Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

VoidAngel wrote:But you know what? I wasn't satisfied with my lot in life, so I changed it. And I did it without sticking my hand out. Punishing me now because I managed to succeed is unfair. Why should I bear more than my share? You know who's entitled to what I have? Me.

Do you think that every person could achieve economic security through hard work, without support from others?

Polonius wrote:

VoidAngel wrote:But you know what? I wasn't satisfied with my lot in life, so I changed it. And I did it without sticking my hand out. Punishing me now because I managed to succeed is unfair. Why should I bear more than my share? You know who's entitled to what I have? Me.

Do you think that every person could achieve economic security through hard work, without support from others?

No!

whitedragon wrote:

Polonius wrote:

VoidAngel wrote:But you know what? I wasn't satisfied with my lot in life, so I changed it. And I did it without sticking my hand out. Punishing me now because I managed to succeed is unfair. Why should I bear more than my share? You know who's entitled to what I have? Me.

Do you think that every person could achieve economic security through hard work, without support from others?

No!

It depends what you call support, getting loans is different from getting hand outs.

Andrew1975 wrote:It depends what you call support, getting loans is different from getting hand outs.

It depends on the loan. Taking out home equity to pay for an MBA is a very different risk for the lender than an unsecured student loan to a community college student.

Most people that get ahead in this life have inherent advantages, either of talent or support (most likely both). Take away all avenues of support, even for a very talented person, and the margin of error for success becomes very, very thin.

I'd never deny that there are plenty of people that aren't trying hard, if at all. But I'd argue that I know a lot of well educated, hard working people that are underemployed right now, and it's hard to see what they're supposed to be doing differently.

Polonius wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:It depends what you call support, getting loans is different from getting hand outs.

It depends on the loan. Taking out home equity to pay for an MBA is a very different risk for the lender than an unsecured student loan to a community college student.

Most people that get ahead in this life have inherent advantages, either of talent or support (most likely both). Take away all avenues of support, even for a very talented person, and the margin of error for success becomes very, very thin.

I'd never deny that there are plenty of people that aren't trying hard, if at all. But I'd argue that I know a lot of well educated, hard working people that are underemployed right now, and it's hard to see what they're supposed to be doing differently.

I feel your pain, welcome to Cleveland!

edit: At least we are not Detroit!

Cleveland visitor center theme song

I both love and hate my city!

Andrew1975 wrote:

Ugh. Just got back to this. I was working, so I can pay my underwater mortgage.

Hey you bought the house, and believed it was worth it at the time or you would not have bought it. Does it provide shelter? If so, then live there and be happy that you have a roof over your head. Is your problem that you may not be able to quickly flip it and make a handsome return? Well that's part of the mechanic that caused your situation in the first place. You were trying to ride the bubble!

I'm sure you blame the housing collapse on the poor for not paying their mortgages. Truth is they probably never should have had those mortgages in the first place because they don't get paid enough by the rich to afford homes. You should blame the Rich bank CEO's that over-leveraged their companies in order to make that ginormous bonus, which you seam to believe they earned.

Way to miss sarcasm. Yeah, I'm underwater - but not in bad shape - and wasn't complaining. I bought less house than I could afford, with no intention of "flipping" it. I blame the housing collapse on several things, all of which are well known and proper recipients of that blame.

But you know what? I wasn't satisfied with my lot in life, so I changed it. And I did it without sticking my hand out. Punishing me now because I managed to succeed is unfair. Why should I bear more than my share? You know who's entitled to what I have? Me.

You know what? If this is true, than you are probably not the person that should be getting bent out of shape! If I'm understanding you, you are hardly rich, much less the uber rich, and I can't understand why you are defending them? The fact is, you sound like more a victim of the system they impose than anything else. You sound more like upper middle class, which gets pissed on from both ends, specifically because the rich don't do their share.

I'm defending the "innocent" ones who far outnumber them, and deserve their high pay for guiding entirely corrupt companies with their thousands of employees - all of whom (like me) depend on those jobs, so that we can exploit them to the point where they have to take social security which I don't want to pay for

Fixed that for you!

VoidAngel wrote:But several were saying that it's complete bull$h!t

Yes, because I do like saying things which are proven historically correct time and time again.

