The following was posted by Artaxerses on the blog Notes From a Native Son: Reshuffling Sinckler Out of the Cabinet Needn’t Be Painful
Minister of Finance Chris Sinckler
Have we conveniently forgotten:
That the Minister of Finance and Economic Affairs, Christopher Sinckler said his life had been threatened and as a result, he is currently being ‘detailed’ by member of the local constabulary. He was reported as saying…..“On my way here I received a call from my secretary [telling me to] come back because a Superintendent from the Royal Barbados Police Force Special Services wanted to speak to me on a security matter… He told me that they had credible information that two people were overheard planning to shoot me.” What is the status of this investigation? Has the police Special Branch made any progress in determining the reason behind this alleged “hit” or the identities of the alleged “assassins”?
Sinckler’s comment that school children were being allowed to travel free on Transport Board buses as a measure of security, because they were being taken in and out of Barbados for the purpose of prostitution. Does not his statement contradict those reasons given by David Thompson’s during the 2008 budget presentation?
Sinckler’s revelation that he was reliably informed of a discussion held in a BLP secret meeting, which suggested…… should the BLP be elected to office in 2014, they would retrench 10,000 civil servants?
Will we be correct in viewing these comments as “red herrings”, the sole purpose of which, was to distract all and sundry from important issues, especially at a time when Sinckler was apparently under pressure?
Sinckler the politician = 100%
Sinckler as MoF = Reshuffle
Since Barbados is not a natural resource country (i.e we don’t have a whole lotta oil, gas, etc. to sell to others) I don’t get the PDC no taxes for anybody theory. Although to tell the truth I really like the idea. The no taxes thing almost mek me vote PDC last election.
David can you ask PDC to explain the no taxes theory again?
In real simple English this time.
@Hants April 11, 2014 at 4:21 PM “PDC is a think tank. We are still waiting for the PDC political party to run in an election”
Dear Hants: PDC ran candidates in the last 2 elections. Alas for PDC (and for me, since I was looking forward to the no taxation thingy) the total number of votes the party received totalled somewhat less than one dozen.
To the person behind the pseudonym, Simple Simon
Thanks for taking part in this very historic and revolutionary debate on BU.
However, there is absolutely no relationship between TAXATION in a country, and the mineral or convertible resources endowments of that country.
TAXATION is THEFT.
TAXATION is the willful and dishonest expropriation by the government of Barbados of countless portions of the remuneration properties of the relevant individuals businesses and other entities in this country (and) with the intention of the said government of Barbados permanently depriving the owners of those portions of their remuneration properties.
A serious criminological psychological/psychiatric assessment has to be done or carried by local criminologists and psychologists/psychiatrists to find out why governments of Barbados (mere people) have been constantly STEALING/ROBBING the relevant citizens, businesses and other entities of portions of their own remunerations; why persons aspire to get into governmental office; what (money) is within or without government that they wish to corruptly share with some of other people, or what corrupt covert schemes they wish to be a part of that seriously involves money; why they create electoral political groups, or become part of electoral political groups to facilitate their quest to be elected into the House of Assembly and, if possibly so, to be part of Cabinet of the government of this country.
Perhaps some of the results or findings would show that, even though they hide behind the veil of doing things on the so-called behalf of the people or in their names, they are not much characteristically attitudinally different from those that are classified as pilfers, kleptomaniacs, thieves, robbers, frauds, and who ever else of that class are dealt with by the criminal justice system in Barbados.
So, Simple Simon focus must be put on those and other relevant things in finding out why really this wicked evil TAXATION system has been continued even though it has clearly been founded on immorality, theft, fascism, totalitarianism, etc.
For, the USA is a very mineral and convertible resources rich country. So is South Africa, Guyana, etc., yet they have evil wicked robbing fascist TAXATION systems. Japan, Barbados do not have many mineral and convertible resources endowments, yet they have evil wicked robbing fascist TAXATION systems.
Too, for your information, do a research on the Xeer legal system and see what it says.
So, right away you must see that the persons who are behind them share evil, wicked, robbing, fascist motivations and attitudes among themselves in respect of their being substantially involved in these criminal enterprises.
PDC
To tell the truth Bushie is growing tired of the lotta shiite PDC is talking bout taxation now….
What theft what?!
“Taxation is conceptually the system used by a central government to pass on the cost of providing services and benefits to the members of that society. Services which are vital and necessary to the well-being of that society.” (Bushie, Just wake up, April 2014)
What the hell is evil about that?… when we voted for the people doing the spending and the taxing? It is only evil when UNLAWFUL governments impose such taxes and when they are onerous.
If we have governments who are doing shiite with the money ….like wasting it, theiving it, losing it or coming up with stupid illogical taxes to fund fly-by-night schemes like Sandals and the CAHILL project, then THAT shiite is EVIL.
Instead of constantly talking balls about evil taxation, PDC should spend more time on the part about “DOWN WITH THE DAMN DLP AND THE BLASTED BLP”….and who should be responsible for PROPERLY managing the tax system instead….
…based on the level of logic so far, it SURELY can’t be them…
Steupssss
@Bush Tea
Also the message of PDC does not resonate with many because we know that it does not make sense. Imagine political aspirants preaching a message of no taxation and those listening cannot understand or support.
Bushie
Follow my lead, when I see anything written by PDC and AC, I just scroll down or if I am using the iPad, I hit DELETE.
>
To the person behind the pseudonym, Simple Simon
Thanks for taking part in this very historic and revolutionary debate on BU.
However, there is absolutely no relationship between TAXATION in a country, and the mineral or convertible resources endowments of that country.
TAXATION is THEFT.
TAXATION is the willful and dishonest expropriation by the government of Barbados of countless portions of the remuneration properties of the relevant individuals businesses and other entities in this country (and) with the intention of the said government of Barbados permanently depriving the owners of those portions of their remuneration properties.
A serious criminological psychological/psychiatric assessment has to be done or carried by local criminologists and psychologists/psychiatrists to find out why governments of Barbados (mere people) have been constantly STEALING/ROBBING the relevant citizens, businesses and other entities of portions of their own remunerations; why persons aspire to get into governmental office; what (money) is within or without government that they wish to corruptly share with some other people, or what corrupt covert schemes they wish to be a part of that seriously involves money; why they create electoral political groups, or become part of electoral political groups to facilitate their quest to be elected into the House of Assembly and, if possibly so, to be part of Cabinet of the government of this country.
Perhaps some of the results or findings would show that, even though they hide behind the veil of doing things on the so-called behalf of the people or in their names, they are not much characteristically attitudinally different from those that are classified as pilfers, kleptomaniacs, thieves, robbers, frauds, and who ever else of that class that are dealt with by the criminal justice system in Barbados.
So, Simple Simon focus must be put on those and other relevant things in finding out why really this wicked evil TAXATION system has been continued even though it has clearly been founded on deep rooted immorality, theft, fascism, totalitarianism, etc.
For, the USA is a very mineral and convertible resources rich country. So is South Africa, Guyana, etc. Yet they have evil wicked robbing fascist TAXATION systems. Japan, Barbados do not have many mineral and convertible resources endowments, yet they have evil wicked robbing fascist TAXATION systems.
So, right away you must see that the persons who are behind them share evil, wicked, robbing, fascist motivations and attitudes among themselves in respect of their being substantially involved in these criminal enterprises.
Too, for your information, do a research of the Xeer legal system and see what it says.
PDC
Imagine once again the Nation Newspapers (Weekend Nation, Friday 11, 2014) are highlighting the case of the evil wicked TAXATION that is being imposed on the incomes of the owners of Subway by a rapacious, greedy and ignorant government of Barbados.
We say here now to the owners of that restaurant and to many other owners of businesses in this country to give us your moral and political support so that we can at the shortest possible time be a part of a winning coalition of parties in government and – believe it or not – so that, among other things, surely such egregious vulgar criminal nonsense will be a thing of the past in this country.
Forward ever, backward never!!
PDC
@ All
If you had been hounded by the Inland Revenue and levied to pay thousands of $$ in back taxes for 15 years as the spokesman of a particular aspiring political party has, you too would be stuck on the chant that Taxes are evil.
