this label, but they themselves have no idea what they are talking or writing about. Naturally, there are also individuals (mostly young people) who sincerely believe in libertarian values, but their voice is not heard. When it comes to specific actions, only the "appointed libertarians" have the say. They have the leverage and influence to affect economic and political entities. However, their actions have nothing to do with the libertarian idea, but have the most ordinary lobbying motives.
Example: In 2003, the NMSV introduced the minimum insurance thresholds. This is an administrative measure that regulates, down to the smallest detail, who pays how much insurance. Such an idea is in complete contradiction with libertarian values, but this did not prevent it from being introduced under pressure precisely from the "appointed libertarians"
For the reasons for this action, I quote Mr. Karolev:
" .......As for minimum insurance thresholds, libertarianism is not against the state having some predictable revenues. The introduction of minimum insurance thresholds provides the possibility for such planning. And additionally ensures some honesty and brightens up the economy, because otherwise some entrepreneurs could officially pay very low wages in order not to pay insurance."
It is precisely this contradiction between words and deeds that repels people from libertarianism. Just as no one associates the left with communist ideas, but only with the actions of so-called communists, so now in Bulgaria libertarianism is associated with the actions of media shamans - the "appointed libertarians", and not with the idea itself.
@Toto5
I completely understand you and agree with what you are saying.
I see the problem this way: Let's take into account the social security thresholds introduced, as you say, by the NMSV. The party has its own interests, and they are to remain in power. Accordingly, it will do what society expects it to do to ensure its continued stay in power. And if this is the introduction of social security thresholds, then they will be introduced.
I am extremely skeptical that it is possible for a party as such to pursue liberal policies. The purpose and reason for having parties is the struggle for power. That is why parties were created. And a party that supports libertarian/liberal ideas would have to come to power in order to deprive itself of power. That is, to reject its own powers. I don't see how this can happen because:
If you push such ideas, you will become unpopular in society. As a result, you will not be elected, you will lose supporters, and another party with more "socially acceptable" ideas will come to power and will roll back everything liberal you have done.
A huge part of the people in the party are there for power (no matter what they say). And they will push to stay and retain power, i.e. not to push liberal ideas directly, but simply "pseudo-liberal" ones. I.e. the party itself will not want to implement the platform on which it was elected. This, in my opinion, is also the reason for the introduction of the social security thresholds by the NMSV. Party interests in practice always win over ideological views.
In short: My personal opinion is that you cannot remove this power through a mechanism designed to secure power. In my opinion, in a libertarian society there would be no parties because they would have nothing to do. Parties are elected to govern a society. But what if it governs itself?
@EU
In principle, you are right. The problem is that the NMSV has not been in power for a long time, but despite everything, Karolev fiercely defends the minimum social security thresholds even today.
I assume that you have looked at the Macro Watch report. It does not even hint that they can be abolished, but proposes even greater complication. That is, all the famous "appointed libertarians" are lined up behind this idea. They are neither members of parties nor directly involved with the government. The same applies to the insistence on not introducing a tax-free minimum and a number of other measures.
The minimum insurance thresholds do not affect large companies. They have tripartite meetings where they can negotiate the level of the thresholds. However, small and medium-sized enterprises are not represented and pay on a general basis.
Example - minimum insurance threshold for a specialist:
1. in publishing, film and television production, sound recording and music publishing - 391 leva.
2. in wholesale and retail trade in pharmaceutical goods, medicines and medical equipment - 504 leva
3. in retail and wholesale trade - 880 leva
It is clear that Mitko Paynera can easily appoint a specialist for 391 leva, Mr. Mareshki for 504, but Aunt Ginka at the neighborhood store, if she decides to do so, has to pay insurance premiums on at least 880 leva. Fair enough, she's babbling.
The same is true with labor taxation. If you earn 1,000 leva gross, your tax and social security burden is 21.6%. However, if you earn 10,000 leva, it is only 12.5%.
The entire work of the appointed libertarians is to burden small and medium-sized businesses, and to preserve "freedoms" only for the big ones.
Here is a quote from the article:
"The situation would be bad enough if modern states forced rich strangers to give money to poor strangers. But it's outrageous when the direction of the violence is reversed."
Today, the media shamans - appointed libertarians - are doing exactly that. They are forcing small businesses and the working poor to pay other poor people (the unemployed, retirees, disabled people, etc.).
If you don't just read the declarations of the shamans, but delve into the measures they propose, you will discover only this - nothing else.
@Toto5
"The problem is that the NMSV has not been in power for a long time, but despite everything, Karolev fiercely defends the minimum social security thresholds even today."
I don't know what Karolev's beliefs are. I haven't been interested.
"I assume he looked at the Macro Watch report."
I'm not. I'm not very interested.
"There is no hint at all that they can be removed, but an even greater complication is proposed. That is, all the known "appointed libertarians" are lined up behind this idea. They are neither members of parties nor directly involved with power."
I don't want to interfere and justify the economists' decisions, but I'd just like to give you an idea. Imagine if the report said that the social security thresholds SHOULD be removed. Ask yourself: What would be the public's reaction to the report? Who would invite an economist with such, to put it mildly, "unacceptable" views for a consultation or in the media? What would happen to the careers of these people?
"The same applies to the insistence on not introducing a tax-free minimum and a number of other measures."
As you know, we have differences with you about the non-taxable minimum.
"The minimum insurance thresholds do not affect large companies. They have tripartite meetings where they can negotiate the level of the thresholds. However, small and medium-sized enterprises are not represented and pay on a common basis."
