Well I would recommend a few things for only the countries in the EU that are using the EURO, as the problem in my opinion is only in that arena first and foremost.
First, a central EURO authority should be created to centralizing the various retirement programs in those countries that currently start a retirement program at age 55 which in my opinion is a wee bit too early and might be paying a bit too much.
Second, I feel that it is quite costly for every country to have and to maintain their own defense departments. I feel that the purchasing and the accounting as well as the control would be cheaper and better managed if there were a central fiscal control for all the countries in the EU that use the EURO.
Third, I feel that there needs to be a central revenue collection method from the various countries in the EU that use the EURO for the management of problems like this in the future.
Britton must stay out of all this till the EU countries that use the EURO get this completed which could take 30 or so years, then if Britton likes what they see some thirty or so years down the road of time they could, if so desired join that new and revised EU set of countries that use the EURO and get rid of the pound.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 20
If you have no answer for my question there is no need to reply.
Thus at some point, which the Europeans are figuring out, is that there isn't enough private sector to pay for all that government.
Or, the productive class stops working. Which is my reference to John Galt.
Better brush up on your Atlas Shrugged.
That's much better.
Now if the government stops spending, doesn't that reduce production? And if production is reduced, doesn't that remove from the economy the products of that production? So since the government is just "printing" the money in effect by borrowing how does that reduce the income that can be reinvested in the private sector? Doesn't reduced federal spending also reduce the income of the private sector? Doesn't the government buy huge amounts of things from the private sector?
So the increase in federal spending in 1942 seems to have greatly increased the productive activities of the private sector of the nation, for example. How would greatly reducing federal spending now result in increased production? Remember that the government is borrowing lots of money and there would be no lower taxes, just less income to tax with that huge cut in private incomes and private business.
It doesn't. All it does is to impose depredations upon the lower economic classes. What it should do is to remove tax shelters that benefit the wealthy classes. This will recharge the economies, pay off all deficits, and explains why the majority in France, Greece, and other European countries are now going back to voting leftist. For too long the poor have footed the bill for the luxuries enjoyed by the wealthy. Europeans have awakened to this truth. But the question is, will Americans do the same or still live under the delusion that this is not so?
Europe will most likely run off the cliff. Will the US follow it?
"the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of some else's money"
Margaret Thatcher was right.
However, are the taxes set correctly as the revenue into any country coffers are necessary to run every country, including the USA.
The rich? Heck no!
Reagan at 50% income tax had write-offs for investments and that money needed to be put to use and be written off but it did get the money into the economy IKE same thing any investment in the USA for almost any reason got that money flowing into the economy, however that 91% rate was only for a couple of years, then back to 70%. As Capital Gains were regular income those days getting that into circulation was the issue and it worked.
Yeah, WAAAY too much money is wasted on military ...
However most likely not as the politicians are all bought and paid for by the big banks in the USA.