Add a little marijuana with its tetrahydrocannabinol or THC enhanced or a blackie and you have a stuck LP record a la PDC
@ Simple Simon
While i believe that wire transfers should instantaneously be reflected on pensioner accounts that foreign governments pay nationals/ex pats drawn on banks here in Bim given the exodus of scanners and high definition printers, it would be a rather foolish bank to honour a cheque of any type, drawn on an overseas financial institution, one which would have to be sent back to ovah and away for clearances, by giving the proceeds to a person here, irrespective of their monthly expenses.
THe USA pays its pensioners by direct deposit, in fact BNB now RBTT has bid for and gotten this VERRRRRYYY lucrative contract for receiving US pension cheques for that function.
It is just that someone has to tell the US Government that RBTT is profiteering off pensioner cheques and not making the $$ available immediately as they are paid and whaplax dat contract dun and de Trikidadians loss that interbank interest income.
With all the austerity measures that Canada is employing I would seriously dougt that they would continue to mail pensions across the world as opposed to using direct deposits, mine only come from the UK and the US so i will be guided by those who know better
@ Bush Tea
This whole PDC No Taxation debate is my fault… should have rested the matter instead of rebutting. It’s not really getting anywhere, and the more PDC explains, without clarity, the more they are making themselves susceptible to criticism.
But I am in agreement with David here as it relates to clarity, in that I am one who just don’t fully understand what they write. Especially with their usage of generalized, verbose statements comprising of syllogisms and redundancies, which makes it even much harder to read and comprehend. However, that does not mean there isn’t any merit in the content of PDC’s enunciations of policies/theories.
As David also rightly stated, if PDC is discussing testing the hypothesis of their “theory”, they have to demonstrate the validity of their research hypothesis that a no taxation policy is the best way forward for Barbados, ceteris paribus; then use the alternative/H1 and the null hypotheses to determine if the theory is tested to be true or false.We must be reminded that Fisher, who first introduced this concept of testing hypothesis, remarked that we can never prove something to be true; but we can prove something to be false.
But PDC won’t use this, these are archaic concepts developed by the bourgeoisies.
But Bushie, you realized that Yagga understands everything and has endorsed it as well. But den again, he got a knack for understanding such things … becausen he does write a lotta shiite too,
Artaxerxes,
We have previously said to you that the empirically testable hypotheses that are found within our No-TAXATION theory will be tested whenever we become part of a winning coalition of parties in government in this country, and NOT before.
These hypotheses themselves shall be part of the wider implementation by such a nationalist developmentalist people-centered coalitional regime of strategies and programs that will be geared towards the government having greater and fairer access to the use of money in this country to settle it bills, and its making greater use of resources, assets, buildings, professionals and such like in order to get greater revenues out the commercial processes of this country.
As far as testing for the null hypothesis of NO-TAXATION policy coming about in this country this shall become a very vacuous and otiose consideration for the regime, or shall run opposite to the fundamental assumptions and principles supporting this NO-TAXATION theory, as that – on the basis of those fundamental assumptions and principles – it shall be the unshakable policy and program of such a coalitional regime to actually bring such a No-TAXATION policy about in this country.
As well, it would certainly not be politically astute for us to be seen by any one to be deferring to any apparent scientificizing in regard of such, where, on one hand, there would greater certainty of ushering the policy using the full political apparatus of the state, and where, on the other hand, various reactionary regressive forces may use the opportunity of the holding of a referendum to substantially undermine the movement to what is necessary for the people of this country – total freedom from the evil scourge of TAXATION.
Finally, also, we do not at this stage have to demonstrate – as you have suggested – the validity of our research hypothesis that a No-TAXATION policy is the best way forward for the long term of this country, as that the political environment right now for testing for such a result is not conducive to proper impartial testing.
Moreover, were we to win the government of this country at any time in the future, we are not even saying now that we are going to be committed to the holding of a referendum on the question, even though it would appear to us that a referendum would appear – in that way – to be the best instrument for the partial testing of such a hypothesis.
Hence, our primary focus shall be to do all that is necessary fair and right to help usher in a post-TAXATION society for Barbados.
PDC
@PDC
In essence using bajan vernacular you will ask the electorate to buy a pig in a bag?
@pieceuhderockyeahright “With all the austerity measures that Canada is employing I would seriously doubt that they would continue to mail pensions across the world as opposed to using direct deposits…”
Look here and you will see that CPP beneficiaries living in Barbados cannot receive their pensions by direct deposit
http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/recgen/dd/etranger-abroad-eng.html
@ Caswell
Man Bushie used to follow your lead…but Artaxerxes went and make the topic interesting…and got Bushie hooked….
…and to be honest, there IS a need for tax reform….
….on the other hand there is also a need for some psychiatric help for PDC….
@ Artaxerxes
LOl Ha Ha Ha …
Boss….your analysis is bang on….even Yagga will agree Ha Ha
Even PDC must realize that their hypothesis is (H0) since their conclusion that a NO TAX regime for Barbados is viable is clearly….BULL.
HOWEVER….one cannot but admire the high level of academic verbosity with wich PDC has been peddling their shiite talk…. Case in point….
“These hypotheses themselves shall be part of the wider implementation by such a nationalist developmentalist people-centered coalitional regime of strategies and programs that will be geared towards the government having greater and fairer access to the use of money in this country to settle it bills, and its making greater use of resources, assets, buildings, professionals and such like in order to get greater revenues out the commercial processes of this country.”
Sweet…..!!!
…think Georgie Brathwaite PhD (soon to be) could touch that…? 🙂
David,
You stated: “In essence using bajan vernacular you will ask the electorate to buy a pig in a bag?”
Why do you think we are currently having this very historic and revolutionary debate on the evolution towards a post-TAXATION society for Barbados on BU?
Why do you and others on here think that this debate is being characterized as such?
Why?
For, never before in the history of this country has there been a structured debate on the subject of the ABSOLUTE REMOVAL of this evil wicked anti-developmental TAXATION system from the political financial landscape in Barbados.
Why do you think that the person going by the pseudonym – Artaxerxes – is facetiously claiming – in a previous blog under this thread – to have started this debate, David? Why? Why do you think that – in spite of what appears to be your best efforts on here to prevent or stifle it – this debate on the evolution towards a post-TAXATION society for Barbados will NEVER go away? Huh??!!
Well, it is fundamentally because of the fact that it is within your DNA, and everybody else’s DNA, for that matter, to be naturally free of any form of oppression and subjugation. Thus, it is from this form of existential psychology that there will – from time to time – present the opportunity for every living adult in Barbados to – at any time – reject anything that is constructed in a social political way, and that is non-negotiable oppression and subjugation – such as this anti-human TAXATION is.
Right now, this debate is THE most important one taking place in the country!!
For, whereas the intellectual and political focuses of this great debate that is taking place on BU – are on the subject of the ABSOLUTE LIBERATION FREEDOM of ALL the people, ALL the businesses and ALL other entities of this country from the evil scourge of TAXATION in this country, it is absolutely foreboding that the intellectual and political focus of the debates on the subject of TAXATION in the House of Assembly of the Parliament of this country are on imposing more and more of this fascist TAXATION on the backs of the relevant people, businesses and other entities of this country, thus placing them more and more under this criminal yoke of TAXATION.
And some persons on this blog network might not realize the great significance of this debate in helping to shape their own or many others future political destiny in Barbados, beyond the fact that they are open to participate in a debate on a subject that has NEVER been put to the people of this country by the intellectually and politically backward decrepit DLP and BLP disorganizations.
But we are hoping that they will eventually realize such, even in a context where NO MINISTER OF FINANCE of any government in the history country has ever come to any segment of the people or of stakeholder interests in a town hall type gathering of people and even explained a part of the true history of TAXATION, or ever leveled with them on their rights to reject repudiate any form of TAXATION in any forum at any time in this country.
