Hemorrhoids And Rectal Prolapse Difference

competent legal advice in time

Hemorrhoids And Rectal Prolapse Difference

competent legal advice in time

Bikkembergs Suede Mud

first When and how the shareholder agreement is executed with its limited liability company? 2. Loss carry-back losses arise from a stale

first When and how completed an agreement with the shareholder's limited liability company?

The FG Munich with his decision dated 28.9.2009 (7 K 2374/08) described again very nice, what conditions must be met before a contract of the CEO completed with its dominant partner GmbH is to be considered.

Assessment therefore particularly important, because even in principle, reduce payments to the shareholder as a business expense, the tax base. But this is not the case, if the agreed payments are not paid, the contract is therefore not complete.

In the decisive issue involved the question of whether a bonus that was calculated correctly based on a proper agreement can be considered as paid when it was booked in the balance sheet as a liability only. The FG has stated in that law that carried out the BFH an agreement between the corporation and a controlling shareholder actually must be to show their seriousness. This assumes that the bonus in the sense of § 11 of the Income Tax Act is also accrued to the actual shareholders. No foreign third party manager would wait for a longer period to a portion of his rightful compensation.

But that does not mean that a payment must actually be executed. It is also sufficient set-off against a debt or conversion of claim the shareholder loan into an explicit agreement. From the last reason why is the update on a settlement account of the shareholder-manager, about the feature it can always be considered as ex-or inflow. The FG has also stated that it is to be regarded as harmless if a bonus is only for a period of up to a year argued to their maturity.

Since this is not the case decided was correct, the liability was recorded as bonus to be treated as a constructive dividend. The gain was increased accordingly, calculates taxes and interest charges.

are not always frequently royalties that lead to such a question, If it is are various reasons abandoned salaries of managing partners. always note carefully that the flow of content is to be regarded as secured, so that surprises are avoided during the next tax audit.

second loss carry-back from a loss of creation barred

It corresponds to the principle of taxation according to the capacity of the taxpayer for the loss of one type of income that can not be offset against other income may be transferred to other tax years. This ensures that "Viewed over time," only the income is subject to taxation, which the taxpayer is actually accrued.

stands as an instrument to § 10d of the Income Tax Act is available. They shall lay losses up to an amount of € 511,500 (€ 1.023 million for jointly assessed spouses) carried back to the previous year and still not be balanced losses are carried forward to subsequent assessment periods. The loss is a year full of up to € 1 million and also netted up to 60% of the € 1.0 million in excess of the total amount of income. This does lead to a minimum tax in future years, but also to the complete settlement of the losses, if future profits are made.

On 27 1. 2010 decision of the BFH (IX R 59/08, published on 12 5, 2010) quite consistently a somewhat unusual factual situations. Here was the loss of creation has already occurred determining statute of limitations, which means that changes to the investment this exact Year, while shot. The coveted the taxpayer not. The loss stood firm and should not be changed. The taxpayer wanted but the loss to carry back to the rules of § 10d para 1 Income Tax Act on the previous year. For certain reasons for this year but the assessment had already become final, entered the establishment limitation as yet.

the loss carry-back has not allowed the tax office. The Tax Court, however, gave the taxpayer rights. Nevertheless, the Tax Office remained stubborn and applied to the BFH, set aside the verdict of that court and the entire action be dismissed. The details of the reasons I will not go into here.

not followed the BFH. He stated in the above sentence, that is not the reason for and amount of the loss back portable decided in creation, but in the year in which the impact of the tax loss carry-back. Since this year, however - was not festsetzungsverjährt because of appeals by the taxpayer was not a final decision, applies only to § 10 para 1 sentence 1 ITA d - as in the dispute.

then was allowed to the taxpayer who requested back as his loss. This is where persistence has once again been paid.

