What if Donald Trump, on January 20, 2025, issues the following #MAGA Executive Orders?

#MAGA Executive Order #1

"Bank capital/equity requirements against Federal Government debt & residential mortgages, must be at least as high as those against loans to unrated American small business & entrepreneurs" 

https://subprimeregulations.blogspot.com/2013/11/have-risk-weights-of-current-bank.html

https://x.com/PerKurowski/status/1858996893151621130

#MAGA Executive Order #2

"All illegal immigrants from Latin America as on this date, will be issued 100% biometric passports allowing them to work, leave and reenter US.

Criminal behavior leads to immediate deportation."

https://theamericanunion.blogspot.com/2006/04/american-union-passports-could-work.html

https://x.com/PerKurowski/status/1861049200139469010

#MAGA Executive Order #3

"The government must not receive any other income than taxes paid directly to it by the citizens.

Even the lowest income earners, have a right to hold their government accountable."

https://perkurowski.blogspot.com/2012/03/my-tax-paradise.html

https://x.com/PerKurowski/status/1861073103998120071

#MAGA Executive Order #4

"All tax paying citizens shall, completely unhindered, be free to engage artificial intelligence, #AI, in order to measure, in real time, #government #effectiveness when using its tax revenues."

https://perkurowski.blogspot.com/2023/08/ai-chatgpt-openai-can-you-visualize.html

https://x.com/PerKurowski/status/1861082646236799396

#MAGA Executive Order #5
“Any health sector provider shall not be allowed to charge a price more than 5% higher to any uninsured patient, than what they charge insurance companies for the same medicines or treatments.”
https://teawithft.blogspot.com/2009/06/but-there-is-minimum-minimorum-reform.html
https://x.com/PerKurowski/status/1861089879502848171

PS. I might keep adding proposed Executive Orders

Jeff Fairburn’s £75m bonus is nothing when compared to the real problem with house prices.

Aditya Chakrabortty holds that “Jeff Fairburn’s £75m bonus has sharpened focus on the vast windfalls generated by help to buy” “Let’s stop lining housebuilders’ pockets and tax them instead” The Guardian, November 9, 2018.

No, it clearly has not! By focusing on that bonus, which naturally stirs up some envy into all of us, he misses the real issue, namely how much helping houses to be affordable for some, makes these even more unaffordable to others.

So first, let us all shake off that Jeff Fairburn’s £75m bonus. To begin with just take it as if life had dealt him a lottery jackpot. He has most certainly paid much more taxes on it than the taxes that would be paid had that £75m bonus been shared out equally among us all. And I would bet that more than 99% of what purchase power he had left over, has already been returned to the real economy by him buying assets or services.

That “the five biggest British housebuilders together paid out £4.4bn in dividends to shareholders between 2014 (the first full year of help to buy) and 2017” is totally irrelevant when compared to the magnitude of the real problem with houses.

That problem has to do with how much house prices have been inflated by this scheme and so many other distortions; especially like regulations that allow banks to hold much less capital when financing the purchase of houses than when lending to entrepreneurs… those who could be the ones who create the jobs so that house buyers will be able to afford to pay their mortgages and utilities.

Aditya Chakrabortty laments “Without that money from you and me, Persimmon would simply not have made that many sales, nor made that much profit– and its outgoing boss probably wouldn’t have got such a large bonus.” He should look at himself first.

Does Aditya Chakrabortty own a house? Then he should reflect on how much his house has gone up in value because of all the political kindness awarded house buyers. Should he not pay high taxes on that? House builders at least built. What have house owners done to enrich themselves so?

Does Aditya Chakrabortty not own a house? Then he should reflect on how much all the political kindness awarded house buyers has made houses even more unaffordable to him.

Houses are no longer homes; as a consequence of all regulatory and political kindness these have become investments assets too. The day too many house-owners will want to cash in their investment, for instance to pay some retirement costs… will the buyers be there for them? 

Well if we prohibit all political kindness awarded house buyers… as we in fact should so as not to blow the bubble larger, then many if the current buyers will definitely not be there... but then those that do not own houses may begin to find these affordable.

It all makes me remember Alan Price’s “Oh my, my, my, my, my, my, my, it makes you wanna cry. This is the house that Jack built, baby, and it reaches up into the sky”

Since you don’t eat gold-bars, just redistributing of wealth solves very little, or even nothing.

The Guardian writes: “An alarming projection produced by the House of Commons library suggests that if trends seen since the 2008 financial crash were to continue, then the top 1% will hold 64% of the world’s wealth by 2030… equating to $305tn” “Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030”, April 7, 2018.

How awfully unjust… but… how do you productively convert that wealth into the products or assets that could be useful for the 99%, without unexpected consequences or without most wealth just going to a 1%, or less, of some new filthy-rich wealthy?

How much value of that $305tn of wealth would just evaporate by the redistribution? And what would that do to the value of the then projected $152 wealth in the hands of 99%?

For instance what would happen to the price of a Leonardo da Vinci’s “Salvator Mundi”, in which, someone very wealthy, agreed to freeze $450 million of his main-street purchase capacity? How do you turn that wealth into something the poorer of the 99% need?

