1% ON 1%: one percent annual wealth tax on One Percenters

 

The “1% ON 1%: one percent annual wealth tax on One Percenters” website ( https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/1-on-1 ) sets out alphabetically-organized expert opinions on a simple and transparent way of immediately addressing  the damaging and deadly inequality of the top One Percent owning half the world’s wealth, wealth that has been generated in a Biosphere-destroying and Humanity-threatening carbon burning-based economy.


Of course "1% ON 1%" is an opening gambit as well as a catchy slogan - the tax could well be greater and apply to all people.  Thus, for example,  in Islam one of the Five Pillars of Wisdom is zakat , an annual  2.5% tax on the wealth of all Muslims for charitable and other purposes (“Zakat”, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zakat ) and French economist Professor Thomas Piketty has proposed an annual wealth tax at rates of up to 10% depending on the magnitude of the fortune  (page 517, Thomas Piketty, “Capital in the Twenty-first Century”, Harvard, 2014; for review see Gideon Polya, “Key Book Review: “Capital In The Twenty-First Century” By Thomas Piketty”,  Countercurrents, 01 July, 2014: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya010714.htm ).

 

Poverty kills and one can readily estimate the associated carnage as avoidable deaths (avoidable mortality, excess deaths, excess mortality, untimely deaths, premature deaths, deaths that did not have to happen). Gross  global  inequity is presently  associated annually with an estimated 17 million avoidable deaths  in the Developing World (minus China) from deprivation and deprivation-exacerbated disease (for methodological details and country-by-country avoidable mortality statistics  see  Gideon Polya, “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950”, that includes  an avoidable mortality-related history of every country from Neolithic times and is now available for free perusal  on the web: http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com.au/  ).

 

French economist Professor  Thomas Piketty in his book “Capital in the Twenty-first Century” has argued that for prosperous Western democracies, gross wealth inequality is bad for democracy ( because Big Money purchases public perception of reality and hence votes) and is bad for the economy (because the poor have limited ability  to purchase goods and services). Indeed Professor Piketty argues for disclosure of assets and an annual wealth tax to address this perversion (Gideon Polya, “Key Book Review: “Capital In The Twenty-First Century” By Thomas Piketty”,  Countercurrents, 01 July, 2014: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya010714.htm ; Thomas Piketty, “Capital in the Twenty-first Century”, Harvard, 2014).



The Global Avoidable Mortality Holocaust in which currently 17 million people die avoidably each year from deprivation and deprivation-exacerbated disease in the Developing World (minus China) is largely ignored by the One Percenter-owned Mainstream media. An annual global wealth tax of about 4% would yield US$16 trillion annually and enable raising all countries to annual per capita incomes equivalent to the $6,000 per person per year of China and Cuba, countries for which annual avoidable mortality is zero (0) This is a feasible option for stopping the Global Avoidable Mortality Holocaust (see Gideon Polya, “4 % Annual Global Wealth Tax To Stop The 17 Million Deaths Annually”,  Countercurrents, 27 June, 2014: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya270614.htm ).

 

Thus Western democracies have been variously described as  Plutocracies, Kleptocracies, Murdochracies, Lobbyocracies, Corporatocracies  and Dollarocracies  in which Big Money purchases people, politicians, parties, policies, public perception of reality and hence votes, more political power and more profit in an obscene and deadly positive feedback loop.

 

This positive feedback loop of wealth and power begetting more wealth and power has been described as “The  Matthew Effect” from the following statement in the Gospel according to Matthew in the New Testament of the Holy Bible:

“For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath” (Matthew 25.29, The Holy Bible, King James version).

 

One Percenter Big Money owns Mainstream media that are characterized by massive lying by commission, lying by omission and censorship in the interests of the One Percenters. While presstitute lying by commission is largely confined to the populist Yellow Press, the self-described "quality media" egregiously lie by omission. Lying by omission is far, far worse than lying by commission because at least the latter admits the possibility of public discussion and correction (see Edward S. Herman, and Noam Chomsky, “Manufacturing Consent. The Political Economy of the Mass Media”, Pantheon 1988, 2002;  “Boycott Murdoch media”: https://sites.google.com/site/boycottmurdochmedia/  ; “Censorship by the BBC”: https://sites.google.com/site/censorshipbythebbc/  ; “Censorship by The Conversation”: https://sites.google.com/site/mainstreammediacensorship/censorship-by  ; “Mainstream media censorship”: https://sites.google.com/site/mainstreammediacensorship/home  ; “Mainstream media lying”: https://sites.google.com/site/mainstreammedialying/  ; “Censorship by The Age”: https://sites.google.com/site/mainstreammediacensorship/censorship-by-the-age ; “Censorship by ABC Late Night Live”: https://sites.google.com/site/censorshipbyabclatenightlive/  , "Censorship by ABC Saturday Extra": https://sites.google.com/site/censorshipbyabclatenightlive/censorship-by-abc-sat and “ABC fact-checking unit & incorrect reportage by the ABC (Australia’s BBC)”: https://sites.google.com/site/mainstreammediacensorship/abc-fact-checking-unit , "Censorship by The Guardian UK": https://sites.google.com/site/mainstreammediacensorship/censorship-by-the-guardian-uk , "Censorship by The Guardian Australia": https://sites.google.com/site/mainstreammediacensorship/home/censorship-by-the-guardian-a   and “Censorship by Crikey (Australia)”: https://sites.google.com/site/mainstreammediacensorship/censorship-by-crikey ).

