Greek bailout money held back

zappahey

Generali wrote: »

My experience is that in Belgium and Switzerland you are expected to be a polyglot. Canada I don't know how it works.

As a generalisation, Canadian francophones tend to be bilingual, whereas anglophones aren't. However, each insists that everything should be in their language.

IIRC, there's only one officially bilingual province, New Brunswick. It's a bit fraught.

purch

FTBFun wrote: »

Sales tax is a state tax but generally only in single digits.

Florida's Sales Tax receipts are in the region of USD 18,600,000,000 annually (based on 2008 data)

The Federal Income Tax take in 2011 was 1,163,688,000,000

Florida is by no means the largest or most economically significant State, so it is likely Sales Tax nationwide compares favourably with the US Federal Income Tax take.

ILW

zappahey wrote: »

As a generalisation, Canadian francophones tend to be bilingual, whereas anglophones aren't. However, each insists that everything should be in their language.

IIRC, there's only one officially bilingual province, New Brunswick. It's a bit fraught.

A Canadian friend once told be that the non english speakers, tend to be considered a type of Hillbilly.

FTBFun

purch wrote: »

Florida's Sales Tax receipts are in the region of USD 18,600,000,000 annually (based on 2008 data)

The Federal Income Tax take in 2011 was 1,163,688,000,000

Florida is by no means the largest or most economically significant State, so it is likely Sales Tax nationwide compares favourably with the US Federal Income Tax take.

By single digits I meant %!

Florida is the 4th most populous state and 4th largest economy wise, and also one of the major tourist destinations so one would expect its Sales Tax figures to be greater than somewhere like Wyoming or Delaware (the latter being a bit of a corporate tax haven in the US).

This says state sales taxes accounted for $450bn in 2008: with $411bn in property taxes and $310bn in state income tax.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/05/sales-tax-rates-record-high-personal-finance-shopping-tax.html

BTW 2011 taxes haven't necessarily all been collected yet as we're still (sort of) in the filing season.

mellowtimes

Generali wrote: »

Great point.

Perhaps you could expand on how that applies to a single currency area particularly with respect to mobility of labour in your opinion.

My experience is that in Belgium and Switzerland you are expected to be a polyglot. Canada I don't know how it works.

Do you think for example that the continuation of Romansch as a national language of Switzerland has reduced Swiss competitiveness or helped relations with The Vatican as a kinda modern version of Latin?

I was just making the point at a fairly high level that having language differences within a single currency area is not necessarily a barrier to that single currency area being successful - which is how I interpreted your comment.

I have no doubt that it would not be an easy transition but over the long term those who could successfully adapt and build polygot skills would benefit more - hence there is an incentive to increase those language skills.

I would also expect that one language would become more dominant across Europe - and I would suspect that is likely to be English - with more and more people speaking their native language plus "the language of business" (for want of a better phrase)

chewmylegoff

Federal receipts were $2.3 billion.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f9/U.S._Federal_Receipts_-_FY_2007.png

Total state receipts for 2010 were $1.3 billion.

http://www2.census.gov/govs/qtax/2011/q1t1.pdf

Whoever said that majority was federal tax wins a mars bar, paid for by Purch.

antrobus

pqrdef wrote: »

Yes, that's my point, there's a way it can work, and a way it can't work.

In the US, most taxation is federal, and most of that comes from the richer states, but they don't get all airyated about it. Poorer states have failed to become "competitive" even after 200 years, but redistribution of federal revenue from rich states to poor states isn't described as bailouts.

Redistribution of EU tax receipts from rich states to poor states isn't described as bailouts either.

And what the US would do if one its 50 states was bust is another question altogether.

pqrdef

zappahey wrote: »

Spending everyone else's money for the last 30 years is the source of their problems. The Euro only prevents them from solving it by currency devaluation.

You mean, like we do? It's a valid option. It's not like Greece is the only country with a continual budget deficit.

The strength of the euro is part of the problem. A weaker euro would help with external trade gaps. A different solution is needed for internal trade gaps. And there is still the problem of whose credit is backing the euro. The ECB is not a good enough answer.

Greek-style problems will inevitably recur until the eurozone works out how to run a eurozone.

ILW

pqrdef wrote: »

Greek-style problems will inevitably recur until the eurozone works out how to run a eurozone.

Or they admit it was not such a great idea, and try to work out an orderly way to unwind it.

pqrdef

antrobus wrote: »

Redistribution of EU tax receipts from rich states to poor states isn't described as bailouts either.

But EU revenue is only a small proportion of total European taxation. I'm arguing that it needs to be the lion's share.

antrobus wrote: »

And what the US would do if one its 50 states was bust is another question altogether.

A majority of the 50 states would be bust if subjected to the same reckoning used in Europe. Reckon up their total contribution to public spending, State and Federal, and their total spending and make them "borrow" the difference and they're up to their necks in debt. But the Federal government will cheerfully spend more in a state than it collects in that state and it doesn't call the difference a loan.

You can't run a Union by setting the members against each other. If the members don't believe that their best interests are ultimately served by doing whatever it takes to make the Union work, then it fails.

The US Founding Fathers were more committed to their own states than to the Union, which they saw as a probably-necessary evil. If the USA had stayed as they envisaged it, it would have failed. It worked because in the end Americans decided they were more committed to the Union than to the states. So they don't bang on about the sovereignty of Delaware any more, because if that could damage the Union, it's a bad trade.