third Silent partner or shareholder loan

According to § 3 No. 24 TTA, certain investment companies, such as the Mid-sized investment company Sachsen mbH, from business tax free, be justified if and where according to the purpose of the company dormant companies with other companies in order to strengthen the equity of the sponsoring company. The prerequisite is that the participation agreements are tailored to the fact that the investing partner is insolvent or in liquidation of the investee in losses participate and control rights, receives over and above those that § § 233 ff HGB will at least provided. Avoided, however, the creation of a sometimes entrepreneurial involvement in the investee companies. The latter led to the unwanted situation of co-contractor with all tax and, if applicable tort law.

also be avoided, the qualification of participation as a shareholder loan, as this is a risk of loss consists of the business tax exemption of the participating dealer. The Saxon Tax Court limited its ruling of 7 now 12. 2009-5 669/06 K two facts from each other. It stated that it was content with a participation loan to a loan agreement is the sense of civil law, which has the peculiarity that has been agreed in place of or in addition to a (minimum) a participation interest in the profits.

If that was going to always help It would be all right. But unfortunately, such an agreement can also lead to a typical silent partnership. The Tax Court therefore found it also significant that the only investor in the creation of a silent partnership, the exemption in § 3 No. 24 GewStG obtained and can also strengthen the equity of the company sponsored.

Apart from being a typical silent partnership under HGB rules will not be considered as equity, it is remarkable that the Tax Court based exceedingly large, that the purpose of the contract and the economic objectives of the Parties for classification as equity or liability are of crucial importance. I may be pushing the impression that probably can not be not be what.

This idea - the only reason I point to the verdict - , in other cases where foals better arguments be quite helpful to establish its own position in regard to financial management.

Bikkembergs Suede Mud

first When and how the shareholder agreement is executed with its limited liability company? 2. Loss carry-back losses arise from a stale

first When and how completed an agreement with the shareholder's limited liability company?

The FG Munich with his decision dated 28.9.2009 (7 K 2374/08) described again very nice, what conditions must be met before a contract of the CEO completed with its dominant partner GmbH is to be considered.

Assessment therefore particularly important, because even in principle, reduce payments to the shareholder as a business expense, the tax base. But this is not the case, if the agreed payments are not paid, the contract is therefore not complete.

In the decisive issue involved the question of whether a bonus that was calculated correctly based on a proper agreement can be considered as paid when it was booked in the balance sheet as a liability only. The FG has stated in that law that carried out the BFH an agreement between the corporation and a controlling shareholder actually must be to show their seriousness. This assumes that the bonus in the sense of § 11 of the Income Tax Act is also accrued to the actual shareholders. No foreign third party manager would wait for a longer period to a portion of his rightful compensation.

But that does not mean that a payment must actually be executed. It is also sufficient set-off against a debt or conversion of claim the shareholder loan into an explicit agreement. From the last reason why is the update on a settlement account of the shareholder-manager, about the feature it can always be considered as ex-or inflow. The FG has also stated that it is to be regarded as harmless if a bonus is only for a period of up to a year argued to their maturity.

Since this is not the case decided was correct, the liability was recorded as bonus to be treated as a constructive dividend. The gain was increased accordingly, calculates taxes and interest charges.

are not always frequently royalties that lead to such a question, If it is are various reasons abandoned salaries of managing partners. always note carefully that the flow of content is to be regarded as secured, so that surprises are avoided during the next tax audit.

second loss carry-back from a loss of creation barred

It corresponds to the principle of taxation according to the capacity of the taxpayer for the loss of one type of income that can not be offset against other income may be transferred to other tax years. This ensures that "Viewed over time," only the income is subject to taxation, which the taxpayer is actually accrued.

stands as an instrument to § 10d of the Income Tax Act is available. They shall lay losses up to an amount of € 511,500 (€ 1.023 million for jointly assessed spouses) carried back to the previous year and still not be balanced losses are carried forward to subsequent assessment periods. The loss is a year full of up to € 1 million and also netted up to 60% of the € 1.0 million in excess of the total amount of income. This does lead to a minimum tax in future years, but also to the complete settlement of the losses, if future profits are made.