Where would the stock market value head?

Where would the interest rate, for instance on public debt go?

Where would the prices of houses head?

And if wealth gets too much distributed, who is going to demand that which only the really wealthy 1% can afford to demand, and which creates a lot of jobs that would otherwise not exist?

It is amazing how much discussions there are about the need to redistribute wealth without any consideration to what that redistribution would entail. Could that be because that is not in the interest of any redistribution or polarization profiteers?

As I see it there is much more to be gained by capturing more income before it has been converted into wealth assets. Just redistributing existing wealth is a one-shot unsustainable top-down approach.

Much better is a very modest starting Universal Basic Income where you little by little begin to build up a societal dividend that will keep the redistribution and polarization profiteers at bay. And that is of course why the latter hate UBI… as it eats into the value of their franchise.

And of course, in order to fund that UBI you must find sustainable sources of income…like on the advertising revenues of Facebook and alike… like a special tax on revenues generated under the protection of an intellectual property right… like a special tax on revenues generated by those benefiting from close to monopoly high market shares… like a tax on whatever causes pollution and otherwise threatens our pied-a-terre… and so on

Would not those willing to cut taxes belong to the anti-Sheriff of Nottingham party?

Sir, E.J. Dionne JR refers to the Republican Party that “only knows how to cut taxes for the very rich”, as “The anti-Robin Hood party”, Washington Post October 2, 2017.

I do not want to enter the discussion of whether taxes should be lowered or raised, but I do believe there  is a fundamental mistake in the terminology used.

As I remember it was the Sheriff of Nottingham who served as Prince John's chief enforcer, collecting unlimited taxes from the people of Nottingham, and forcing Robin Hood and Little John to take refuge in the Sherwood Forest, where they did no one harm, much the contrary... ask friar Tuck.

Should we not know to whom we are kicking the public-debt-can down the road?

With respect to that congressional authorization for U.S. military operations against U.S. enemies, Senator Elizabeth Warren, very correctly, recently tweeted: 

“Congress owes our troops & their families a full debate to authorize the use of military force before we send them into harm’s way.”

But in the same vein each time an increase of public debt is authorized, or the public-debt-can is kicked further down the road, OMB, or CBO should prepare a detailed report on who are expected to serve that debt.

Because let’s face it, public debt is, before anything, if it is going to be duly served, an anticipation of tax revenues to come... and future taxpayers might like to be informed of that.

To have in black and white that we might be asking our grandchildren to pay for some of our current societal requests, might be a good way to better live up to that intergenerational social contract Edmund Burke spoke about.

We should continuously remind ourselves of that the possibility of contracting debt at reasonable rates, is a strategic asset, which no one has the right to take away from future generations, without a truly overwhelming reason

My current list of prominent inequality drivers

I do not care about some having much more wealth than others, for instance having Picasso's on their walls that if taken down only had to go up on somebody else’s wall… and I fret where all those jobs which are based on obnoxiously expensive manual procedures would be were it not for the insanely wealthy… and, if there were no accumulation of wealth where would all those savings that can be invested come from?... 

But I do care profoundly when wealth is acquired by ways of opportunities not accorded to everyone... like mothers (and fathers), not getting any direct monetary societal reward, for their extraordinary efforts when staying home to lovingly take care of their children.

And here are some new non traditional inequality drivers of which I am currently most suspicious.

Intellectual property rights which give way to incredible fortunes… there should be some more explicit limits on these… like a maximum amount of profits covered … a fixed number of units produced protected… or at least that profits derived from intellectually protected activities should be taxed at a higher rate than profits derived from competing naked in the market.

Monopolies… profit derived from monopolies should perhaps be taxed at a higher rate than ordinary profits.

Market shares/globalization… profit derived from activities that have achieved especially large local or global market shares should perhaps be taxed at a higher rate than ordinary profits.

Financial returns produced by the fact that banks because of implicit government guarantees are able to hold less capital than other normal commercial entities should be taxed at a higher rate than ordinary on their profits… something which they could naturally avoid by simply keeping more capital. 

And then there are those regulatory inequity drivers like pushing quantitative easing flows through a banking system with risk-weighted capital requirements, which so much favoring what is perceived as absolutely safe so much discriminates against what is perceived as risky, and something which of course impedes that liquidity and credit gets to where it is needed the most.

And had it not been for bail-outs and QEs Piketty’s book Capital in the 21st Century would not stand a chance to have seen the light as so much wealth would have been wiped out. 

And then there is the wealth tax, which if applied in a system where inequalities like those explained above persist, will only end up concentrating wealth more and more among fewer and fewer Plutocrats.

And, of course, perhaps foremost, all those other sources of discrimination that exist and hinders some from having the same opportunities as others... and all those resulting from the many existing inequalities at the start point.

And the list goes on, and the list goes on.. most likely including the low interests too.

And I also utterly dislike those who are only out to make a buck on the redistribution of wealth. If there is going to be redistribution do it through a system that guarantees that at least 99% goes where it was supposed to go… and that it all does not end in the hands of for equality fighting opportunists

But before ending let me pose the BIG Q.: Professor Thomas Piketty. What’s better, to live in your own inequality, or in somebody else’s equality?