Polonius wrote:

VoidAngel wrote:But you know what? I wasn't satisfied with my lot in life, so I changed it. And I did it without sticking my hand out. Punishing me now because I managed to succeed is unfair. Why should I bear more than my share? You know who's entitled to what I have? Me.

Do you think that every person could achieve economic security through hard work, without support from others?

I can quote many instances from my own experience where those with access to support I never had failed to succeed through their own lack of motivation. I'm STILL paying my student loans back. They had a free ride, but squandered it. Support from others is no guarantee. Individuals have to hold up their end of the deal and participate. When they don't, they should not have recourse to force others to subsidize them.

VoidAngel wrote:

Polonius wrote:

VoidAngel wrote:But you know what? I wasn't satisfied with my lot in life, so I changed it. And I did it without sticking my hand out. Punishing me now because I managed to succeed is unfair. Why should I bear more than my share? You know who's entitled to what I have? Me.

Do you think that every person could achieve economic security through hard work, without support from others?

I can quote many instances from my own experience where those with access to support I never had failed to succeed through their own lack of motivation. I'm STILL paying my student loans back. They had a free ride, but squandered it. Support from others is no guarantee. Individuals have to hold up their end of the deal and participate. When they don't, they should not have recourse to force others to subsidize them.

I wasn't asking if it's possible to advance without support (and student loans are backed by the government, at least many of them). I was asking if you thought it possible for every single person to acheive economic independence without support.

There's no shortage of horatio algers, I don't doubt.

Individuals have to hold up their end of the deal and participate. When they don't, they should not have recourse to force others to subsidize them.

Well to be fair, most people have said there needs to be reform in the social security system for recipients also. I also don't subscribe the poor living entirely for free. However its hard to get up when someone is standing on your neck. That doesn't mean you should quite though and have the opportunity to leach.

I don't think anyone here is saying take all the rich peoples money and give it all to the unemployed cracked out mothers of 12. At least I'm not.

Of course not. But people can't exactly stop being poor through effort, skill, talent, knowledge, etc alone right now. They also have to be lucky. Meh.

Melissia wrote:They also have to be lucky.

This cannot be overstated.

Polonius wrote:

I wasn't asking if it's possible to advance without support (and student loans are backed by the government, at least many of them). I was asking if you thought it possible for every single person to acheive economic independence without support.

No, that's absurd. My preference would be (and I have said this over, and over again) for such services to be reserved for the truly needy - not everyone that can find a way to lay claim to them.

VoidAngel wrote:

Polonius wrote:

I wasn't asking if it's possible to advance without support (and student loans are backed by the government, at least many of them). I was asking if you thought it possible for every single person to acheive economic independence without support.

No, that's absurd. My preference would be (and I have said this over, and over again) for such services to be reserved for the truly needy - not everyone that can find a way to lay claim to them.

Yeah, I'm saying that, that is not enough though. Even if you could in some way get all the undeserving off of the dole. The rich still need to do more, or better! The decline of all other demographics besides the rich should point this out to you.

You seem to have forgotten to contend with the very motivational factors that enabled many of them to get rich in the first place. Unless you are born into it - you work to make money. Once you figure out how to be good at that, you tend to make more and more. That's what a meritocracy is all about.

VoidAngel wrote:

Polonius wrote:

I wasn't asking if it's possible to advance without support (and student loans are backed by the government, at least many of them). I was asking if you thought it possible for every single person to acheive economic independence without support.

No, that's absurd. My preference would be (and I have said this over, and over again) for such services to be reserved for the truly needy - not everyone that can find a way to lay claim to them.

How many services right now do you think exist, at taxpayer expense, solely to people that claim need? The big one is probably food stamps, but those cost very little.

VoidAngel wrote:You seem to have forgotten to contend with the very motivational factors that enabled many of them to get rich in the first place. Unless you are born into it - you work to make money. Once you figure out how to be good at that, you tend to make more and more. That's what a meritocracy is all about.

