The strategy of adjusting taxes to an optimal level has been demonstrated in Economics and it is called the "Laffer Curve". The Economist who developed it studied the antecedents that confirmed this theory from cases so far back as the fourteenth century. The Laffer Curve says that there is no tax revenue collection at the two extreme tax rates of 0% and 100%. However, there is one optimal tax rate between both these extremes that maximizes tax revenue collection. Therefore, any tax rate above the top of this curve results in less revenue collection.
This truth is more acute and decisive when a country like the United States had a much higher corporate tax than other industrialized countries, leading to a flight of capital and companies. By reducing this tax to 25%, the United States became a highly competitive base for those companies, which began to come back in droves.
Se ha producido un momento histórico para los bosques, ya que más de 100 líderes mundiales de países que tienen el 87% de los bosques del planeta se comprometieron a financiar programas por valor de 19.000 millones de dólares para detener la deforestación en una Declaración publicada en inglés titulada "Glasgow Leader's Declaration on Forest and Land Use".
La Cumbre Mundial de Líderes en la Conference of the Parties 26 (COP26) anunció su primer gran acuerdo, donde 105 países que cubren el 87% de los bosques del mundo se han comprometido a actuar para reducir y revertir la deforestación.
El compromiso subraya una creciente conciencia del papel de la naturaleza en la lucha contra la crisis climática, algo que Gran Bretaña ha tratado de destacar en esta Cumbre climática. Los bosques intactos y las turberas son depósitos naturales de carbono, manteniéndolo sellado lejos de la atmósfera, donde como dióxido de carbono acelera el calentamiento atrapando el calor del sol. Pero cuando estas áreas se talan, se queman o se drenan, los ecosistemas pasan a liberar gases de efecto invernadero.
Un financiamiento de US $12 mil millones de 12 países donantes durante un período de cuatro años entre 2021 y 2025 se destinará a apoyar a los países en desarrollo, combatir los incendios forestales, restaurar las tierras degradadas y promover los derechos de los pueblos indígenas y las comunidades locales.
This is in a nutshell my own condensed analysis of the French universal health care system, combining universal coverage with a public-private mix of hospital and ambulatory care and a higher volume of service provisions than in the United States. It must be understood when studying the French system that universal coverage can thus be achieved without excluding private insurers from the supplementary insurance market.
The French health care system was rated the best in the world by the World Health Organization in 2001 while the US health care system ranked 37th. In 2004, France spent 10.5% of its gross domestic product (GDP) and it increased to 11.5% of GDP on health care in 2017. By contrast, the US spent 18% of its GDP on health care in the same year. Payroll taxes in France provide 53% of funding, with employers paying 80% of the tax and employees paying the rest. In addition, a national earmarked income tax contributes 34% of funding, and State subsidies account for 1% of funding.
Universal coverage was achieved over seven decades by extending statutory health insurance (SHI) to all employees (in 1945), retirees (in 1945), the self-employed (in 1966), and the unemployed (in 2000). In 2000, the Couverture maladie universelle (Universal Health Coverage), or CMU, was created for residents not eligible for SHI, although the program required yearly renewals and entitlement changes whenever a beneficiary’s professional or family situation changed. After the implementation of CMU, fewer than 1% of residents were left without baseline coverage.
Si se aplican en Estados Unidos nuevos impuestos a la propiedad y a las ganancias de capital no realizadas al nivel que han sido concebidas, millones de estadounidenses recibirían una cuenta adicional de impuestos, la cual sería impagable para los propietarios de menores ingresos y muy onerosa para el resto de la clase media. En otras palabras, enfrentarían una deuda que estarían obligados a pagar con un dinero que no tienen o perder sus propiedades.
La tendencia de un poderoso sector del Partido Demócrata que se identifica como "Progresista" (un eufemismo para encubrir su filiación socialista/marxista), la cual suele imponerse al más amplio pero más débil sector "moderado", se ha caracterizado por enormes gastos en proyectos federales, en considerables aumentos en el presupuesto nacional y en la deuda pública y, en consecuencia, por altas y crecientes tasas impositivas. Esta tendencia puede perjudicar gravemente a los propietarios de bienes raíces, sobre todo a los que son propietarios de la casa o el condominio donde viven.
El plan fiscal propuesto por Biden/Yellen en el proyecto de ley de presupuesto, desencadena una situación que puede ser insostenible para la clase media: Si posee algo que ha adquirido más valor con el tiempo, incluida la casa donde vive, Jenny Yellen cree que debería pagar impuestos por el aumento del valor de su propiedad. Lo afirmó nuevamente esta semana en Capitol Hill, cuando propuso gravar las ganancias no realizadas (Unrealized capital gains) de los activos heredados y también de los bienes raíces. Para quienes no son expertos en temas económicos, las "ganancias no realizadas" son las que figuran solamente en el papel y no representan un ingreso adicional para el propietario de algo que NO ha vendido. Igualmente para el que ha heredado activos que habían aumentado de valor durante los últimos años. Por tanto, ¿qué significa eso? Sencillamente que millones de estadounidenses recibirían una cuenta adicional de impuestos, la cual sería impagable para los propietarios de menores ingresos y muy onerosa para el resto de la clase media. En otras palabras, enfrentarían una deuda que estarían obligados a pagar con un dinero que no tienen o perder sus propiedades.
When there is a stock market crash signaling a recession, stagflation, or severe depression, what we are experiencing is a sudden and very large drop in the value of stocks in the markets, causing a hasty sale of stocks and other securities by investors and some institutions. When the underlying value of the companies that issue the shares suddenly collapses, their price also falls proportionally and the resulting situation is the loss of much of the money that people invested and, in extreme cases, as in the Great Depression of last century, the loss of all your invested capital.
The hackneyed argument of the stock market as a capitalist den of speculators and millionaires is false. The indisputable reality is that there are countless small investors who have accumulated their life savings and invested them in stocks and that almost all citizens who have worked in the country have their pension funds invested in mutual funds and securities that pay substantial interest or dividends or in investment programs known as 401(k) that exempt them from taxes.
The serious problem for those who depend on these investments to have an additional income or a decent pension is when a market collapse occurs precisely when they have to sell some of these securities to cover unforeseen expenses or when their pension income is barely enough to cover essential expenses of their monthly budget.
What Causes a Stock Market Crash?
A stock market crash is caused by two circumstances: a dramatic drop in stock prices and the resulting panic. Here's how it works: Each of the shares owned represents a small stake in a company, and the investors who buy them make a profit when the value of their shares increases or when they receive interest or dividends approved by the company's board of directors. The price of these shares depends on the opinion of the majority of investors at that time about the value and future prospects of that company. So if they think the company they're investing in is headed for tough times, they sell those stocks in an attempt to exit before their value falls.
The reality is that panic plays as much (or more) a role in a stock market crash than the actual economic problems that cause it. There is an obsessive reaction that irrationally drives scores of investors to dump their shares at whatever price they can get, and the market plunges into a full-blown crash.