Connect with us

Economy

The geopolitical and financial significance of Bitcoin

Giancarlo Elia Valori

Published

on

Bitcoin and the other “cryptocurrencies”, namely Ethereum and Litcoin- although there are 33 additional currencies arriving on the Internet – are a brand new phenomenon on the currency market.

Currently we are all in the so-called “fiat money” regime, namely any money declared by a government to be legal tender, which is a currency not backed by gold reserves – a currency which is always and anyway accepted by everyone.

Hence it is also fiat money, like the first “lire” of the Kingdom of Italy.

This means it is a State-issued currency that is not convertible by law to any equivalent value in gold or other hard currencies.

Fiat money is stable as it is controlled, almost on a daily basis, with the money demand from the economic system.

When there is an excess of money supply, we talk about inflation.

This is, indeed, the true meaning of the alltoowell-known concept of “inflation”, not the mere “price increase” which, at most, can be an indicator of excessive growth in money supply, not one of its causes.

Accepting the Dollar, the French or Swiss Franc, the Euro, the Ruble or any other currency (albeit, in fact, the situation would be somehow different for the Russian currency) is always mandatory by law.

Hence also seigniorage is mandatory, namely the act of legal magic with which each issuing bank decides that a small piece of paper is worth 100 nominal euro – although costing  only 3 cents to the issuing bank for producing it.

The difference between the face value of money and the cost to produce it (plus fixed costs such as equipment, staff salaries and taxes) is, in fact, seigniorage.

The latter, however, should not be demonized, as done by some theorists who – by using a silly contemporary language dogma – are called “radicals”.

Reasonably, the possible alternative is the intrinsic value money, like the medieval coins – molten gold marked as shown on the coin front or back. Nevertheless the King often “reduced the value” of coins or melted gold and silver with non-monetary metals, such as copper (although the United States was to use it in the future) or even bronze.

Today we would say it was a form of “seigniorage” “with criminal relevance and implications”.

The primal scene – just to quote a concept by Sigmund Freud -stemmed from the 1971 “Smithsonian Agreement”.

It was the American agreement Nixon had wanted as from August 15, 1971, signed in the Smithsonian Museum of Washington. It was signed by what we would currently call the G7 and reestablished an international system of fixed exchange rates without the backing of gold. It certified the end of FED’s obligation to pay for gold up to the fixed rate of 35 US dollars per ounce.

It was the end of the gold-backed currency – the “fiat money” no longer pegged to intrinsic money – occurring after the Allies verifying that the American currency was severely overvalued.

The costs borne for the Vietnam War, the end of the Johnsonian cycle of Great Society and the crisis of US products on European markets, were all factors which led De Gaulle, at first, to ask – without further ado – the payment of the US debt in gold or in hard currencies. Later many other allies who were reluctant to put in place non-tariff barriers against US products followed suit.

To put it more brutally, Nixon shifted the burden of the US super-inflation onto his allies of the Bretton Woods Agreement, which Europeans were forced to pay since they had to buy highly overvalued dollars for their international trade.

As the US Treasury Secretary, John Connally, said at the time to his European colleagues: “The dollar is our currency but your problem”.

In other words, cryptocurrencies are the result of this long historical process.

The currency based on Nothing, the postmodern point of arrival point of the disembodied monetary instrument.

A currency that is believed to be good because everyone thinks so – a financial transposition of Andersen’s tale “The Emperor’s New Clothes”.

As you may remember, it is the tale about two weavers who promise an Emperor a new suit of clothes that they say is invisible to those who are unfit for their position, hopelessly stupid or incompetent – while in reality, they make no clothes at all, making everyone believe the clothes are invisible to them. When the Emperor parades before his subjects in his new “clothes”, no one, including his Ministers, dares to say they do not see any suit of clothes on him for fear that they will  be seen as stupid. Finally, a child in the crowd, too young to understand the desirability of keeping up the pretense, blurts out that the Emperor “is not wearing anything at all” and the cry is taken up by others.

The same will happen to the contemporary monetary equilibrium, but it will certainly not be a child who will get  bankers and the public at large to open their eyes.

Hence today banks create money, which is mandatory to consider valid, with a fiat -namely ex nihilo – from the Void of Value. Or from their debt or even from the State debt.