On 27 1. 2010 decision of the BFH (IX R 59/08, published on 12 5, 2010) quite consistently a somewhat unusual factual situations. Here was the loss of creation has already occurred determining statute of limitations, which means that changes to the investment this exact Year, while shot. The coveted the taxpayer not. The loss stood firm and should not be changed. The taxpayer wanted but the loss to carry back to the rules of § 10d para 1 Income Tax Act on the previous year. For certain reasons for this year but the assessment had already become final, entered the establishment limitation as yet.

the loss carry-back has not allowed the tax office. The Tax Court, however, gave the taxpayer rights. Nevertheless, the Tax Office remained stubborn and applied to the BFH, set aside the verdict of that court and the entire action be dismissed. The details of the reasons I will not go into here.

not followed the BFH. He stated in the above sentence, that is not the reason for and amount of the loss back portable decided in creation, but in the year in which the impact of the tax loss carry-back. Since this year, however - was not festsetzungsverjährt because of appeals by the taxpayer was not a final decision, applies only to § 10 para 1 sentence 1 ITA d - as in the dispute.

then was allowed to the taxpayer who requested back as his loss. This is where persistence has once again been paid.

third Silent partner or shareholder loan

According to § 3 No. 24 TTA, certain investment companies, such as the Mid-sized investment company Sachsen mbH, from business tax free, be justified if and where according to the purpose of the company dormant companies with other companies in order to strengthen the equity of the sponsoring company. The prerequisite is that the participation agreements are tailored to the fact that the investing partner is insolvent or in liquidation of the investee in losses participate and control rights, receives over and above those that § § 233 ff HGB will at least provided. Avoided, however, the creation of a sometimes entrepreneurial involvement in the investee companies. The latter led to the unwanted situation of co-contractor with all tax and, if applicable tort law.

also be avoided, the qualification of participation as a shareholder loan, as this is a risk of loss consists of the business tax exemption of the participating dealer. The Saxon Tax Court limited its ruling of 7 now 12. 2009-5 669/06 K two facts from each other. It stated that it was content with a participation loan to a loan agreement is the sense of civil law, which has the peculiarity that has been agreed in place of or in addition to a (minimum) a participation interest in the profits.

If that was going to always help It would be all right. But unfortunately, such an agreement can also lead to a typical silent partnership. The Tax Court therefore found it also significant that the only investor in the creation of a silent partnership, the exemption in § 3 No. 24 GewStG obtained and can also strengthen the equity of the company sponsored.

Apart from being a typical silent partnership under HGB rules will not be considered as equity, it is remarkable that the Tax Court based exceedingly large, that the purpose of the contract and the economic objectives of the Parties for classification as equity or liability are of crucial importance. I may be pushing the impression that probably can not be not be what.

This idea - the only reason I point to the verdict - , in other cases where foals better arguments be quite helpful to establish its own position in regard to financial management.

