SkydiveJonathan

The Tax Justice Network estimated in 2011 that $337 billion is lost to the U.S. every year in tax haven abuse. It's probably more. A recent report placed total hidden offshore assets at somewhere between $21 trillion and $32 trillion. Using the lesser $21 trillion figure, and considering that about 40% of the world's Ultra High Net Worth Individuals are Americans, and factoring in an annual 6% stock market gain based on historical records, the tax loss comes to $500 billion.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528781.800-calculated-violence-numbers-that-predict-revolutions.html?full=true PETER TURCHIN thinks he can see the future. Unlike the fortune teller you might find at a seaside carnival, he needs no crystal ball. Instead, the tools of his trade are mathematics and testable theories. Armed with these, his goal is nothing less than to revolutionise the study of history, turning it from a mass of anecdotes into a rigorous, predictive science. Reasoning that the fate of an empire rests ultimately on social cohesion, he has used historical records to track the prevalence of what he calls collective violence - deaths due to political assassinations, riots and civil wars, but not international wars or ordinary crimes - in three major civilisations, the Roman Republic, medieval Europe and Tsarist Russia. Applying mathematical tools borrowed from population biology, he has found that in each case deaths from collective violence follow two superimposed cycles, one spanning two to three centuries and the other about 50 years (Secular Cycles, Princeton University Press, 2009). What's more, he thinks his data provide enough leverage to understand what drives the longer cycle. The likeliest explanation, he says, is an idea known as demographic-structural theory, proposed two decades ago by Jack Goldstone at George Mason University in Arlington, Virginia. This argues that in a prosperous culture, population growth or advancing technology eventually leads to an oversupply of labour. That is good news for an expanding upper class who can more easily exploit an increasingly desperate labour force. Eventually, though, the society becomes so top-heavy that even some members of the elite can no longer afford the good life. Factionalism sets in as the upper classes fight among themselves, social cohesion declines, and the state begins to lose control of its citizens. Then, and only then, does widespread violence break out. Anarchy reigns until enough people fall out of the elite classes, at which point growth and prosperity can return.

Google the first sentence exactly & you'll see a zillion blogosphere hits quoting it. Same thing, really. This shit about the Romney clan's wealth (like it's some new revelation) is as irrelevant to the election as Obama's Moozlim middle name or Rev. Wright - it won't influence any significant number of swing votes one way or the other. Romney is all for austerity - apart from him of course. I think swing voters may have more judgement than you credit.

Tell that to the super rich. That's the game they're playing.

Flipping was all part of the new 'economic paradigm' of endless growth.

You can't pay machines and they can't spend the money. Machines are not economic agents.

Mitt Romney's offshore financial holdings are coming under new scrutiny following the publication of internal audits and private letters related to his $250m fortune. His wealth is held in a convoluted series of holding companies in tax havens including the Cayman Islands and Luxembourg, as well as the US. Romney's investments include stakes in funds invested in high-risk derivatives like the credit default swaps that contributed to the credit crisis, and an investment vehicle that loaned money to the parent firm of the National Enquirer, a racy US tabloid.

The richest 10% of households in Britain have seen the value of their assets increase by up to £322,000 as a result of the Bank of England's attempts to use electronic money creation to lift the economy out of its deepest post-war slump. Threadneedle Street said that wealthy families had been the biggest beneficiaries of its £375bn quantitative-easing (QE) programme, under which it has been buying government gilts for cash since early 2009. The Bank of England calculated that the value of shares and bonds had risen by 26% – or £600bn – as a result of the policy, equivalent to £10,000 for each household in the UK. It added, however, that 40% of the gains went to the richest 5% of households.

And lo and behold the evolutionary niche for unions arises.

However, it does suggest it should be tied to something quantifiable as opposed to left to capricious whim and opinion of what may or may not be appropriate as a "starter" wage for teenagers and retirees. In the United States, the minimum wage promulgated by the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 was intentionally set at a high, national level to render low-technology, low-wage factories in the South obsolete.

And there we have it - take what I say you deserve or starve.

Still no recognition that the minimum wage is set too low. There that help ya out some? Or is this what you want? IMO it is not too low. If it is not what you want to use it for, fine, still not too low, IMO. It is not meant a living wage, but a minimum wage. It is not that hard a concept to understand, or is it? Matt It's also meant to keep its value over time - which it obviously hasn't. So time to update the algorithm.

Wasn't that what 'flipping' was all about?

People aren't machines.

Still no recognition that the minimum wage is set too low. There that help ya out some? Or is this what you want? IMO it is not too low. If it is not what you want to use it for, fine, still not too low, IMO. It is not meant a living wage, but a minimum wage. It is not that hard a concept to understand, or is it? Matt If a basic algorithm in the machine is losing value year on year for decades then it's time to do something about it.

In 1980, the average US CEO was paid 42 times as much as the average worker when tax rates for the richest stood at 70%. Today, that ratio has widened to 380 times – exacerbated in part, no doubt, by the fact that CEOs are able to dramatically reduce their tax burdens by a reduction in top tax rates, as well as several new loopholes introduced in recent years. In fact, some companies paid their CEOs more money than they paid in taxes. Take Aubrey McClendon, CEO of Oklahoma-based Chesapeake Energy, who was paid $17.9m in 2011, while his company gave Uncle Sam just $13m on sales of $11.64bn.

Still no recognition that the minimum wage is set too low.

If work won't pay the bills then debt is the only other option. I assume you think it's ok to go into debt to pay for a professional qualification? Or a mortgage, or a new business?

Especially the rich (who always have to have more..and more)

Not such a low base if you have 500 people working for you. Now we are talking over a million dollars, and that is not even taking overtime into account. The current minimum wage is set low. Hence why people have had to go into so much debt just to stay afloat. A million dollars in wages going into the economy sounds good to me. We are losing sight that "Minimum Wage" is not meant as a sole source for life's needs wage. It is an entry level pay scale, for high schooler's, as a supplemental source income for retirees, or one of several jobs. The mind set of this one minimum wage job is how I will pay for all is wrong. The mind set of work to improve yourself and MOVE UP in the pay scale and better support yourself with one job, is correct. Matt No recognition that the minimum wage is too low in value?

They should eat cake - fine we get where you're coming from.

Almost 80pc of British business leaders feel that senior executives are paid too much, according to Grant Thornton. On an international level, 66pc reflected this sentiment, the survey of 2,800 businesses in 40 countries found. The survey also showed that two-thirds (67pc) of business leaders want shareholders to have a greater say on pay packages for senior executives.

The value of the minimum wage has been going steadily downwards for decades. If work won't pay the bills - then debt is the only answer. Until the system crashes.

Not such a low base if you have 500 people working for you. Now we are talking over a million dollars, and that is not even taking overtime into account. The current minimum wage is set low. Hence why people have had to go into so much debt just to stay afloat. A million dollars in wages going into the economy sounds good to me.

Or the British decide to bring them home when they can no longer protect them. Threatening to storm the embassy seems to be backfiring.