Their intentions have been to keep as many people in this country in ignorance and in denial about the evil and darkness of TAXATION. But with the coming about of the revolutionary new media those intentions are going to be thwarted by an ever growing knowledge thirsty people seeking the otherwise hidden truth about TAXATION, and who will greater find it, via much of the enlightened truths of this world that are greater accessed more and more as time goes by, via much of the very critical positive information and knowledge that is put on the broader revolutionary new media.
So, so fundamentally of great importance and significance is this debate that we have even been directing more people to the path breaking pioneering debate taking place on the blog network.
Finally, though, our disappointment is with your lack of a contribution to the debate itself, and, again, as is seen in the type of statement that you have made above and that we have cited in this PDC post.
It is obvious that such a lack of contribution does not reflect the truth that there is momentum building towards the elimination of TAXATION in this country.
PDC
@PDC
Then get on the talk shows, write traditional media, get your website up and running, get VISIBLE!
David,
We agree with your suggestions.
But it does not mean that many people in Barbados must not see or must not create for THEMSELVES roles to perform in this great human cause.
PDC
@PDC
Less talk, DO!
David, Artaxerxes, and all others
Below is a significant and trenchant extraction that we have largely reproduced to give greater and greater support to the fact that TAXATION is THEFT.
Hence, in an online contribution fff.org/../all-taxation-is-theft/ entitled ALL TAXATION Is Theft (April 3, 2013), Laurence M Vance reports the late Austrian economist, Murray Rothbard, as having said that:
“All other persons and groups in society (except for acknowledged and sporadic criminals such as thieves and bank robbers ) obtain their income voluntarily: either by selling goods and services to the consuming public or by voluntary gift (e.g. membership in a club, or association, bequest, or inheritance) ONLY the state obtains its revenue ( the PDC disagrees with that epithet though) by coercion, by threatening dire penalties should the income not be forthcoming. That coercion is known as taxation, although in less regularized epochs, it was often known as “tribute”. TAXATION is theft, purely and simply, even though it is theft on a grand and colossal scale which no acknowledged criminals could hope to match. It is a compulsory seizure of the property of the state’s inhabitants or subjects”.
Vance went on to write, in the online publication, that, “it would be an instructive exercise for the skeptical reader to try to frame a definition of taxation which does not also indicate theft”.
So there you go.
PDC
@PDC
Forget taxation for a moment, think democracy, expression of a people to express themselves within said democracy, think global international and financial frameworks, Please locate your idea (unproved theory) in this context first.
Has PDC ever explained how they would run a government with no taxation?
How would public workers be paid?
How would PDC run the QEH? Transportation? Schools?
Would Barbados be a free for all?
Would PDC’s elected members get salaries, if so from where?
These are but I few questions to which I would want answers!
@ PDC
“Laurence M Vance reports the late Austrian economist, Murray Rothbard, as having said that:……..”
This is rather confusing, on one hand you have constantly challenged the validity of economists and their economic theories, deeming such polices as being archaic; yet you are relying on an economist who is spewing ideas similar to yours. Isn’t this hypocritical?
“Rothbard rejected the application of the scientific method to economics, and dismissed econometrics, empirical and statistical analysis, and other tools of mainstream social science as useless for the study of economics. He instead embraced praxeology, the strictly a priori methodology of Ludwig von Mises. Praxeology conceives of economic laws as akin to geometric or mathematical axioms: fixed, unchanging, objective, and discernible through logical reasoning, without the use of any evidence.”
Rothbard was no different an “experimental economist” than Keynes, and he embraced Marx’s views. In the above extract, the phrase “without the use of any evidence” raises a red flag. If PDC accepts Rothbard’s theories, it proves what David and the others were saying all along……. Your no taxation policy is just an idea, because, as a “theory”, it was formulated without evidence that it will be sustainable in the short or long term. It has not undergone any economical hypothesis testing to substantiate it could work.
BY DR CLYDE MASCOLL | THU, APRIL 10, 2014 – 12:00 AM
The failure to take care of Barbados’ fiscal problems, notwithstanding the preparation of the first fiscal strategy document in 2010, now threatens the previously solid reputations of some of the country’s major institutions – the labour unions, the Central Bank, the National Insurance Scheme (NIS) and the credit unions.
Currently, the labour movement is fighting public perception that it has been weak and very accommodating with the Government. It is a perception that will persist. The movement accepted that a public sector job is more valuable than a private sector one. This view sought to justify the creation of public sector jobs in a declining economy to counter job losses in the private sector.
Such a view is predicated on increasing taxation in the face of less aggregate spending. Both households and businesses are asked to sacrifice their already reduced spending power to allow the Government to spend more. This is a case of economic ignorance parading as political savvy. Such thinking has a short shelf life.
The failure to take care of the fiscal problems benefited the labour movement as public sector jobs were created at the expense of existing workers for short-term political gain.
In accommodating the Government’s excessive spending with the printing of money, in the form of advances and holdings of treasury bills, the Central Bank’s ability to earn profits has been strangely compromised in recent years. History shows that the Central Bank has been most profitable during periods of economic recession. The question is, why is it now making losses?
The bank’s foreign investments have earned less income over the last three to four years, but this does not explain the losses of the bank. It is clear that domestic activities are mainly responsible for the losses.
In 1992, the bank made its biggest profit of $30.2 million, followed by $15.0 million in 1993. The numbers reveal that most of the increase in income came from interest earned on advances to both commercial banks and the Government in particular. In addition, interest was earned from the purchase of treasury bills.
Of the $25.8 million in income from advances earned by the Central Bank in 1992, advances to the commercial banks accounted for just $7.3 million. This means that advances to the Government made up a significant portion of the residual. It is true that the level of interest rates was higher in the early 1990s but there is clear evidence to show that interest rates
have been deliberately suppressed to reduce the cost of debt to the Government.
The Government is not only being accommodated by the bank through the excessive printing of money, but the cost of debt is being contained. Unfortunately, this is affecting the profitability of the bank.
In the circumstances, the bank has to be recapitalised by its only shareholder, the Government, which does not have the wherewithal to do so, unless it issues some form of securities.
The failure to take care of the fiscal problems has not benefited the Central Bank, which is now finding itself in need of restructuring.
The National Insurance Scheme has carried its fair share of the burden of financing Government spending since it was reformed. Unfortunately, it is too restricted in the amount of foreign investment in which it can engage and therefore has to rely too heavily on local investments. The Government takes advantage of this reality, but there has to be a limit to taking so many eggs from one basket.
Given the concerns raised about the investment portfolio of the NIS in the past, it is again unfortunate that the current fiscal problems have been pursued without reference to the implications for the most critical “financial” institution in Barbados.
The progress, not so easily won since Independence, is being seriously threatened by an administration that failed to see the bigger picture. It is now the case that the youngest among us will not have access to an educational system that appreciated its role in redressing social imbalance, and a health system that minimised the ability to pay as a way of giving us access to the most precious social good on earth.
Put the consequences for our major institutions, including the University of the West Indies and the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, of the current fiscal crisis together and then imagine a shattered credit union movement on top of it all.
Dr Clyde Mascoll is an economist and Opposition Barbados Labour Party adviser on the economy.
Artaxerxes | April 13, 2014 at 8:56 PM |
@ PDC
“Laurence M Vance reports the late Austrian economist, Murray Rothbard, as having said that:……..”
This is rather confusing, on one hand you have constantly challenged the validity of economists and their economic theories, deeming such polices as being archaic; yet you are relying on an economist who is spewing ideas similar to yours. Isn’t this hypocritical?
……………………………………………………………………..
Question to Ata..
Is economics a true science?
If so how&why.
To David, Artaxerxes, and all others
There are various online sites referencing the fact that Judge Andrew Napolitano – a former New Jersey Superior Court Judge – said of TAXATION some time ago; “I’ll say this plainly, I have said it before – taxation is theft. It presumes the government has a higher claim on our propery than we do”.
While we are not libertarian like Napolitano, we are clearly in harmony with him on the fact that TAXATION is Theft.
To David,
You are being tautological in your hurry to define democracy.