Let us avoid the merchants of poverty

I admire those who help the poor. Not so those who use the poor to help themselves.

Even though there has been a considerable reduction in the number of poor in the world (not necessarily sustainable), inequality, in terms of differences in income and wealth between the richest and the poorest has increased considerably during the last decades ... and that's not healthy, to say the least.

And accordingly, opportunistically, those who argue that everything is solved redistributing, meaning taking from the rich and giving it to the poor, now appear on the scene. How easy it would be if everything was just that easy. It is not. It is our duty to make sure that merchants of poverty, with their insidious sowing of envy and hatred, makes it even more difficult to help solve the poor’s already sufficient precarious situation.

The proposed solution is based on the illusion that it is possible to take away purchasing power from the rich and hand it over to the poor; and that the poor can then go with that purchasing power to the grocery store. False!

First, the rich have their wealth invested in assets, houses, stocks, paintings, yachts, etc. And so, to transform those assets into money, you have to sell them. To whom? Without wealthy buyers around, the sale would only translates into a reduction in the value of the assets ...resulting in a lower amount than estimated to be delivered to the poor. How does it help the poor that a Picasso valued at $50 million, is then only worth $1 million? 

Second, assuming you could sell the assets and give the money to the poor, will there be sufficient supply to satisfy the needs of the poor? No! The unexpected new demand will result in much inflation.

Does this mean that there is nothing to do? Not at all! What is clear is that instead of attacking the results of the inequitable distribution of income and wealth, we must concentrate on attacking its causes ... especially the artificial ones, those not based on the natural reality that we are not all equal.

What are these artificial causes? Each economy has them, in different degrees, but their most frequent common denominator is state interference. Licenses leading to monopolies (intellectual property rights?), foreign exchange controls, transparent and non-transparent subsidies, corruption, discriminatory regulations, etc. For example, in Venezuela, how much more could you have benefited the poorest if the government had not insisted on giving away gasoline at US$ 4 cents a liter... or selling foreign exchange cheaply to those vacationing abroad?

A seemingly easy way out like re-distribution, is simply not enough, nor is it sustainable, and it is the poor who most need to know that. It cannot be that the final result of the redistribution of wealth and income in Venezuela would be to concentrate even more income and wealth in the hands of our Boligarchs of turn… whatever political color they wear. 

But Kurowski! Have you not for years insisted in distributing all of Venezuela´s net oil revenues to the citizens­? Yes! But with that, much more than a redistribution of purchasing power, I mean the redistribution of powers and opportunities... from petrocrats to citizens.

And if the rich want to help, welcome, but perhaps they better deliver that help directly to the poor, instead of going through the politicians who so often are only acting as the merchants of poverty.

In other countries, where for the .01% plutocrats what the 99% holds seems not to suffice they are now looking for the other 0.99 %. Tax the wealth and, at the end of the day, without further changes, most of it will come back to fewer and fewer Plutocrats.

Translated from El Universal, Caracas Note: You will not find the link. I was censored in my homeland Venezuela 

PS. Legend holds it that when Otelo Saraiva de Carvalho, chief strategist of the 1974’s Carnation Revolution in Lisbon, told Sweden’s Olof Palme: “In Portugal we want to get rid of the rich”, Palme replied, “how curious, in Sweden we only aspire to get rid of the poor” 

Below some follow ups on the theme

http://perkurowski.blogspot.com/2014/07/what-does-it-matter-whether-picasso.html

http://perkurowski.blogspot.com/2016/10/i-tweeted-how-do-you-morph-200-million.html

http://perkurowski.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-wealth-of-62-richest-equals-that-of.html

http://perkurowski.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-myth-of-unused-wealth.html

Universal Basic Income: The way to free us from the redistribution profiteers.

Taxing Wealth 101

Thomas Piketty. Would you tax wealth if this only benefited even more some few oligarchs?

We begin to hear proposals about taxing wealth, like that presented by Thomas Piketty in “Capital in the Twenty First Century”

Taxing wealth might reduce the fever of inequality, but it does not attack its causes. In fact, forcing the sale of assets, which is where wealth is stored, in order to increase the consumption of the less well off, might direction the funds away from those who have earned their wealth naturally, to those who earn it thanks to market imperfections, or to outright crony capitalism. An in such a way it could undermine even more the meritocratic values on which democratic societies are based, something that Piketty himself would seem to abhor.

In other words, if in Russia, would you tax wealth if that benefited the oligarchs?

I believe it would be better to concentrate on what is causing unjust artificial inequality and in this respect I could mention the following possibilities.

Like to eliminate the concept of risk weighted capital requirements for banks which channels bank credit away from “the risky”, in much a proxy for the poor, to “the infallible”, in much a proxy for the wealthy.

Like to increase the tax on all those profits which have originated under the protection of intellectual property rights. There is no reason for these to be taxed at the same rate as profits obtained from competing naked in the markets.

Finally, let´s give it a thought to what would have happened to all that unequally accumulated wealth, had not TARP and Quantitative Easing come to its rescue.

