Skip to comments.Europe Vs Russia On Taxes (Interesting Excerpt From Putin Interview With German Television)
Posted on 04/05/2013 9:41:51 PM PDT by goldstategop
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Of course, not. On the contrary I am even glad, to some extent, because the events have shown how risky and insecure investments in Western financial institutions can be. By the way, our tax regime in that context is also more favourable than yours. The income tax rate for natural persons in Russia is only 13 percent. What about Germany? How much do you pay?
JÖRG SCHÖNENBORN: It would be great if we paid only 13 percent. Of course, it would be great. Fight against tax increases is a hot topic during the election campaign.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: So, fight for tax cuts.
(Excerpt) Read more at eng.kremlin.ru ...
Naturally, Russia in a favorable tax position. Should Germany lower its tax burden?
I think President Putin has a good point and I agree with him.
Now if he denationalized all of his gas and oil infrastructure, I might think he was worth listening to. But he doesn’t want to do that, never mind give up political power.
Russia has considerable Western investment and cooperation in its energy market.
The country has a healthy budget surplus and is investing for the future on things that are necessary.
Of course with Putin’s upcoming visit to Germany, naturally there are more opportunities for mutual trade and Germany is already the largest partner in the North Stream Gas Pipeline delivering Russian gas to consumers in Germany.
If Europe moved from austerity to pro-growth policies, it would have a brighter future.
Did you ever think you’d see a day when the President of Russia understood the benefits of low taxation better than the President of America?
Keep thinking that they are in any way like us and you may be in for a surprise.
Rosneft and Gazprom are still state companies. Doesn’t matter about the foreign investment; there is no foreign ownership there. Would you trust Exxon or Mobil if the federal government owned them?
With a top rate of 35%, we are better off than Europe but by not much.
We cannot offer a flat tax like Russia has to encourage people to come live and invest here and create good-paying jobs.
13% is why Gerard Depardieu left France to settle in Russia because he didn’t want to pay his country’s confiscatory taxes on his income.
I believe in people keeping their wealth and using it to benefit others and they can do that much better than the government can do it.
>>Now if he denationalized all of his gas and oil infrastructure, I might think he was worth listening to. But he doesnt want to do that, never mind give up political power.<<
Last time I’ve check all major Russian energy companies are stock companies. Buy it if you want.
Nationalized oil and gas puts them in the company of nearly every other nation on earth. The USA is a rarity in that individuals can own mineral rights to oil and gas on their land.
Even in England, all oil, gas, coal, gold, etc belong to the crown. Nobody may extract without a government grant. The right to mine does not exist.
Most complaining about Russian oil and gas policy is actually the EU stamping their feet, that they were unable to solidify control of it, and use it they way Europe has always used colonial regions.
The EU is very bitter that they must simply be a customer of a foreign exporter. It was more fun to fantasize about owning it all.
You’re never going to be able to buy a majority. And state ownership is still state ownership.
There are strategic industries in which the government has a controlling interest.
Many European countries pursue the same “strategic champions” policy as Russia.
There is foreign investment in those companies; they just cannot exceed a majority of the shares.
That’s true for certain industries that are state-owned in Russia.
All other parts of the Russian market, there are no limits on foreign ownership.
Its far from ideal but its a lot better than during the Soviet days when the state owned everything in the country.
Britain privatized their mining business in 1994. Neither BP nor UK Coal are arms of the royal family or Westminster government.
Then you’ll really love when they start only accepting payment in a gold backed trade currency, rather than in Euros or Dollar funny money which can have it’s value stolen away through inflation.
There’s nothing wrong about looking after your own national interests first. And there is nothing automatically holy about the engine of your economy being owned by foreigners hostile to your national interests either.
“Youre never going to be able to buy a majority. And state ownership is still state ownership.”
Airbus is basically a state funded company, competing with Boeing. I guess it’s ok when the EU subsidizes entire industries. And this also brings to mind “too big to fail”.
And i seem to recall something about GM, Tesla, Solyndra, etc.
It’s very thin ice to be upset about state ownership of an industry.
The extractive businesses, may be private now. But who owns every scrap of minerals in the ground by law in England? The Crown, thats who.
Well, we can, but we'll have to dispose of all the Commies in Congress first to get the tax rates lowered.
Down is up, left is right....
No, the allodial title does not extend that far; that is a right-of-conquest concept anyhow. Unless by extension one is going to also claim that all lands in the USA are ultimately owned by the federal government (which the concept of “public lands” does entail).
That simple six word reply may one day be writ large in our history books.
I guess now our low tax supporters will all want to move to Russia. ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.