Feed aggregator

Die Europaabgeordnete Mairead McGuinness (Fine Gael) wurde heute von Kommissionspräsidentin Ursula von der Leyen als nächste EU-Kommissarin Irlands vorgeschlagen. Sie soll das Ressort Finanzdienstleistungen und Finanzstabilität übernehmen.

Multilateral cooperation means that states can collectively achieve more than they can through individual and bilateral efforts alone. Multilateral organisations are important instruments for this: they have a greater geographic and thematic reach, operate at a larger scale and stand for multilateral norms and values. Funding provides an important basis for multilateral development cooperation – only with sufficient core funding at their disposal can multilaterals effectively and independently perform the functions member states expect. This includes a problem-driven allocation of resources, strategic orientation, and flexibility in the implementation of and advocacy for internationally agreed values, norms and standards. The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has demonstrated the need for international cooperation to deal with multiple crises that affect all societies. It has also proved the value of multilateral organisations that can combat the spread of COVID-19 worldwide and support countries where health systems are weakest.
Over the last three decades, the funding trend for multilateral organisations has been towards ever greater shares of earmarked funding, whereas core funding has grown much more slowly or has even declined for some organisations.
A contribution is earmarked when a contributor directs it to a specific pooled fund, programme or – most typically – a project in a specific country. The substantial increase in such earmarked (also “restricted”, “bi-multi”) funding has certainly buoyed organisations and helped to close many funding gaps.
However, such atomised funding practices come with the risk of instrumentalising multilateral organisations for project implementation purposes, and by doing so, reducing their programmatic coherence, effectiveness, efficiency and legitimacy. For contributors, earmarking has often been a politically convenient choice. It provides them with control over the use of their resources and visibility for results achieved, all at attractively low implementation costs. However, both the direct implications of earmarking for specific interventions and the more systemic effects on the effectiveness and efficiency of the multilateral organisations tend to be overlooked. At the scale we see it today, earmarking may actually undermine the ability of multilaterals to fulfil the member states’ expectations and make full use of their unique assets to advance the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
To fully harness the potential of multilateral development cooperation, both member states and multilateral organisations have to change course.
• A larger number of contributors – also beyond the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development/Development Assistance Committee (OECD/DAC) – should contribute additional funds to the multilateral development system.
• Contributors should reverse the trend of growing shares of earmarked funding by increasing core funds across organisations.
• Contributors should use earmarked funding more prudently to support rather than undermine multilateral functions. Multi-donor pooled funds are a viable alternative.
• Multilaterals should invest in transparent institutional mechanisms that provide checks for resource mobilisation.

Multilateral cooperation means that states can collectively achieve more than they can through individual and bilateral efforts alone. Multilateral organisations are important instruments for this: they have a greater geographic and thematic reach, operate at a larger scale and stand for multilateral norms and values. Funding provides an important basis for multilateral development cooperation – only with sufficient core funding at their disposal can multilaterals effectively and independently perform the functions member states expect. This includes a problem-driven allocation of resources, strategic orientation, and flexibility in the implementation of and advocacy for internationally agreed values, norms and standards. The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has demonstrated the need for international cooperation to deal with multiple crises that affect all societies. It has also proved the value of multilateral organisations that can combat the spread of COVID-19 worldwide and support countries where health systems are weakest.
Over the last three decades, the funding trend for multilateral organisations has been towards ever greater shares of earmarked funding, whereas core funding has grown much more slowly or has even declined for some organisations.
A contribution is earmarked when a contributor directs it to a specific pooled fund, programme or – most typically – a project in a specific country. The substantial increase in such earmarked (also “restricted”, “bi-multi”) funding has certainly buoyed organisations and helped to close many funding gaps.
However, such atomised funding practices come with the risk of instrumentalising multilateral organisations for project implementation purposes, and by doing so, reducing their programmatic coherence, effectiveness, efficiency and legitimacy. For contributors, earmarking has often been a politically convenient choice. It provides them with control over the use of their resources and visibility for results achieved, all at attractively low implementation costs. However, both the direct implications of earmarking for specific interventions and the more systemic effects on the effectiveness and efficiency of the multilateral organisations tend to be overlooked. At the scale we see it today, earmarking may actually undermine the ability of multilaterals to fulfil the member states’ expectations and make full use of their unique assets to advance the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
To fully harness the potential of multilateral development cooperation, both member states and multilateral organisations have to change course.
• A larger number of contributors – also beyond the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development/Development Assistance Committee (OECD/DAC) – should contribute additional funds to the multilateral development system.
• Contributors should reverse the trend of growing shares of earmarked funding by increasing core funds across organisations.
• Contributors should use earmarked funding more prudently to support rather than undermine multilateral functions. Multi-donor pooled funds are a viable alternative.
• Multilaterals should invest in transparent institutional mechanisms that provide checks for resource mobilisation.