 

In ostensible  democracies the 99% still have one thing going for them – they outnumber the One Percenter 99 to 1. However massive lying and censorship  by One Percenter-owned Mainstream media determine that this 99 Percenter power is not expressed. Western democracies typically resolve into a 2-party model but with the 2 parties, rhetoric aside,  both being dominated by the One Percenters (e.g. the Democrats and Republicans in the US and Conservatives versus Rightist Labor in the UK, New Zealand and Australia).  However this 2-party fakery is now being challenged by the rise of the pro-Humanity and pro-Biosphere Greens in Europe and Australia and the return of socialism with massive support to Mainstream politics as evidenced by US Democrat presidential candidate Bernie Sanders and UK Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. After decades of damaging and dishonest pro-One Percenter neoliberalism, the masses are finally stirring in the West. The recent Panama tax haven disclosures have further exposed One Percenter dishonesty and quickly claimed the Prime Minister of Iceland as a first victim.

 

Massive lying and censorship  by One Percenter-owned Mainstream media has made socialism a dirty word  in the West and enabled the ascendancy of morally repugnant neoliberalism that seeks to maximize the freedom of a smart and advantaged minority to exploit natural and  human resources for maximum personal profit. The 99 Percenters may benefit by “trickle down” from the One Percenters. In stark contrast to repugnant neoliberalism, social humanism  (democratic socialism) aims to maximize human happiness, opportunity and dignity for all by evolving intra-national and international social contracts.

 

Oxfam (an international, independent, not-for-profit, secular, community-based aid and development organisation, determined by mobilising the power of people to change the present circumstance in which 1 in 3 people live in poverty”) on inequity and One Percenter tax havens (2016):The global inequality crisis is reaching new extremes. The richest 1% now have more wealth than the rest of the world combined. Power and privilege is being used to skew the economic system to increase the gap between the richest and the rest. A global network of tax havens further enables the richest individuals to hide $7.6 trillion. The fight against poverty will not be won until the inequality crisis is tackled…

 

Oxfam is calling on leaders to take action to show they are on the side of the majority, and to bring a halt to the inequality crisis. From living wages to better regulation of the activities of the financial sector, there is plenty that policy makers can do to end the economy for the 1% and start building a human economy that benefits everyone…

 

Keep the influence of powerful elites in check by building mandatory public lobby registries and stronger rules on conflict of interest; ensuring that good-quality information on administrative and budget processes is made public and is free and easily accessible; reforming the regulatory environment, particularly around transparency in government; separating business from campaign financing; and introducing measures to close revolving doors between big business and government…

 

As a priority, Oxfam is calling on all world leaders to agree a global approach to end the era of tax havens. World leaders need to commit to a more effective approach to ending tax havens and harmful tax regimes, including non-preferential regimes. It is time to put an end to the race to the bottom in general corporate taxation. Ultimately, all governments – including developing countries on an equal footing – must agree to create a global tax body that includes all governments with the objective of ensuring that national tax systems do not have negative global implications ” (Oxfam, “An economy for the 1%. How privilege and power in the economy driver extreme inequality and how this can be stopped”, 210 Oxfam Briefing Paper, 18 January 2016: https://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/file_attachments/bp210-economy-one-percent-tax-havens-180116-en_0.pdf ).

 

While the One Percenters have perverted democracy there is now realistic hope that a mere 51% of the population could elect a government committed to  an annual  1% wealth tax to be only applied to the top 1% (slogan: “1% on 1%”). Necessary corollary propositions would be to close access to off-shore tax havens and an off-shore  wealth declaration amnesty akin to a gun possession amnesty  - the One Percenters would be  given a short period  to publicly declare all off-shore wealth or face  confiscation of all assets.

  

Thus in prosperous Australia the total wealth is about US$14 trillion and, if we assume that half (US$7 trillion) is owned by the One Percenters (globally the top 1% owns 50% of the wealth but Australia may be more egalitarian),  then “1% on 1%” would yield $70 billion annually that could be used to wipe out the gross Australian government debt of A$406 billion and eliminate Federal budget deficits currently  running at about A$40 billion per year and threatening to remove Australia’s present AAA credit rating (A$1 = US$0.75). Indeed $70 billion annually would pay for 100% renewable energy for Australia within 5 years (“2011 climate change course”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/2011-climate-change-course ). 


The above may be  a considerable  over-estimate. Thus according to John Passant Australians  could have a 1% annual wealth  tax on the top 20%: “Replace the GST [Australian 10% Goods and Services Tax] with a wealth tax and increased income tax rates on the rich and capital… Here are a few examples with very rough guesses about revenue to make up for the loss of GST revenue of around $45 billion. The top 20% own 62% of Australia’s wealth, which is in total about $6 trillion. So they own roughly $4 trillion. The bottom 20% own less than 1%. So a wealth tax of 1% on the top 20% (none of whom will be workers but rather capitalists and their managerial class and upper middle class) would yield, by my calculations, $40 billion a year. What better way to get those who have benefited the most from the 2 decade long boom to help all of us survive the coming recession?” (John Passant, “Abolish the GST and tax the rich instead”, En passant, 19 May 2013: http://enpassant.com.au/2013/05/19/abolish-the-gst-and-tax-the-rich-instead/ ).