Are you saying that unless people are able to obtain limitless wealth they wont try to attain it at all? No one here is trying to turn the rich into paupers, or make everyone even. It's more about closing the out of control wealth gap. It's not healthy to have such a top heavy system. The rich will still be rich, albeit slightly less rich. The poor will still be poor, but slightly less so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

VoidAngel wrote:

Polonius wrote:

I wasn't asking if it's possible to advance without support (and student loans are backed by the government, at least many of them). I was asking if you thought it possible for every single person to acheive economic independence without support.

No, that's absurd. My preference would be (and I have said this over, and over again) for such services to be reserved for the truly needy - not everyone that can find a way to lay claim to them.

My preference would be for wealth to be reserved for those that deserve it -not everyone that can find a way to lay claim to it.

Andrew1975 wrote:

My preference would be for wealth to be reserved for those that deserve it -not everyone that can find a way to lay claim to it.

Wow. And by what remotely just system would you propose to accomplish that? Unrestricted access to all legal means to increase one's wealth IS the very heart of our system!

I get that you want to stop the corrupt from essentially stealing wealth from others (who doesn't?) - but you make the typical mistake of looking to punish everyone for the crimes of a few bad actors. We have laws. Where we identify gaps in them, we amend them. That's the best you can do, and still have a shot at being fair.

And yet, many people simply get wealthy through nothing more than sheer luck as opposed to effort, skill, and so on.

Meanwhile those that are already wealthy can still stay wealthy even if they are unlucky. Upward mobility has decreased alongside downward mobility

Andrew1975 wrote:Where does that leave current social security recipients? Their benefits are paid for by the current work force? If they are in charge of the investments, what happens if they invest poorly? That's always been my issue with these self investment ideas. It sounds good, but I've seen people loose their shirts. At least with the current system (granted, if done correctly) they are guaranteed to have something to live on.

You still have pensions, for those who were unable to earn enough superannuation or those who lost it all. But most people are quite sensible with their savings, so those ending up on the pension end up a fraction of what you currently have.

Think of that on-coming mass of baby boomer retirements, and think of how much money it's going to cost social security. Now imagine if 95% of them were all self-funded retirees.

So if the current sales tax is 7% we would add a further 10% on there for a total 17% sales tax. Wow, I really see that hurting spending, which is not good in capitalism. We want to increase the flow of money not make people hoard it. I think I would rather see a higher income tax, if you never have the money you tend to not miss it. Am I wrong here?

No, you're replacing current sales taxes. The big thing to understand about my proposal is that I'm not suggesting an overall increase in the tax burden, it'd remain about 30% of GDP as it is now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:I'd at least argue against sales taxes on necessities. And the removal or reduction of vice taxes, which are even more regressive...

Except then you end up with the horrible game of trying to decide what is and isn't a necessity.

Food is a necessity. What about a cake? So not cakes, but then what's a cake and what's a pie? Just put it on everything, and adjust for the regressive impact with reduced taxes and improved benefit payments.

I agree on removing vice taxes, by the way. The only reason to tax an individual product is to capture an externality, such as increased health costs incurred by the state from smokers (which is itself a debatable thing).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:If you're interested in responding to one of my posts, please respond to the actual content, and not what you think I wrote. And take your petty insults elsewhere.

You said that that tax lawyer's blog proved that trickle down economics works. I pointed out over the 30 year period you had an average increase for the bottom 20% of about half of one percent.

At which point the claim can only be termed as "trickle down economics works because the poorest 20% experienced an average increase in income of less than half of one percent per annum!"

There's no petty insult there. There's just a statement of how terrible your point was.

The fact that you've just responded with a little moan about how mean I'm being and not bothering to defend your point at all is a pretty good indication you've just realised how terrible your point really was.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

VoidAngel wrote:Yeah, but guess who those "businessmen" are in America? Mostly blue collar types - i.e., the poor! And with unions in the mix...that's a misnomer. The rest of it is pure criminal activity. Find a way to tax that.

Yeah, they're mostly blue collar types, most are self-employed tradesmen and the like.

And the point is that when they spend their earnings they get hit with sales tax. That's how you tax that. That was the point. Please read.

Ah, right - the secret plan to import a workforce and help them sneak across the border so we can have cheap labor...riiiight. Forgot. Nice job completely ingoring and excusing the main problem - illegal and consuming services.