You're telling me something I didn't know (I'm not in business). You're right to protest. This leads to a direct inequality between small and large businesses. And the small one suffers. And then people complain, do they complain about how huge monopolies were created in a "natural way".
"If you receive 1,000 leva gross, your tax and social security burden is 21.6%. However, if you receive 10,000 leva, it is only 12.5%"
I didn't know that either, but I can explain it. The majority of people have a salary of up to and around 1,000 leva. If you want to save money, you have to tax it (that's where the big money is, not for those with a salary of 10,000 leva). On the other hand, it's not right for a person with a salary of 10,000 leva to give 1,000 leva every month for health insurance. In fact, he could support about 100 people. That's why they set a limit for him. There must be other such considerations, most of them political. And that leads to the above absurdity. The real absurdity is, not as people think, that the rich are not taxed as much as the poor, but that they are taxed differently altogether. From the above it automatically follows that a rich person can save and accordingly invest much more as a percentage of his salary compared to a poor person. And over time, a division into classes develops.
By the way, if they simply raise the insurance burden on the rich to 21.6%, it will be worse for everyone. Because these rich will go into the gray economy or not do business at all. Not to mention that they will save less from their salaries and, accordingly, investments will be smaller.
The system is crooked, and there is no straight path for a crooked wheel. A tax and social security burden in this form should not exist. If there is a tax (but not social security) system in some minimal form (the police and the court must be maintained by someone), then it should be absolutely flat and, in my personal opinion, only consumption should be taxed.
@EE
"Imagine if the report said that the insurance thresholds MUST be removed. ......"
Well, I imagine. On a much more sensitive topic - the minimum wage, economists have no problem talking about not increasing it, eliminating it altogether, etc.
Reference here: http://ikonomika.org/?p=5614
However, let's see who is confused by the level of the minimum wage. For small businesses, there is almost no problem with the minimum wage. For example, in my case, the minimum insurance thresholds at which I have to insure my employees are much higher than the minimum wage.
However, if you look at the table with the minimum thresholds, it will immediately become clear to you who this roar is for. Here, for example, are the minimum thresholds for support and administrative staff:
1. Production of beverages (alcohol) - 310 BGN.
2. production of films and television programs, sound recording and music publishing - 321 BGN.
3. Production of chemical products - 343 BGN.
4. Production of medicinal substances and products - 343 BGN.
These activities are carried out by selected heroes and the minimum insurance thresholds are close to the minimum wage (or the minimum wage itself). It is obvious that they are the ones who need to be "protected" and "taken care of"
Let's see at the same time the minimum insurance threshold for the same support and administrative staff, but in other more ordinary areas:
1. Trade - 550lv.
2. hotel and restaurant management - 485 BGN.
3. Production of confectionery products - 560 BGN.
4. Production of soft drinks - 485lv.
The clamor to leave the minimum wage untouched serves precisely these poor people, producers of alcohol, drugs, and chalga.
@Toto5
"Well, I imagine. On a much more sensitive topic – the minimum wage, economists have no problem talking about not increasing it, eliminating it altogether, etc."
Interesting. I have never heard any publicly known economist simply say:
"The minimum wage is a very bad thing. Its introduction is entirely negative and leads to unemployment and poverty for the most disadvantaged segments of the population. Whoever introduced the minimum wage is working against the interests of the people."
If I missed noticing such a statement, I apologize 🙂
In the link you provided (I see I also spoke out there 🙂 ) the author more or less claims that the MRZ is not something important to deal with. There were more important things. A clear and firm position, so it's a joke 🙂 .
"However, if you see the table with the minimum thresholds, it will immediately become clear to you who this roar is for."
Without knowing anything about how these minimum thresholds are determined, I am convinced that you are right. The situation there is certainly like this: those who have representatives and defend their interests with lobbying have low thresholds. Those who have none or less influence and money are worse off. The worst are probably the unorganized groups of businessmen. This is what democratic society is: a fight between groups to see who will screw over the other for a bigger piece of the pie or a better position. For this, the state and the economy must be separate.
On sincerely upholding libertarian principles:
I stand by my opinion that doing such a thing is tantamount to social suicide. And you, by criticizing these economists (we assume that they hold libertarian views), want them to commit social suicide. A kind of sacrifice themselves in the name of the idea. Without defending such a type of behavior, I will simply say that you expect a lot from people (not that you are wrong to want it).
I only know of Ron Paul in the US, who says straightforward truths like: The current monetary system is bad. It robs people, leads to crises, and benefits certain people and institutions close to power. I tend to think that he is some kind of exception and somehow (how?) has slipped through the cracks. Anyway, people like him won't have the chance to do anything in the foreseeable future.
Now I remembered that I have a question:
The minimum insurance thresholds are not minimum wages. That is, you can insure a worker for 800 leva, but pay him 300. I know of at least one such case. How do things work in practice?
@EE
"Minimum insurance thresholds are not minimum wages. That is, you can insure a worker for 800 leva, but pay him 300. I know of at least one such case. How do things work in practice?"
In practice, the minimum social security income is also the minimum wage. If you can't pay him that much, you change his job, do some tricks, or ultimately fire the person.
Theoretically, there is no problem in insuring someone for 800 leva and paying them a minimum wage - 310 leva. However, this can only be done if the worker really wants to insure himself on this amount (because of pension, maternity, etc.). The employer's expenses in this case will be 452.40 leva - 310 leva salary + 142.40 leva insurance contributions at the employer's expense. The worker will receive a net 186.12 leva = 310 - 103.20 (personal insurance contributions) - 20.68 (DOD).
I don't see any logic in paying your worker a mere 186 leva, but in practice he costs you 452. It seems like masochism to me. I'm sure the appointed libertarians would be very happy with such a scheme, but there probably aren't any small businessmen who are that deluded.