Just issue securities having another name.

Hence, what is currently money? It is what the Auctoritas decides to be so.

Or, to be precise, the money supply currently issued by the central banks or other banking institutions, which is not based on savers’ deposits or on debt repayment forecasts,  but it is only the sign of a debt, the “promise of a settlement”which, however, is spent immediately.

And hence it is confirmed in its Value. The Value lies in theshift from a currency to another or from a currency to real goods or assets.

Obviously banks still earn interest on the money supply, regardless of its source.

Bitcoin, however, is not a currency like any other, guaranteed by internal law and interbank agreements.

The cryptocurrency is based on a mechanism like the one of online sales, namely the peer-to-peer one, which is gradually accepted by all those who now operate with Bitcoins.

Hence, while the final Bitcoin supply is defined – as always happens – our Internet currency is completely volatile.

Therefore it cannot certainly be a unit of account.

Hence Bitcoin varies- programmatically – as demand changes. In fact, last year its value increased by 47 times.

The reason is simple: it is a monetary supply that adapts to demand, but is also able to stop so as to create sufficiently long Bitcoin income and returns to attract average investors.

In January 2018,the cryptocurrency is worth approximately 900 dollars – a value that will probably increase when, in all likelihood, the Internet currency will be accepted by large commercial and distribution chains.

If it is a currency that influences markets by adapting to buyers’ requests (or artificially reducing supply in an instant), the only ones that can reap benefits are the Great States, the International Crime Organizations or the new networks of global Banks.

Never let them tell you that the small investor of Grand Rapids or Varese can determine the first “peer-to-peer” that, by repetition, triggers the chain off.

It is another fairy tale like the one of the movie Mary Poppins pointing to the magical growth of the penny deposited in a London bank, growing out of all proportion and turning into huge amounts of money.

The fairy tale is the expected automatic growth of funds denominated in Bitcoins, from 10 euro up to millions of millions, like the stars.

In fact, nothing is closer to the world of Andersen or the Brothers Grimm than some bad finance.

We can wonder whether the cryptocurrency is nothing more than a “Ponzi e-Scheme”.

You may recall the Ponzi Scheme or pyramid scheme, in which the high interest rates granted to capital providers -attracted precisely by the rates that are promised – are paid with new investors’ fresh capital.

In fact, what is striking is that the production of Bitcoins is sometimes artificially low because there are many people  who want to buy them.

An issuing bank à la carte.

In fact, the many people who are waiting for buying Bitcoins hope that their value will increase, but only after they have managed to buy them.

A self-fulfilling prophecy.

A mechanism which is exactly the same as the Ponzi Scheme.

As the best US financial advisers say, do not follow the crowd.

Hence the Bitcoin is a “bubble”. A bubble probably bound to last, but still a bubble.

A bubble born in 2016. The primary year, while everybody makes reference to 2009, when the production of notes was no longer enough and the debt to be repaid was huge, while the West was entering its darkest crisis since the 1929one.

The trigger,i.e. the banking panic and the unaware laissez-faire approach of the US Presidency, were the same in both cases.

Two crises – the old and the new -broken out precisely in the United States, the burden of which was later shifted onto  the rest of the West.

With a view to overcoming the first crisis, the huge costs borne for the Second World War were needed.The Rooseveltian stimulus had been to little avail.

The second crisis, much closer to us, which was triggered by the subprime crisis, has needed liquidity injections even greater than those needed during the 1929Great Depression – injections which have not ceased yet.

In the latter case, the exit from the crisis is ensured by the creation from nothing of the largest mass of money in human history, also through the Internet.

In fact, the Internet currencies have allowed to create exchange value, purely financial values ​​that have strongly contributed to multiplying global liquidity in collaboration with standard currencies, which have been distributed indiscriminately to just any market – with helicopter money – by the US Governors and then by the ECB Governor, although certainly in much smaller proportions than his US counterparts.

On the other hand, when there is a liquidity crisis- a crisis caused by an excess of debt – every issuing bank prints money or rather creates money from debt securities. There is no other solution.

Contemporary Value arises from the mastery of a Name and from the artificial dissociation between this Name and a New Name.

Furthermore,in any case, the presence of cryptocurrencies only on the Internet and with a system along the lines of the peer-to-peer mechanism of normal online sales has allowed hackers’ systematic theft of 14% of all cryptocurrencies existing on the worldmarket.

