Nouvelles de Belgique

Kalawasa a écrit:En tout cas, c'est sympa de la part de Charly de nous avouer qu'il a gagné ...

On se voit quand, Charly ?

Charly a écrit:

Kalawasa a écrit:En tout cas, c'est sympa de la part de Charly de nous avouer qu'il a gagné ...

On se voit quand, Charly ?

c'est déjà distribué aux gilets jaunes

Mab-des-bois a écrit:

Charly a écrit:

Kalawasa a écrit:En tout cas, c'est sympa de la part de Charly de nous avouer qu'il a gagné ...

On se voit quand, Charly ?

c'est déjà distribué aux gilets jaunes

Alors la prochaine manif a une chance de ressembler à ceci ?

Charly a écrit:

Kalawasa a écrit:En tout cas, c'est sympa de la part de Charly de nous avouer qu'il a gagné ...

On se voit quand, Charly ?

c'est déjà distribué aux gilets jaunes

Charly a écrit:Bonne nouvelle pour votre porte-monnaie: votre salaire va augmenter en janvier grâce au tax shift, jusqu’à 140 euros net en plus par mois!

Olivier Chastel le dévoile à Sudpresse : la majorité réfléchit à des mesures pour endiguer la hausse des prix de l’énergie. Mais il rappelle que salaires, allocations et pensions ont eux aussi été augmentés… Et une nouvelle hausse des salaires aura lieu en janvier, grâce au tax shift !

Le président du MR insiste sur ce point : une nouvelle hausse des salaires interviendra dès janvier, sous l’effet du tax shift mis sur pied sous ce gouvernement. « On a ainsi déjà redistribué 2,75 milliards d’euros en 2015, 2016 et 2018 », explique Olivier Chastel. « La dernière phase s’appliquera dès janvier, pour 1 milliard d’euros. Soit 3,75 milliards au total qui auront permis de diminuer la taxation sur le travail et améliorer le salaire net. »

«  Le gouvernement avait pour objectif une hausse mensuelle de 100 euros net pour un salaire de 2.800 euros brut. Avec la hausse de janvier prochain, il aura tenu sa parole. Pour les plus gros revenus, la hausse aura été en moyenne de 80 euros net par mois. Mais pour les plus bas revenus, elle aura été de plus de 140 euros net par mois  ! Cumulée sur l’année, c’est plus qu’un treizième mois supplémentaire !  »

EddieCochran+ a écrit:89 -

Bien que je ne sois pas fana des têtes couronnées chleues j'éprouve de la sympathie pour Bébert le Roi Queuetard !

Rumba a écrit:

Charly a écrit:Bonne nouvelle pour votre porte-monnaie: votre salaire va augmenter en janvier grâce au tax shift, jusqu’à 140 euros net en plus par mois!

Olivier Chastel le dévoile à Sudpresse : la majorité réfléchit à des mesures pour endiguer la hausse des prix de l’énergie. Mais il rappelle que salaires, allocations et pensions ont eux aussi été augmentés… Et une nouvelle hausse des salaires aura lieu en janvier, grâce au tax shift !
(...)

ah ! je comprends mieux la visite de not'Président chez vous en Belgique, il est allé là bas pour prendre des notes afin de savoir comment augmenter les salaires et les pensions de retraite   en utilisant le +  et pas le moins, merci la Belgique 

Ce billet et sa réponse illustrent parfaitement le formidable déficit de pédagogie et de communication de l'Exécutif francaoui car la politique budgétaire adoptée par le gouvernement belge est esactement la même que celle mise en place par Jupy Zé Kid. La technique budgétaire est fiscale, elle s'appelle en bon français le "virage fiscal" ou flat tax pour les anglos-saxons, càd que l'on déporte la pression fiscale d'un poste x  vers un poste y ou plusieurs  n postes. Par exemple l'on baisse ou supprime des charges qui pèsent sur des salaires que l'on compense en augmentant les charges sur d'autres prélèvements afin de couvrir ce que les économistes appellent le coût des externalités.

Ce qui plaît en Belgique séduit les Francaouis mais ceux-ci s'en tapent le coquillard quand la même technique est adoptée en Fracaouireich et même ont l'impression que rien n'est fait qui pourrait augmenter leur pouvoir d'achat.

Evidemment, comment espliquer à ceux - dont je fais partie - qui n'ont pas un master en économie et une licence de maths sup ce qu'est la technique du virage fiscal ou de la taxe verte (green-tax en anglais). Pour preuve je vous colle ici les articles de simple VULGARISATION d'un site britannique qui esplique rapidos à ses lecteurs supposés néophytes les modalités de ces techniques macro économiques qui sont les caractéristiques des taxes carbone ou du virage fiscal de la transition écologique :

Carbon Tax- Advantages and Disadvantages
Tejvan Pettinger November 28, 2016

A Carbon tax is a specific tax on the consumption of goods which cause carbon dioxide emissions. C02 emissions have been identified as a major source of global warming and therefore, governments have been keen to reduce carbon emissions.