@EE
Here are the authors of Macro Watch:
Georgi Angelov – Senior Economist at the Open Society Institute;
Lachezar Bogdanov – Managing Partner, Industry Watch;
Georgi Ganev – Program Director, Center for Liberal Strategies;
Dimitar Chobanov – lecturer at the University of National and World Economy;
Georgi Prohaski – Chairman, Center for Economic Development;
Desislava Nikolova - Chief Economist, Institute for Market Economics
These are the faces of libertarianism in Bulgaria.
What do these people offer:
"Macro Watch's recommendation for minimum insurance thresholds:
- In the short term, option 2 (reduction of minimum thresholds), then move on to option 6 (methodology for linking thresholds to the state of the labor market)"
An even more complicated and convoluted system so that lobbyists can unleash their full potential. And small business? - small business should be d...a.
Instead of honestly admitting:
"It was our fault that something very stupid happened - sorry," they want to make the system even more complicated and convoluted.
And you're telling me that these people sincerely believe in libertarian ideas!!!
Come on, please.
@Toto5
"And small business? – small business, I mean."
In general, this is the situation, unfortunately. I can do nothing but observe the fact. And I don't think it can be done given modern public views. I wish I could tell you that in the future the situation will improve, but unfortunately I don't see such potential. Sorry!
"And you're telling me that these people sincerely believe in libertarian ideas!!!
Come on, please."
I don't claim such things at all. Rather, I think they are trying to push some ideas "through the back door" so to speak and choose the lesser evil when possible. And in general, I try not to judge them, because without them it would be even worse. Otherwise, as you can see, I generally share your views on the specific cases you discuss.
@EU
"I think they're trying to push some ideas through the back door, so to speak, and choosing the lesser evil whenever possible."
And what are these ideas? Maybe a flat tax?
Bulgaria is the only EU member state where the flat tax is applied together with the abolition of the non-taxable minimum. In all other countries, this minimum has not only been preserved, but its size has been increased from 1.5 times in Estonia to 3.29 times in Lithuania.
The Baltic republics are always held up as an example. Why are we now acting original and conducting an experiment on the backs of the working poor?
What is the purpose of the exercise of being more Catholic than the Pope? What are the advantages of this ingenious move?
The flat tax in this form (without a non-taxable minimum), along with the minimum insurance thresholds, is the biggest offshoot. Together, these two factors have literally killed small businesses.
Here is an article from IME: - http://ime.bg/bg/articles/izsledvane-na-ipi-neravenstvoto-v-bylgariya-dinamika-sravnitelen-analiz-i-priini-1/
The conclusions are clear:
- The relative income gap between the richest and poorest 20% of the population in the country is among the highest in the EU,
- The share of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion in 2011 in the EU is highest in Bulgaria - almost half of the country's population lives below the poverty line,
What is the solution according to IME:
"The data clearly outlines that there is not just a problem with inequality in Bulgaria
- it is one of the most serious in the EU. Its resolution requires targeted actions for more effective redistribution of income by the state and a better-targeted social policy that supports those most in need."
Yes, but this is done in the absence of a non-taxable minimum. That is, their idea is to solve the problem with redistribution, in which the money will be taken from the working poor and given to those most in need - the unemployed poor. Absolutely brilliant. Let me quote the article above again:
"The situation would be bad enough if modern states forced rich strangers to give money to poor strangers. But it's outrageous when the direction of the violence is reversed."
If all their ideas are like these, then they probably aren't useful at all. Name me at least one idea that you think is good, slipped in "through the back door" by the appointed libertarians, that is the "lesser evil".
@Toto5
By "through the back door" and "the least evil" I mean for example (just an example):
You say that the MPZ should be regionalized. That is, it should correspond to some extent to the level of economic development of the region. In general, the existence of the MPZ is a great evil. But a lesser evil is when it exists, but is lower, for example, in Northwestern Bulgaria. And this is how you maintain the lesser evil: the MPZ exists, but it is differentiated.
Then, however, you have to justify why you want it like that, and not one for the whole country (as the unions and, generally speaking, the majority of society want). And instead of justifying yourself with: "The minimum wage is a great evil, it leads to unemployment and widespread poverty," you say something like how, for example, when the minimum wage is differentiated, a lot of taxes will be collected from businesses (a big plus in the eyes of society, but in practice a minus), which will then be used for social purposes. Now, this is "through the back door."
"What is the solution according to IME:
“The data clearly outlines that there is not just a problem with inequality in Bulgaria
- it is one of the most serious in the EU. Its resolution requires targeted actions for more effective redistribution of income by the state and better targeted social policy that supports those most in need.”
The above statement is entirely socialist and has NOTHING, but NOTHING, to do with the free market and liberal ideas. I tend to agree with your opinion that this is a big offshoot of the IME. This could be part of the BSP's election program.
"Yes, but this is done in the absence of a tax-free minimum. That is, their idea is to solve the problem with redistribution, in which the money will be taken from the working poor and given to those most in need - the unemployed poor. Absolutely brilliant."
A weak argument. The real argument is that no one has gotten rich with redistribution (I'm talking about the average person, not the bankers and businessmen close to power). People should have jobs, not be dependent on welfare.
"If all their ideas are like these, then they probably aren't of any use."
If that's true, then you're right.
"Show me at least one idea that you think is a good idea, pushed in "through the back door" by appointed libertarians, that is the "lesser evil"."
Unfortunately, I can't right now, I can't remember, and I don't follow them much myself. I have to tell you, you're quite convincing and I'm starting to lean towards your opinion.