A theft worth 1.2 billion US dollars, with revenues equal to at least 200 million US dollars.

In less than ten years, however, the technology generatingBitcoins will be vulnerable to cyber-attacks launched by quantum computers, which will become more widespread  than they are today.

The attacks on virtual currencies have already cost governments and private companies owning them asmany as 113 billion dollars of turnover.

Nevertheless, who is currently inflating the Bitcoin value, which has more than doubled compared to January 2017 –  a value that is now around 125%?

The main reason for this is China. Beijing is now the first market  for the exchange of cryptocurrencies in the world.

As early as 2015 China alone traded 80% of Bitcoins.

Today, the top 4 among the 32 major exchange platforms of these new currencies mainly trade yuan.

One of these platforms has opened a mining station for  “creating” Bitcoins – an operation which is highly energy-intensive and consuming – on the slopes of Tibet, where there is abundant low-cost energy.

Every time the yuan depreciates, the Bitcoin appreciates, because there are so many Chinese who pocket their capital to avoid government’s control and hence buy Bitcoins.

The yuan is depreciating and the capital flight from China is ongoing. The tool is often the conversion of the yuan masses into Bitcoins.

We may wonder whether the e-currency is used as a tool of  “indirect war” against China.

Moreover, the current growth on the US and on some other European Stock Exchanges has occurred with credit money, borrowed at zero interest rate, which has been provided to  major investors by central banks.

Another possible reason justifying the Bitcoin growth.

Virtual money may havealso been created to avoid the investors’ traditional rush to gold – the “tribal residue”, as Keynes called it – and hence not to increase the dollar value, currently maneuvered downward?

On January 15, one of the most active US-listed banks on the Bitcoin market ceased to convert cryptocurrencies into “traditional” currencies, but especially into dollars.

The beginning of the fall in the Bitcoin value, but the preservation of market liquidity, so as to prevent it from converging towards gold, in particular, or European hard currencies or, even worse, towards the Chinese or Russian financial markets.

Hence the Bitcoin is a pseudo-currency that serves to control the volatility and trends of global financial markets, as well as to keep it artificially high and avoid some currencies becoming “full” or sovereign like the Swiss Franc.

In fact, in 2018 a referendum will be held throughout the   Helvetic Confederation on the so-called “full” or sovereign currency, i.e. on a Swiss Franc created by the national central bank and not by international banks.

“True Francs on our accounts”. Only the Swiss National Bank can create e-money, where necessary.

These are the goals of those who have proposed the referendum.

Let us hope for the best. Those who almost invented modern finance – the Swiss merchants of the Middle Ages, the link between Italian ports and large Central European markets -now realize the dangers of creating value from nothing, the Faustian (and darkly malicious) mechanism currently governing the magical and alchemical transformation of banks’ and States’ debt into credit for individuals.

Let us hope that the financial world will come to its senses, just in time.

Advisory Board Co-chair Honoris Causa Professor Giancarlo Elia Valori is an eminent Italian economist and businessman. He holds prestigious academic distinctions and national orders. Mr Valori has lectured on international affairs and economics at the world’s leading universities such as Peking University, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Yeshiva University in New York. He currently chairs "La Centrale Finanziaria Generale Spa", he is also the honorary president of Huawei Italy, economic adviser to the Chinese giant HNA Group and member of the Ayan-Holding Board. In 1992 he was appointed Officier de la Légion d'Honneur de la République Francaise, with this motivation: "A man who can see across borders to understand the world” and in 2002 he received the title of "Honorable" of the Académie des Sciences de l'Institut de France

Continue Reading
Comments

Economy

Strong labour relations key to reducing inequality and meeting challenges of a changing world of work

MD Staff

Published

on

Globalisation and rapid technological innovation have spurred unprecedented economic growth but not everyone has benefited. Unions and employers, together with governments, can play a major role in making growth more inclusive and helping workers and businesses face the challenges of a changing world of work. Good labour relations are a way to reduce inequalities in jobs and wages and better share prosperity, according to a new OECD-ILO report.