Advantages of Carbon Taxes
tax-on-negative-externality


The market price is P1 – but this ignores the external cost of pollution. A carbon tax of P2-P0 would raise the price to P2 and cause a more socially efficient level of output.

Carbon taxes have been suggested as a way to internalise the negative externality of carbon emissions. This means that consumers/producers will pay the full social cost of consumption. For example, the private cost of an aeroplane may be £400. However, the external cost of pollution from that air flight might be estimated at £120. Therefore, the carbon tax would add £120 onto the flight, and the final price would be £520. This would discourage some from flying – leading to a reduction in air-travel and a reduction in pollution. If people pay the full social cost – it will lead to a more socially efficient level of consumption.

Carbon taxes provide an incentive for firms to use and develop more environmentally friendly production processes. If we tax carbon emissions, then it may change the balance and make solar power relatively more competitive than burning fossil fuels like carbon. This will encourage investment in renewable energy and lead to further technological developments. In recent years, investment and new technology have made solar energy more effective and efficient. A carbon tax can accelerate this switch to renewable energy which has lower pollution costs.
They can also raise money to be spent on environmental initiatives. The revenue raised from a carbon tax can be used to fund investment in alternatives. For example, the government can subsidies more environmentally friendly public transport.

Problems with Carbon Taxes
It can be difficult to measure how much carbon is produced, and therefore difficult to know what level of carbon tax to charge.
It is difficult to know the true cost of carbon emissions on the environment and future generations.
Carbon taxes can cause the possibility of tax evasion. For example, firms try to mask the true level of pollution. Alternatively, we could outsource production to countries with less stringent tax systems – in effect exporting pollution to poorer countries. Carbon taxes may need global agreements.
Discourage investment. An argument made by business is that carbon taxes will discourage investment and reduce profitability.
Countries may free ride on others making efforts to reduce carbon emissions and reduce the impact of global warming. For example, under President Trump, the US left the Paris agreement on global warming.



********************************
Carbon Tax – Pros and Cons

Tejvan Pettinger October 21, 2017  economics
A carbon tax aims to make individuals and firms pay the full social cost of carbon pollution. In theory, the tax will reduce pollution and encourage more environmentally friendly alternatives. However, critics argue a tax on carbon will increase costs for business and reduce levels of investment and economic growth.

pros-cons-carbon-tax

The purpose of a carbon tax

The purpose of a carbon tax is to internalise this externality. What this means is that the final price of the good should include the external cost and not just the private cost. It is similar to the ‘polluter pays principle.‘ – which was incorporated into international law at the 1992 Rio Summit. It simply means those who cause environmental costs should be made to pay the full social cost of their actions.

Diagram to show welfare loss of a negative externality


This diagram shows that in a free market (without any tax), we get overconsumption (Q1) of carbon, leading to a welfare loss to society.

Social efficiency with Carbon Tax

tax-on-negative-externality

The tax shifts the supply curve from S to S2. With the tax, consumers now face the full social cost (SMC). Quantity falls from Q1 to Q2. Q2 is socially efficient because social marginal cost = social marginal benefit.

Revenue neutral

In theory, a carbon tax should be revenue neutral. This means the tax raised from taxing carbon emissions can be used to reduce other taxes. There should be no overall increase in the tax burden. The aim is to increase social efficiency by making people aware of the full social cost.

Arguments for a Carbon Tax
1. Encourages alternatives. A higher price of carbon emissions will encourage firms and consumers to develop more efficient engines or alternatives to consuming carbon emissions. For example, with carbon taxes, it will be more efficient to develop hydrogen engines or solar power.

It might encourage more people to cycle or walk to work. This would have health benefits such as lower risk of heart attack.
This could make it more feasible to generate electricity from green sources (e.g. solar power). If we develop more green sources it will also make us less reliant on oil.
It will help make the transition to a post-oil economy easier.

2. Raises revenue. The revenue raised from a carbon tax could be used to subsidise alternatives such as green electricity or the revenue raised could be used to repair the damage caused by environmental pollution. Alternatively, a higher carbon tax could be used to reduce other taxes, such as VAT.

3. Leads to a socially efficient outcome. It makes people pay the social cost and overcomes the excess consumption we see in a free market.

4. Improves the environment. WIth higher taxes, firms will reduce pollution and look for alternatives which have a lower environmental impact. For example, it will make solar power even more competitive than traditional fossil fuels.