What are you talking about? What secret plan? Go back and write a response that makes sense.

Possible. Alot of people on here have puppy avatars for some reason. I'll let history demonstrate to you who is stupid and what is doomed to failure.

History already has. No country was inspired by Iraq to begin it's own revolution. This is obvious and well known. Please accept this and move on.

Really? How about all the Scandanavian countries? All of 'em. If the bottle is big enough to include Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark...then I guess you are right.

No, they're not. You assume they must be because they have high taxes, but maybe instead if you did some reading on the subject you might have learned that isn't the case. You can't just make gak up because it fits your ideology. All you end up with is self-reinforcing ignorance.

Read the whole thread - I was demonstrating to Andrew(?) what was wrong with the idea and asking what he thought the definition of fair was. Is it giving your share? Is your "share" a dollar amount? Is it a percentage? Is it every damn penny that can be wrung out of you and still let you go to work? What is it? I wasn't advocating anything.

I know what you were arguing. I was just taken aback by your example, where the rich man was paying a lower percentage of his income in taxes, and you were suggesting this could be seen as unfair. I mean, even the furthest right among the Republicans aren't arguing for that.

Not a bad illustration, but overly simplified to make your point. That guy comes in a orders a $40 steak and $70 bottle of wine. I just made more off of him than 4 or 5 other customers. Maybe he buys the place a round. Who knows - you could get silly with how far you can extend this to make it work in either direction. Any way you look at it, raising sales tax decreases spending. It may be adorable, but I'd think a professional in the tax industry would understand that.

It has nothing to do with tax industry professionals. It's a matter for macroeconomists, and the answer is heavily studied and the conclusions very well understood. When the wealthiest have an increase in income, they spend less of it on consumer goods than the poorest.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

VoidAngel wrote:Nobody is saying "trickle down is the complete answer". But several were saying that it's complete bull$h!t - which is not true.

No, seriously, it is complete bs.

Well, the general concept that wealth generated at the top will create jobs and consumer demand, therefore growing the entire economy isn't bs. That's well known and accepted.

What's bs is the Reagan idea that you can spur economic growth by reducing tax rates at the top of the economy. When there is an economic opportunity the rich will pursue this opportunity whether the top rate of tax is 35% or 45%.

That there is the plain reality of the situation. Playing with that tax rate doesn't create more economic growth.

But you know what? I wasn't satisfied with my lot in life, so I changed it. And I did it without sticking my hand out. Punishing me now because I managed to succeed is unfair. Why should I bear more than my share? You know who's entitled to what I have? Me.

You're making a big mistake in assuming that opposition to trickle down economics is coming from a desire to punish the rich. Punishing the rich is also a bs, but has nothing to do with why trickle down economics fail.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andrew1975 wrote:could you explain this more? I've thought about it and it seams that the payroll tax cap it a massively recessive tax, in that after $102K you are not longer charged any more. A CEO that is making 800 times his employees is still only paying for one worth of payroll tax. Granted corporations pay a percentage of each employees pay roll tax.

My thought is that it really has no effect on those salaries under $102K, it may slow down hiring above that, but inversely maybe companies employ more lower level management. I think it would certainly cut down on the mass escalation of salaries, as with this change those mutl million dollar salaries and bonuses cost corporations even more.

You've got it bang on. It slows down hiring. It's a direct tax on companies employing people.

You can say the impact is small and you'd probably be right, but why have that impact at all? A tax system should look to impact the economy as little as possible, so why actually impact something like hiring new employees that everyone agrees is a good thing?

The problem with a massive overhaul of an entire system that could take 20 years is that you really have to have faith in the political system.

Hey, I'm not even American, so I don't get to vote let alone run your country. If you're going to ask, I might as well get utopian about things .

And yeah, if you set about bringing those changes in and it only took twenty years, you could be well pleased with your efforts.

Every reform always includes loopholes that are usually exploited by the rich. Since the make the rules, its very hard to change this system. Anyone you elect is going to be rich, they have to be just to be elected!