Building Trust in a Changing World of Work finds that trade union membership is declining in a majority of countries, while in several emerging economies large shares of the workforce are still in the informal economy. The share of employees whose job conditions and pay are regulated by collective bargaining varies greatly across sectors and countries, from less than 10% in Turkey to over 90% in Sweden. Coverage of collective bargaining have also seen a marked decline in many countries over the last decades, although in some countries more workers are covered today thanks to decisive policy reforms.

“Creating more and better jobs is key to achieving inclusive economic growth. At a time marked by increasing job insecurity, wage stagnation and new challenges from the digital revolution, constructive labour relations are more important than ever,” said OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurría, launching the report alongside Swedish Foreign Affairs Minister Margot Wallström, French Labour Minister Muriel Pénicaud, ITUC General Secretary Sharan Burrow and ILO Deputy Director-General for Field Operations & Partnerships, Moussa Oumarou.

The report is part of the Global Deal for Decent Work and Inclusive Growth, an initiative launched in 2016 by the Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Löfven and developed in cooperation with the OECD and the ILO. This multi-stakeholder partnership aims to foster social dialogue as a way of promoting better-quality jobs, fairer working conditions and helping spread the benefits of globalisation, in keeping with the Sustainable Development Goals. The Global Deal has around 90 partners representing governments, businesses, employers’ and workers’ organisations and other bodies who make voluntary commitments to contribute to a more effective dialogue and negotiated agreements on labour issues.

“We are convinced that the Global Deal for Decent Work and Inclusive Growth can  help to spur more and better social dialogue so we can provide all workers with strong voices, protection, fair working conditions and good levels of trust with employers,” Mr Gurría said.

“The new report shows that enhanced social dialogue can create opportunities for more inclusive labour markets and economic growth, better socio-economic outcomes and greater well-being for workers, improved performance for businesses and restored trust for governments,” said ILO Director-General Guy Ryder.

Some 2 billion workers around the world – more than half the global labour force – are in informal and mostly insecure jobs, according to the report, meaning they do not have formal contracts or social security. Annually there are 2.78 million work-related deaths and 374 million non-lethal work-related injuries and illnesses.

The report highlights the crucial role that unions and employers can play in shaping the future of work by jointly deciding what technologies to adopt and how, contributing to manage transitions for displaced workers, helping identify skills needs and developing education and training programs. The report also shows that when looking at the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises companies with a higher social score (a measure of their capacity to generate trust and loyalty among the workforce, customers and wider society) also have a stronger financial performance.

This report analyses the voluntary commitments made by Global Deal partners and gives examples of initiatives to improve labour relations that have been taken in different countries and sectors.

Continue Reading

Economy

How digital is your country? Europe needs Digital Single Market to boost its digital performance

MD Staff

Published

on

European Commission published the results of the 2018 Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI), a tool which monitors the performance of Member States in digital connectivity, digital skills online activity, the digitisation of businesses and digital public services.

According to it, the EU is getting more digital, but progress remains insufficient for Europe to catch up with global leaders and to reduce differences across Member States. This calls for a quick completion of the Digital Single Market and increased investments in digital economy and society.

Andrus Ansip, Vice-President for the Digital Single Market, said: “This is a shift, albeit small, in the right digital direction. As a whole, the EU is making progress but not yet enough. In the meantime, other countries and regions around the world are improving faster. This is why we should invest more in digital and also complete the Digital Single Market as soon as possible: to boost Europe’s digital performance, provide first-class connectivity, online public services and a thriving e-commerce sector.”

Mariya Gabriel, Commissioner for Digital Economy and Society, said: “We look forward to a rapid progress on major reforms such as the European Electronic Communications Code aiming at boosting investments in enhanced connectivity. This year’s Digital Economy and Society Index demonstrates that we must deploy further efforts to tackle lack of digital skills among our citizens. By integrating more digital technologies and equipping them with skills, we will further empower citizens, businesses and public administrations. This is the way to succeed the digital transformation of our societies.”

Over the past year, the EU continued to improve its digital performance and the gap between the most and the least digital countries slightly narrowed (from 36 points to 34 points). Denmark, Sweden, Finland and the Netherlands scored the highest ratings in DESI 2018 and are among the global leaders in digitalisation. They are followed by Luxembourg, Ireland, the UK, Belgium and Estonia. Ireland, Cyprus and Spain progressed the most (by more than 15 points) over the last four years. However, some other EU countries still have a long way to go and the EU as a whole needs to improve to be competitive on the global stage.