Problems of a Carbon Tax
Production may shift to countries with no or lower carbon taxes. (so-called ‘pollution havens’) This can give developing countries an incentive to encourage production processes which cause pollution, i.e. there is ‘outsourcing’ of pollution.
The cost of administrating the tax may be quite expensive reducing its efficiency.
It is difficult to evaluate the level of external cost and how much the tax should be.
Possibility of tax evasion. Higher taxes may encourage firms to hide carbon emissions.
If demand is price inelastic, the tax may have to be very high to reduce demand significantly. In the short term, firms may not feel they have many alternatives. Though, over time, demand will become more elastic as more alternatives are generated.
Consumers dislike new taxes and often don’t believe that they will be ‘revenue neutral’. This is not an economic argument, but it is a political reality and explains why it is often difficult to implement.
A global carbon tax may curtail economic activity in the poor developing world because they can’t afford the small increase in energy costs, but the developed world may simply be able to pay. There may be a need for a carbon tax to reflect different abilities to pay.
*********************************
Thursday, July 3, 2008
10 Reasons Not To Cut Petrol Tax
The Daily Express has a campaign, stop petrol tax robbery They are calling for a massive cut in petrol tax. Whilst this may be popular with motorists, does it make any economic sense to cut petrol taxes? These are 10 reasons why the Express is wrong and the government should persist with petrol taxes.

1. Congestion.

Congestion on UK roads costs the UK economy over £21 billion a year. Without petrol tax, the costs of congestion would be much worse. Higher petrol prices are forcing people to find alternative means of transport; it is giving the economy an unexpected boon of quieter roads, which leads to much greater efficiency and less time wasted in traffic jams

2. Pollution

Consumption of petrol causes CO2 emissions. High prices help to moderate demand and reduce pollution levels. This helps the UK meet its carbon emission targets; it also helps improve air quality in city centres.

3. More efficient driving

Higher petrol prices have encouraged people to drive more efficiently; people are driving slower. People are shopping locally rather than going to out of town supermarkets. In many ways, the higher oil prices are encouraging more efficient driving. See: Effect of higher petrol prices

4. More efficient Engines.

On the producers side, there is an increased incentive to develop more fuel efficient engines, rather than the gas guzzling SUVs.

5. Inequality

Often you hear an argument, higher petrol prices are not fair, because poor people cannot afford them. However, this is the wrong approach to reducing poverty. The role of petrol taxes is not to deal with relative poverty. The best way to reduce poverty is increase the incomes of the poor, not cut petrol taxes. Petrol taxes should be set at the socially efficient level; if the government is concerned about equity issues, it should adress them directly, not indirectly through altering indirect taxes on cigarrettes, petrol and alcohol.

6. Encourages Alternatives

Higher oil prices, encourages the development of alternative energy sources, such as electric cars, hydrogen powered cars. We need to find alternatives to oil; the sooner we do it, the smoother the transition will be.

7. Raises Revenue

If you cut petrol taxes, the government will have to simply raise other taxes. There is no welfare gain from cutting petrol taxes. It only changes the way taxes are collected. Whether we pay income tax or petrol tax it does not affect our living standards. If petrol tax has beneficial effects of increasing social efficiency, then we might as well pay tax this way rather than through more inefficient taxes such as income tax.

8. Rising Oil Prices are a signal we need to find alternatives.(souligné par EC)

You can't buck the market for ever. Oil is a non renewable energy source. The higher price of oil cannot be explained through speculation; prices are high because demand is rising faster than supply. To try subsidise lower oil prices is only to delay the necessary switch to other energy sources.

9. Petrol tax pays for the external cost of driving cars and lorries.

Driving cars and lorries create many negative externalties. Petrol tax helps covers these externalities. They include:
Cost of repairing roads worn out (especially by lorries)
Pollution costs
Congestion costs
Costs of accidents (over 3,000 deaths in UK alone). Less traffic will reduce this level of fatalities.

10. It is necessary to switch Transport Methods

There was a time when many people were employed driving horses and carts. Technological changes necessarily made these horse and cart drivers redundant. But, other jobs are created. If less goods are transported by lorry, it will create increased demand in other sectors of the economy such as trains.

There is a populist demand to cut petrol taxes, but, just because a tax cut is popular doesn't mean it is a good idea. To subsidise consumption of petrol at this point in time, would be the worst possible mistake. We need to develop an alternative to petrol, and the sooner the better. The effects of rising oil prices are actually very beneficial and future generations will welcome the changes that we are making now. To prolong the supremacy of cheap petrol prices would do nothing to help the environment, congestion and long term energy prospects of the economy.

Of course, politicians may not be swayed by economics, after all they have to get re-elected. But, that doesn't mean cutting taxes would be a good thing. Keep petrol prices high."

**********************
Bon appétit Mesdames & Messieurs . Allez espliquer ça aux GJ   !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Kalawasa a écrit:Merci Eddie : j'ai dégusté votre article , mais j'ai surtout retenu  un graphique :



En abscisse , on trouve le Q, et c'est là qu'on va l'avoir !

Charly a écrit:A L'INTENTION DE NOTRE PREMIER MINISTRE,Charles Michel

Kalawasa a écrit:[size=47]Un rassemblement de "gilets jaunes" francophones et flamands se tiendra à Bruxelles le 30 novembre[/size]


Si Wallons et Flamands arrivent à s'entendre, c'est que l'heure est grave !