Re-calculation of "1% on 20%" for Australia.

The average adult net wealth in Australia in 2014 was US$431,000 ( Credit Suisse, “Global Wealth Report 2014”: https://publications.credit-suisse.com/tasks/render/file/?fileID=60931FDE-A2D2-F568-B041B58C5EA591A4 ) ,  in 2015 the adult Australian population was 18.297 million (World Population Division 201 Revision: http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/DataQuery/ ), and  the current exchange rate is about 1 A$ = 0.75 US$.

Accordingly,  the net wealth of Australia (excluding children) is US$0.431 million per adult x 18.297 million adults = US$7.89 trillion which corresponds to US$7.89 trillion x 1 A$/ 0.75USD = A$ 10.52 trillion.

According  to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2014): “The top 20% of households when ranked by their level of wealth, owned 62% of total [net] household wealth in 2013–2014. By comparison, the bottom 20% of households, owned less than 1% of all [net] household wealth” (Australian Bureau of Statistics, “Income and wealth distribution”, 2014: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/6523.0~2013-14~Main%20Features~Income%20and%20Wealth%20Distribution~6 ).

Thus the net wealth of the top 20% is 0.62 x A$ 10.52 trillion = A$6.52 trillion or A$6,520 billion and a 1% annual wealth tax on the top 20% of households would yield  A$65.2 billion each year.


Of course the Mainstream media (much of it owned by US citizen and global media mogul Rupert Murdoch) would howl at this selective application of taxation to the wealth of the One Percenters or Twenyy Percenters. However  the dominant group of modestly prosperous middle class Australians could  counter that as retirees they are already subject to a large and discriminatory  wealth tax by asset-based exclusion from the old age pension that is given to the poor and would be a negligible addition to the income of the One Percenters (see David Ingles, “Does Australia Need an Annual Wealth Tax? (And Why Do We Now Apply One Only to Pensioners)”, Tax and Transfer Policy Institute Working Paper - 3/2016, March 1, 2016, Social Sciences Research Network: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2740151 ).


Rapacious neoliberalism kills 17 million people each year on Spaceship Earth with greedy One Percenters in charge of the flight deck. However the 17 million avoidable deaths each year from poverty is simply the present human cost of One Percenter greed. Nuclear terrorism that protects One Percenter wealth and power could wipe out Humanity at any time. It is estimated that all but 0.5 billion of Humanity may die  the absence  of requisite action on  capitalism-driven, man-made climate change.


One notes in relation to One Percenter wealth and climate change that (a) the wealth of the One Percenters has been accumulated over the last century in the context of a Carbon Economy and hence an annual one percent tax on One Percenter wealth would in effect be a modest Carbon Tax, (b) putting a price on carbon is crucial for effective climate change action, (c)  Dr Chris Hope from 90-Nobel-Laureate Cambridge University has estimated a damage -related Carbon Price of US$200 per tonne CO2-equivalent, and on this basis  the World would have 1751-2015 Carbon Debt of US$360 trillion (about 4 times the annual world GDP of $85 trillion and similar to the total world wealth)  that is increasing by about US$13 trillion each year (see "Carbon Debt Carbon Credit”: https://sites.google.com/site/carbondebtcarboncredit/   ).

What can ordinary people do? In the interests of yourself, your family, your fellow citizens, Humanity and the Biosphere, (a)  please inform everyone you can about “1% ON 1%: annual one percent annual wealth tax on One Percenters”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/1-on-1 , and (b) urge and apply Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against all people, politicians, parties, institutions, companies, corporations, countries and media disproportionately complicit in deadly wealth inequality.


BELOW IS AN ALPHABETICALLY-ORGANIZED COMPENDIUM OF EXPERT OPINIONS ON IMMEDIATELY ADDRESSING THE DAMAGING AND DEADLY INEQUALITY OF THE TOP ONE PERCENT OWNING HALF THE WORLD'S WEALTH:


COLOMBIAN WEALTH TAX. Report (2016):On December 15, the [Colombian] Chamber of Representatives approved a draft tax reform law that would fund strategic social programmes. The draft law creates a wealth tax (Sp: impuesto a la riqueza) for those with net assets above COP1 billion (USD416,500). The maximum tax rates will gradually decrease from 1.15 percent in 2015, to 1 percent in 2016 and 0.4 percent in 2017. The tax will no longer be applicable in 2018. The Government of Colombia had originally proposed imposing a 2.25 percent annual wealth tax on fortunes above USD4 million. Taxpayers with smaller net worth would pay lower rates, with capital of less than COP750 million (USD308,788) paying nothing. This plan was scrapped, however, following disapproval of the proposal from business groups who suggested gradually replacing the decreasing wealth tax with the increasing “tax for equity” (Sp: impuesto sobre la renta y la equidad – impuesto CREE). The draft law approved a surcharge on the CREE, which taxes profits above COP800 million (USD329,373) at 5 percent in 2015, 6 percent in 2016, 8 percent in 2017 and 9 percent in 2018. According to the government the aim is to reach “a balance between the taxes on wealth and profits, without affecting the middle classes or small and medium enterprises”.The draft tax reform now requires presidential approval” (Colombian Chamber of Representatives approves draft tax reform law”, STEP, 16 December 2014: http://www.step.org/colombian-chamber-representatives-approves-draft-tax-reform-law ).