Just the fact that, except for religious considerations, when in the grave, we’re all equal, and the Gini coefficient is zero, should not mean we should hurry to get there... I think.

Is not the interest that is not earned on public debt because of public policies a tax?

In terms of taxation, who is affected by a higher real tax rate?

Someone earning 5 percent in interest on public debt and, supposing a tax rate of 20 percent, then has to pay 1 percent in taxes, resulting in net earnings of 4 percent, or, 

Someone only earning only 3 percent on public debt, because of QEs, lower capital requirements for banks when lending to sovereign, and other fancy stuff causes lower interest rates on public debt.

You tell me, or better yet, tell them! on public

Stress test the American taxpayer and you’ll see you need a brand new generation of taxes

What the US dollar bill really should state is “In the American Taxpayer We Trust” and so the more pragmatic Americans have printed the “In God We Trust” on it.

There is no way that the current American generation, having been brought up as the consumers of last resort in the world, would now turn around and accept to be the world’s taxpayers of last resort… at least not with the current taxes… any stress-test of them would show you that.

The US government should be much more conscious of this before launching itself on a fiscal spending stimulus binge which, if allowed by the markets, will build up its public debt to a totally unsustainable level.

That said I believe the international markets are going to say NO much earlier than that, since one thing is to be searching for a safe temporary haven and another quite different to be trapped in a permanent home.

And that is why, before the US Dollar loses its AAA rating, that the US, and the world, should work hard in developing a totally new generation of taxes that can be perceived as legitimate, that are aligned with the new global realities, and that interfere as little as possible with the functioning of a competitive economy. I have argued for the following two:

1. The Intellectual Property Right tax: Society, for many good reasons, has decided it needs to award and defend intellectual-property rights. The downside is the creation of temporary monopoly rights that can be overexploited. Also, awarding these rights impose on society the obligation to defend them, which costs money.

As it does not seem fair to assess taxes on a business venture that has to compete in the market without any kind of protection at the same rate than projects that have been awarded intellectual-property rights, there should be a special tax levied on all profits generated from intellectual-property rights.

2. The keeping the big lean tax: There is nothing wrong with a business striving to obtain a large market share but while its market share grows for all the good reasons and for the benefit of society, there is unfortunately also an accumulation of market power that can acquire monopolistic characteristics with negative results for the society. Therefore there is also a need of a tax that is of a progressive nature based entirely on market shares.

In God We Trust to see that…

The dollars, for which value the US is responsible, are printed with the abbreviated prayer of “In God We Trust”.

A more complete version would be: “In God We Trust to see that the politicians and the bureaucrats do not print and circulate more dollars that what the economy could back or, otherwise, that the American taxpayer finds it in him the capacity and the willingness to pay taxes so as to make up any shortfalls.”

The keeping the big lean tax

No matter how optimistic we can be about that all the assets the US government acquires during the current financial crisis will be fairly priced, there is no doubt that the whole crisis is going to be extremely expensive for the public sector. The costs will have to be paid by taxes or, in its absence, by inflation.

In this respect society has a vested interest in finding new equitable ways of how to pay for it, and that these are aligned with the new global realities and interfere as little as possible with the recovery of the economy. The following is a second proposal that follows up on “An income tax on profits from intellectual-property monopolies.”

The keeping the big lean tax: Tax progressiveness based on market share.

There is nothing wrong with a corporation striving to obtain a large market share. Indeed since it is the result of having a better motivated and better organized commitment to exploit comparative advantages in order to satisfy the market with better products or services at better prices, the fight for more market share benefits us all.

That said, while the market share grows, for all the good reasons, growing market powers might tempt the corporation to use competitive tools of dubious nature which could diminish the marginal returns for the society, to such an extent that they could perhaps even turning into costs that erode all previously obtained benefits.

I therefore propose we introduce tax progressiveness based on market shares. For instance if a corporation has below 10 percent of market share a 30% income tax rate applies but, if it has a 100 percent market share then it should be taxed at for instance a 50% rate, with a linear function for the in-betweens. Alternatively, if we want to avoid making the “after-tax” subsidies of inefficiencies higher it could be a progressive sales tax.

Of course the market share tax is not be applied to those corporations who have the financial returns on their activities otherwise regulated, such as the electricity distribution companies.

Of course in banking where the bigger-you-are-the-more- it-hurts-when-you-fall-on-us, a tax on size should be immediately applied, before we run out of the small local banks that do not need the credit rating agencies to know us.

PS. In the case of some behemoths, like Facebook, I prefer they help fund an unconditional Universal Basic Income with 40-50% of the ad revenues they obtain exploiting our own personal data.

A tax on intellectual property.

The dollar bills and whose value the United States is responsible for, bear the abbreviated motto "In God We Trust", "In God we trust". A more complete version would be "In God we trust that politicians do not circulate more dollars than the economy can support or, if they do, the United State's taxpayers have the willingness and ability to pay with taxes what it takes ". The above is the same for all other countries.