About the flat tax in the next post.
@Toto5
"The flat tax in this form (without a non-taxable minimum), together with the minimum insurance thresholds, is the biggest offshoot. Together, these two factors have simply killed small businesses."
The businessman practically pays for everything. He earns the money and he pays taxes on the money he gives (both on his part and on the part of the worker). If your company is in an industry with low productivity, then you pay your workers a minimum wage. And on this minimum wage you pay a flat tax of, for example, 20 leva. If we now introduce a non-taxable minimum equal to the minimum wage, then you will have 20 leva less expenses per worker. You can raise the worker's salary, reduce prices (and get ahead of the competition (from abroad, for example)), or simply increase your profit, and from there, investments. All good things.
However, these good jobs are not available for industries where workers are paid more than the minimum wage. It's the same as before. De facto, your industry gets a bonus from the state. The state decides to treat individual industries differently. And that's a bad thing in principle. Just because you're small and poor doesn't give you the right to call for state intervention (if you want to play by the principles of the free market).
You are right to protest that other companies (large, influential, etc.) have taken advantage of their advantages (for example, with low insurance thresholds), but wanting the same for yourself is just as wrong.
With a flat tax, at least everyone is treated equally. There is a separate issue that, in my personal opinion, should not exist.
@EE
I don't know how paid libertarians managed to instill this misconception that having a tax-free minimum is a problem.
Let's first go back to Milton Friedman's proposal - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax - obviously there is no problem, in fact his proposal is much more radical.
Let's see how the debate about the flat tax in Bulgaria developed.
At first, none of the so-called libertarians proposed abolishing the tax-free minimum. No one in the EU had invented or introduced such nonsense, and there was no way for them to have the light of such an opportunity. Moreover, the government's proposal to abolish the tax-free minimum surprised them. Here is what Georgi Angelov says:
"In truth, the introduction of a flat tax – despite all its positive features and despite the radical nature of the change – would have faded as news very quickly. As quickly as previous tax cuts have faded. But this did not happen due to the fact that the government tried, along with the introduction of a flat tax, to quietly push through several other tax changes aimed in the exact opposite direction – namely, an increase in the tax burden.......
........The first "detail" is the elimination of the non-taxable minimum. This action practically increases the tax burden for people with net incomes below 290-300 leva per month, despite the introduction of a flat tax.
Reference here: Flat tax – yes, but… http://georgiangelov.com/?p=322
In the debate on how to solve the problem, Angelov proposes a radical solution: Raising the tax-free minimum to 1,400 leva (the then social security maximum):
".......If desired, the government can implement a more radical reform - reducing the social security burden to 10% /from the current 36.7%/ and increasing the non-taxable minimum to 1,400 leva. In this way, the same income will not be subject to both social security and tax. This would be a much more ambitious change, but its results would be the most positive - as the tax and social security burden on labor would decrease by three to four times."
Reference here: Flat tax: How to solve the problem of the non-taxable minimum? - http://ikonomika.org/?p=684
It is obvious that nothing like this happened. Measures were taken to resolve the current problems. That is, the goal was to prevent anyone from receiving less than they received under the old tax system at the time. However, there is no reflection on the meaning of the non-taxable minimum as an economic lever and tool, namely - in a crisis, not to allow the relative share of direct taxes to increase at the expense of indirect ones. It is precisely the latter that kills the economy and, in particular, small businesses, and this is exactly what happened when this tool was absent.
Today, Angelov behaves like a finance ministry official. He forgot what he wrote some time ago, and his only arguments are that the tax authorities will suffer if a tax-free minimum is reintroduced:
".......GERB had an idea before the 2009 elections to introduce a non-taxable minimum, but gave up. Because no one will get rich from introducing the non-taxable minimum, and the budget will seriously suffer. Let's say we have about 3 million Bulgarians who pay taxes every month. With a non-taxable minimum of 300 leva and an average salary of 700-800 leva, this means half of the revenue will disappear. We are talking about a loss of hundreds of millions of leva for the budget."
Reference here: No one will get rich from the tax-free minimum - http://economic.bg/news/17632/1/1/Angelov-Nikoj-nyama-da-zabogatee-ot-neoblagaemiya-minimum.html
As much as they hate math, libertarian "economists" were obliged to play out a model during a crisis. During growth, the tax-free minimum is not a factor at all, but during a crisis, its importance is enormous. Not only is domestic consumption shrinking due to crisis factors, but by increasing the burden of direct taxes, you crush it even further. An elementary truth that is learned in the first year.
"However, these good jobs are not available for industries where workers are paid more than the minimum wage. With them, it's the same as before. De facto, your industry gets a bonus from the state. The state decides to treat individual industries differently. And that's a bad thing in principle."
And that's simply not true. The tax-free minimum applies to any income, regardless of its amount.
@EU
This is how I understand things.
It is libertarian to have no social security and no social security. It is obvious that at the moment this is a utopia.
The maximum program (what can be achieved) should be that the threshold of the non-taxable minimum coincides with the maximum insurance threshold. That is, the same income is taxed either only with insurance or only with personal income tax. (What Angelov proposed in August 2007)
The lesser evil is to have the two thresholds as close as possible.
The absence of a single threshold (the non-taxable minimum) is anything but libertarianism.
@Toto5
As for the fact that there should be no social security, I guarantee that it is a standard libertarian position (whatever you understand by libertarianism).
However, money is needed for the police, courts and possibly the military. I personally maintain that there should be no DOD, but I think there are people with similar views to mine who believe that this is the solution (DOD).
"The absence of a single threshold (the tax-free minimum) is anything but libertarianism"
We will remain with different views here, which, by the way, doesn't bother me.