FRENCH WEALTH TAX. Report (2015):The French government imposes an annual wealth tax called l’Impôt de solidarité sur la fortune (ISF). Although this was reduced during the Sarkozy presidency, President Hollande increased it again in 2012.

Who is liable to pay the ISF? Residents of France are liable to pay the wealth tax on their worldwide net assets. These include real estate, cash, cars, furniture, jewelry, shares, life assurance and other valuables. Art collections, vintage cars, antiques over 100 years old and certain other assets are excluded. People who become resident in France after August 6th 2008 are exempt from the tax for five years on those assets that are located outside of France. So, for the first five years, they are liable only for the wealth tax on assets held in France. Non-residents of France are liable for the tax on the net value of their fixed property assets in France, i.e. second homes. Cash and financial products that they hold in France are excluded from the net asset calculation. However, shares held in a Société Civile Immobilière (SCI, French civil property company) are included in the net assets. The tax is levied per household and each household is required to assess its own liability. The tax is assessed on the market value of the assets held on January 1st. A discount of 30% is allowed on the value of a main residence in France. This discount does not apply if the property is held through an SCI, although certain other allowances may be given. There are certain other deductible allowances, such as mortgages, and discounts on tenanted properties.

How much is the wealth tax?

The threshold for the wealth tax is €1.3 million, so if your net valuation of the assets are worth less than that, you are not liable and you don’t need to make a declaration. Once you pass that threshold, you start to pay the tax on your assets valued at €800,000 and upwards. The rate you pay depends on which band the value of your assets falls into:

Asset band

Rate of taxation

€0 – €800,000

0%

€800,000 – €1,300,000

0.5%

€1,300,000 – €2,570,000

0.7%

€2,570,000 – €5,000,000

1%

€5,000,000 – €10,000,000

1.25%

€10,000,000+

1.5%

In 2013, the French government introduced a cap on total taxes so that they do not exceed 75% of income” (56 Paris Real Estate, “An update on the French wealth tax”, 30 July 2015: http://www.56paris.com/an-update-on-the-french-wealth-tax/ ).


HOPKINS. Douglas Hopkins ( business management expert, president and managing principal of Kestrel Consulting, LLC and co-author of “Crafting Solutions for Troubled Businesses”) on annual  wealth tax from a capitalist perspective (2016):An even-handed, moderate annual wealth tax would stimulate an aggressive redeployment of capital in search of more productive opportunities — and trigger a massive stimulus investment program financed entirely with private capital. Specifically, I propose we should take two key steps: Reduce the top marginal tax rate on earned income — wages and salaries — to 25 percent, including all Social Security and other employment taxes, a move that would increase disposable income from labor and stimulate the consumer spending that constitutes over two-thirds of GDP. Replace all current corporate income and personal investment and estate taxes with an annual tax on net accumulated wealth in excess of $250,000, taxing the earnings potential of this wealth at an effective rate equal to the same 25 percent. If we assume an average available return on investment target of between 6 and 8 percent, a 25 percent income tax rate would be equal to a 1.5 to 2 percent annual tax on net wealth. Such a tax would dramatically narrow our budget deficit while stimulating more productive capital allocations, economic prosperity, and job creation” (Douglas Hopkins, “A business case for a wealth tax”, Inequality.org, : 2 March 2016: http://inequality.org/business-case-annual-wealth-tax/ ).


INGLES. Dr David Ingles (Australian National University (ANU),  Crawford School of Public Policy,  Tax and Transfer Policy Institute) on an annual wealth tax for Australia (2016): “Abstract. This paper argues that given the current hybrid income-expenditure tax system in Australia (hybrid IT/ET) a wealth tax could make sense as a way of ironing out disparities in the tax treatment of different assets. A wealth tax could be designed to approximate a comprehensive income tax (CIT) outcome by combining a wage tax with imputed asset income (deeming), or it could fall more lightly. We already have a harsh wealth tax in the welfare system, the asset test; the issue arises as to why we would confine wealth taxation to the not-so-well-off. If we move the income tax to an ET of, e.g., a consumption tax (CT) type a wealth tax might still make good sense, although the implied rate may be lower than under the wage tax as the CT taxes some part of economic rents. However if we move towards explicit taxation of economic rents using, say, the rate of return allowance (RRA) or its cash-flow counterpart, the Z-tax, a wealth tax may be less needed, as such rents comprise two-thirds the total return on capital (David Ingles, “Does Australia Need an Annual Wealth Tax? (And Why Do We Now Apply One Only to Pensioners)”, Tax and Transfer Policy Institute Working Paper - 3/2016, March 1, 2016, Social Sciences Research Network: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2740151 ).