Now, and even if the private sector bears most of the initial losses of the financial crisis, it will end up being extraordinarily costly for the treasuries as well and, without a doubt, in many cases will exceed their current capacity. In this sense, some of the costs will have to be paid with more taxes or, in their absence, they will be paid with inflation, the tax on the poor.

Society has spent decades without analyzing taxation that adjusts to the new global realities and that interferes as little as possible with the recovery of the economy, so it may be timely to start reflecting on the subject. Any new tax proposal must also be legitimated on the basis of justice and rationality. In this sense I am circulating some ideas for your discussion and the following is one of them.

The tax on profits derived from monopolies created by intellectual properties.

Most or perhaps all intellectual property rights are granted to whoever runs the last part of a relay run with ingenuity, creativity and tenacious efforts by generations of human beings. The former runners allow the latter to cross the finish line victoriously and lift a finished idea, even if not necessarily started.

The particularity of this relay is that whoever expects to be running as the last reliever cannot be completely sure of it. Sometimes running the last part or any part can be easy; other times it can take a lot of team effort and cost millions. Society, in order to stimulate ingenuity, creativity and the effort required of all, in order to help the world progress, has decided to award the trophy of an intellectual property right to only the runner who crosses the finish line.

The problematic part of this social agreement is that all intellectual property rights create a right to a monopoly and that since it is exercised with little or no regulation, restriction or supervision, it means that it can be subject to over-exploitation.

Since every intellectual property right granted imposes on society the obligation to defend such right, in many ways, which costs a lot, the question that also remains to be answered is whether it would not have been better to use those resources for other purposes, for example finance others to run the relay.

I do not find logic or justice in charging a company that has been granted a monopoly of an intellectual property right, for something to which previous generations have contributed and in whose defense society must invest resources, the same tax rate on earnings that applies to a company that competes in the market without any kind of protection.

Therefore, I have proposed to study that the profits generated by the exploitation of an intellectual property right pay an additional tax on profits, of for example 20%. Those proceeds can go to reimburse society for the costs of defending intellectual properties and to help fund other runners in those relays of humanity to develop essential goods that can serve us all.

Translated from an OpEd in El Universal, Caracas

 

Oil and the Stockholm Syndrome

 Fact No. 1: In 1980 the nominal price of oil (Arabian Light) was US$ 36 per barrel. In constant dollar prices calculated using the GDP deflator with 1998 as base, this was equivalent to US$ 67. By the end of 1998 the price of oil was US$ 12.20. In real terms it means that if the price index of oil in 1980 was 100% then in 1998 it was only 18%.

Fact No. 2: The index of oil products retail prices in 1980 was equal to 100%, in the United Kingdom, it reached 247% in 1998.

Fact No. 3: The amazing difference in how the two oil-related indexes developed can only be explained by taxes. As an example, in the UK in 1980 the ad-valorem taxes on gasoline were 85%; at the end of 1998 the same taxes were 456%.

Conclusion. Oil demand and oil prices are being held hostage by the taxes levied on various oil products by most oil-consuming countries. Had it not been for these sky-high discriminatory taxes, Venezuela would today be selling more oil at higher prices, easily repaying its foreign borrowings, and not even requiring a credit rating.

Adding insult to injury, the before mentioned taxes were slammed on Venezuela's main export at a time when the country was busy reducing custom duties and opening up its economy to all type of foreign competition.

It is difficult, then, to understand why, thanks to their country’s press, radio and television, Venezuelans can only worry and feel guilty of the fact that perhaps the recent increases in the price of oil will be the detonator for inflation and worldwide recession.

Could it be that the Stockholm syndrome affects Venezuela (as well as all of the OPEC nations)? As all pseudo-psychologists and writers should know, the Stockholm syndrome is what happens when someone that has been kidnapped finally becomes sympathetic with the position of his captors and ultimately even begins to defend them.

If you doubt what I am saying, just think of how our neoliberals, while talking up the maximization of income as one of their credos, blithely forgive their foreign heroes by either ignoring the issue or by creating lame environmental excuses or by simply repeating absurdities as “being rentist is really not very good for the country”. I would specially like to see them sustain this last thesis in other countries, for example in those that do all that is possible to maximize their rent from intellectual property, to the point of turning us into their best collectors.

That’s it then. There is no doubt in my mind that the Stockholm syndrome, or something very similar, is alive and well in Venezuela’s economic policies.

We need a couple of couch sessions, this time with psychologists that are very different from those we have used up to now. Dr. International Monetary Freund turned out to be simply an unethical Dr. Fraud. While the latter was pretending to give us good advice, he would travel behind our backs throughout the world, preaching the marvels of increasing taxes on oil-based products, and when this was not sufficiently convincing, simply forcing the adoption of the policy.

With its inaction, OPEC is also a prime suspect of having come down with the same affliction. I sure hope that during their sessions next week, to be held in Vienna, they will find time to get the advice of a true Dr. Freud.

Only then will they realize that at US$ 30 per barrel, the price of oil is still less than 45% of what it was in 1980.

Only then will they be able to understand the true injustice present when a taxman of a consumer country perceives an income 4.8 times more than the producer of a non renewable asset. During February this year, premium unleaded gasoline was sold at the pump in the UK for US$ 1.18 per liter, distributed as follows: 20 cts for the producer, 5 cts for the distributor and 93 cts for the British taxman.