Also, as far as the PDC is concerned, democracy does not exist at the national level of this country. It is a misnomer and falsehood to say that Barbados is a democracy.
Anyhow, on the question of certain international forces ( OECD, Paris Club, etc) moving against what they call harmful tax competition and which we think is another question that you were getting at since yesterday in this debate, what though we would have to say to you and others on here and elsewhere – who might be having anxieties or might be being skeptical about the implementation of such a NO-TAXATION policy by a winning coalitional regime in the face of what you and they think would lead to a path of possible threats by these people to sanction us, is this, that our NO-TAXATION theory cannot reasonably be placed by anyone within such a context of such likely international thuggery, as that, there shall be no question that we shall have the sovereign right to determine what we would long ago have concluded when were not in governmental office and given that we would have gone into government then, it would simply be that we would have been seeking to implement what we would have been fundamentally conscientiously knowing for a long time – that it has never been legally politically improper injudicious for the government of Barbados to have been taxing the remuneration properties of any one any business any other entity – local or foreign – within the country’s jurisdiction, and so our fundamental quest would have been therefore the bringing about of proper alternatives to TAXATION.
As a matter of fact the many ideological political assumptions, propositions, principles, etc forming much of the core of this NO-TAXATION theory would show how we would be even now on the right and proper path to dealing dealing with the remuneration properties of locals and foreigners.
PDC
@ Vincent Haynes
I thought this debate was about PDC’s no taxation policy?
I think you should focus on the topic instead of making this debate about me and if I believe economics is a true science or not. I see no correlation between the no taxation policy and what I think.
@PDC
Please know you are entitled to your view, this is not in question. Although the judge’s view reconciles with yours it does not explain away whether your idea (theory?) can support a robust public policy to run country. This is the issue being debated.
Artaxerxes | April 13, 2014 at 9:29 PM |
@ Vincent Haynes
I thought this debate was about PDC’s no taxation policy?
I think you should focus on the topic instead of making this debate about me and if I believe economics is a true science or not. I see no correlation between the no taxation policy and what I think
…………………………………………………………………………….
Thanks Ata….for answering the question,,,much obliged.
In the PDC post just above, and in the second last paragraph, lines 18 and 19, it should have been: ” that it has never been legally politically proper judicious…..”
Our sincere apologies.
PDC
Artaxerxes,
It is not hypocritical fundamentally because it does not change our view of economics and economists on the whole. All we just did was to have done the necessary online research and that was what we were led to.
We did not seek out Murray Rothbard, we were led to him vis-a-vis our linking with the contribution by Vance in the said online publication. It was Vance who cited Rothbard not us.
Moreso, it is clear that even though Rothbard’s was an economist, it was his personal point of view he was proffering, as that that position itself is found no where within mainstream economics, and too that position is not the revealed position of mainstream economists here in Barbados or elsewhere.
PDC
Can’t see why you ‘corrected’ that phrase PDC….neither the original NOR the “corrected” phrases makes any sense…..
…but both sound sweet as $&%#¥ though…. Ha Ha
To the person going by the pseudonym – Prodigal Son
We have been going through those types of questions so many times on here and elsewhere.
You can go back to a contribution we had made on here under a particular thread on the 24th of February, 2014, to find out how we and so many others in Barbados would essentially go about fashioning a post-TAXATION society for Barbados.
One thing must also be made very clear by us, to you too, that the statuses of workers of the government – called public workers by many people in Barbados – will be no longer, under a winning coalitional regime of which the PDC will be part, as that such statuses will evolve into the statuses of partners in State Partnership Incorporated – a proposed new entity to manage the affairs of the government of this country.
PDC
For those people in Barbados who are seriously interested in forming a foundation against TAXATION in Barbados, visit voluntaryist.com, and you will see a very good anonymously filed essay there – not on how to go about forming it, but about addressing the question: Do You Really Owe Those Taxes?
Read it!!
It does make compelling reading.
PDC
PDC
We got you on taxation. But do you have a wider manifesto? So you plan to contest every constituency if a general election is called?
To the person going by the reference Let’s Impeach The DLP
We wish to let you know that when Dr. Clyde Mascoll was Leader of the Opposition in government, he conveyed to us how it would be a political master stoke, were a PDC government to ABOLISH TAXATION in this country.
We were not part of the Coalition of Unified Parties of Barbados then.
At the time, we were insisting that he understood our Theory of NO-TAXATION.
PDC
Artaxerxes,
You wrote in the relevant contribution above, the following: “If PDC accepts Rothbard’s theories (which? and about?), it proves what David and the others were saying all along (how could one assume an assertion and not knowing whether it is correct or not, conclude by saying “it proves”, leaves us wondering where you are coming from?) (that) your NO-Taxation policy is just an idea because as a theory (now you are again fallacizing here), it was formulated without evidence that it will be sustainable in the short or long term. It has not undergone any economical hypothesis testing to substantiate it could work”.
We do not know if you are a serious supporter of the inductive method in science, but what we will categorically write again now for the benefit of your understanding, and this time more clearly, is this: that our NO -TAXATION theory is based also on the hypothetico-deductive method in science.
You obviously know that they are theories that are formulated without the necessary evidence to support parts of them at given times.
When we become part of a certain winning coalitional regime, and we begin to put the alternatives to TAXATION in place, this will be when much of the testing of the relevant empirically testable hypotheses and the gathering of proper evidence will be figure.
PDC
@PDC
You obviously don’t understand that any platform agenda you promote will have to withstand a certain rigour.
Hal Austin,
The question of having a manifesto would have to be directed to a decision of a particular meeting of the CUP and held at the appointed place and time in the not too distant future to decide upon that question.
We are hoping to run as many candidates as possible.
Can you assist us in getting more of the right candidates to contest the next elections? Or assist in the formation of a new viable forward looking people-centred party to contest the next elections?
For, as it stands now, an unprecedented huge number of prospective voters in Barbados are calling for the removal of the DLP and BLP from the political landscape of this country.
There is therefore the distinct possibility of a new disciplined well organized nationalist developmentalist people-centered political organization winning a general election in this country in less than five years from now.
The DLP and BLP are two old and irrelevant intellectually moribund political species that must be got the rid of by the broad masses and middle classes of Barbados from the political governmental landscape of this country as soon as possible.
PDC
PDC;
I have been sporadically following your “no taxation” proposals and think that it needs a lot of work. You have not shown how this system will work in the real world. The examples of countries quoted appear to be ones which have instituted “No Income tax” where income tax has been replaced by other taxes. Those jurisdictions work reasonably well.
But no taxes whatsoever! It seems to be a pipe dream. Show us how you are proposing to get the resources to run the essential institutions in the country and support the needy.
Most of these banks have US, Pound Sterling and Canadian accounts in these major cities with Banks thus it’s fraudulent of the banks. The most these foreign draft and cheques should be held for for if the need be is 36 hours.
@Former Banker
Yes but the banks overseas have to process and clear those checks overseas the same way we do in Barbados no? Maybe Sargeant can help here.
@ PDC
“If PDC accepts Rothbard’s theories (which? and about?); (how could one assume an assertion and not knowing whether it is correct or not, conclude by saying “it proves”, leaves us wondering where you are coming from?) (that) your NO-Taxation policy is just an idea because as a theory (now you are again fallacizing here)”
This is utter rubbish, you have made an irrational generalisation of an absolute statement.
Instead of trying to over analyse contributions of other individuals, place your efforts in clearly explaining your policies. For example:
What are the long-term and short-term implications of a no taxation policy on Barbados?
Under such a policy will we see an abolishment of the civil service?
If not, will taxes be replaced by duties as is done in the Bahamas and Bermuda to pay public sector employees and provide social services?
How will the Central Bank fit in this scheme of things?
How do the economies of those countries with no taxation policies differ from that of Barbados?
Will Barbados have to forego any treaties or MOU’s it has signed with the international rating agencies and financial institutions?
Will there be a change in the constitution in the event that you will not follow our present parliamentary system?
How will you manage the overall economy?
This is the type of information people are interested in reading about. Stick to the topic of explaining the idea.