Multilateral cooperation means that states can collectively achieve more than they can through individual and bilateral efforts alone. Multilateral organisations are important instruments for this: they have a greater geographic and thematic reach, operate at a larger scale and stand for multilateral norms and values. Funding provides an important basis for multilateral development cooperation – only with sufficient core funding at their disposal can multilaterals effectively and independently perform the functions member states expect. This includes a problem-driven allocation of resources, strategic orientation, and flexibility in the implementation of and advocacy for internationally agreed values, norms and standards. The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has demonstrated the need for international cooperation to deal with multiple crises that affect all societies. It has also proved the value of multilateral organisations that can combat the spread of COVID-19 worldwide and support countries where health systems are weakest.
Over the last three decades, the funding trend for multilateral organisations has been towards ever greater shares of earmarked funding, whereas core funding has grown much more slowly or has even declined for some organisations.
A contribution is earmarked when a contributor directs it to a specific pooled fund, programme or – most typically – a project in a specific country. The substantial increase in such earmarked (also “restricted”, “bi-multi”) funding has certainly buoyed organisations and helped to close many funding gaps.
However, such atomised funding practices come with the risk of instrumentalising multilateral organisations for project implementation purposes, and by doing so, reducing their programmatic coherence, effectiveness, efficiency and legitimacy. For contributors, earmarking has often been a politically convenient choice. It provides them with control over the use of their resources and visibility for results achieved, all at attractively low implementation costs. However, both the direct implications of earmarking for specific interventions and the more systemic effects on the effectiveness and efficiency of the multilateral organisations tend to be overlooked. At the scale we see it today, earmarking may actually undermine the ability of multilaterals to fulfil the member states’ expectations and make full use of their unique assets to advance the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
To fully harness the potential of multilateral development cooperation, both member states and multilateral organisations have to change course.
• A larger number of contributors – also beyond the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development/Development Assistance Committee (OECD/DAC) – should contribute additional funds to the multilateral development system.
• Contributors should reverse the trend of growing shares of earmarked funding by increasing core funds across organisations.
• Contributors should use earmarked funding more prudently to support rather than undermine multilateral functions. Multi-donor pooled funds are a viable alternative.
• Multilaterals should invest in transparent institutional mechanisms that provide checks for resource mobilisation.

L’actu en capitales décrypte l’info de toute l’Europe, grâce au réseau de rédactions d’EURACTIV.

Der britische Billigflieger Easyjet fährt wegen der neuen Reisewarnungen und Quarantäneregeln für wichtige Ferienländer sein Flugangebot zurück. Im laufenden Quartal werde das Unternehmen etwas weniger als die angekündigten 40 Prozent seiner Kapazität anbieten.

Weekly schedule of President Charles Michel 6-13 September 2020

Weekly schedule of President Charles Michel 6-13 September 2020

Weekly schedule of President Charles Michel 6-13 September 2020

Saharamédias - Le premier ministre mauritanien Mohamed O. Bilal a déclaré lundi soir que le gouvernement ne défendra pas une personne...

Le jeune avocat Me Tarek Zedam, père de quatre enfants, est décédé hier lundi en fin de journée à Bordj Bou Arreridj. Selon plusieurs sources concordantes, Tarek Zedam a été « percuté par un véhicule alors qu’il faisait du vélo ». Le comité national pour la libération des détenus CNLD a indiqué ce mardi dans un communiqué […]

L’article Bordj Bou Arreridj : Décès de l’avocat Tarek Zedam est apparu en premier sur .

EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen on Tuesday announced MEP Mairead McGuinness as the new Irish commissioner. If the European Parliament now approves McGuinness for the post, she will take charge of the financial services, financial stability and capital markets portfolio. Commission vice-president Valdis Dombrovskis will take over trade after previous Irish commissioner Phil Hogan resigned last month over the 'golfgate' scandal. McGuinness is a current parliament vice-president.