OXFAM. Oxfam (an international, independent, not-for-profit, secular, community-based aid and development organisation, determined by mobilising the power of people to change the present circumstance in which 1 in 3 people live in poverty”) on inequity and One Percenter tax havens (2016):The global inequality crisis is reaching new extremes. The richest 1% now have more wealth than the rest of the world combined. Power and privilege is being used to skew the economic system to increase the gap between the richest and the rest. A global network of tax havens further enables the richest individuals to hide $7.6 trillion. The fight against poverty will not be won until the inequality crisis is tackled… 

Oxfam is calling on leaders to take action to show they are on the side of the majority, and to bring a halt to the inequality crisis. From living wages to better regulation of the activities of the financial sector, there is plenty that policy makers can do to end the economy for the 1% and start building a human economy that benefits everyone…

Keep the influence of powerful elites in check by building mandatory public lobby registries and stronger rules on conflict of interest; ensuring that good-quality information on administrative and budget processes is made public and is free and easily accessible; reforming the regulatory environment, particularly around transparency in government; separating business from campaign financing; and introducing measures to close revolving doors between big business and government… 

As a priority, Oxfam is calling on all world leaders to agree a global approach to end the era of tax havens. World leaders need to commit to a more effective approach to ending tax havens and harmful tax regimes, including non-preferential regimes. It is time to put an end to the race to the bottom in general corporate taxation. Ultimately, all governments – including developing countries on an equal footing – must agree to create a global tax body that includes all governments with the objective of ensuring that national tax systems do not have negative global implications ” (Oxfam, “An economy for the 1%. How privilege and power in the economy driver extreme inequality and how this can be stopped”, 210 Oxfam Briefing Paper, 18 January 2016: https://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/file_attachments/bp210-economy-one-percent-tax-havens-180116-en_0.pdf ).


PIKETTY. Professor Thomas Piketty (French economist) in his seminal book “Capital in the Twenty-first Century”(2014): “After 1980…  the decrease in the top marginal income tax rate led to an explosion of very high incomes, which then increased the  political influence of the beneficiaries of the change in the tax laws, who  had an interest in keeping top tax rates low or even decreasing them further and who could use their windfall to finance political parties, pressure groups, and think tanks” (p335)…

One might imagine a [yearly wealth tax] rate of 0 percent for net assets below 1 million euros [US$1.36 million], 1 percent between 1 and 5 million, and 2 percent above 5 million. Or one might prefer a much more steeply progressive tax on the largest fortunes (for example, a rate of 5 or 10 percent on assets above 1 billion euros) (p517)…

The overall conclusion of this study is that a  market economy based on private property, if left to itself, contains powerful forces of convergence, associated in particular with the diffusion of knowledge and skills; but it also contains powerful forces of divergence, which are potentially threatening to democratic societies and to the values of social justice on which they are based. The principal destabilizing force has to do with the fact that the private rate of return on capital , r, can be significantly higher for long periods of time than the rate of growth of income and output, g. The inequality r > g implies that the wealth accumulated in the past grows more rapidly that output and wages. This inequality expresses a fundamental logical contradiction. The entrepreneur inevitably tends to become a rentier, more and more dominant over those who own nothing but their labor. Once constituted, capital reproduces itself faster than output increases. The past devours the future (p571)…

Yet it seems to me that all social scientists, all journalists, and commentators, all activists in the unions and in politics of whatever stripe, and especially all citizens, should take a serious interest  in money, its measurement, the facts surrounding it, and its history. Those who have  a lot of it never fail to defend their interests. Refusing to deal with numbers rarely serves the interests of the least well-off”  (p577) (Thomas Piketty, “Capital in the Twenty-first Century”, Harvard, 2014; for review see Gideon Polya, “Key Book Review: “Capital In The Twenty-First Century” By Thomas Piketty”,  Countercurrents, 01 July, 2014: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya010714.htm ).


POLYA. Dr Gideon Polya (2016): "While the One Percenters have perverted democracy there is now realistic hope that a mere 51% of the population could elect a government committed to  an annual  1% wealth tax to be only applied to the top 1% (slogan: “1% on 1%”). A corollary proposition would be that of a tax haven amnesty akin to a gun possession amnesty  - the One Percenters would be  given a short period  to publicly declare all off-shore wealth or face  confiscation of all assets" (“1% ON 1%: annual one percent tax on One Percenter wealth”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/1-on-1 ).

Dr Gideon Polya (2015):  “Polya's 3 Laws Of Economics Expose Deadly, Dishonest  And Terminal Neoliberal Capitalism”, Countercurrents, 17 October, 2015: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya171015.htm . Polya's 3 Laws of Economics mirror the 3 Laws of Thermodynamics of science and are (1) Price minus COP (Cost of Production) equals profit; (2) Deception about COP strives to a maximum; and (3) No work, price or profit on a dead planet. These fundamental laws help  expose the failure of neoliberal capitalism in relation to wealth inequality, massive tax evasion by multinational corporations, and  horrendous avoidable deaths from poverty and pollution culminating in general ecocide, speciescide, climate genocide, omnicide and terracide" (
Gideon Polya. “Polya's 3 Laws Of Economics Expose Deadly, Dishonest  And Terminal Neoliberal Capitalism”, Countercurrents, 17 October, 2015: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya171015.htm ).