@ Artaxerxes
Boss…
Surely you can take a hint by now…… 🙂
Artaxerxes
Are you trying to help the PDC fine tune their approach
by your arguments ?
I am sure that you are helping by your counter points.
As one open to debate , I see your contribution as -help -even if you did not mean to help. By engaging the discussion you are contributing. The next step is to combine forces.
Please note that I am not happy with your statement that I does write lot o shite. I am not happy about that statement at all because I believe that all views should be respected and that there is always something that can be had from anybody even if in rejection of the persons writings or approach it galvanizes you in a particular direction and help you to focus on your own thoughts and ideas. I do not like the idea of dismissing people as though people do not matter. Everyone matters: Everyone is important. Everyone has a role to play.
To the person going by the reference Are-we-there-yet,
There is on http://www.brennerbrief.com/15-countries, a bit of a compilation by a named person that makes mention of 15 countries that do not “pay income taxes”, and there are Monaco, Kuwait, Bermuda, UAE, Andorra, British Virgin Islands, Qatar, Bahamas, Oman, Brunei, Cayman Islands, Anguilla, Maldives, Turks and Caicos and Vanuatu.
Now, no one pays income taxes, for, in the first place, the government is stealing robbing a person, business, or any other entity of their remuneration properties. In the second place, nominal remunerations are – for the PDC – grouped into four categories productive or commercial incomes, commercial revenues, non-commercial revenues, and transfers (we will deal with such at a later time in this intellectual dynamic). So, there is the fact that all taxes are remuneration taxes. The government is therefore stealing robbing countless portions of the remunerations of others on an ongoing basis. We do not know why you placed income taxes in brackets, in your contribution above, but what we do know is that there is not one form of TAXES (income taxes). Well, we regrettably for a long time used to think so, until a few years ago, when we realized that there are really different areas of business activity that cannot reasonably be providing a “one size fit all” description for all the money coming into them, even though the latter (the concept/activity of all the money coming in thereto) can be referred to – as a general type – as remunerations received, but in using this description, it still providing for allowances for the differences in the ways remunerations are actually given and got – hence the four groups of remunerations.
It must be very clear to careful readers of our posts that we are therefore, when writing on here about the ABOLITION of TAXATION, dealing with ALL remuneration TAXES – not just income taxes a la the 15 countries named above.
It is from all remuneration taxes – taxes on productive/commercial incomes, taxes on commercial revenues, taxes on non-commercial revenues, taxes on transfers, and from which there are derived those money proceeds.
So, in our NO-TAXATION theory, we are dealing with the ABOLITION of ALL TAXES in this country. How we and many others are going to go about doing that and the theoretical outlines of the strategies/programs that we and they intend to use to help us do so, and to replace TAXATION, you can get a little insight from in a contribution that we made on here under a particular thread sometime ago on the 24 of February, 2014.
So, there you go.
PDC
The Government is taking my money without my Consent
@ Yagga Rowe
“Everyone matters: Everyone is important. Everyone has a role to play.”
Your point is taken, you are absolutely correct.
@Artax
Yes all opinions matter but if in your opinion the opinion offered is arrant nonsense or irrelevant why not show honesty and say so?
@ PDC
There are no personal income taxes in Brunei, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, or UAE. However, what these countries have in common is the exportation of crude oil, petroleum and natural gas. These economies of these countries are supported by revenues earned by the importation of oil and its derivatives, as well as from taxing foreign owned companies. For example, Brunei is supported by revenue earned by the export of crude oil and natural gas, and substantial income from overseas investments supplements income from domestic production.
The economies of Monaco and Andorra are supported predominately by tourism. Monaco is famous for its casino gambling, while tourism makes up approximately 80% of Andorra’s GDP.
There are no natural resources in Barbados, in which potential investors can invest. And unlike the countries listed above, business conditions are not conducive in Barbados that would attract millionaire or billionaire investors, as it relates to the facilitation of such investment. Then what is there to invest in?
In essence, revenues earned from oil exports are used, in lieu of taxes, by the government to provide all necessary goods and services.
OK;
I think we are now getting somewhere.
As I now understand it the PDC seems to be proposing that ALL taxes be abolished. The various private sector agencies and individuals will earn their money without Government putting its hands in their pockets and extracting taxes. Government’s services would be funded substantially by Government itself earning monies from its ownership of land and various productive paying enterprises, such as perhaps Hotels, Sugar Factories, Cricket teams, other sports teams, ships, aircraft, apartments, etc. I.e. Government will be competing with the private sector in making money but that money will be used entirely to fund the various Defense, welfare and other necessary enterprises that cannot make money on their own.
Sounds like something that could be debated. First question; How would this brave new system be more efficient and less corrupt than the current one?
Artaxerxes,
We note the unwarranted and uncalled for attack on Yagga Rowe.
We deplore it.
We wish that you would leave that for the political platform.
Here is not the medium to carry out such personal attacks.
Attack us politically instead.
Too, you accused us of having made an “irrational generalization of an absolute statement”, but we are yet to understand where is the evidence of this.
Your slip seems to be showing.
Anyhow, we agree with you that we must continue to explain many aspects of our NO-TAXATION theory for the benefit of the greater understanding of those who are reading these particular PDC posts about this NO-TAXATION theory/policy.
But, what we must tell you is that many of the questions you asked in your 9.47 am, April 14, 2014 blog, we have previously provided information on in our various posts on BU over the years.
For instance, as it relates to the question of the abolition of the civil service.
Though we have not said that we will abolish the public sector, what we have said on many occasions – on BU – is that there shall be the restructuring, redevelopment and, where necessary, the reconstitution of government sector.
First of all, therefore, what we have in many of those instances stated, and which we now reiterate, is that, under a certain winning coalitional political regime, there shall be the removal of the British Monarchy as Head of State of this country (assuming that on our coming to office this shall still be the case).
The British Monarch shall no longer be head of the executive affairs of the government of this country.
The Head of such affairs shall be an elected Executive President – a clearly proven citizen of this country – (first for a trial period of a few years elected by the majority of a popularly elected Executive Cabinet of the government – then after that, he/she shall be popularly elected by a majority of voters of this country at elections held for such a purpose at a fixed date.
He/she shall be charged – ultimately/after the Secretary of Finance – with making sure that the government is constantly on a strong rational financial, commercial, material and social footing on the basis of equally strong and viable commercial business development investment trading marketing technological programs and strategies.
An essential part of this proposed change to a republican form of government, is that there shall be no swearing of any official oaths by the non-elected partners of State Partnership Incorporated, to any overseas head of state, or to any local or foreign office, or to any body here or overseas. Only the nationally elected partners of State Partnership Incorporated shall have to swear official oaths of allegiance to the people of Barbados, unless it shall be against their consciences to do so.
The PDC has also often stated that the government sector shall – in the context of the Abolition of TAXATION – be made more entrepreneurial, commercial and industrial than ever before, whilst at the same time still being able to carry out its social, welfare, security, physical development and foreign affairs responsibilities.
As such, the principal organizing structures shall no longer be the Ministry, Statutory Corporations, companies, and so on and so forth, under the control of government, but shall be – as the PDC has often promulgated many times before – those principal ones mainly helping to constitute a new state management entity that shall be responsible for managing the entire affairs of the government.
We have often said too that this shall mean that the owners of this new entity shall be the partners of it, whether it relates to its central or to its subsidiary operations, to its judicial arm or its legislative arm or executive arm.
There shall be the redundancy of the Service Commissions and their functions in the context of this new managerial administration dispensation. Each division or subsidiary of State Partnership Incorporated shall create, and from time to time, elect its own committee – from within or without the division or subsidiary – for the establishment of recruitment, training, discipline, promotion, transfer of partners within each division or subsidiary etc. Each shall be responsible for leading the division or subsidiary. In the final analysis, each committee shall – on a majority or unanimous basis – make such recommendations as are necessary in regard of recruitment of other partners, training, discipline, promotion, transferment, for the majority of partners of the division or subsidiary, at a set meeting, at a set date, to decide upon – to accept, reject, vary, postpone a decision, etc.