Die CHL wird im Oktober mit ihren K.o.-Runden nicht loslegen können. Der Start wird erneut verschoben – auf den 17. November. Hin- und Rückspiel werden am gleichen Ort ausgetragen.

Kommissionschefin Ursula von der Leyen hat das wichtige Handelsressort an den Letten Dombrovskis vergeben.

By Jomo Kwame Sundaram
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, Sep 8 2020 (IPS)

With many in the world experiencing declining living standards, there has been growing frustration. Many hope that progressive taxation will improve things. While some economies once had progressive tax systems, recent decades have seen regression.

Competing, contradictory trends
Triumph of Injustice, the recent book by Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, both associates of ‘rock-star’ economist Thomas Piketty, calls for a US return to progressive taxation. The duo show that the US had one of the world’s most progressive tax systems, but now, the richest pay a lower tax rate than the poorest.

Jomo Kwame Sundaram

The two French economists at Berkeley consider the two major competing US ideologies on taxation based on rival claims with contemporary echoes. The socially regressive, ostensibly libertarian tradition has its roots in property, including slaves, who once accounted for 40% of the population of the US South.

Plantation owners and slaveholders opposed property taxes in the name of freedom and liberty. Meanwhile, the myth of the wealthy that low taxes have long been part of US history and tradition has become far more influential.

Another more progressive tax ideology can be traced to more egalitarian traditions, including some involving wealth taxation. The US has actually had some of the highest tax rates on the rich in world history, as taxation became more progressive from the 1930s, especially after the Second World War.

Regressive turn
Those most responsible for the U-turn from the 1980s have been US Presidents Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump. The authors attribute the great recent increase in US economic inequality to the “negative spiral” involving regressive tax reforms over the last four decades.

However, empirical support for their claim is suspect as the ‘primary’ distribution of income before taxation is hardly egalitarian. Besides the traditional division between capital and labour, rentier incomes and much higher executive remuneration have become far more significant in recent decades.

While regressive tax incidence has undoubtedly made things worse, exaggerating the fiscal system’s redistributive impact detracts from a more comprehensive understanding of contemporary inequality.

Avoidance and evasion
Successive US governments have also enabled tax evasion and avoidance by not investing enough to effectively enforce what remains of the US tax code. These have been portrayed by beneficiaries and their propagandists as ‘unavoidable’.

They then claim that the best option to ensure greater compliance is to lower ‘headline’ tax rates. Thus, instead of greater efforts to reduce tax avoidance and evasion, they urge further reduction of tax rates.

Saez and Zucman insist that governments, especially the world’s most powerful one in Washington, DC, must come down hard on tax dodgers, pointing out that not doing so is due to political choices made. They propose a Federal Protection Bureau to enhance capacity against tax evasion and avoidance.

Corporate taxation
The duo show that corporate taxes were crucial in narrowing the gap between rich and poor during the Keynesian Golden Age for a quarter century or so in the mid-20th century after World War Two.

While very high top personal income tax rates, and much more inheritance and property taxes can help, they show that corporate taxation was crucial. The corporate income tax rate then was 50%, taking half of firm profits.

The high tax rate also encouraged re-investing profits, rather than paying dividends and bonuses, encouraging firm growth with higher capital accumulation in the long-term.

Meanwhile, progressive government expenditure complemented progressive taxation, including more direct taxes, for a comprehensively progressive fiscal system, reducing overall economic inequality.

Proposals to reduce inequalities
Saez and Zucman persuasively offer a comprehensive set of proposals to reverse the downward spiral to rebuild a much more progressive US tax system, with many lessons very relevant elsewhere as well. Importantly, they discuss various options for the US, including many not requiring international cooperation.

They acknowledge that the US has already shown the way with its Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA). FATCA compels all US citizens, both at home and abroad, to file annual reports on all their foreign holdings, ensuring greater financial transparency in the age of globalization.

Nevertheless, they insist it is not enough, arguing that “when it comes to regulating the tax industry, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) brings a knife to a gunfight”, instead of enhancing US tax capacities and capabilities.

‘Tax all incomes equally’
The first principle of taxation for them is that all income should be taxed equally, whether from work or assets. Today, capital income is taxed much less than labour income, increasing inequality contrary to the popular presumption that taxation is progressively redistributive.