Only then will they know that the world is not threatened by oil prices. The world and economic growth is above all, threatened by taxes implement for the sake of easy tax collection.

Only then will they remember to ask for a reduction of oil taxes, as a quid-pro-quo for any increase in oil production.

OPEC friends, … please remember Stockholm.

Calculations based on information in World Oil Trends 1999 published by Arthur Andersen and Cambridge Energy Research Associates.

In the Daily Journal, Caracas, March 24, 2000

https://petropolitan.blogspot.com/2000/03/oil-and-stockholm-syndrome.html

If I were president (II)

In yesterday’s installment I mentioned the fact that the first thing I must receive in order to responsibly comply with my presidential obligations are certain special powers. Supposing I actually received these powers, I then began to list some of the concrete measures as an example of what I would do during the first 100 days of my term in some specific areas of concern. Here are some more.

Education: A single, all encompassing data base must be put together, identifying each and every active teacher on a school-by-school basis. These teachers will immediately receive an increase in pay and an additional fixed percentage of the payroll amount will be awarded each school to cover administrative expenses. Evidence of false information will result in the immediate suspension (for lying, aiding or abetting) of all the teachers of that particular school. All others that are unduly receiving pay without working from the Ministry of Education will be awarded eternal vacations without pay.

Reduction of public spending: In order to rationalize public spending, as similar strategy as the one above will be implemented. All personnel that are to be dismissed will be paid the equivalent of three month’s salary and all other severance payments will be paid in the form of negotiable Public Sector Restoion Bonds (PSRB). The value of these bonds will increase in the measure that restoration of the public sector is successful.

Infrastructure: All savings from the restructuring process will be invested, after covering fiscal deficits over 3% of GNP, in infrastructure projects, such as energy and water for Margarita and Zulia and a truly nationwide railway system.

Housing: The Central Bank must immediately make available through the private banking system, a credit facility to the tune of US$ 2 billion aimed at issuing long term loans in US$ and fixed rates for acquisition of housing.

Foreign investment: Foreign capital investments will be regulated in order to minimize damage caused by short term capital flight (i.e., the Mexico syndrome). Other countries in Latin America have such regulations in place.

Economic diversification: The oil sector does not create employment. Venezuela’s commercial policies must be renegotiated to achieve the equilibrium of our trade balance in terms of employment generation and not balance in monetary terms as it stands now. An annual budget will be allotted to allow for the protection of certain sectors of the economy, specifically agriculture. Cover under this scheme will be allocated to those sectors within agriculture that we can be competitive in without excessive costs (i.e. rice rather than apples).

Petroleum/Petrochemicals: PDVSA will continue to manage the development of our petroleum industry. However, a special Office of the Petroleum Ombudsman (OPO) will be created. This will allow the common citizen to get closer and to increase his knowledge and control of what is the country’s principal asset. The members of this office will be elected at random from among a list of candidates that have been carefully screened, have complied with some basic requirements and have been presented as such by the Venezuelan people. The Office will be initially asked to analyze why the industry is spending its precious resources in rebuilding a slew of gas stations. In the same sense, I would like to insure that our petrochemical industry is not just reopening Sidor’s covered grave with its new investments.

Taxes/Duties: There will be no more value added tax (VAT) as long as the country continues to perceive significant income from oil. Customs at our ports will be handed over to the private sector management. This will ensure that income that should reach government accounts does not continue to feed unscrupulous individual pockets.

Superfluous functions: Until the State begins to perfectly comply with its responsibilities in fundamental areas such as education, health and security, all other superfluous functions will be suspended. For example: if the local stock market really needs a regulatory entity such as the National Security and Exchange Commission, the market must cover the costs incurred. Today, it is preferable to stamp each issue with the words “Beware – Not Regulated” than to create the false illusion that some control is imposed, and in some instances, actually abet fraud through simple omission.

Day 100 – Evaluation: If my team and I are not able to successfully implement our government’s plans, we must resign and convene new elections. Remember, I have initially made a promise to resign without pension and without a seat as Senator for life in order to avoid a) further degeneration of the stature of the office of the President and b) wasting another four years and nine months of this poor country’s destiny.

The taxes we have to pay

It is time for payment of income taxes and I have just complied with my duty as a citizen. I must admit that compared to what I would have paid elsewhere, I personally did not have to pay an exaggerated amount of tax. Why is it then, that I am not satisfied? Could it be that it is because I am being eaten away inside by a suspicion, already bordering on certainty, that my country would be better off had I not paid taxes at all?

On the same day I finished struggling through my tax forms, I read in the press about PDVSA´s fiscal contribution for 1997. This contribution amounted to all the Bolivares in the world. Upon cranking the numbers on my calculator which went into an exponential mode, I found that this boils down to a contribution per capita of Bs. 200,000 for every Venezuelan citizen, rich and poor, young and old.

I imagine that in the international world of taxation, these Bs. 200,000, which translate to US$ 400 per year, don’t qualify for a position at the top of the list. If, however, they are expressed in terms of some of the public services offered, these figures are numbing.

