Rent-seeking & Directly Unproductive Profit-Seeking Activities

Rent

http://www.economist.com/research/Economics/alphabetic.cfm?term=risk

Confusingly, rent has two different meanings for economists. The first is the commonplace definition: the INCOME from hiring out LAND or other durable goods. The second, also known as economic rent, is a measure of MARKET POWER: the difference between what a FACTOR OF PRODUCTION is paid and how much it would need to be paid to remain in its current use. A soccer star may be paid $50,000 a week to play for his team when he would be willing to turn out for only $10,000, so his economic rent is $40,000 a week. In PERFECT COMPETITION, there are no economic rents, as new FIRMS enter a market and compete until PRICES fall and all rent is eliminated. Reducing rent does not change production decisions, so economic rent can be taxed without any adverse impact on the real economy, assuming that it really is rent.

Rent-seeking

http://www.economist.com/research/Economics/alphabetic.cfm?term=risk

Cutting yourself a bigger slice of the cake rather than making the cake bigger. Trying to make more money without producing more for customers. Classic examples of rent-seeking, a phrase coined by an economist, Gordon Tullock, include:

• a protection racket, in which the gang takes a cut from the shopkeeper’s PROFIT;

• a CARTEL of FIRMS agreeing to raise PRICES;

• a UNION demanding higher WAGES without offering any increase in PRODUCTIVITY;

• lobbying the GOVERNMENT for tax, spending or regulatory policies that benefit the lobbyists at the expense of taxpayers or consumers or some other rivals.

Whether legal or illegal, as they do not create any value, rent-seeking activities can impose large costs on an economy.

Directly Unproductive Profit-Seeking Activities

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~alandear/glossary/d.html

Activities that have no direct productive purpose (neither increasing consumer utility nor contributing to production of a good or service that would increase utility) and are motivated by the desire to make profit, typically from market distortions created by government policies. Examples are rent seeking and revenue seeking. Term coined by Bhagwati (1982).

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~alandear/glossary/d.html#dup2

rent seeking

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~alandear/glossary/r.html#RentSeeking

The using up of real resources in an effort to secure the rights to economic rents that arise from government policies. In international economics the term usually refers to efforts to obtain quota rents. Term introduced by Krueger 1974.

O objectivo é evitar situações comuns em Portugal, de empresas que compram terrenos muito baratos mas que depois os vendem a preços exorbitantes ...

Bloco de Esquerda apresenta propostas contra a corrupção

Dos vários diplomas apresentados hoje pelo Bloco de Esquerda para combater a corrupção no país, destaca-se a cativação pelo Estado de mais valias que decorram da valorização súbita de terrenos privados. O objectivo é evitar situações comuns em Portugal, de empresas que compram terrenos muito baratos mas que depois os vendem a preços exorbitantes porque passa a ser permitida a construção e urbanização nesses terrenos. "Queremos atacar na fonte a vantagem do favorecimento dos processos de corrupção", afirmou Francisco Louçã (Lusa), destacando que é a expectativa das mais-valias que propicia "a especulação imobiliária" e os negócios que envolvem "autarquias e clubes de futebol".
Consulte as propostas no site do Grupo Parlamentar do Bloco de Esquerda

Bloco apresenta propostas contra a corrupção http://beparlamento.esquerda.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=363&Itemid=2

15/02/07

Dos vários diplomas apresentados hoje pelo Bloco de Esquerda para combater a corrupção no país, destaca-se a cativação pelo Estado de mais valias que decorram da valorização súbita de terrenos privados. A ideia é evitar situações comuns em Portugal, de empresas que compram terrenos muito baratos mas que passado pouco tempo os vendem a preços exorbitantes precisamente porque passaram a ser classificados como terrenos para construção e urbanização. O Bloco de Esquerda apresenta como exemplos flagrantes os casos da Quinta das Fontaínhas e o caso Portucale. No primeiro, foi comprada uma herdade de 27 hectares (na Moita), em plena Reserva Ecológica Nacional, pela mesma empresa imobiliária que depois de o PDM ter sido revisto vendeu esses terrenos por um valor quase 100 vezes superior. No segundo caso, o Grupo Espírito Santo comprou a Companhia das Lezírias por 78 escudos o metro quadrado, tendo sido valorizado em 20 mil por cento quando o uso dos terrenos passou a urbanizável. De acordo com o projecto-Lei do Bloco de Esquerda que «define a cativação pública das mais-valias urbanísticas como medida preventiva de combate ao abuso de poder e à corrupção», nestas situações, em caso de venda dos terrenos depois de valorizados, as mais valias seriam adquiridas pelo Estado que as redistribui pelas autarquias, através do Fundo Social Municipal. Outra das propostas apresentadas tem como objectivo equiparar em termos penais o crime de corrupção passiva ao crime de corrupção activa. O Bloco de Esquerda decidiu também aproveitar algumas das propostas do deputado do Partido Socialista João Cravinho, que tinham sido recusadas pelo Grupo Parlamentar do PS. Estes diplomas determinam «a divulgação dos resultados dos instrumentos de combate à corrupção e a sua comunicação ao Parlamento» bem como «as regras de prestação de contas dos titulares de cargos políticos ou altos cargos públicos acerca do seu património». Mais-valias urbanísticas DEFINE A CATIVAÇÃO PÚBLICA DAS MAIS-VALIAS URBANISTICAS COMO MEDIDA PREVENTIVA DE COMBATE AO ABUSO DE PODER E À CORRUPÇÃO Uniformiza a pena aplicável à corrupção activa e passiva Altera os artigos 372.º e 374.º do Código Penal, relativos aos crimes de corrupção e revoga o artigo 373.º do mesmo Código. Proposta do dep. João Cravinho: titulares de cargos públicos Determina regras de prestação de contas dos titulares de cargos políticos ou altos cargos públicos acerca do seu património Proposta do dep. João Cravinho: divulgação Determina a divulgação dos resultados dos instrumentos de combate sua comunicação ao Parlamento Proposta antes submetida pelo deputado João Cravinho Altera as disposições da Lei n.º34 /87, de 16 de Julho, relativas corrupção