Saez and Zucman also show that the rich can afford to pay 4% of national income, or US$750 billion more in tax. Four sets of taxes would double their current average tax rate from 30% to 60%.

They propose a steeply progressive income tax, arguing that a top rate of 75% is most viable. The duo also recommend strongly enforced corporate tax, doubling inheritance tax revenues, and introducing a wealth tax.

Wealth tax necessary
The duo also insist that it will be impossible to reduce inequality in the contemporary world only by raising corporate, inheritance and income taxes, as important as these are to the overall effort.

At the rates recommended, a wealth tax would raise significant sums, but still would not radically reduce inequality or extreme wealth concentration. Hence, the authors argue for higher rates, not only to raise more government revenue, but also to reduce extreme wealth inequality and concentration.

Saez and Zucman argue that extreme wealth concentration has led to growth benefits being captured by a few. They argue for taxing the rich, not only to enhance revenue, but also to reduce extreme wealth concentration.

For them, “a radical wealth tax would lead to a reduction in the number of multibillionaires. More than collecting revenue, it would deconcentrate wealth”. They suggest a 10% rate on fortunes over US$1 billion.

This would not only make it harder to be a billionaire, but also much harder to become and remain a multi-billionaire. If their proposed wealth tax was in place from 1982, most of the 400 richest Americans would still be billionaires, but worth much less.

Their wealth shares would be closer to what they were in 1982, before the rapid rise of wealth inequality. Mark Zuckerberg would still have US$21 billion, instead of US$61 billion, while Bill Gates would be worth US$4 billion, instead of US$97 billion.

Inequalities linked
Under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1930s, an income tax top rate of 94% was introduced, apparently not to raise revenue, but rather, to limit high incomes and wealth concentration.

This effectively limited income differentials between the highest and lowest paid to far more reasonable levels. As top tax rates have drastically fallen since, executives now get several hundred times more than their lowest paid employees.

In a recent interview, Gates commented, “I’m all for super-progressive tax systems…I’ve paid over $10bn in taxes. I’ve paid more than anyone in taxes. If I had to pay $20bn, it’s fine. But when you say I should pay $100bn, then I’m starting to do a little math about what I have left over.”

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');

The post Regressive Taxation Must Be Reversed appeared first on Inter Press Service.

By Stella Paul
HYDERBAD, India, Sep 8 2020 (IPS)

Nobel Laureate Kailash Satyarthi says that $1 trillion can solve many of the problems the world’s most marginalised communities are facing.

Satyarthi spoke to IPS in an exclusive interview on the eve of Fair Share for Children Summit, a global virtual conference, hosted by Laureates and Leaders for Children, which is founded by Satyarthi. The summit, which takes place from Sept. 9-10, brings together Nobel laureates, including the Dalai Lama, Tawakkol Karman, Professor Jody Williams and leading international figures and heads of United Nations agencies to demand a fair share for the world’s most marginalised children during and beyond COVID-19.

This fair share, the Laureates and Leaders for Children say, translates to 20 percent of the COVID-19 response for the poorest 20 percent of humanity and amounts to $1 trillion.

Watch as Satyarthi outlines just what the money will be spent on.

 

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs'); Related Articles

• Exclusive: Kailash Satyarthi Warns over a Million Children Could Die Because of COVID-19 Economic Crisis

The post Nobel Laureate Kailash Satyarthi on Where to Find the $1 trillion Needed for Marginalised Children appeared first on Inter Press Service.

Die Gegner des Brunaupark-Neubaus können einen Erfolg verbuchen. Das Baurekursgericht heisst eine Beschwerde gegen den Bau der geplanten 500 Wohnungen gut.

GC-Präsident Sky Sun kann aufgrund von Visa-Problemen aktuell nicht nach Zürich reisen. Dafür verspricht er via Videobotschaft, die Hoppers «wieder zurück an die Spitze des Schweizer Fussballs» führen zu wollen.

Italien verlängert die Corona-Massnahmen bis am 7. Oktober. Grossveranstaltungen sind auf unbestimmte Zeit verboten. Trotzdem demonstrierten am Wochenende 2000 Menschen in Rom gegen die Massnahmen.

Die verheerenden Waldbrände in Kalifornien gehen weiter. Jetzt haben die Behörden mehrere Nationalparks geschlossen unter anderem den bekannten Sequoia National Park.