DESI 2018 shows:

Connectivity has improved, but is insufficient to address fast-growing needs

  • Ultrafast connectivity of at least 100 Mbps is available to 58% of households and the number of subscriptions is rapidly increasing. 15% of homes use ultrafast broadband: this is twice as high as just two years ago and five times higher than in 2013.
  • 80% of European homes are covered by fast broadband with at least 30 Megabits per second (Mbps) (76% last year) and a third (33%) of European households have a subscription (23% increase compared to last year, and 166% compared to 2013).

The number of mobile data subscriptions has increased by 57% since 2013 reach 90 subscriptions per 100 people in the EU. 4G mobile networks cover on average 91% of the EU population (84% last year).

Indicators show that the demand for fast and ultrafast broadband is rapidly increasing, and is expected to further increase in the future. The Commission proposed a reform of EU telecoms rules to meet Europeans’ growing connectivity needs and boost investments.

More and more Europeans use the internet to communicate

The highest increase in the use of internet services is related to telephone and video calls: almost half of Europeans (46%) use the internet to make calls, this is almost a 20% increase compared to last year and more than 40% increase compared to 2013. Other indicators show that 81% of Europeans now go online at least once a week (79% last year).

To increase trust in the online environment, new EU rules on data protection will enter into force on 25 May 2018.

The EU has more digital specialists than before but skills gaps remain

  • The EU improved very little in the number of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) graduates (19.1 graduates per 1000 people aged 20 to 29 years old in 2015, compared to 18.4. in 2013);
  • 43% of Europeans still do not have basic digital skills (44% last year).

Alongside the Digital Skills and Jobs Coalition, the Commission has launched the Digital Opportunity Traineeships to tackle the digital skills gap in Europe. The pilot initiative will provide digital traineeships for up to 6,000 students and recent graduates until 2020 in another EU country.

Businesses are more digital, e-commerce is growing slowly

While more and more companies send electronic invoices (18% compared to 10% in 2013) or use social media to engage with customers and partners (21% compared to 15% in 2013), the number of SMEs selling online has been stagnating over the past years (17%).

In order to boost e-commerce in the EU, the Commission has put forward a series of measures from more transparent parcel delivery prices to simpler VAT and digital contract rules. As of 3 December 2018, consumers and companies will be able to find the best deals online across the EU without being discriminated based on their nationality or residence.

Europeans use more public services online

58% of internet users submitting forms to their public administration used the online channel (52% in 2013).

  • 18% of people use online health services.

In April 2018, the Commission adopted initiatives on the re-use of public sector information and on eHealth that will significantly improve cross-border online public services in the EU.

Continue Reading

Economy

The Google Tax

Giancarlo Elia Valori

Published

on

The European Treasury, individually as member States or collectively as Union, has so far reached – with a race to the bottom – as many as 72 agreements with large global companies.

Tax competition is still very strong and active. Just think of the US corporate tax that-following the latest reforms- has  decreased to a maximum 26% rate, more than one third less than the previous rate, with a US average corporate tax rate which is now below all OECD and G7 levels. Similar approaches, however, are developing in Argentina, Colombia, Luxembourg, Canada and even Japan.

Conversely corporate taxes have increased in Turkey, Portugal and Taiwan, with further increases – albeit slight – also in India. They are selective increases to favour some foreign or national companies compared to others.

At world level we now have as many as eleven jurisdictions –which account for 27% of the total corporate taxes in the world – that are currently increasing corporate  taxes, while all the other small and large countries will keep on competing fiercely at tax level with their neighbouring countries.

In short, technology has made all the old tax strategies obsolete.

In fact, currently competition between EU tax systems costs the weakest countries 60 billion euros a year.

It is worth recalling that nine of the twenty companies with the largest capitalization in the world are digital.

The most used corporate tax avoidance strategies to move profits sourced in EU countries to offshore tax havens include the “Dutch sandwich”, the Luxembourg tax rulings-which have recently come to light with the LuxLeaks scandal which hit the headlines – or the specific Irish tax policy, known as the double Irish arrangement.