@EE
"We'll end up with different views here, which doesn't bother me, by the way."
I posted a post in which I examine the problem in more detail, but it is still "awaiting approval"
@EU
I will repeat part of my post, please moderators leave this one and delete the previous one.
A little history about the flat tax and the non-taxable minimum:
1. Libertarianism generally has no problem with a tax-free minimum. Milton Friedman is even more radical - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax
2. At first, none of the BG libertarians proposed abolishing the tax-free minimum. No one in the EU has invented or introduced such a measure, and there is no way for them to see such a possibility.
3. The government's proposal to adopt the flat tax and abolish the non-taxable minimum is a surprise to them:
".......the government tried, along with the introduction of a flat tax, to quietly push through several other tax changes aimed in the exact opposite direction - namely, an increase in the tax burden…….
……..The first "detail" is the abolition of the non-taxable minimum. This action practically increases the tax burden" - http://georgiangelov.com/?p=322
4. Georgi Angelov proposes an increase in the tax-free minimum to 1400 leva (coincides with the social security maximum), something I fully support - http://ikonomika.org/?p=684
Today, Angelov behaves like a clerk in the Finance Ministry and defends the non-taxable minimum solely from a budgetary perspective - http://economic.bg/news/17632/1/1/Angelov-Nikoj-nyama-da-zabogatee-ot-neoblagaemiya-minimum.html
@Toto5
"And that's simply not true. The tax-free minimum applies to any income, regardless of its amount."
You are right, the mistake is mine. I apologize. However, this does not change the fact that two classes of business are being created. Industries with wages below and above the non-taxable minimum. Those with wages above the non-taxable minimum are in the red, since in the end the businessman pays for everything. That is, we see state intervention in favor of a group of businesses, which is bad. You want preferences.
The only way to treat everyone equally is for the non-taxable minimum to be equal to the minimum wage.
"However, there is no reflection on the meaning of the non-taxable minimum as an economic lever and tool, namely - in a crisis, not to allow the relative share of direct taxes to increase at the expense of indirect ones. It is precisely the latter that kills the economy and, in particular, small businesses, and this is exactly what happens when this tool is absent."
I see that you are very well-versed in the subject and no wonder, because you are experiencing it directly on your back. Unfortunately, I am not (nor was I in the "first year" of the UNWE). Please explain to me why the above occurs (the relative share of direct taxes to increase at the expense of indirect ones). Let me add that even if this is so, what you want is to fix one curvature of the system by adding another curvature.
"Today, Angelov is behaving like a clerk from the Ministry of Finance. He forgot what he wrote some time ago, and his only arguments are that the tax authorities will suffer if a non-taxable minimum is reintroduced:"
So as far as I read, such things happen all the time. Nassim Taleb's criticism is that macroeconomists have no "skin in the game", i.e. they have not staked their skin and whether they are right or wrong does not follow any consequences for them personally. And they can honestly forget that they previously supported other ideas (it is related to the retrospective fallacy, namely that when you know what happened, things seem clearer in retrospect than at the time the decision was made). The above also applies to me (although I am not a macroeconomist), but not to you, because as a businessman you directly bear the consequences of every policy.
I don't have an opinion on Negative Income Tax at the moment. My idea is new.
@EE
"Please explain to me why the above occurs (the relative share of direct taxes increases at the expense of indirect taxes)."
I'll try with an example.
1. Let's assume that before the crisis a person receives 1000 leva gross - 783.90 net and the entire net salary goes to consumption. In this case, he pays 87.10 leva corporate income tax and 130.65 leva VAT on his consumption.
As a result of the crisis, he loses his job and finds a new one, but for 800 leva. In this case, the personal income tax is 69.68, and the VAT is 104.52.
I.e. The ratio between DOD and VAT remains the same - regardless of the fact that consumption is shrinking.
2. Let's assume that the person has a loan and pays a monthly payment of 100 leva. In this case, with the lower salary, the relative share of the personal income tax increases at the expense of VAT.
In the above example, if there was a non-taxable minimum, this would not have happened. The tax rate as a relative share falls in both cases (with and without a loan payment).
Now I see this:
"The businessman practically pays for everything. He makes the money and he pays the taxes on the money he gives."
Personal income tax is not a labor tax. It is a tax on the income of individuals regardless of the source. That is, your statement is wrong. This includes income from labor, from rent, from the sale of property, from the sale of shares and stocks in commercial companies, from copyright and licensing fees, etc. If you work as a self-employed person or live only on rent, you owe personal income tax, but there is no business that can pay everything - the business is you. In addition:
1. DOD is not flat - there are several different rates
2. there is no single tax base - different reduction rates apply.
3. Not all income is taxed - for example, income from the sale of shares of companies listed on the stock exchange is not taxed. However, if you sell shares of a company that is not public, you owe tax.
The only common and universal thing in the whole mess was the non-taxable minimum, and it was precisely that that was abolished.
That is, to talk about what is fair and what is not is complete demagogy and very selective. For me, its abolition is stupidity, mainly because of its impact on the macro level. That is, you are depriving yourself of an instrument that, if it were available, would reduce the relative share of direct taxes at the expense of indirect ones and the crisis would not be so acute.
@Toto5
"Let's assume that the person has a loan and pays a monthly payment of 100 leva. In this case, with the lower salary, the relative share of the personal income tax increases at the expense of VAT."
I think I understand you. With a lower salary, the VAT also falls, but consumption falls more (as a percentage) than the drop in the VAT, respectively, the VAT falls more (as a percentage). The reason is that the loan is constant (100 BGN) and does not depend on the amount of the salary.