Dr Gideon Polya (2014): “There is a largely ignored Global Avoidable Mortality Holocaust in which currently 17 million people die avoidably each year from deprivation and deprivation-exacerbated disease in the Developing World (minus China) [1]. This is happening on Spaceship Earth with the flight deck under the control of the 10% richest who have about 90% of the wealth of the World and who in turn are controlled by One Percenters who own about half the wealth of the World. An annual global wealth tax of about 4% would yield US$16 trillion annually and enable raising all countries to annual per capita incomes equivalent to the $6,000 per person per year of China and Cuba, countries for which annual avoidable mortality is zero (0) [1].  This is a feasible option for stopping the Global Avoidable Mortality Holocaust. Indeed a progressive annual wealth tax ranging up to 10% for the richest has been proposed for democracy and economic sustainability  reasons by French economist Professor Thomas Piketty in his important book “Capital in the Twenty-First Century”  [2]  Avoidable mortality (avoidable death, excess mortality, excess death, deaths that do not have to happen) can be defined as the difference between actual deaths in a country and deaths expected for a peaceful, decently-run country with the same demographics (i.e. similar birth rate and age distribution). For relatively high birth rate Developing World countries the baseline death rate is about 0.4% or  4 persons per 1,000 of population each year, However for the Developing World (minus China) (2015 population 4,632 million)  the death rate is 7.7 deaths per 1,000 of population per year (2010-2015) , this yielding an avoidable death rate of 7.7 - 4.0 = 3.7 avoidable deaths per 1,000 of population per year and 3.7 avoidable deaths per 1,000 of population per year x 4,632 million persons = 17.1 million avoidable deaths annually [3] (Gideon Polya, “4 % Annual Global Wealth Tax To Stop The 17 Million Deaths Annually”, Countercurrents, 27 June, 2014: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya270614.htm ).

Dr Gideon Polya (2007): “The 1950-2005 avoidable mortality (excess mortality) has been 1.3 billion for the World, 1.2 billion for the non-European World and about 0.6 billion for the Muslim World - a Muslim Holocaust about 100 times greater than the World War 2 Jewish Holocaust (6 million victims) and the “forgotten” World War 2 Bengal Famine in British-ruled India (4 million Hindu and Muslim victims). By way of corroboration, using UN data it is possible to calculate the under-5 infant mortality for every country in the World since 1950. The under-5 infant mortality has been 0.88 billion for the World, 0.85 billion for the non-European World and about 0.4 billion for the Muslim World. Whether a person dies violently or dies non-violently from deprivation or malnourishment-exacerbated disease, the end result is the same and the culpability the same. Further, the Ruler is responsible for the Ruled and (as clearly specified by the Geneva Conventions) an Occupying Power is clearly responsible for avoidable mortality in a conquered country. However avoidable mortality consequent on callous foreign control does not typically cease when foreign soldiers depart. Thus "occupation" can include economic and political hegemony by a foreign power… The continuing, horrendous global avoidable mortality is fundamentally due to violence, deprivation, disease and lying. We are one species confined to one planet and we revel in the richness of nature and human cultural diversity. The peace and cooperative community we commonly experience at the level of village, town, city and nation should apply internationally throughout Spaceship Earth. Intolerance of dishonesty, bigotry and violence, respect for human rights, international law and our common environment and commitment to truth, reason and a modestly decent life for everyone will end the global avoidable mortality holocaust and ensure that it will never be repeated (Gideon Polya, “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950” that includes a n avoidable mortality-related history of every country since Neolithic times and is now available for free perusal on the web: http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/  ).


POPE FRANCIS. Pope Francis (2015): “4. In 1971, eight years after Pacem in Terris, Blessed Pope Paul VI referred to the ecological concern as “a tragic consequence” of unchecked human activity: “Due to an ill-considered exploitation of nature, humanity runs the risk of destroying it and becoming in turn a victim of this degradation”… 20. Some forms of pollution are part of people’s daily experience. Exposure to atmospheric pollutants produces a broad spectrum of health hazards, especially for the poor, and causes millions of premature deaths… 26. Many of those who possess more resources and economic or political power seem mostly to be concerned with masking the problems or concealing their symptoms, simply making efforts to reduce some of the negative impacts of climate change. However, many of these symptoms indicate that such effects will continue to worsen if we continue with current models of production and consumption. There is an urgent need to develop policies so that, in the next few years, the emission of carbon dioxide and other highly polluting gases can be drastically reduced, for example, substituting for fossil fuels and developing sources of renewable energy…  48. The human environment and the natural environment deteriorate together; we cannot adequately combat environmental degradation unless we attend to causes related to human and social degradation…  The impact of present imbalances is also seen in the premature death of many of the poor, in conflicts sparked by the shortage of resources, and in any number of other problems which are insufficiently represented on global agendas… 165. We know that technology based on the use of highly polluting fossil fuels – especially coal, but also oil and, to a lesser degree, gas – needs to be progressively replaced without delay… 195. The principle of the maximization of profits, frequently isolated from other considerations, reflects a misunderstanding of the very concept of the economy. As long as production is increased, little concern is given to whether it is at the cost of future resources or the health of the environment; as long as the clearing of a forest increases production, no one calculates the losses entailed in the desertification of the land, the harm done to biodiversity or the increased pollution. In a word, businesses profit by calculating and paying only a fraction of the costs involved. Yet only when “the economic and social costs of using up shared environmental resources are recognized with transparency and fully borne by those who incur them, not by other peoples or future generations”, can those actions be considered ethical” (Pope Francis , Encyclical Letter “Laudato si”, 2015: http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html ).