This new national partnerships dispensation shall also involve the social political evolution from the statuses of workers, to the statuses of partners, and this shall apply to whom so ever, where so ever, not only in the public sector, but also the private sector, in the NGO sector and any where else workers were found at the time of the enactment of this legislation indicating the coming about of partnerships as the only multi-member corporate business entities possible across those various sectors in Barbados.
Where it relates to the question of critical information concerning the operations and functions of every partnership, it shall be the law that every partner in any partnership enterprise in any sphere of the jurisdiction of Barbados, shall have the legal right to have that all the very important necessary information reportage from the managing partners (called them that now) of the partnership, to avail themselves of, as theirs, for their retention, reading, studying, and most importantly for the facilitating of their effective participation in and control of the particular partnership.
They shall also have the legal right to call for, and to secure a quorum, for any official corporate meetings of any partnership as a means for helping to secure relevant written or spoken details records about the goings on of these partnerships.
Such revolutionary changes shall – in respect of the government sector – mean the absolute and necessary dispensing with the OffIcial Secret Act and regulations, directions and other rules falling there under.
As well, it must be the case that there shall be no business concerning public that shall be regarded as protected by means of secrecy, other than that which is in the interest of the national security of this country.
So, there you go.
PDC
@David
Yes but the banks overseas have to process and clear those checks overseas the same way we do in Barbados no
+++++++++++
“Former Banker” should be more explicit, if the Banks have accounts in other countries those accounts will have no bearing on the clearing of cheques drawn on other accounts in those countries
@Sargeant
If Republic bank in Barbados sends its US checks to a bank in the US to clear the checks will then have to be sent via their clearing systems to other US banks no? In the BU comments overseas is the incorrect word to use.
@David
If Republic bank in Barbados sends its US checks to a bank in the US to clear the checks will then have to be sent via their clearing systems to other US banks no
++++++++++++
In a word yes, the Bank in the US will have to clear the cheque through its clearing system, but there are thousands of Banks in the USA and their clearing system may be more complicated that the system in Canada or Barbados for that matter.
Another complication in dealing with cheques issued in the USA, the Bank in Barbados may not be able to clear via another Bank in the USA and it may have to send the cheque via snail mail on “Collection” to the issuing Bank which may mean a wait of several weeks before the Bank on which the cheque is drawn returns the funds by Draft or some other means of payment. I suspect that is where the four or six weeks waiting period is applied.
@David
BTW cheques drawn on Banks in England are also sent on “Collection” as has happened to relatives of mine. The Bank will take the cheque and give you a receipt but the credit doesn’t show up in your until several weeks after
@ PDC
Now we’re getting somewhere… your contribution was coherent and informative. That’s all we were asking… for you to clearly state your policies, and now you have done so, it’s left to us to read and comprehend it.
Artaxerxes,
You said in the last paragraph of your 1.43 pm blog, under this thread, that “In essence, the revenues earned from oil exports are used – in lieu of taxes by government, to provide for necessary goods and services”.
Now, if we were to proved something to you, it is the following.
In the petroleum exporting countries that we referred to out of the 15 countries, the revenues are not earned from the exportation of petroleum and its derivatives.
The revenues are got from the use of money by the exporter customers.
The revenues do not provide for any goods and services.
The revenues provide for remunerations to the relevant others and the basis for Taxation.
But before going any further let us here now recite another fundamental principle concerning Money and its uses in Barbados – that there can be no incomes or revenues given by customers/clients to business people, businesses, or their agents, without representation by money and its actual use by the customers/clients.
Well, what you may call incomes/revenues might – in fact – be just computer numbers in the exporters’ accounts in overseas financial institutions.
So, assuming that you are dealing with actual money, here is what we do further remark.
That the amount of incomes/revenues available to the export countries will be determined by the amount of denominations of foreign money in circulation (USDs, British Pounds, etc) given the vast number of people competing for their uses, and its real actual cost of use. So realistically those are the principal ways incomes/revenues are determined, and not in any ways by the amount of petroleum exported by those countries. If those foreign incomes/revenues are artificially juxtaposed with local incomes/revenues, then the amount of localized incomes/revenues available to the exporters are determined by the amount of denominations of local money in circulation, given the number of local people and businesses competing for its uses, and its real actual cost of use.
The truth though is that overseas revenues (if represented in USDs or Pounds) cannot be artificially juxtaposed with local incomes/revenues without dealing with the use of the local currency of the particular export country. So to the extent that the government would otherwise tax the foreign revenue of oil exporters, only allows it – in the face of others competing for the use of local money – to use an amount of local money that is relatively fixed out of their core financial system – relative to the likely/actual proportion of taxed foreign revenue – to give towards the remunerations of the people who are to get remunerations in the context of the provision of necessary goods and services.
Finally, what can be deduced from these types of happenings is that the more in foreign numbers that are subtracted for purposes of artificial taxation numbers, the less of actual money that is AVAILABLE POSSIBLE out of the core financial system for remuneration purposes for those within government providing goods and services and for those doing business with government, and the less in foreign numbers that are subtracted for purposes of artificial taxation numbers, the more of actual money that is AVAILABLE POSSIBLE out of the core financial system for remuneration purposes for those within government providing goods and services, and for those doing business with government.
So we posit that because there is (less) taxation on the incomes/revenues of petroleum exporters, and because of so relatively fewer people, businesses and other entities competing for the use of so much money than the millions and millions are, say, in Great Britain, are two of the primary reasons why they are able to properly give transfers to government workers and persons doing business with any of those rich oil states.
And we posit that because there is ( much) taxation on the commercial revenues and the non-commercial revenues of the export sectors of Barbados, and that because there are so many people, businesses and other entities competing for such little money, are two of the primary reasons why the government of Barbados has been for a long time unable to properly give transfers to government workers and those doing business with the government.
These fiscal/financial outcomes therefore have nothing to do with the abundance of mineral or convertible resources, or the lack of them, in a country. But every thing to do with the correct availability of money, the amount of people or sectors competing for its uses, and the level of real actual cost of use of money.
But these amounts of money that are actually coming out of the core financial system, will continue to get substantially less and less as the government gets more and more significant artificial credit transfers out of the core financial system here (which mainly allows the government to get the CFS to give more money to the remunerations of public servants and those doing business with the government) and as it has to eventually make greater and greater artificial debit transfers to the same core financial system here over time (which mainly allows the government to get the CFS to give less money to the remunerations of public servants and those doing business with the government) – these described financial happenings – involving the government of Barbados – do contribute hugely to the astronomically high real actual cost of use of money in the country right now.
PDC
To the person going by the reference are-we-there-yet
You asked: “how would this brave new system be more efficient and less corrupt than the current one?”.
Legally, constituents elected to Constituency Assemblies – at voting time – will have the power to initiate, debate and pass the laws of this country.
They will do so in the said Constituency Assemblies. There will be one Assembly located in each constituency. These Assemblies will make up the Legislature of Barbados.
It is in these Constituency Assemblies that Sovereign power and authority shall REST with the people of Barbados.
Around 200 seats in each of these Assemblies shall be vied for on the basis of a prefixed number of them being allocated to winning party, non-party political group and independent candidates.
By giving the ordinary upright intelligent very civic minded country first citizen of Barbados the opportunity to initiate, debate and pass the laws of the government of this country, he/she shall make sure that new laws and rules (amendments to laws existing then too) are passed to deal with greater efficience, openness and accountability in government and means by which to achieve such.
Each constituent shall have the assistance of legislative counsels in drafting such laws.
With the availability of certain advanced information and communication technologies to the Assemblies, they shall facilitate the interconnection of these Assemblies and the passage of the legislation.
Therefore, under a certain winning coalitional regime of Barbados and of which the PDC shall be part, the current parliament shall NO longer be the legislature of this country then.
PDC
@ PDC
I am still trying to get my head round your programme and policies. Do you plan to abolish all income tax – higher and basic rate? Corporation tax? Land tax? Future inheritance tax? Sales/VAT? Road vehicle tax? Import duties? etc?