Absolutely. Except they're not really loopholes, because loopholes are supposed to be accidental and in most cases the loopholes being exploited were put there quite deliberately. The classic example is the cap on executive incomes, at $1 million. Bonuses were exempted... now I don't think anyone could honestly claim that legislators were unaware that incomes would just be shifted into bonuses, having no effect on salaries paid.

But it allowed the politicians to get up and say 'we've brought really high incomes under control' without actually earning the ire of anyone, because the legislation was written deliberately to look like it was doing something while it was actually doing nothing.

Yeah, but you are also double taxing a vast amount of people to get it. Again not an expert on economic theory, but it seams in a capitalist system you would not want to tax 17% on purchases. It would seam smarter to figure out a way to tax savings, as a mechanic to get money to flow faster! (that may be the stupidest thing ever in economic terms and cause a real problem with the banking system, i'm just saying theoretically if it could be done)

Having a sales tax and an income tax isn't double taxation. Double taxation doesn't refer to something be taxed by two methods, but really means something being taxed twice while other forms of income are only taxed once because of the natuer of what it is. The classic example is company earnings, which can be taxed once as part of the company, then taxed again when paid as a dividend to the investor.

This is wrong because not because government taxed it twice, but because if a guy earned $50,000 through his unincorporated business he'd be taxed once, as personal earnings, and pay $10,000 in tax, while his neighbour, who earned $50,000 through his incorporated business is taxed on corporate earnings then on personal earnings, and would pay $18,000 in tax.

And you really don't want to tax savings. You actually want to encourage savings, because long term that's what funds investment, and investment drives growth.

Weird, I thought incorporation offered a lot of tax breaks? Because I know for a fact several local small businesses incorporated specifically to SAVE money on taxes... and it worked.

I get that you want to stop the corrupt from essentially stealing wealth from others (who doesn't?) - but you make the typical mistake of looking to punish everyone for the crimes of a few bad actors. We have laws. Where we identify gaps in them, we amend them. That's the best you can do, and still have a shot at being fair.

No you don't get it, I'm for a more even distribution of wealth. You will never get rid of the corruption, that's impossible. I'm also not out to punish the rich for being successful or sneaky. I'm not out to punish them at all. What I'm trying to do is get the rich pay for a system that has set them up to be wealthy. It's really not unfair to expect them to pay for the system that maintains their opulence while also keeping the poor satisfied.

I'm also in turn trying say they social security needs to be reformed so that there are less leaches on the system.

In general the tax system needs to be made less of a maze and just much more simple, closing the loopholes and getting everyone on a responsible (not necessarily fair) tax rate. I still think this should include erasing the payroll cap, but maybe it could be done without it.

VoidAngel wrote:
Exceptions aside, I accept the 'fundamental principle' of scarcity - but you both fail to reckon with some "fundamental principles" of justice and reality.

Reality isn't a fundamental principle, its a concept that we use to denote the sum of things that are real. Justice might be regarded as a fundamental principle, but not in the same sense as scarcity, as scarcity is a condition that arises from material limitations while justice is socially determined (where it is determined at all).

VoidAngel wrote:
We live in a place blessed with abundant natural resources. We pay farmers NOT to grow food. Now, please argue scarcity and how it applies further. That someone lives in a fething desert and therefore has little to eat is not CAUSED by me living in a place where food is plentiful! It's a natural consequence.

Farm subsidies exist in order to insulate their production decisions from global demand so as to maintain a relatively stable price and supply of food in the United States. This actively dnies consumers in other places, perhaps a certain desert, access to American agricultural products and therefore injures their ability to freely seek a given asset. They're basically an artificial measure to reduce the pressure of scarcity in the United States, and therefore increase it elsewhere.

VoidAngel wrote:
If citizen A makes enough to buy an iPad a week comfortably, he's still not likely to do so in some malignant effort to make sure that citizen B - who had to save up for a year to get one - can't.

It doesn't matter if its due to malicious intent, simply doing so does injury to all others attempting to do the same. Note that the reverse is also true, and people living in a particular state of poverty are denying others who might have the desire to live in that same state of poverty the ability to do so. You're making the mistake of assuming that I'm making some kind of moral argument, I'm not, I'm simply explaining to you that the uneven distribution of wealth naturally involves the constriction of choice, injury, of all other economic actors.