ZAKAT (2.5%  ANNUAL WEALTH TAX IN ISLAM).  Wikipedia on Zakat: “ Zakat ("that which purifies”) is a form of obligatory – compulsory, or, more recently, voluntary – alms-giving and religious tax in Islam. As one of the Five Pillars of Islam, zakat is a religious obligation for all Muslims who meet the necessary criteria of wealth.  It is not a charitable contribution, and is considered to be a tax.  The payment and disputes on zakat have played a major role in the history of Islam, notably during the Ridda wars. Zakat is based on income and the value of all of one's possessions. It is customarily 2.5% of a Muslim's total savings and wealth above a minimum amount known as nisab but Islamic scholars differ on how much nisab is and other aspects of zakat. The collected amount is paid first to zakat collectors, and then to poor Muslims, to new converts to Islam, to Islamic clergy, and others. Today, in most Muslim majority countries zakat contributions are voluntary, while in a handful, including Saudi Arabia, Malaysia and Pakistan, zakat is mandated and collected by the state. Shias, unlike Sunnis, have traditionally regarded zakat as a private and voluntary decision, and they give zakat to Imam-sponsored rather than state-sponsored collectors” (“Zakat”, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zakat ).

Some useful compendia about climate change information, requisite actions & expert opinions:

 “1% ON 1%: one percent annual wealth tax on One Percenters”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/1-on-1 .

“2011 climate change course”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/2011-climate-change-course .

300.org: . https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/300-org .

“300.org – return atmosphere CO2 to 300 ppm CO2”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/300-org---return-atmosphere-co2-to-300-ppm .

“Carbon Debt Carbon Credit”: https://sites.google.com/site/carbondebtcarboncredit/ .

"Climate Revolution Now": https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/climate-revolution .

“Cut carbon emissions 80% by 2020”: https://sites.google.com/site/cutcarbonemissions80by2020/ .

“100% renewable energy by 2020”: https://sites.google.com/site/100renewableenergyby2020/ .

“Climate Genocide”: https://sites.google.com/site/climategenocide/ .

“Gas is not clean energy”: https://sites.google.com/site/gasisnotcleanenergy/ .

 “Biofuel Genocide”: https://sites.google.com/site/biofuelgenocide/ .

“Divest from fossil fuels”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/divest-from-fossil-fuels .

“Climate Justice & Intergenerational Equity”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/climate-justice .

“Science & economics experts: Carbon Tax needed NOT Carbon Trading”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/sciennce-economics-experts-carbon-tax-needed-not-carbon-trading/ .

“Stop climate crime”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/stop-climate-crime .

“Stop air pollution deaths”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/stop-air-pollution-deaths

“Are we doomed?”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/are-we-doomed .

“Methane Bomb Threat”: https://sites.google.com/site/methanebombthreat/ .

“Nuclear weapons ban , end poverty & reverse climate change”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/nuclear-weapons-ban

"Too late to avoid global warming catastrophe": https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/too-late-to-avoid-global-warming .

“Stop state terrorism” : https://sites.google.com/site/stopstateterrorism/  [state and corporate complicity in worsening climate genocide and 7 million annual air pollution deaths from carbon fuel burning].

"State crime and non-state terrorism": https://sites.google.com/site/statecrimeandnonstateterrorism/  [state and corporate complicity in worsening climate genocide and 7 million annual air pollution deaths from carbon fuel burning].

“Climate terrorism: 400,000 climate change-related deaths globally annually versus an average of 4 US deaths from political terrorism annually since 9-11”: https://sites.google.com/site/statecrimeandnonstateterrorism/climate-terrorism .

“Carbon terrorism: 3 million US air pollution deaths versus 53 US political terrorism deaths since 9-11 (2001-2015)”: https://sites.google.com/site/statecrimeandnonstateterrorism/carbon-terrorism .

 

 

Some key analyses by Dr Gideon Polya (Melbourne scientist):  

Gideon Polya, “Expert Witness Testimony To Stop Gas-Fired Power Plant Installation”, Countercurrents,  14 June, 2013: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya140613.htm .

Gideon Polya,  " Doha climate change inaction. Only 5 years left to act", MWC News, 9 December 2012: http://mwcnews.net/focus/analysis/23373-gideonpolya-climate-change.html .

Gideon Polya, “Australia 's Huge Coal, Gas & Iron Ore Exports Threaten Planet”, Countercurrents, 15 May 2012: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya150512.htm .

Gideon Polya, “Country By Country Analysis Of Years Left Until Science-demanded Zero Greenhouse Gas Emissions”, Countercurrents, 11 June 2011: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya110611.htm

Gideon Polya , “2015 A-to-Z  Alphabetical List Of Actions And Advocacies For Climate Change Activists”,  Countercurrents,  14 January, 2015: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya140115.htm

Gideon Polya, “100 Ideas For Climate Change Activists Trying To Save The Biosphere And Humanity”,  Countercurrents, 10 August, 2013: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya100813.htm .