What other policies do you have, apart from the abolition of taxation?
PDC wrote “By giving the ordinary upright intelligent very civic minded country first citizen of Barbados the opportunity to initiate, debate and pass the laws of the government of this country.
What percentage of Bajans can be categorized as “country first citizen of Barbados”.
Sadly I think it may be less than 20%.
PDC your theoretical government will never happen in Barbados.
@ PDC
“We note the unwarranted and uncalled for attack on Yagga Rowe. We deplore it. We wish that you would leave that for the political platform. Here is not the medium to carry out such personal attacks.”
It is ironic that Yagga’s attacks on me in previous posts, as well as the number of unwarranted, uncalled, personal attacks that has been hurled at various contributors to this blog over the years by other contributors [including PDC], were not duly noted or deplored by you. However, I understand the haste in which you sought to defend Yagga, since, so far, he is the only one to endorse your policies.
It will be in your best interest to leave conflicts between contributors to be solved amongst themselves and concentrate more on the issue of explaining your policies clearly, as you are now doing.
“In the petroleum exporting countries that we referred to out of the 15 countries, the revenues are not earned from the exportation of petroleum and its derivatives.”
You are incorrect, but I will not argue with you on this point.
Hal Austin,
And this response is also being forwarded to Artaxerxes, since he sought to imply a differential between taxes and duties – in his 9.47 am post yesterday.
We are referring t o All taxes – whether they are called taxes, duties, tariffs, cesses, imposts, surcharges, license fees, enforced NIS contributions, etc.
There many other progressive policies of our party. Just a few more –
1) The Abolition of Interest Rates;
2) The implementation of the appropriate measures and strategies to substantially reduce the real actual cost of use of money (local/foreign) and to therefore create a post-Public Debt society for Barbados – critical to the realization of such a fundamental strategic objective shall be the establishment and maintenance of a National Institutional Productive Money Transfer System and the establishment and maintenance of a National Institutional Non-Productive Money Transfer System – whereby qualified persons, businesses and other entities – including government – shall no longer have to give monies to the relevant financial institutions, in respect of the equivalent to what they would have got or would have had access to from out of them – plus too interest, late and other fees otherwise had in those arrangements;
3) Reform of the Hire Purchase Regime in Barbados – the creation of an Hire Purchase Relief Fund;
4) The Abolition of ALL so-called Exchange Rates Parities with the Barbados Dollar (a practical myth),
5) The Abolition of all Motor Vehicle Insurance in Barbados – the People’s Money System shall – under an appropriately defined scheme – automatically underwrite all risks and liabilities associated with genuine motor vehicular accidents and losses on public roads, accesses and property in Barbados;
6) The making sure that no foreigners own any rights over our lands – however, they will be allowed to lease such rights for fixed term of years;
7) The establishment of regime of rent control for social, residential commercial accommodation in the country;
So there you go.
PDC
@PDC
You have not responded to the age old question, is the abolition of all taxes your sum offering?
@PDC
This is great. How then would you fund state responsibilities, including key institutions?
A hire purchase relief fund, is there not a moral hazard in that people would take out HP knowing that the state would pay off any defaults?
By abolishing road tax does that mean that road users will be using the roads at their own risk? How about third party insurance?
I like your loan policy. I fully agree. A limit of 25 years for residential leasing and no more than 50 for commercial? I think all freehold should be held by the state.
If you abolish exchange rates, how will you hedge against currency volatility?
Will your national money transfer system be linked to the international payment system? If so, how will you cover those charges? Is a fee not a tax by another name?
Rent controls, yes.
But remind me, how will the state raise funds?
Hal Austin,
In respect of the Hire Purchase Relief Fund – those who are eligible – and they must be only human beings – no artificial persons – no companies, etc – must be able to prove genuine cases of financial hardships and of their incapacities to continue handing in monies to the hire purchase businesses within reasonable times of the entering of the particular hire-purchase contracts, or for what ever other frustrating disabling reasons ( loss of business, etc) that such persons are unable to make such contributions – as originally agreed with – to the hire purchase businesses.
The Fund shall – on recognizing the facts of hardship etc. – agree with the hire-purchasers to undertake to give the various monies to the hire purchase businesses for agreed periods of time, or for the remainder of the durations of the hire purchase contracts.
Hal, time and space constraints do not ordinarily permit us to explain many of these kinds of PDC policies.
PDC
David,
Certainly not. Far from.
PDC
@PDC
I understand the time and space constraints. But you are going to means test applicants for assistance? What about fraudulent applicants? What is going to be the extent of the means testing? Are people who are asset rich, but cash poor going to be eligible?
@ Hal Austin
Some valid questions, Mr. Austin
Yes, there will be means testing conducted.
The extent of such means testing, the prefferred remuneration level below which such persons would partly qualify, etc., the intimate details of such testing, would have to be properly agreed upon by those persons involved in the creation and operation of the Fund, and in the setting of those policies for relief assistance from the Fund.
It would be a little premature for us to right now assume the extent of the means testing.
We will expect some people to try to defraud such a Fund, just as all major financial institutions in Barbados have over time been faced with many instances of fraudulence.
The key will be to effectively minimize it by putting in place measures to greater offset the greater risks of such fraudulence taking place.
So there you go.
PDC
Hal Austin,
Are you sure you meant the Abolition of Road Taxes, or the Abolition of Motor Vehicle Insurance?
The People’s Money System shall automatically assume all such risks and liabilities associated with all genuine motor vehicle accidents and losses on public roads, accesses and property in the country, as if in essence insurance companies were doing so.
The deeper wider ideological and philosophical objective involved in such a policy shall be to make sure that money is greater used by persons, businesses and other entities for productive purposes, rather than for essentially recurrent purposes, especially at the point of individuals, businesses and other entities otherwise handing in monies to insurance companies.
PDC
@ PDC
There is road tax, and motor vehicle insurance which is a form of taxation since it is compulsory, only filtered through private companies. Anything that is compulsory is a tax. Motorists cannot opt out.
That is why it is easy picking for dishonest motor insurers.
@PDC
Where is the logic in a public entity assuming all risk associated motor insurance?
Bush Tea, November 4, 2010 at 9:58 PM:
“@ PDC
That is the most senseless contribution to date on BU.
Now we all know that you understand even less about the utility business than you do about taxation ….there must be something meaningful that your party can actually grasp…..”
@ David BU:
Just an aside to beg your indulgence in asking a silly question.
Has the estimable Governor of the Central Bank given his report on Barbados’s most important quarter for its forex earning performance?
@Miller
Not yet!
Here is a question for you, has the PM responded dismiss the UAE proposal yet?
Hal Austin,
You claim that motor vehicle insurance is a tax.
We disagree.
The vast majority of the remunerations that are collected by the insurance companies become the liabilities of the insurance companies to the claimants. This is not the case with evil wicked TAXATION.
Insurance companies are businesses. They are into the business of transacting insurance policies around the good concept that a number of people are agreeing to pool remunerations in cases of probable losses and damages to property, life, etc, whereby if one had to use up money oneself to properly recover, it would be impossible or very hard to do so on one’s own. These insurance companies have costs and revenues to deal with. The law establishing insurance companies state that they must have above a substantial amount of initial capitalization and sufficient reserves through out their time of operation to cover X amount of liabilities. With this evil wicked fascist TAXATION system there are no comparisons with those operational features.
The government does not compel insurance companies to insure “you over the motor vehicle”. According to the still evil wicked motor vehicle insurance law, they can legally reject your bid to be insured to claim and get – when the circumstances permit – non-commercial revenue, or to provide another non-commercial revenue when their vehicle is involved in the same accident and they happen to be right and you are on the wrong side of the law, in most cases. In the case of TAXATION, the government compels businesses to take portions of your remunerations according to the evil wicked TAXATION law, but they do not have a legal option to refuse to steal your remunerations.