Melissia wrote:Weird, I thought incorporation offered a lot of tax breaks? Because I know for a fact several local small businesses incorporated specifically to SAVE money on taxes... and it worked.

There can be, depending on the advantages of the individual. Beyond any of that there's the massive advantage of protecting your private assets in the event of business failure.

But you're missing the point. Simply put, it is wrong in an obvious and fundamental way for two people who each earn the same amount to pay different amount of taxes. If you have corporate taxes that don't carry a franking credit equal to the tax already paid, and then charge the individual personal income tax on top of the corporate taxes already paid on that income, you have that problem.

It seams logical to me that tax should be a wealth based system based on demographics.

Top 1% owns 43% of the wealth should pay 43% of the cost to run the system that feeds it.
Next 15% should pay 29%
and so on

Now that sounds oversimplified even to me, you'd have the bottom 80% coughing up only 7% of the budget. So it's not perfect, but you get the general Idea.

Here is the chart that shows who actually pays taxes



As you can see, the rich own most of the wealth, but it's the middle that pays most of the taxes.

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes? Yeah, me neither.

Remember when pouring money into the education system raised testing scores for children in the U.S., welfare was used for people to buy food and clothing and not drugs and alcohol, presidents were not passing bills to help low income families buy houses they couldn't afford, and healthcare laws were passed that even the president and congress had to abide by? Yeah me neither!!!

Andrew1975 wrote:It seams logical to me that tax should be a wealth based system. That top 20% that has 93% of the wealth should be covering 93% of the costs to run the system that feeds it. Almost like shares in a company.

Taxing wealth over income is a terrible idea.

From a purely pragmatic point of view, the actual value of wealth is highly subjective. We have a good idea what 10,000 shares in BP are worth on the last day of the tax year, but what's the value of my 10,000 acres of land outside of the city, currently awaiting development approval?

More than that, though, people can be asset rich and income poor. Consider a farmer having a poor year, he'd be paying wealth tax on his farm, while his farm is failing to generate revenue. Or consider a retired person, who has a number of assets they accumulated over their lives, but little in new income. They'd have to sell assets to pay the tax on their wealth.

Or think about two guys. Both earn $200,000 a year. One blows through his cash, living out of a pricey rented apartment, leasing fancy cars, splashing money around on chicks and blow. The other lives well, but saves many thousands each year, invests well and after a decade or so has built a nest egg of around $600,000 or 700,000. The second guy would get taxed more, because he is living responsibly.

And worst of all, you'd be adding a surcharge onto any productive asset. If the market demanded a 12% expected return to make investment in a new factory worthwhile, it would now have to consider the (say...) 3% wealth tax on the money involved. All of a sudden that factory would have to generate 15% in expected returns to be worthwhile. It'd kill investment.

That's why we focus on taxing income instead.

Andrew1975 wrote:




It seams logical to me that tax should be a wealth based system based on demographics.

Top 1% owns 43% of the wealth should pay 43% of the cost to run the system that feeds it.
Next 15% should pay 29%
and so on

Now that sounds oversimplified even to me, you'd have the bottom 80% coughing up only 7% of the budget. So it's not perfect, but you get the general Idea.

Here is the chart that shows who actually pays taxes



As you can see, the rich own most of the wealth, but it's the middle that pays most of the taxes.

CHARTS!

You remind me of a guy...

Andrew1975 wrote:It seams logical to me that tax should be a wealth based system based on demographics.

Top 1% owns 43% of the wealth should pay 43% of the cost to run the system that feeds it.
Next 15% should pay 29%
and so on

Now that sounds oversimplified even to me, you'd have the bottom 80% coughing up only 7% of the budget. So it's not perfect, but you get the general Idea.

I've always thought it make more sense to determine taxes with an equation rather than brackets. With hard brackets, someone at the edge can wind up making only a few hundred dollars more per year, and as a result end up paying an extra thousand in taxes. A sliding scale that either approached a limit of some percentage, or became statistically indistinguishable from 100% at a point greater than the the entire world economy, to prevent any case of someone making slightly more, and so paying an extra 5% in taxes or some such.