In an article entitled "Media Watch", Eva Balogh mentions with disapproval
that Gyula Horn has raised, as a trial baloon, the notion of a "wealth
tax".  While I can see that in the short term, such tax would discourage
foreign investment and would have a negative influence on Hungary's
economy, in principle, I see nothing wrong with the idea and wish western
countries would consider it instead of busily dismantling their social
benefit systems, pleading deficits, now that the political left seems to be
in world wide retreat.   A wealth tax need not be a heavy burden, its rate
could be determined as some fixed fraction of the central bank rate of the
country.  What is more, it would be a user pay system, that is, those who
really benefit from the quelling of the potential social unrest that
poverty produces and social programs mitigate, namely those whose property
needs to be secure, would pay for that security.  I am truly puzzled why a
wealth tax is a bad idea, other then that wealthy people obviously wouldn't
like it.

>@> Tibor Benke                               (^)%(#)
>@> Graduate Student (MA program)
>@> Department of Sociology and Anthropology
>@> Simon Fraser University,
>@> Burnaby, B.C., Canada. V5A 1S6

In an article about "ethnic cleansing in Czechoslovakia" ,  Jan George
Frajkor  writes:


> The property laws and Benes decrees were not at all the same thing
>as actual trials for so-called criminal offences.

My knowledge of history being admittedly lacking,  I wish someone would
enlighten me as to what these laws did, to whom, with what justification ?

>@> Tibor Benke                               (^)%(#)
>@> Graduate Student (MA program)
>@> Department of Sociology and Anthropology
>@> Simon Fraser University,
>@> Burnaby, B.C., Canada. V5A 1S6

On Sun, 25 Sep 1994 10:04:32 -0700 Tibor Benke said:
in principle, I see nothing wrong with the idea (wealth tax) and wish western
>countries would consider it instead of busily dismantling their social
>benefit systems, pleading deficits, now that the political left seems to be
>in world wide retreat.

--Are you talking about a tax on wealth (i.e., tax on the current worth
of property, stocks, bonds, etc.) or a higher marginal rate on income?
The main problem with a wealth tax is that it can't generate enough tax
income without being confiscatory.  In order to increase social benefits,
it would be necessary to increase taxes on everyone.  Secondly, I don't
now of any Western countries that are dismantiling their social benefit
systems.  They have, rather, cut the growth of benefits and increased
user charges.  They have also increased the use of purchase of care
arrangements and decreased the amount of governmentally-provided services
but this may turn out to be a way of providing better services for less
cost.  Further, I don't think that the disarray of the left has much to
do with it.  If Labour wins the next British election, I don't think that
they will return to their old ways.  Tony Blur, excuse me, Blair says that
they won't anyway.  And French socialism isn't what it used to be either.

   A wealth tax need not be a heavy burden, its rate
>could be determined as some fixed fraction of the central bank rate of the
>country.

--And such a tax would be regressive.  Fixed taxes invariably hit the
lesser well-off heavier than the well-off.  Our Social Security tax,
for example, is 7.65%.  A person who makes $10,000 a year is more
affected than the person who makes $67,500, which is the cut-off point.

  What is more, it would be a user pay system, that is, those who
>really benefit from the quelling of the potential social unrest that
>poverty produces and social programs mitigate, namely those whose property
>needs to be secure, would pay for that security.

--I think that your rationale is perfectly sound.  But the tax needs to
be progressive, not regressive.

  I am truly puzzled why a
>wealth tax is a bad idea, other then that wealthy people obviously wouldn't
>like it.

--It's not entirely a bad idea, but a fixed tax as you suggest is regressive.

Charles
>
>>@> Tibor Benke                               (^)%(#)
>>@> Graduate Student (MA program)
>>@> Department of Sociology and Anthropology
>>@> Simon Fraser University,
>>@> Burnaby, B.C., Canada. V5A 1S6

Dave at  writes:

> As for interracial relationships, well... imagine walking down the street
> arm-in-arm with a white woman in Mongomery, Alabama in 1960 and you
pretty much
> have the picture.

Or a white man walking down the street of most African country's streets
today. Let's not assign prejudice as solely a white problem.
Strangely, before 1956, with only a few non-whites in the country, the
Hungarians were not sensitive to folks of different color, they were
treated more as interestingly different people rather than lesser ones.

Regards.Jeliko.

Tibor Benke writes:

  A wealth tax need not be a heavy burden, its rate
> could be determined as some fixed fraction of the central bank rate of
the
> country.  What is more, it would be a user pay system, that is, those who
> really benefit from the quelling of the potential social unrest that
> poverty produces and social programs mitigate, namely those whose
property
> needs to be secure, would pay for that security.  I am truly puzzled why
a
> wealth tax is a bad idea, other then that wealthy people obviously
wouldn't
> like it.

It was tried before, in several social systems the poor were not taxed such
as "Slavery" and several feudalist systems. Most folks eventually came to a
better level of understanding of social systems. I think the way to enhance
people's interest is to give incentive for a better life style, not by
giving incentive to live off those who work harder.

Regrads,Jeliko

Eva Balogh writes:

> Since the elections the contributors to *168 ora* have been on their very
> best behavior. In fact, the journalists, who had been vituperate in their
> criticism of the Boross government, rarely uttered a word of criticism of
the
> new one. It was only occasionally that one could see an interviewer who
> pressed his/her subject a bit by asking some harder questions on the less
> than sterling beginnings of the Horn government. However, the honeymoon
seems
> to be over:

Gee, I feel so sorry for both sides. It reminds me of the fourth estate's
behavior in the US. I am coming to the opinion that all estates
representative's should be elected, and not self-appointed, or in many
cases self-annointed.
Regards,Jeliko.