It's interesting on a macro level.
When a person takes out a loan, they do not pay VAT on the loan, as far as I know. However, they do pay VAT on the loan when they spend it.
However, when a person repays a loan, he pays income tax on the money he uses to repay the loan, but does not pay VAT on it.
Under the current (bad, thieving, etc.) monetary system, during growth, more loans are given than are returned. That is, according to the above logic, more VAT is paid, and less corporate income tax.
However, in a crisis (with our current monetary system) banks do not lend, and more money enters the banks than leaves. That is, VAT increases as a share of VAT.
I don't think I'm wrong in my reasoning, if I'm wrong, tell me.
"In the above example, if there was a non-taxable minimum, this would not have happened. The tax rate as a relative share falls in both cases (with and without a loan installment)."
During a crisis, both the DOD and VAT fall, but the VAT falls more as a percentage (it seems to me). However, I don't see how the presence of a non-taxable minimum will cause the DOD to fall by a larger percentage than before (without a non-taxable minimum). In other words, I disagree here.
This would be true if, once the crisis hits, we introduce a non-taxable minimum without touching the personal income tax rate. There will be a one-time decrease in personal income tax, but that's all.
"PIT is not a labor tax. It is a tax on the income of individuals regardless of the source. That is, your statement is wrong."
If you look at it that way, it's wrong. But if you call every businessman (because in this role he sells a house, takes copyrights, sells shares, etc.) then it is completely understandable and correct. Anyway, our discussion was about people like you, i.e. company managers. You make the money. You sell the products and take the income and then distribute it. You would certainly be happy if there was no VAT on the salary of your workers. You could give them more, for example, or lower your prices and increase your sales.
"That is, talking about what is fair and what is not is complete demagogy and very selective."
My view is that one should have criteria by which to judge things and accordingly judge them. Once I have the criteria, things are no longer "demagogy and very selective". However, one can argue what the criteria should be.
"For me, removing it is stupid, mostly because of its impact at the macro level. That is, you are depriving yourself of an instrument that, if it were available, would reduce the relative share of direct taxes at the expense of indirect ones and the crisis would not be so acute."
Your real problem as a businessman is the existence of taxes in general. And more specifically direct taxes, because they affect you the most (they reduce your profits, and therefore your investments). If you fight for something, then fight for the elimination of direct taxes or their reduction, and not as you want: "Let's complicate the system a little more by reducing direct taxes not directly, but by introducing a non-taxable minimum". In my opinion, you are trying to straighten something that is already crooked by distorting it again. To me, this is bad politics.
@EE
"During a crisis, both the DOD and VAT fall, but the VAT falls more as a percentage (as it seems to me). However, I don't see how the presence of a non-taxable minimum will cause the DOD to fall by a larger percentage than before (without a non-taxable minimum). That is, I disagree here."
Well, let's go back to the example, but this time with a non-taxable minimum - 500 leva:
With a salary of 1000 you have:
Personal insurance - 129, BGN.
Salary after social security contributions - 871 BGN.
Taxable income 871 -500 = 371 BGN.
VAT = 371x10% = BGN 37.10.
Net income = 1000 -129 -37.10 = 833.90
Consumption VAT (fully spent net income) = 138.98
I.e. your DOD is 21.07% of tax expenses
Crisis, salary drops to 800 BGN.
With a salary of 800 BGN you have:
personal insurance - 103.20 BGN.
salary after social security contributions - 696.80 BGN.
Taxable income - 696.80 - 500 BGN = 196.80 BGN.
DOD = 196.80 x 10% - 19.68
Net income = 800 - 103.20 - 19.68 = 677.12
Consumption VAT (fully spent net income) = 112.85
I.e. DOD is 14.85% of tax expenditures
It is evident that before the crisis, your DOD was 21.07%, and after the salary reduction, 14.85%.
If there is a loan installment of 100 BGN, the numbers become:
23.27% DOD from tax transfers for a salary of 1000 BGN
17.30 DOD from tax revenues with a salary of 800 BGN
You still have a drop in the DOD percentage, although smaller.
Without a non-taxable minimum, the percentage of DOD at 800 remains unchanged in the absence of credit and increases in the presence of credit installments. Even if your salary drops by 100 leva, there will be no drop in the DOD/VAT ratio.
@Toto5
You're right. I calculated it and it's actually pretty close to common sense. In the presence of a non-taxable minimum, simply part of the money is not taxed with personal income tax, but is taxed with VAT. It is normal for the percentage of personal income tax compared to (personal income tax + VAT) to decrease.
But look at what things look like without the DOD and the non-taxable minimum.
With a salary of 1000 you have:
Personal insurance – 129, BGN.
Salary after social security contributions – 871 BGN.
Net income = 1000 -129 = 871 BGN
Consumption VAT (fully spent net income) = 174.2
In your case, which you quoted in your post, the state will take:
VAT + VAT = 37.10 + 138.98 = 176.08
It is quite coincidental that the two numbers are very close (176.08 and 174.2).
That is, you can achieve the same tax revenue for the state (and it is interested in this) by removing the personal income tax. And once the personal income tax is gone, the entire tax system will be simplified. This problem with the ratio of direct to indirect taxes will not exist at all. And they will not take directly from your profit and reduce your investments. This is the right path.
However;
You are interested in what could happen in practice. And the probability of such a grandiose innovation (removing the personal income tax) is close to zero. And you are moving towards another solution that complicates the tax system in the hope that it will solve your problem. I am not convinced that it would really solve your problem because, as I told you, the state needs a certain amount of taxes to perform its necessary (court, police) and counterproductive (social systems, etc.) functions. And it will try to collect them one way or another. What is lost from the non-taxable minimum will be compensated for either by an increase in direct or indirect taxes. If it compensates for it with an increase in indirect taxes, then you are in a plus. But if it compensates for it with an increase in direct taxes, then it is bad.