Gideon Polya, “Biochemical  Targets Of Plant Bioactive Compounds”: moral & utilitarian reasons to stop ecocide, speciescide, omnicide & terracide”, Countercurrents, 22 February, 2015: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya220215.htm .

Gideon Polya. “Polya's 3 Laws Of Economics Expose Deadly, Dishonest  And Terminal Neoliberal Capitalism”, Countercurrents, 17 October, 2015: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya171015.htm . Polya's 3 Laws of Economics mirror the 3 Laws of Thermodynamics of science and are (1) Price minus COP (Cost of Production) equals profit; (2) Deception about COP strives to a maximum; and (3) No work, price or profit on a dead planet. These fundamental laws help  expose the failure of neoliberal capitalism in relation to wealth inequality, massive tax evasion by multinational corporations, and  horrendous avoidable deaths from poverty and pollution culminating in general ecocide, speciescide, climate genocide, omnicide and terracide.

“Climate change articles by Dr Gideon Polya”: https://sites.google.com/site/drgideonpolya/climate-change-articles .

“Climate change websites created by Dr Gideon Polya”: https://sites.google.com/site/drgideonpolya/climate-change-websites .

“Gideon Polya”: https://sites.google.com/site/drgideonpolya/home .

 “Gideon Polya Writing”: https://sites.google.com/site/gideonpolyawriting/ .

 Open Letter to Australian Federal MPs: young betrayed & climate revolution now: https://sites.google.com/site/gideonpolyawriting/2015-9-6 .

“Free university education”: https://sites.google.com/site/freeuniversityeducation/ .

Carbon Debt quantitates responsibility for climate catastrophe:

Carbon Debt reflects the inescapable future cost in today's dollars of fixing the remorselessly increasing climate damage. Carbon Debt  is the historical contribution of countries  to the carbon pollution of the atmosphere and can be variously expressed as Gt CO2-e (gigatonnes or billions of tonnes of CO2-equivalent) or in dollar terms by applying a Carbon Price. Thus leading climate economist Dr Chris Hope from 90-Nobel-Laureate Cambridge  University has estimated a damage-related Carbon Price in US dollars of $150 per tonne CO2-e (see Dr Chris Hope, “How high should climate change taxes be?”, Working Paper Series, Judge Business School, University of Cambridge, 9.2011: http://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/fileadmin/user_upload/research/workingpapers/wp1109.pdf  ).

The World added 350 Gt C (1285 Gt CO2) to the atmosphere in 1751-2006 (see James Hansen, “Letter to PM Kevin Rudd by Dr James Hansen”, 2008: http://www.aussmc.org.au/documents/Hansen2008LetterToKevinRudd_000.pdf ) and currently adds a further 64 Gt CO2-e annually (see Robert Goodland and Jeff Anfang, “Livestock and climate change. What if the key actors in climate change are … cows, pigs and chickens?”, World Watch, November/December 2009: http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf ).

The World  has a 1751-2006 Carbon Debt of     350 Gt C x (3.67 Gt CO2/Gt C) x $150 per tonne CO2-e = $193 trillion plus a 2007-2015 Carbon Debt of (64 Gt CO2-e /year) x  ($150 /t CO2-e) x 8 years  = $76.8 trillion or a total 1751-2015 Carbon Debt of $270 trillion (about 3 times the annual world GDP of $85 trillion)  that is increasing by about 64 Gt CO2-e/year  x ($150 /t CO2-e)  = $9.6 trillion/year or about $10 trillion each year.

By way of a national example, Australia is a world-leading annual per capita  GHG polluter with a 1751-2006 Carbon Debt of 5.9 Gt C x (3.67 Gt CO2-e/Gt C) x ($150 /t CO2-e) = $3.2 trillion plus a 2007-2015 Carbon Debt of  2 Gt CO2-e/year  x ($150 /t CO2-e) x 8 years  = $2.4 trillion i.e. a total 1751-2015 Carbon Debt of $5.6 trillion (A$7.2 trillion) that is increasing at 2 Gt CO2-e /year x ($150 /t CO2-e) = $300 billion (A$385 billion) per year. Thus Australia (population 24 million) with 0.34% of the world's population has 2.1% of the world's Carbon Debt. The Australian Carbon Debt will have to be paid by the young and future generations and for under-30 year old Australians is increasing at about $30,000 (A$38,500) per person per year, noting that the annual Australian per capita income is about $65,000 (A$83,000) (see Gideon Polya, “2015 A-to-Z  alphabetical list of actions and advocacies for climate change activists”,  Countercurrents, 14 January, 2015: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya140115.htm ).

Dr Chris Hope of 90-Nobel-Laureate Cambridge University has estimated an upper  damage-related Carbon Price of $200 per tonne CO2-e  and on this basis  the World would have 1751-2015 Carbon Debt of $360 trillion (about 4 times the annual world GDP of $85 trillion)  that is increasing by about $13 trillion/year each year.


Comments