When you – the policy holder – and the insurance company AGREE to an insurance policy, you and they AGREE over some false vehicle value (this value is non-existent mythical), and to make x amount in premiums per month to the insurance companies, who AGREE to give you X amount in the event of what ever takes place against whatever you are insured to receive non-commercial revenue over your motor vehicle, or to give another X amount of revenue in the event of an accident involving another’s motor vehicle – with that other (those others) happening to be on the right side of the law when it occurred – and you on the wrong side. There are even negotiations between the policy holders and the insurance companies over given types of packages. In the TAXATION system in Barbados, no such types of agreements and negotiations are possible. Whatever the Minister of Finance says goes.
Thus motor vehicle insurance cannot be defined as TAXATION, as that the nature of motor vehicle insurance is not one of THEFT, but of the thoughts and deeds of insurance companies being in the business of pooling remunerations in the event of accidents, losses, etc taking place – which whenever such – in the main – come about – there is a stream of revenue from out of the pool to the claimant policy holders. Under TAXATION one’s remuneration is permanently lost to the government.
Finally, Hal, in determining whether something is TAXATION or NOT, the test is applicable where a person, business, or other entity ( in this case the motor vehicle insurance company, given that you claim motor vehicle insurance to be TAXATION), can force the government to do what the government is doing to it (in your case since you define motor vehicle insurance as TAXATION, to insure with it), or to hand over money to it.
Well, it is clear that what the government does to a person’s, a business, or another entity’s remuneration (in your case what the government does to insurance companies providing motor vehicle insurance, the government forcing them to insure with it ) the person, business, or other entity cannot do to the government. In your case, the insurance companies cannot force the government to insure themselves over vehicles under its control. Furthermore, in the case of government insuring for revenue over damage or losses to vehicles under its control, it is primarily because it seeks to follow the insurance law itself.
TAXATION therefore is primarily conditionally defined by the government doing to others what others cannot do to it. Such is measured by its contravening its own laws against theft, with impunity.
PDC
David,
You asked: “Where is the logic in one public entity assuming all the risks associated with motor vehicle insurance?”.
There are several logics in a system or scheme doing such and more.
Such a system or scheme shall be government sector, private sector, NGO sector, etc., run and controlled.
However, just one logic.
The amount of money and numbers given by persons, businesses and other entities to insurance companies that deal with motor vehicle insurance companies, is far, far too much, each and every succeeding year, in contrast with the far, far lesser amount that is totally given by such companies to claimant policy holders, each and every succeeding year.
By looking at what is totally given out by the motor vehicle businesses of the insurance companies to policy holders means that such an entity can easily assume such risks and liabilities “associated” with genuine motor vehicular accidents and losses occurring on public roads, accesses and property, whilst at the same time the government frees the relevant individuals, businesses and others from the idiocy, of each year, of handing in monies and numbers in a very toxic recurrent fashion to the relevant insurance companies that deal with motor vehicle insurance, but that are taking these monies, now, not numbers, and using them in a way that is anti-thetical to the realization of the very laudable objective of duly ensuring greater and greater levels of productive and commercial activity in the country, to help keep the material production and distribution aspects of the country consistently and properly growing and developing.
PDC
@PDC
Understand your idea but to establish credence/validity you have to post a robust analysis. Insurance is about factoring risk. Your comment above is a facil representation of how motor insurance works. The reason why insurance companies have to hold reserves and reinsure is to offset all risk with the possibility of catastrophic events.
Richard Sealy has fled his Constituency Office and left his lackies sighing, crying and singing to the following:
CAN’T FIND MUH MP
CHECK IN AT ST. HILL
WENT CROSS TO GULLY HILL
RUN DOWN ARTHURS HILL
EVEN LOOK IN BRITTONS HILL
CAN’T FIND MUH MP
(sung to Plastic Bag “Can’t Find Muh Brother”)
O WHERE O WHERE IS MP SEALY
O WHERE O WHERE CAN HE BE
WITH HIS NOSE TURN UP
AND HIS CHEST PUFFED UP
O WHERE O WHERE CAN HE BE
(sung to Oh Where Oh Where Can My Little Dog Be)
SEALY GONE TO BRAZIL
OH LORD POOR MILLY
SEALY GONE TO BRAZIL
OH LORD POOR MILLY
WID ARRIVALS KEEP GOIN DOWN
AND HE KEEP GETTING IT WRONG
WID ARRIVALS KEEP GOIN DOWN
AND HE KEEP SINGING THE SAME SONG
(sung to Milly Gone to Brazil)
David,
You asked in your 2:18 pm, 15 April, 2014 contribution: “what is the logic in one public entity assuming all the risks associated with motor vehicle insurance?”.
In our 7:19 pm, 15 April, 2014, response to that, we stated, et al, that there are several logics, and we went on to state the broad out line of that of our logic why.
In your 7:26 pm, 15 April, 2015, contribution you stated: Understand your idea but to establish credence/validity you have to post a robust analysis (shifting the goal bars now to provide for some thing you yourself never initially asked for). Insurance (fallacizing here now) is about factoring risks. Your comment above is a facile representation of HOW MOTOR INSURANCE WORKS ( you were wishing now that we switched just like that from providing one of the logics behind an aspect of OUR ALTERNATIVE particular policy of the ABOLITION OF MOTOR VEHICLE: the People’s MONEY system assuming such risks and liabilities, to providing a virtual manual on HOW MOTOR VEHICLE INSURANCE WORKS)
Well, if you were or were not wishing that we do so, you have the wrong people here, David.
But to look at it too, and to be fair to the PDC, since you raised the issue of HOW MOTOR VEHICLE INSURANCE, you perhaps need to do so instead. Do not just write about it, demonstrate show, how motor vehicle insurance works on here.
Can we get back to dealing with aspects of our NO-TAXATION theory now?
PDC
@PDC
Ok PDC, look forward to see your strategy unfold to get your ideas to resonate. Good luck indeed.
Artaxerxes,
You asked: how will the Central Bank fit into this scheme of things?
The following is fairly prescriptive and some what understandable.
The Central Bank of Barbados will have to follow the directives of the ruling coalitional regime of Barbados.
It is not even presumptuous to say right now that there are some people at the Bank, who have been studying our NO-TAXATION theory.
Therefore, by such a time as a certain winning coalitional grouping would have become the government of this country, the Bank itself would not only have had a better grasp of the vision for the creation of a post-TAXATION society for Barbados, and a better understanding of many of national social political objectives the regime would be seeking to realize from the necessary implementation of various aspects of this NO-TAXATION theory, but would also have had a better grasp of the country wide material production and distribution objectives that the political regime will be seeking to realize from the putting place of those particular aspects.
The Bank shall have to cooperate with the Commission for the Abolition of TAXATION. Some members of the Bank will sit on the Commission. Its mandate and terms of reference shall, et al, be to engage in the widest national consultations possible on the evolution towards a NO-TAXATION society, with as many citizens and many representatives of various business, professional, media, youth, women, sporting and other organizations and associations as possible in this country and beyond
Anyhow, from the Bank’s understanding of the above mentioned objectives, it must have been able to develop various techniques and methods for successfully formulating and implementing different NO TAXATION theoretical models and their respective underlying postulates and predictive applications based on criteria proposals for operationalizing those alternatives to TAXATION and for their supporting structures and functions.
Having created and studied these alternative models, the Bank must be in a position to give to the regime its position on which of those models is best to implement and setting forth the reasons why.
Having indicated the best theoretical model, it must be able to tell the regime what needs to be politically legally changed within the entire governmental political material financial international systems to facilitate the implementation of the various aspects of the chosen model, and its setting forward of the reasons, politically financially etc.
Thereafter the Bank will play a substantial role in making those aspects, the policy of the regime, and so by having regard to their integrity, validity, utility and soundness, their inclusion into the same policy of the various facets of the legal, legislative, technical, administrative and other implications and considerations of it.
The Central Bank of Barbados will also put in place the right template out of various templates for measuring, controlling, monitoring the performances, strengths and weaknesses of the various aspects of the NO-TAXATION policy.
The above is not intended to be an exact model of what will be done in making sure that the Bank plays a significant role in incorporating the relevant aspects of this NO-TAXATION theory into the scheme of things. It is just intended to serve as a guide.
PDC