Anyway. I think we already understand each other well and there is no point in discussing this further. My view is that there is a much better solution to your problem and that is why I am against your proposal. However, you (correctly) consider that in practice my view cannot be implemented (to remove the personal income tax and corporate tax) and are pushing for a complicated one that will probably, but not certainly, be in your favor (but will probably lead to losses for businesses with high salaries).
Look, my position is this: the fact that a non-market barrier exists is no reason for me to propose and shout that it meets my principles, a complicated solution that, on top of everything, does not treat all participants equally.
@EE
"My view is that a person should have criteria by which to judge things and accordingly judge them. Once I have the criteria, things are no longer "demagogy and very selective"."
That's nice, but in this case I don't see what those criteria are. Go read the Personal Income Tax Act. The law is a bunch of pages. Why is removing this element good, and not someone else's? What are the criteria for repealing this particular instrument?
Let's assume that the criterion is simplification of the system. A system is simplified if it is viewed comprehensively - as a whole. If you decide to "simplify" the device of a machine by simply removing one of its parts, what will you achieve? At most, the machine will stop working. A complete new concept and new design are needed. Without a view of the overall device, you don't simplify anything, you just break the machine.
Let's assume that the idea is equal treatment. The law has a bunch of exceptions, preferences, income that is not taxed at all, etc. The only general, equal and valid rule for all is the non-taxable minimum. This single common element is removed and it is claimed that now everyone is treated equally. This sounds like a joke. By this logic, Dyankov is a hero with his tax on interest on deposits. Interest is income and it is "equal" to tax it too. Not only that, but libertarians should agitate to tax all financial income - interest from savings accounts, shares in mutual funds, sale of shares, etc.
The other "criteria" are not discussed at all. Let me quote Georgi Angelov again:
".........the government, along with the introduction of a flat tax, tried to QUIETLY push through several other tax changes aimed in the exact opposite direction – namely, INCREASING THE TAX BURDEN…….
……..The first “detail” is the elimination of the non-taxable minimum. This action practically increases the tax burden"
The truth is that there are no criteria. I clearly indicated to you the links above that no one planned such a thing, nor did they report positive or negative effects. Angelov says it clearly - the change was accepted SILENTLY.
The only criteria that stand out are increasing the tax burden (I'm not saying it, Angelov is) and taking care of the budget.
@Toto5
"The truth is that there are no criteria. I clearly provided you with links above that no one planned such a thing, nor did they report positive or negative effects. Angelov says it clearly - the change was accepted SILENTLY."
I am convinced that whatever is done, decisions are made for political reasons. That is, this is what is advantageous to us at the moment and this is what we are doing. We are moving along the path of least resistance. In short - I completely agree with you.
Regarding the criteria. I can only answer for my own. I don't even know if they correspond to the standard libertarian positions on the issue (I don't know if there are any). I derive them from the general principles by which an economy works.
"Let's assume that the criterion is simplification of the system. A system is simplified if it is viewed comprehensively - as a whole. If you decide to "simplify" the device of a machine by simply removing one of its parts, what will you achieve?"
Your analogy doesn't fit the situation. Tax laws as such are something external and non-inherent to the free market (Austrian definition). But yes, you can't just remove everything because it's interconnected. If there is a tax-free minimum, it can't be removed by itself because the tax burden will increase.
The existence of taxes in general is already a problem. Since no one has yet convinced me that it is possible without taxes, I support some minimal taxation, and it goes against my basic principles. But if it exists, it should be as simple as possible and not interfere.
"Let's assume that the idea is equal treatment. The law has a bunch of exceptions, preferences, income that is not taxed at all, etc. The only general, equal and valid rule for everyone is the non-taxable minimum. This single common element is removed and it is claimed that everyone is now treated equally. This sounds like a joke."
All the exceptions you mention lead to unequal treatment. I am against them too. However, we were discussing the non-taxable minimum and as I said, it also leads to unequal treatment and that is why I am against it. I do not dispute that there are probably much worse cases of unequal treatment, but that does not mean that I have to be in favor of having a non-taxable minimum.
I will try to define my criteria:
1. Very low (God forbid, non-existent) taxation
2. Taxation that interferes with business as little as possible (or if possible, does not interfere at all) because business is the one that produces the goods in an economy, and not, as people are used to thinking - that it is the state. That is why I am in favor of indirect taxes.
3. Equal taxation, i.e. taxation that does not create privileged and unprivileged classes, businesses, groups, etc. Due to the lack of the above, usually big businesses are privileged.
4. A maximally simple taxation system. This leads to minimal costs for tax services for both business and the state. The very existence of tax offices is an unprofitable use of resources (labor, buildings, etc.).
It's hard for me to rank the above criteria in order of importance. All of them are important, it's a matter of a specific situation. The analogy is: it's hard to say what is more important to have in a car: the tires, the engine or the steering wheel, for example.
"By this logic, Dyankov is a hero with his tax on interest on deposits. Interest is income and it is "fair" to tax it too. Not only that, but libertarians should campaign to tax all financial income - interest from savings accounts, shares in mutual funds, sale of shares, etc."
Here, as I mentioned above: you can't always say which is more important. In this case, what is more important to me is the existence of this taxation at all, not that it creates different classes. And that's why I'm against taxes on interest. Because if you do it like that, you should equate all taxes on all income to the highest available rate to be consistent.