Every retired Venezuelan, those we hold dear to our hearts and affectionately refer to as “los viejitos”, is due to receive Bs. 50,000 per month in retirement pay. Using the technology provided for by modern accounting, i.e. re-expression, we can affirm that every Venezuelan, rich and poor, young and old have contributed, via the cession of his or her portion of oil income, an equivalent of 4 months of retirement pay to the nation’s coffers. These figures would undoubtedly qualify us, as taxpayers, for mention in the Guinness World Book of Records.

All of this is before we even get into what we all pay in sales tax, (VAT) which by law must not be specified in the final sales price of any product. This only hides even further the magnitude of the buyer’s contribution to the above mentioned coffers. Is this restriction due simply to bad conscience or to outright hooliganism? I will let others decide.

And all of this before we include the other hidden taxes such as the sky high telephone rates we must pay because the nation has sold concessions at elevated prices in order to raise fresh resources. Authorities (in this case Conatel) have already gone on record as stating that during the next bid for a concession of a cellular phone system, we “must not commit the same mistake of selling it cheaply, in obvious detriment of the interests of the State. We must try to get more than US$ 100 million for it”. Obviously, those US$ 100 million must be repaid by the end user, by way of higher tariffs. Obviously, nobody has considered the right of the common citizen to be able to communicate economically. One of these days it will occur to someone to announce the letting of a concession for pure air.

And all of this before we include the hidden taxes represented by the abominable public services we receive.

And all of this before we include the immense contribution of a healthy portion of the physicians, professors, teachers and other professionals that work and comply with their obligations, earning pay that is well below what it should be.

And all of this before the contribution of companies in the form of taxes on assets, which must be paid whether the company is in the black or in the red and which ultimately find their way to the final consumer.

And all this before we consider the astronomic taxes incurred due to a string of devaluations, the impact of which is proven when we see that never, before or after Columbus, has the public sector been so large in comparison to the private sector. The essence of any neo-liberal model is the reduction of the influence of the public sector on the economy. The tropicalized interpretation of this model by our government officials has allowed them to get rid of all that has become obsolete, that is causing them problems or even worse, that requires investment. It seems that their dream is to keep all fiscal income but without any of the corresponding obligations.

This series of inexhaustible fiscal contributions, voluntary and involuntary, evident and occult, is justified by the threat that, should we not pay up, we will have a monster deficit, inflation will eat us alive, and along with these two specters the big bad wolf will get us as well. Ladies and Gentlemen, inflation has been around for many years and the wolf has been here for some time. It seems to me he is dressed up as the taxman.

Venezuela’s problem cannot be found on the fiscal contribution side of the coin. Venezuela’s problem is found, with crystal clarity, on the fiscal spending side. This is why, by paying my income tax, I could be causing damage to my country. Something like giving drugs to an addict. Something like giving an alcoholic a bottle of rum. Something like treason.

The next time you see a dirty, tattered and hungry child abandoned in the streets without hope, remember that he has also contributed Bs. 200,000 to the Venezuelan State in 1997

PS. Fast forward: My tax paradise (nothing as powerful against tax havens than tax heavens)

Energy in Venezuela

The local press has recently published articles referring to the presentation by the National Executive to the National Energy Commission of a document which will lay out the plans to finally eliminate Venezuela’s rentist mentality. This means, basically, that increases in tariffs and prices of fuel are around the corner.

It seems clear that this document, in addition to establishing the bases for justifying new sources of income for the central government, will once again promote the thesis that the principal rentists of Venezuelan society are the common citizens, not its politicians and governors.

The identity card debacle is still fresh in our minds. This is a classic example of parasitic behavior. The Government was ready to dish out a macro-investment of US$ 500 million to solve the problems with our national identification system rather than putting just a little bit of effort into developing realistic and sane administration of the latter.

One of the main arguments used in the aforementioned document has to do with efficient use of our natural resources. The gist of the matter is that we are basically to forego the comparative advantages given us by nature in the form of abundant oil, gas and hydroelectric energy. Faced with high utility bills, companies and citizens alike must learn how to optimize and make more efficient use of these resources. The prime example of inefficient use of energy the authors of the document could come up with is that the Venezuelan aluminum and steel industry uses three time the amount of energy used in Japan.

This logic does not necessarily make sense, since Venezuela has abundant energy resources while Japan does not. The mix of production inputs such as capital, raw material and labor are usually established according to the conditions in each country. Surely most people would much rather see our comparative advantages be biased in favor of cheap energy rather than on cheap wages. It seems we don’t see eye to eye with the current or previous Governments on this.

On top of this both the aluminum and the steel industry have been managed by the State. Could it not be possible that this supposed inefficiency in the use of energy resources be related more than anything else to poor government administration?

The final blow was the publication in the press (on the same day the news of the document broke) of the invitation to prequalify for the privatization process of the power generation system of the State of Nueva Esparta. The basic terms of the invitation clearly stipulates that 100% of the shares will be sold to the highest bidder, on a strictly cash basis and without financing by the Venezuelan State.