Tibor,

I agree with your statement about wealth tax. It's just that most Western
European countries are employing this kind of tax - and still are dismantling
the welfare state.

In Austria, where I come from, we introduced this taxation
form only about seven years ago. It consists of a 10% taxation on all incomes
from capital on accounts, in stocks, bonds etc. However, there are multiple
 other ways to get
the state's fingers into the pocket of the rich (unluckily also into the pocket
s
of the not so rich) as taxation on various kinds of property, sales and so fort
h
that basically work also as a wealth tax.

It certainly is a good idea, as long as you try to get the rich! Unfortunately,
that also means that you do not get much revenue out of the taxation,
as most people are not rich...

In terms of foreign investment: no problem, make special allowances if they
really invest into the country, otherwise: tax them!

Peter Biegelbauer

On Sun, 25 Sep 1994, JELIKO wrote:

> Dave at  writes:
>
> > As for interracial relationships, well... imagine walking down the street
> > arm-in-arm with a white woman in Mongomery, Alabama in 1960 and you
> pretty much
> > have the picture.
>
> Or a white man walking down the street of most African country's streets
> today. Let's not assign prejudice as solely a white problem.
> Strangely, before 1956, with only a few non-whites in the country, the
> Hungarians were not sensitive to folks of different color, they were
> treated more as interestingly different people rather than lesser ones.
>
> Regards.Jeliko.
>

Well!  Guess I must add my two cents.  As an African American who has
spent some time in Hungary starting ing 1989, and a little time in
Alabama, starting in 1973, I felt a difference between the two.  Most of
my time was spent in smaller towns and villages with, excepte for one
summer, very few excursions into Budapest.  Budapest had definite
'pockets' of problems, increasing each time I go as the economy shifts.
In Budapest, I was as careful as I am in some 'pocket' areas of the U.S.,
especially when I was by myself.  Outside of Budapest, in the more rural
areas, when I had problems, the problems centered around whether I was
Gypsy or not.  Now, what I saw regarding Gypsies was very similar to what
I see regarding ethnic minority groups in this country.

Another point is that the media which I would see portraying African
Americans, which was being imported from the U.S., had a lot to do with
preconceived ideas that some folks had about African Americans.  Most,
negative stereotypes.

I did have a few problems in the Balaton area with Germans who would
assume that I was a hooker and would try to pick me up.  But that's another
story.

When it comes to Hungarians and 'racisim', I have had horrible
experiences with Hungarian-Americans who immigrated in the 1956 area.
Within this group I have found 'pockets' of descency.  Again, I look at
the attitude this country was having doing that time regarding African
Americans.

Please take my statement as just that.  My perceptions based on my
experiences, values and biases.

What started this thread by the way?

Sziya

Aud...

On Sun, 25 Sep 1994 16:08:41 -0700 Audrey Wright said:
>>
>Well!  Guess I must add my two cents.  As an African American who has
>spent some time in Hungary starting ing 1989, and a little time in
>Alabama, starting in 1973, I felt a difference between the two.

--And have you been back to Alabama since?  Was it different from
Hungary, or about the same?  I suspect it matters where one is in
Alabama, too.  I live in Tuscaloosa, where money seems to talk more
loudly than color--not that color is unimportant.  There are now
several African-American members of the Tuscaloosa Country Club.  One
is a friend of mine.  Well, actually, it's his wife I like, but I let
her bring him along when she comes to dinner!

>I did have a few problems in the Balaton area with Germans who would
>assume that I was a hooker and would try to pick me up.  But that's another
>story.
>
--I think that most of us on the list would like to hear the gory details!

>Please take my statement as just that.  My perceptions based on my
>experiences, values and biases.
>
>What started this thread by the way?
>
--A posting from someone who asked about the attitudes of Hungarians
toward blacks.  He signed himself The Big Cool Guy, I believe.

Charles

Thanks to all those who answered my query!

Ishbel.

On Sun, 25 Sep 1994 19:15:18 EDT Peter Biegelbauer said:
>
>I agree with your statement about wealth tax. It's just that most Western
>European countries are employing this kind of tax - and still are dismantling
>the welfare state.
>
--They are not dismantling it, damn it!  They are making some changes in
how it works.  The old ways weren't working, and they are trying something
relatively new.  User charges on those who can afford to pay them and
purchase of services instead of direct provision.  Denmark is leading the
way, but even the UK is doing some innovative things although the left
uses the same "dismantling" rhetoric.

>In Austria, where I come from, we introduced this taxation
>form only about seven years ago. It consists of a 10% taxation on all incomes
>from capital on accounts, in stocks, bonds etc.

--We pay more than than in the U.S.

>It certainly is a good idea, as long as you try to get the rich! Unfortunately
,
>that also means that you do not get much revenue out of the taxation,
>as most people are not rich...
>
--Right!  "Soak the rich" is a dumb idea.  You've also got the problem of
the votes of those who have worked hard and been successful, as Jeliko says.
What rationale do you have to force the successful to tax themselves for
those who are unsuccessful?  The only one that I think makes sense is
the one that the previous writer (Timor?  I've erased it) gave--it buys
social peace.  What is it with you doctrinarire socialists anyway?   You
had your chances, and it is now clear that socialism is a failed doctrine.

Charles