Precários e mal pagos: SOLIDARIEDADE ENTRE JOVENS NO ACTO DE ENTREGA DA PETIÇÃO

Contra a precariedade laboral

http://vidasprecarias.blogspot.com/2006_06_01_vidasprecarias_archive.html

in

http://vidasprecarias.blogspot.com/

Venho por este meio apelar ao vosso apoio para denunciar a situação dos chamados trabalhadores independentes, que sofrem de um enquadramento legal abusivo que permite a total precariedade laboral. As entidades empregadoras preferem optar pelo pagamento de serviços por recibos verdes, porque se podem furtar aos descontos obrigatórios por cada trabalhador dependente. O que acontece é uma massificação da fuga ao contrato laboral, com inevitáveis perdas de direitos e regalias para o trabalhador a que abusivamente se denomina de trabalhador por conta própria. Pensa-se naturalmente que quem presta serviços pode cobrar o valor que entende ser o adequado para as funções que presta à entidade que o solicita, mas não é assim que as coisas funcionam. A entidade empregadora estipula o salário, que é sempre o mesmo que o trabalhador receberia se fosse dependente. Portanto, o que o trabalhador independente deseja é poder um dia vir a beneficiar das regalias que um contrato de trabalho lhe confere, porque pagaria menos impostos e segurança social, teria um vínculo de trabalho, teria direito a férias, teria direito a subsídio de férias e a subsídio de Natal. A minha situação é a seguinte: recebo o salário mínimo nacional pago a recibos verdes. Um quarto em Lisboa custa-me 200 euros, pelo que vejam a miséria com que vivo. Claro que todos sabemos que o salário mínimo não permite ter uma vida condigna. Mas o meu desejo neste momento é receber o salário mínimo numa situação de contrato laboral. A situação do independente é deplorável e desumana. O que recebo não me permite fazer os descontos mínimos para a segurança social, porque trata-se de um valor muito elevado e tenho que optar: ou pago segurança social ou compro comida. Portanto, sou obrigatoriamente uma transgressora da lei que nem sequer tem direito a baixa em caso de doença. Se adoecer, ninguém me paga os dias que estiver em casa. E quanto a férias... não tenho direito a tê-las. A situação do trabalhador independente é a perda completa de todas as regalias e direitos do trabalhador. Quando se fala em recibos verdes é no sentido da desconfiança do trabalhador liberal que ganha o que quer e não declara às Finanças. Mas a situação de milhares de jovens neste país é sujeitarem-se à precariedade máxima e à extrema pobreza, que a lei permite e encobre. Por favor, ajudem-me a denunciar a exploração que cada vez mais é feita ao trabalhador.

T.A.

Acabar com o imposto sobre as grandes Fortunas é mau para a nossa democracia, economia e sociedade. Será um triste legado às gerações futuras nos USA

A Call to Preserve the Estate Tax

http://www.faireconomy.org/join/et-call-rw.html

To sign the call, please fill out the secure response form below.

2,172 Signers who WILL OWE or who HAVE PAID estate taxes under current law 3,362 Signers who WILL NOT OWE estate taxes under current law

We believe that permanent repeal of the estate tax would be bad for our democracy, our economy, and our society. Repealing the estate tax, a constructive part of our tax structure for 85 years, would leave an unfortunate legacy for America's future generations.

Only the richest 0.27 percent of our nation's families currently pay any estate tax at all. Repealing the estate tax would enrich the heirs of America's millionaires and billionaires while hurting families who struggle to make ends meet.

The billions of dollars in state and federal revenues lost will inevitably be made up either by increasing taxes on those less able to pay or by cutting Social Security, Medicare, environmental protection, and many other government programs so important to our nation's continued well-being.