They rely on the tax loophole that most EU countries allow royalty payments be made to other EU countries without incurring withholding taxes. However, the Dutch tax code allows royalty payments to be made to several offshore tax havens, without incurring Dutch withholding tax.

The Dutch sandwich is based, at first, on the Dutch national rule according to which the dividends and surplus value of a parent company can be transferred to its subsidiaries without paying any tax.

Hence any capital can be transferred to companies based in the Netherlands, thus avoiding all taxation on this liquidity.

Therefore the Dutch sandwich behaves like a “backdoor” out of the EU corporate tax system and into the untaxed non-EU offshore locations.

On the other hand, Luxembourg tends to enter into bilateral agreements with large companies and multinationals, as in a sort of State-company agreement. Everyone tends to do so, but in Luxembourg the transactions and agreements with companies are always particularly beneficial to the private sector.

Ireland imposes a maximum 12.5% corporate tax rate on the total taxable income stated. For purely financial companies said tax rate is only 10%.

Currently the EU tax policy is still based on the destination principle which allows for VAT to be retained by the country where the taxed product is sold.

This is a strategy dating back to the period when the European Union had to deal with the booming phase of Internet sales.

In that case, however, it was a matter of selling traditional goods in a new way. Nowadays brand new goods are sold on the Internet in an even more unusual way.

For IT companies, however, the matter is even more complex, considering they can make turnover and profit anywhere without having any kind of permanent and stable organization where they sell or buy product (or, possibly, produce them).

According to the latest data, with the aforementioned  “Dutch sandwich” strategy, in 2016 Google put aside as many as 3.7 billion euros on a total taxable income of 15.9 billion euros.

As all web firms do, it is enough for an Irish subsidiary of the Californian company to sell products globally via royalty schemes to a Dutch company without staff or operations in progress or to another Irish subsidiary also incorporated in Ireland, but managed from an offshore tax haven like Bermuda..

Over a period of three years, the well-known monopolistic Internet firm of California has “saved” approximately 34.2 billion euros, with an annual saving increase of about 7%.

At this juncture, we could only define a universally applicable legal formula of registered office or business organization, in addition to the one of the tangible or intangible place where the tax is generated.

Obviously we also need to imagine the tacit blackmail power of major corporations operating on the Internet, which have very useful databases for all governments and for the US one, in particular. We should also consider to what extent this information and tax asymmetry is useful for the US hegemony over global markets.

This is the geopolitical issue: the tax supremacy of major web firms is an essential and irenouceable factor of the new US hegemony, namely of the New American Century.

With a view to curbing web majors’ tax power, someone has also considered the formula of “meaningful interaction” with users, obtained through widespread digital channels.

It may happen, however, that at least part of the online turnover is produced through peer-to-peer channels between the company and some customer sectors or through a splitting of the IT mediation between small companies, carried out by customer groups.

With the pretext of “dedicated” content, you can avoid taxation and artificially limit the visible invoicing in one  single country.

A faster option than “significant interaction” would be to hit only the companies which invoice the intermediate services (advertising, etc.) to the web majors.

Nevertheless, if the web majors bought also these intermediaries, we would go back directly to the Dutch, Irish and Luxembourg tax avoidance schemes and practices.

Furthermore, current data points to a 3% average tax for the companies supplying services to the web majors in Italy and in the rest of the European Union.

In the latter case, the European Commission foresees revenue of only 5 billion euros for the whole EU-27.

However, if we calculate the average of the tax rates currently in force in Europe, the Internet majors pay income tax rates equal to 9.2%, as against the EU average rate of 23.3%.

Is it rational, however, that companies are taxed only on the basis of self-stated annual invoicing?

In essence, with current regulations the sale of data or User Generated Content cannot be taxed properly and profitably.

In this respect, the EU has proposed two different levels of taxation, but considering the digital platform to be a “presence” of company and, therefore, a “permanent and stable organization”.

The criteria under discussion will be the following: exceeding a revenue threshold of 7 million euros in a single EU Member State; the presence of over 100,000 users in one Member State during a single fiscal year; the presence of over 3,000 contracts for digital services concluded between company and users in a single fiscal year.

Hence, with a view to circumventing EU rules, the Internet majors can rely – for their “permanent and stable organization” – also on systems based outside the EU. They can also distribute their users among various micro-companies, not necessarily having a permanent and stable organization in the country using them. Finally they can invoice the 3,000 minimum contracts differently.