Fridge Magnet On Microwave

The end of growth - the end of the property

Dear Willy,

thank you for your ultimate future post, which has deepened, as always, the point of my speech on democracy and self-organization thoroughly. Above all, I am grateful that you have devoted myself out with you own insight to the crucial point in the coexistence of any society. This is about the crucial question: How do you think's the property?
You're absolutely right. Before we have not resolved this fundamental concept, we need the intricacies of the political structure of a sustainable society to set apart not. Therefore, I have the same impact as a provocative thesis for further discussion, if a sustainable society is to do without (significant) material growth must be the same, the end of individual property.
this sounds radical and it is. But do not worry, I shall not warm up old Marxist musings and everything collectivized. That did not work and will not work. A major reason for this is that we are dealing with a much more complex reality, which (as we have noted already) every plan and every hierarchical leadership / government withdraw, in which we only playing by the rules of self-organization can flourish. Collectivization in the Marxist sense meant but always planning, always "exercising power" of a party, always the dictate of the "knowing". Dictation is the opposite concept of self-organization! It is doomed to failure, how well-meaning and moral integrity to the steering ends they may be.
But what I would have is the "small difference" between ownership and possession again at the center. Property is indeed the "unlimited" claim to power over any thing (we do not even touch on the question of ownership of human beings and animals, so is not without its own moral problems in terms!).
First, I would now like just a little in the world-tricks . Access A key feature of the mechanistic world view is the strong linkage of the (free) individual with his property. But it is also difficult simple: if the man every metaphysical meaning is to be withdrawn if it is only a product of chance and necessity (as Jacques Monod so aptly characterized), then the man even more by its relationship to the other individuals and things of reality determined. His "sense" is then given by his individual place in reality, its place in the "power structure" and just through his power over things, his property given.
As much as in the increase of property as the Institute for meaning a mechanistic world view is understandable, so funny, it thus seems that the Church in the Second Vatican Council speaks of that property is a necessary precondition for individual freedom of man. Well, if that's the "boss" ...
learns at this point we would look at the relationship between a powerful concept of ownership and growth ideas. When property is so important for the sense of the individual, then its protection is of course a "vital" role. In order to protect what you have, but you have to win control of "more": to protect the pasture, you have to have a fence to their own to protect animals against the ravages of nature, you need a stable, to protect themselves from plague need reserves in order to protect themselves at the age of the loss of living standards, you need "vested" rights to pensions, etc., etc. ., etc. is a fact: Only more property to protect property. When property that is such a crucial place in the world holds and where it has also its own individuality against all "other" and must be protected against nature, then growth is programmed before! Here we are a primary driving force behind our social order (and its aberration!) Got to the bottom. Do we want a self-organizing to always more structural rather than material developed society, we need to think about what we do with this driver.
In contrast to the unlimited power to claim ownership of the ownership concept is derived more from the concept of use. If you own something, then you are in the strict sense of the "owner" of the commitment and responsibility. One is called the optimal management of the transferred property, the "owner" expects that the property is held in proper position, just as he expects in return for the release of his estate. Property is therefore not absolute power of control, but much stronger a copyright on any matter, which also includes the responsibility for this thing with.
is interesting that our ancestors in the Middle Ages, that was built economically largely on land, this difference is not very well known but just their main economic base is not the personal property of said, where land was in fee, use and administration. The feudal lords had the right to withdraw this Lehn, but to also get a share of the produce.
Of course the use of medieval legal systems as well as the re-heat humbug of communism. It shows that ownership society as the only Standard is not absolutely necessary. It also shows, surprisingly, that economic systems, to measure the individual property of little importance to grow, barely. The essential question is, we are able to find a society that allows for self-organizing, structural development, quality of life for the people but provides the ecological limits to material growth binds.
I believe like you that this is possible. The foundations of such a company are as long known and future post from you both in the past and even in other parts of our discussion has been called. They are: *
basic security of the individual
* legal certainty in the Management of individual property tax
* of ground and soil
* taxation of resources
I want these issues addressed individually, already put to our further discussion, a basis.