The estate tax exerts a powerful and positive effect on charitable giving. Repeal would have a devastating impact on public charities ranging from institutions of higher education and land conservancies to organizations that assist the poor and disadvantaged.

We recognize the importance of protecting America's family farms and small businesses, and the estate tax has many special provisions that do so. But this concern — the rationale usually advanced for eliminating the estate tax — can be addressed by amending the existing estate tax system.

Let's fix the estate tax, not repeal it!

Imposto sobre as grandes, muito grandes e mesmo super-super grandes Fortunas

"Conservatives call it the death tax.

Lawyers call it the estate tax.

I grew up hearing it called the inheritance tax"

http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_inheritance.html

Gates Sr. supports estate tax

His son agrees with him, as do billionaires Warren Buffett, David Rockefeller Sr. and others.

By Jim Hopkins, USA TODAY

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2003-01-12-gates_x.htm

The stakes are enormous, especially for the 1% of U.S. households who control 38% of private wealth, Gates says.

SAN FRANCISCO — President Bush, in pushing big tax cuts for America's wealthiest, is about to get an earful from an unlikely opponent, again. Bill Gates Sr. — father of the co-founder of Microsoft who is the USA's richest man — is fighting to keep Bush from killing the estate tax that hits the super-rich but also some small-business owners and farmers.

His son agrees with him, as do billionaires Warren Buffett, David Rockefeller Sr. and others. (Background: Arguments for and against saving tax)

Why? Gates, 78, says the wealthy should pay the tax because they owe a special debt. Their riches, he says, would not be possible without a strong society supporting capitalism.

"Most of the things that have generated the enormous advances in our economy are things that started on some campus or in some laboratory," Gates said in an exclusive interview last week. "And most of those are because the government financed it."

Gates, a semiretired lawyer who runs the $24 billion Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, isn't an idle advocate. He's so passionate about it that he recently wrote a book on the subject — his first — and is hitting the publicity circuit this week to use his name and book to battle Bush, who last week proposed killing the tax for good as part of his $674 billion economic stimulus plan. "I'm relishing it," Gates says of the upcoming battle in Congress.

So are his well-armed opponents. They blame the tax for the deaths of untold small businesses and farms each year. Some of the most powerful corporate and private interests have lined up behind Bush, as they did two years ago.

Big issues at stake

The stakes are enormous, especially for the 1% of U.S. households who control 38% of private wealth, Gates says. Under current law, the estate of someone worth $1 billion would have to cough up as much as $490 million in taxes after he or she dies. Eliminate the tax, and the heirs would gain that much.

The tax generates about $30 billion in annual federal revenue, about 1% of all, Gates says. That doesn't sound like much, but it will likely go higher as thousands of Americans who amassed fortunes in recent decades begin to die, putting up for grabs as much as $136.2 trillion in wealth.

The effort by Gates, Buffett and others is not as odd as it might seem. Gates' son, with $43 billion, and Buffett, with $36 billion, have said they'll give most of their fortunes to charity, which will reduce estate taxes.

The estate tax stems from a 1916 law that taxes the value of property, stocks and other assets valued above certain amounts when someone dies. Unless it is killed, the tax, the dollar values and the tax rates, will reduce gradually until 2010, when the tax will be repealed for one year. Then it reverts to 2001 levels.

Most Americans will never pay the tax because their estates are too small, Gates says in Wealth and Our Commonwealth: Why America Should Tax Accumulated Fortunes (Beacon Press, $25). Only about 2% of estates qualify each year. But it is those estates and their powerful families that concern Gates.

Without the tax, he says, their wealth could grow to a point where they could have too much control over the national agenda. (See story, right.)

Round 2

Gates first battled to keep the tax in 2001. Bush had been elected the year before and revived the idea to kill it.

Gates, with little political experience, says in his book that he was "stunned" and "astonished" by the buzz saw of opposition to his campaign to save the tax. It included newspaper ads across the nation warning, "Don't Believe the Elitist Millionaire Con."

In the end, the tax was kept but sharply reduced, a loss for Gates and his supporters at a Boston non-profit, Responsible Wealth. Chuck Collins, one of the group's co-founders, worked with Gates on the book.

Gates admits this round could be likewise tough and his impact unclear.

A book about estate taxes, even one written by someone with a marquee name, is unlikely to make best-seller lists dominated by spy thrillers and diet advice. He's giving it his best shot, though, starting this week with TV appearances, including one Thursday on NBC's Today.

The newly Republican Congress, looking for ways to stimulate the economy, is focusing more than ever on tax cuts. And just 25% of Americans surveyed by Gallup said the tax should be saved, according to a February 2001 poll, the most recent.

Still, it won't be a cakewalk for Bush, says Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institution think tank. He cites congressional fears over "growing deficit projections and the possibility of big outlays for a war in Iraq and its aftermath."

At a minimum, Gates wants a "more robust debate" than the one he says took place two years ago. "We're the underdog," he says. "But underdogs won a lot of football games this fall."