The International Monetary Fund Lays The Groundwork For Global Wealth Confiscation

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) quietly dropped a bomb in its October Fiscal Monitor Report. Titled “Taxing Times,” the report paints a dire picture for advanced economies with high debts that fail to aggressively “mobilize domestic revenue.” It goes on to build a case for drastic measures and recommends a series of escalating income and consumption tax increases culminating in the direct confiscation of assets.

Yes, you read that right. But don’t take it from me. The report itself says:

“The sharp deterioration of the public finances in many countries has revived interest in a “capital levy”— a one-off tax on private wealth—as an exceptional measure to restore debt sustainability. The appeal is that such a tax, if it is implemented before avoidance is possible and there is a belief that it will never be repeated, does not distort behavior (and may be seen by some as fair). … The conditions for success are strong, but also need to be weighed against the risks of the alternatives, which include repudiating public debt or inflating it away. … The tax rates needed to bring down public debt to precrisis levels, moreover, are sizable: reducing debt ratios to end-2007 levels would require (for a sample of 15 euro area countries) a tax rate of about 10 percent on households with positive net wealth. (page 49)”

Here's the thing that constantly baffles me right now.

The system is bust, it's fucked, it ain't never gonna get repaired, anyone with fingers and toes could calculate that there's never going to be enough money on the planet to level things out because the debt was built up with fictitious money + interest.

So let's just fucking call it!

LYNN FORESTER DE ROTHSCHILD on her campaign to rescue capitalism...

"Evelyn and I worry that the resulting pessimism – even cynicism – about our economic system is undermining its very existence.

Indeed, according to one recent survey by the Boston Consulting Group, only 21 per cent of Americans and 28 per cent of Britons believe their children will have a better life than them. This could lead to any number of negative consequences.

In an effort to bring the best to the system, I am co-chairing a new international group, the Henry Jackson
Initiative For Inclusive Capitalism that is trying to showcase several immediate and permanent solutions from the private sector.

In our first working paper, available at henryjacksoninitiative.org, we have highlighted several private sector efforts to improve education, support small and medium businesses and to bring back a bedrock sense of ethics and civics.

I don’t want to destroy the system. I want to balance the freedom that has brought me a wonderful life with personal responsibility. That is the only way to save capitalism for the sake of a future generation of girls who have dreams.

In 2000, I married an Englishman, Sir Evelyn de Rothschild, who also carried his head high. He had been born into considerable wealth, which he believed was a responsibility. For 40 years, he had worked as a banker and he always said that his first duty was to his clients. Evelyn embodied the values and ethics that gave people like me faith in our positions.

Now, however, we both believe that greed and corruption in the City and on Wall Street have understandably shaken the faith of countless millions who have been excluded from the very same system that brought me security and success.

Can a middle-class girl from nowhere ‘be good’ and make it the way I did? I seriously wonder if she even would want to try.

Exactly what do the Lynn Foresters of today think when they learn that Barclays manipulated LIBOR rates, that CEOs make on average 380 times as much as employees, and that Bernie Madoff wiped out the savings of his own friends?

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2180476...-American-Dream.html

Just to clarify, in case this is misunderstood, they're proposing to tax everyone 10% of their savings.

Many of the jobs that existed in the 1960's are now substantially automated.
Telephonists, assembly line functions, Atm machines, warehousing, self-serve checkouts, electronic mail .... on and on.'

Having watched a fair portion of the Demographic Winter vid I mistrust much of what is presented because it appears to have a barely concealed agenda of promoting marriage and 'the family' and lamenting the increased rights and options afforded to women since the 1960's. I would love to know who is actually behind it.

If it were merely a case of there not being enough offspring to support the previous generations retirement and healthcare then we would not be discussing mass youth unemployment. You can't have it both ways.

Many of the jobs that existed in the 1960's are now substantially automated.
Telephonists, assembly line functions, Atm machines, warehousing, self-serve checkouts, electronic mail .... on and on.

It's people that are not needed anymore. With their troublesome frailties; 'family problems,' sick days, scheduling, supervising, 'human rights', minimum wage, health and safety requirements ........... who needs all that bolocks, right?

Want to reduce the population at minimal financial cost?
S'easy just point the finger at another section or sections of society and say they're to blame for the state we're in.
Then stand back as we get to killing each other, and we will ......... AGAIN, for the sake of the chillin'

And the beauty of it is that they'll get away with it won't they?