The basic security of the individual is the fundamental basis of such a company. Only if we succeed, the people to take their angst, we can break the deadly and inefficient growth cycle of striving for more and more property to the existing property (and thus the individual existence) to protect. This basic security should guarantee every person's survival. It should consist of a strong health care, adequate health care, a excellent education, unrestricted access to culture, knowledge and opportunities to sharpen their skills and use, and consist of an economic transfers. The most interesting part of the surface is certainly the calibration of the economic transfers. It should be such that an individual can live in dignity, but above all it should to encourage socialization of people. This could be done in that joint accounts get progressively more: A family of four, as well as a four-person residential community of students would no longer be replaced four times the basic allowance, but on a joint account five times the amount. The key: This power transfer is the only financial benefit to the citizens of the state (except for special promotions for special needs). It is every person equally.
important for the company in strategic terms, however, are the other measures, namely, an excellent education and access to knowledge and individual development. This helps us a hand, the Internet has democratized the access to knowledge this set. In addition, we have to our educational institutions "on its head" position and finally offer real life education (and not short-term occupational upgrading), as well as efficient ways to good ideas to develop and implement. This broad field, we are certainly one or the other must pay future post!
The individual basic allowance but may be only a part. A major cornerstone of his other self-organized society, the legal security in the use of the property. You see, already, here is nothing of the property! It is rather to avoid the errors of medieval feudalism and communism. Possession should be protected by society as long as he is a
used) and
b) such use is within the rules for the conservation of the basic substance is.
Hence, we are not expropriated or feudal despotism. It is about preventing of inefficient speculation on the one hand and exploitation on the other. Possession required. Possession but should continue to provide the opportunity to realize their economic creativity. Therefore, should the owners be offered under these two conditions as wide a space for the optimal use of his property.
The taxation of land and soil is an important "redistribution" of the natural income can be achieved. After the sun's energy is the only "tangible" income of the nature of our planet so, it must be collective income (that indeed every human being as "inalienable birthright" is entitled to!) Are distributed according to the company. Who the essential Production factor for the use of that income managed, must therefore make this charge to the community.
Of course, this tax is not simply a "tax hectares. You must land productivity, but also investments in "higher returns in the future (such as compost and the like) are charged, as well as soil degradation by sealing or monoculture. The aim should be to cover the basic security for all of this source largely to meet a basic idea of joint management of natural income.
would automatically be a sealing engagement against speculation and possible exploitation: every one of his property not uses, it must pay tax anyway. Each of the soil would have sealed the loss of functionality of the soil also contribute to ground control. Thus, both speculative and sealing and Bauwahn is expensive.
Finally, a tax on resources essential to ensure they have especially for the infrastructure in material terms (roads, public buildings, etc.) and intangible ways (education, health, safety, etc.). So that they will replace the tax on labor as the basis of Finanzgebahrung society.
resources are directly related to our removal from the wild (and we stress the nature of the drop at the end of each product life cycle) connected. If we assume that every resource "ownership" of all people (also not yet born!), It must bring in who they "take possession of" this "owner" in return. Here is ample scope for the "greening" the tax system. This is not simply to achieve in that we pay a few cents more for fuel. Rather, it must be to evaluate resources on the basis of their environmental impact and their future availability and to tax. This is the material flow management, our company are finally brought in a sustainable foundations. Again, we are probably one or the other forward post to write!
Does all this have to a sustainable, self-organizing society? No, certainly not! But there are fundamental elements of such a future society that is also required, of course, also a new political order system and a new education system, all objects of our further discussion. But I do know that a reorganization of the tax system will also affect our social system substantially (and in turn is only possible to do so if this transformation is the goal citizens!). In fact, I think
that this transformation is already starting very soon. The financial crisis is in us, thankfully, relieve the need to reduce 95% of speculative assets. The question of new sources of revenue will inevitably go to the taxation of "property" and so slow to make "ownership", with all its consequences. The question of eternal growth will do well in Europe "by itself". This raises so at the end of this post less forward the question of how we come to such a sustainable economy, but again how can we organize ourselves in such best to make it to a better society.