In this case, in order to ensure equality, other principles are deteriorated: minimal taxation, taxation that does not burden businesses, and even the simplicity of taxation. Obstacles are created such as: total taxes increase; money is taken from savings, and from there smaller investments and therefore growth follow; the administration of these taxes is complicated (banks are burdened with unusual functions, and the state must also appoint people to take care of these taxes).
@HER
"Here, as I mentioned above: you can't always say which is more important. In this case, what is more important to me is the existence of this taxation at all, not that it creates different classes. And that's why I'm against taxes on interest."
......In this case, in order to ensure equality, other principles have been undermined: minimal taxation, non-burdensome taxation for business"
In principle, the innovation is a "business-friendly taxation" because it only applies to interest on deposits of individuals. Interest on deposits of companies has been taxed for a long time. They have never been excluded from the tax base and businesses have always paid their taxes as a percentage. However, I am against the new tax.
"If there is a non-taxable minimum, it cannot be removed on its own because the tax burden will increase."
That's exactly what I'm saying. There was a non-taxable minimum, they abolished it and the result is visible - an increase in direct taxes during a crisis.
This measure (the elimination of the minimum), the reduction of activities on which patent taxes are paid, the introduction of minimum social security thresholds, the "equalization" of all "businesses" and the introduction of cash registers on everything (fishing boats, coffee machines, etc.), the taxation of interest on deposits of individuals and a number of other measures were taken in the name of the elimination of "privileged and unprivileged classes, businesses, groups, etc." All of them were pushed through by people who declared themselves libertarians.
The results are visible - shrunken domestic consumption, destroyed small businesses, medium-sized businesses that can barely breathe, etc.
The self-employed in Bulgaria are 11% of the workforce - compared to an EU average of 15-16%. Everywhere in the region - Turkey, Romania, Serbia, Macedonia - they are around 20%, in Greece around 31%.
When corporations are closing jobs, isn't it better not to create obstacles for those with initiative and let them help themselves - as best they can, rather than having them hang on to the budget and wait for aid? Not in Bulgaria. In our country, for fear of creating a "privileged class of self-employed people", their conditions of existence are equated with those of corporations - because "that's fair".
The number of people working in Bulgaria on temporary contracts or part-time is 2.5% of the workforce. In the Netherlands, it is 41%. In our country, in order to avoid privileged and underprivileged classes, it is extremely difficult to hire someone for part-time work - it is simply mission impossible.
In general, in the end we will become a completely "just" society, in which, however, no one will be left to enjoy this justice.
@Toto5
"In principle, the innovation is a "business-friendly taxation" because it only applies to interest on deposits of individuals."
This also has a negative impact on business. Businesses take loans from banks for development. Interest reduces savings (directly and indirectly) and from there less investment follows.
"There was a non-taxable minimum, they removed it and the result is visible - an increase in direct taxes during a crisis."
When they removed this non-taxable minimum, they also played with tax rates. That is, they didn't just touch the minimum.
"the reduction of activities subject to patent taxes, the introduction of minimum social security thresholds, the "equalization" of all "businesses" and the introduction of cash registers on everything (fishing boats, coffee machines, etc.), the taxation of interest on deposits of individuals and a number of other measures were taken in the name of eliminating "privileged and unprivileged classes, businesses, groups, etc." All of them were pushed through by people who declared themselves libertarians."
The only thing I can tell you is that you shouldn't count me as a supporter of the above. I'm against it.
"The results are visible - shrunken domestic consumption, destroyed small businesses, medium-sized businesses that can barely breathe, etc....
In general, in the end we will become a completely "just" society, in which, however, no one will be left to enjoy this justice."
As a relative of mine says, in the end we will become more Catholic than the Pope. We try to be "social", misunderstood as "equal", etc., when we are as poor as guns. It doesn't work, but we should equalize ourselves with others. The frog saw that the horse was being shod and raised its foot. Western countries can afford such "nice" (note the quotation marks) things because they are much richer and the losses are not so visible.
Now I'm learning about a pastry shop that, due to the smoking ban, had to convert to a grocery store. Otherwise, it would go bankrupt.
In short; you're right, but other than pouring out your soul, I don't see what else you can do.
People have long been convinced that whatever the state does, it does for the good of the people and if it accidentally makes a mistake, it is out of "good intentions". And then they wonder and wonder: "How come, we only thought it was good, and it turned out badly. Those nasty businessmen must have sabotaged it. And people in general are bad, that's why things don't work out. The world is bad, to hell with it." It is absurd for them to admit that their ideas are wrong. Others are to blame, the world is to blame, human nature was bad, etc. But not their views.
@EE
"When they removed this non-taxable minimum, they also played with tax rates. In other words, they didn't just touch the minimum."
That's right, and the net effect of the entire exercise is visible and easily measurable - an increase in the tax burden. Another quote from G. Angelov:
"The flat tax is the only tax that has seen an increase in revenue even during the years of the crisis (all others have seen a decline). The flat tax was the only stabilizing factor in the budget that provided financial resources."
That's it. When the numbers speak, everything else is superfluous. The conclusions are clear - despite the lower rates, the tax burden is increasing. Naturally, this is thanks to the abolition of the non-taxable minimum.
There remain some subjective and imaginary "pluses" like justice, equality, etc., which can neither be measured nor defended. Everyone perceives them in their own way. Personally, for me they have always been the height of hypocrisy. They raise the bar to the heights, and then they tell us that we are all equal and have the same opportunities. Yes, but no.
@Toto5
I don't see what more I can add right now.
Anyway, I enjoy having discussions with people with opinions and clear positions on certain issues. Until next time!