A second proposal, still under discussion among the EU leaders, regards the “temporary tax” on digital activities which, moreover, are not currently taxed in any way by the EU.

Hence, according to this proposal, revenues resulting from the sale of advertising space for goods or services other than the means used would be taxed.

Or the revenues resulting from the sale of data based on the information provided, free of charge, by users would be taxed.

Obviously the tax would be collected by the Member States in which the users are located.

Are we sure, however, that an online service can be used without being tracked? This is the rule in what is currently known as the dark web.

If smuggling is the strategy used by all those who do not want to pay taxes on sales, the dark web could become – with some mass IT devices – the new Tortuga of Internet majors.

In Italy, the new Budget Law provides for a tax on digital transactions -as from 2019 – but only relating to the provision of services to subjects resident in Italy both by national companies and through non-resident companies.

In more specific terms, each transaction shall be taxed at 3% net of VAT, thus further loosening the legal connection existing between company’s presence and provision of services, i.e. between “permanent and stable organization” and online commercial activity.

The Italian rule for 2019, however, regards only business to business transactions, thus explicitly excluding both e-commerce ones or the final business to consumer connection.

Much Internet content, however, can easily shift from  business to business(B2B) to other types of sales or supply.

Therefore the tax levied should be the withholding tax on revenues, which creates a difference between resident and non-resident companies, which could not suit the EU system.

Hence, again with reference to Italy, the new tax will be neutral with respect to the place of origin of the transaction, but revenues can be subjected not only to the 3% levy, but also to other taxes.

Moreover, it could also be possible to carry out manoeuvres on the prices of the IT supply, with a sort of new dumping on EU or Italian companies by the big Internet majors.

On the other hand, the Italian web tax relies only on self-certification. There will be trouble.

If the web tax and the other taxes on the Internet are VAT modelled, we will face the problem that the VAT  transitional regime, defined in Europe until 1997, is still currently in force.

Not to mention the fact that the transfer of capital via the Internet is fully uncontrollable for the States or unions of States and that information gap and asymmetries between States and Companies in this field are such that everything relies on the “good will” of the subjects taxed. Too little.

A solution would be to equip the EU with a stable IT system capable of controlling, at least, a significant part of commercial transactions via the Internet, but this is almost science fiction.

Otherwise, stringent and fast regulations would be needed to definitively close “tax havens” both in the EU and elsewhere but, apart from the unavoidable delays, the result would be that the countries which are currently tax havens would ask for something-indeed, much – in exchange to the other ones which are not tax havens.

Or it could be possibly stated very frankly that the EU market does not accept the free movement of capital in this sector.

However, this would favour the geopolitical areas that would like to use what, in their eyes, would be considered a European weakness.

Nonetheless, here as elsewhere, we should really rethink the architecture of the world economic and financial system.

Said system results from the fully geopolitical irrational anarchy which saw Eurasia yield to the US unipolarity, which currently no longer exists, at least according to the 1990s standards.

Here as elsewhere, we should import the idea of a great liberal and free trader, a disciple of Luigi Einaudi who, in the 1950s, imagined the “army of labour”.

I am referring to Ernesto Rossi who, while assuming a public system using the huge mass of post-war unemployed people, clearly theorized – as a liberal – “a marked  integration of Socialist elements into the market economy”.

Abolire la Miseria was written by Ernesto Rossi in 1942, on the island of Ventotene where he had been confined. It was published in 1945 and then re-edited in 1977 after his death.

The Tuscan liberal thinker theorized no “social safety nets”, but rather the creation of an army of labour to be recruited as an alternative to the military service.

The army provided all its members with essential services, with dignity and autonomy, but the “army of labour” had to work both on public infrastructure and on land use and maintenance activities, i.e. all the productive activities that – as Keynes said- could not attract and rely on private capital, which would record no sufficient and quick returns.

What about including clearly Socialist mechanisms in the current financial system, and not only through tax systems, thus rightfully leaving high-income activities to private capitalism?

It would finally be the merger between the two best intellectual and technical lines of Italian democracy, namely social Catholicism and secular Liberal Socialism.

Continue Reading

Latest

Newsletter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 Modern Diplomacy