That's it for this time of my beautiful Perlsdorf where the world still (and again!) is OK. Your

Michael

Fridge Magnet On Microwave

The end of growth - the end of the property

Dear Willy,

thank you for your ultimate future post, which has deepened, as always, the point of my speech on democracy and self-organization thoroughly. Above all, I am grateful that you have devoted myself out with you own insight to the crucial point in the coexistence of any society. This is about the crucial question: How do you think's the property?
You're absolutely right. Before we have not resolved this fundamental concept, we need the intricacies of the political structure of a sustainable society to set apart not. Therefore, I have the same impact as a provocative thesis for further discussion, if a sustainable society is to do without (significant) material growth must be the same, the end of individual property.
this sounds radical and it is. But do not worry, I shall not warm up old Marxist musings and everything collectivized. That did not work and will not work. A major reason for this is that we are dealing with a much more complex reality, which (as we have noted already) every plan and every hierarchical leadership / government withdraw, in which we only playing by the rules of self-organization can flourish. Collectivization in the Marxist sense meant but always planning, always "exercising power" of a party, always the dictate of the "knowing". Dictation is the opposite concept of self-organization! It is doomed to failure, how well-meaning and moral integrity to the steering ends they may be.
But what I would have is the "small difference" between ownership and possession again at the center. Property is indeed the "unlimited" claim to power over any thing (we do not even touch on the question of ownership of human beings and animals, so is not without its own moral problems in terms!).
First, I would now like just a little in the world-tricks . Access A key feature of the mechanistic world view is the strong linkage of the (free) individual with his property. But it is also difficult simple: if the man every metaphysical meaning is to be withdrawn if it is only a product of chance and necessity (as Jacques Monod so aptly characterized), then the man even more by its relationship to the other individuals and things of reality determined. His "sense" is then given by his individual place in reality, its place in the "power structure" and just through his power over things, his property given.
As much as in the increase of property as the Institute for meaning a mechanistic world view is understandable, so funny, it thus seems that the Church in the Second Vatican Council speaks of that property is a necessary precondition for individual freedom of man. Well, if that's the "boss" ...
learns at this point we would look at the relationship between a powerful concept of ownership and growth ideas. When property is so important for the sense of the individual, then its protection is of course a "vital" role. In order to protect what you have, but you have to win control of "more": to protect the pasture, you have to have a fence to their own to protect animals against the ravages of nature, you need a stable, to protect themselves from plague need reserves in order to protect themselves at the age of the loss of living standards, you need "vested" rights to pensions, etc., etc. ., etc. is a fact: Only more property to protect property. When property that is such a crucial place in the world holds and where it has also its own individuality against all "other" and must be protected against nature, then growth is programmed before! Here we are a primary driving force behind our social order (and its aberration!) Got to the bottom. Do we want a self-organizing to always more structural rather than material developed society, we need to think about what we do with this driver.
In contrast to the unlimited power to claim ownership of the ownership concept is derived more from the concept of use. If you own something, then you are in the strict sense of the "owner" of the commitment and responsibility. One is called the optimal management of the transferred property, the "owner" expects that the property is held in proper position, just as he expects in return for the release of his estate. Property is therefore not absolute power of control, but much stronger a copyright on any matter, which also includes the responsibility for this thing with.
is interesting that our ancestors in the Middle Ages, that was built economically largely on land, this difference is not very well known but just their main economic base is not the personal property of said, where land was in fee, use and administration. The feudal lords had the right to withdraw this Lehn, but to also get a share of the produce.
Of course the use of medieval legal systems as well as the re-heat humbug of communism. It shows that ownership society as the only Standard is not absolutely necessary. It also shows, surprisingly, that economic systems, to measure the individual property of little importance to grow, barely. The essential question is, we are able to find a society that allows for self-organizing, structural development, quality of life for the people but provides the ecological limits to material growth binds.
I believe like you that this is possible. The foundations of such a company are as long known and future post from you both in the past and even in other parts of our discussion has been called. They are: *
basic security of the individual
* legal certainty in the Management of individual property tax
* of ground and soil
* taxation of resources
I want these issues addressed individually, already put to our further discussion, a basis.