This undoubtedly means that the power generation system will be allocated to the candidate who guarantees maximum income for the Central Government (which basically means charging higher rates to insure a return) rather than to the bidder that offers the Margariteño the best service and the lowest tariffs. Again, as far as I can see, this is just another example of the parasitic fiscal planning that has cost Venezuela immense amounts of financial resources and time. Why should Margarita pay tariffs that are higher than the in the rest of the country and might even be higher that what Venezuela will charge Brazil and Colombia for our exports of electricity? This makes no sense either.

For example, the implications of drastic increases in electricity rates for the hotel industry are horrible. A hotel needs a supply of abundant and continuous energy and there are preciously few ways to increase efficiency unless there is an unlimited amount of capital available which, for example, would allow for the importation of efficient but costly airconditioners. Today, faced with depressed room rates due to a flood of state owned supply and the lack of steady transportation due to Viasa’s exit, Margarita’s tourism industry simply does not have these resources.

Finally, as a sweetener, the Government most generously promises to limit its fiscal appetite to levels established by export values. This implies that it is it’s intention to at least not take undue advantage of the monopolistic conditions that tend to skew prices. We will live, eternally gratified with the hope that our average Venezolano will not one day pay more for each kilowatt of power than the average citizen in Tokyo.

It just must get smaller

Last week, the Finance Ministerndeclared that “there will be no modification to the sales tax simply to comply with the requests of the business community”. Immediately thereafter, he stated that “when tax evasion is reduced ... we could think of reducing the percentage of the sales tax”. There is no doubt that the official sector has become expert at applying the “divide and conquer” formula.

The desire to reduce sales tax levels is completely normal and common, typical of tax payers world-wide. The reduction of sales tax levels doesn’t only benefit the business community. On the contrary, given the progressive nature of this tax, the salaried workers are normally the ones who benefit most from this reduction. In this context, to divide Venezuelans into businessmen on one side and workers on the other seems out of place.

Another such “division” is between income earners that actually pay their taxes and those that don’t. This would imply that the payment of taxes in Venezuela is simply the result of individual social responsibility and not as in other countries, the result of the existence of an efficient tax collection entity which is perceived as severe but just.

Normally, a State would not even have the right to apply new taxes in the face of such a deplorably poor and inefficient collection process. If it does, instead of complying with its duty as promoter of justice, it is merely promoting just the opposite. Evidently, there is a dose of truth as far as its final implication is concerned, when the Minister declares that there is a possibility that our taxes will be reduced if and when our neighbor pays his. This, however, does not imply that we must become the collector of our neighbor’s taxes. This function is still exclusively in the hands of the States.

This discussion, however, is totally irrelevant in Venezuela. Since the State enjoys unrestricted use of “our” oil income which, by the way, is obtained through the use of a fiscal collection system that is so efficient that we don’t even notice it, it should not collect one more cent. The Venezuelan State is so immense for a country with a population of 20 million, that it is difficult for even the shrewdest of politicians to hide it.

These declarations, which point toward the probable lack of fiscal pressure in Venezuela, were written in the midst of the negotiation and signing of the centralized public administration labor contract framework which will benefit seven hundred and fifty (750,000) workers. For those who worry about the State’s capacity to efficiently manage such a large public sector, an olive branch is offered; the labor contract upholds advancement by merit and awards benefits for individual achievement and for fulfillment of duties as a public servant.

In reality, these comments are simply variations of old and well-known themes. Subjecting this article’s readers to another version of the Venezuelan tragedy is not meant to be an expression of refined sadism, but the unfortunate result of the identification of new threats that block the development of solid public opinion that would demand, for the benefit of all, a real reduction in the size of the Venezuelan State.

One of these threats comes from international multilateral entities. After much insistence on the necessity of reducing the role of the State in favor of the private sector, the message has now been increasingly oriented towards the need to improve the efficiency of the state. That is to say, there seems to be no need to reduce the size of the State. What it should be, is more efficient. This position, which is obviously logical when applied to the efficiency of a State which has already been reduced in size, will unfortunately simply be an excuse for our pro-bureaucracy politicians to maintain, or even increase, the size of our public sector.

The second threat is endogenous, much more subtle and therefore much more dangerous. The theory that the problems facing the administration of the public sector in Venezuela are based not on its size but on the will, capacity and affection for the country of its leaders has resurfaced as an issue around one particular pre-candidacy for the next presidential elections. This is evidently based in turn on this official’s excellent and admirable administrative achievements at a local level. We are again beginning to feel the first consequences when debates about the qualities of the pre-candidates bring up discussion about the merits of having solid political party administration experience versus the merits of political independence based on administrative capacity and personal integrity.

For someone convinced of the fact that even Bill Gates, reborn as Simón Bolívar (in other words, Mandrake The Magician) could not efficiently manage a country in which the State is as omnipresent as it is in Venezuela in the long run, these new theories are undoubtedly distressing.

Personally, and as a prerequisite to give my unconditional support, I will have to continue my search for a candidate with a less developed ego who recognizes that the future of our beloved country depends more on the dismantling of official bureaucracy than on its great will and capacity for work.

Per Kurowski