The basic security of the individual is the fundamental basis of such a company. Only if we succeed, the people to take their angst, we can break the deadly and inefficient growth cycle of striving for more and more property to the existing property (and thus the individual existence) to protect. This basic security should guarantee every person's survival. It should consist of a strong health care, adequate health care, a excellent education, unrestricted access to culture, knowledge and opportunities to sharpen their skills and use, and consist of an economic transfers. The most interesting part of the surface is certainly the calibration of the economic transfers. It should be such that an individual can live in dignity, but above all it should to encourage socialization of people. This could be done in that joint accounts get progressively more: A family of four, as well as a four-person residential community of students would no longer be replaced four times the basic allowance, but on a joint account five times the amount. The key: This power transfer is the only financial benefit to the citizens of the state (except for special promotions for special needs). It is every person equally.
important for the company in strategic terms, however, are the other measures, namely, an excellent education and access to knowledge and individual development. This helps us a hand, the Internet has democratized the access to knowledge this set. In addition, we have to our educational institutions "on its head" position and finally offer real life education (and not short-term occupational upgrading), as well as efficient ways to good ideas to develop and implement. This broad field, we are certainly one or the other must pay future post!
The individual basic allowance but may be only a part. A major cornerstone of his other self-organized society, the legal security in the use of the property. You see, already, here is nothing of the property! It is rather to avoid the errors of medieval feudalism and communism. Possession should be protected by society as long as he is a
used) and
b) such use is within the rules for the conservation of the basic substance is.
Hence, we are not expropriated or feudal despotism. It is about preventing of inefficient speculation on the one hand and exploitation on the other. Possession required. Possession but should continue to provide the opportunity to realize their economic creativity. Therefore, should the owners be offered under these two conditions as wide a space for the optimal use of his property.
The taxation of land and soil is an important "redistribution" of the natural income can be achieved. After the sun's energy is the only "tangible" income of the nature of our planet so, it must be collective income (that indeed every human being as "inalienable birthright" is entitled to!) Are distributed according to the company. Who the essential Production factor for the use of that income managed, must therefore make this charge to the community.
Of course, this tax is not simply a "tax hectares. You must land productivity, but also investments in "higher returns in the future (such as compost and the like) are charged, as well as soil degradation by sealing or monoculture. The aim should be to cover the basic security for all of this source largely to meet a basic idea of joint management of natural income.
would automatically be a sealing engagement against speculation and possible exploitation: every one of his property not uses, it must pay tax anyway. Each of the soil would have sealed the loss of functionality of the soil also contribute to ground control. Thus, both speculative and sealing and Bauwahn is expensive.
Finally, a tax on resources essential to ensure they have especially for the infrastructure in material terms (roads, public buildings, etc.) and intangible ways (education, health, safety, etc.). So that they will replace the tax on labor as the basis of Finanzgebahrung society.
resources are directly related to our removal from the wild (and we stress the nature of the drop at the end of each product life cycle) connected. If we assume that every resource "ownership" of all people (also not yet born!), It must bring in who they "take possession of" this "owner" in return. Here is ample scope for the "greening" the tax system. This is not simply to achieve in that we pay a few cents more for fuel. Rather, it must be to evaluate resources on the basis of their environmental impact and their future availability and to tax. This is the material flow management, our company are finally brought in a sustainable foundations. Again, we are probably one or the other forward post to write!
Does all this have to a sustainable, self-organizing society? No, certainly not! But there are fundamental elements of such a future society that is also required, of course, also a new political order system and a new education system, all objects of our further discussion. But I do know that a reorganization of the tax system will also affect our social system substantially (and in turn is only possible to do so if this transformation is the goal citizens!). In fact, I think
that this transformation is already starting very soon. The financial crisis is in us, thankfully, relieve the need to reduce 95% of speculative assets. The question of new sources of revenue will inevitably go to the taxation of "property" and so slow to make "ownership", with all its consequences. The question of eternal growth will do well in Europe "by itself". This raises so at the end of this post less forward the question of how we come to such a sustainable economy, but again how can we organize ourselves in such best to make it to a better society.

That's it for this time of my beautiful Perlsdorf where the world still (and again!) is OK. Your

Michael

Plan Lekcji Szkoły W Dąbrowicach

The EU Parliament

Plan Lekcji Szkoły W Dąbrowicach

The EU Parliament

How To Draw A Car In A Accident

network not just for experts: http://mobbingcheckerkdm.ning.com/
bullying, help, law, politics, Health & Society

How To Draw A Car In A Accident

network not just for experts: http://mobbingcheckerkdm.ning.com/
bullying, help, law, politics, Health & Society