« take a bite of truth | Main | old evils, new remedies »

February 08, 2011

Comments

ejh

With wonderfully sadistic Soviet irony, the road was called Way of the Orchards.

Nothing specifically Soviet about this. (Strawberry Path. Rest Harrow. Marjoram Close. Clover Place.)

ejh

What a whiny piece, though. "I went to Russia hoping to get rich quick making crappy television programmes, but even though we did well it didn't entirely work out because the Russians preferred other crappy programmes".

Richard J

With a corporate tax rate of 20%, and flat rate income tax of 13%, I'm personally surprised that it's still worth going through all the palaver in the article. (Though, from personal experience, the Russian tax authorities take an idiosyncratic definition as to what one's profits are.)

dsquared

the Russian tax authorities take an idiosyncratic definition as to what one's profits are

... and one with some rather quirky holdovers from before 1989. For the longest time, insurance premia weren't a deductible expense in the Russian tax code, basically because it says quite clearly in the Critique of the Gotha Program that the provision of a fund for contingencies is one of the uses of surplus-value.

Richard J

Ahah, that's one oddity I've been noticing for years in dealing with CEE tax affairs finally explained.

Malcs

The trajectory of this conversation reminds me of a question I had meant to ask, namely: will Richard K be available for comment on George Monbiot's article about changes to UK corporate tax in the Guardian today?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/07/tax-city-heist-of-century

ejh

Critique this

chris y

insurance premia weren't a deductible expense in the Russian tax code, basically because it says quite clearly in the Critique of the Gotha Program that the provision of a fund for contingencies is one of the uses of surplus-value.

You mean this bit:

Let us take, first of all, the words "proceeds of labor" in the sense of the product of labor; then the co-operative proceeds of labor are the total social product.

From this must now be deducted: First, cover for replacement of the means of production used up. Second, additional portion for expansion of production. Third, reserve or insurance funds to provide against accidents, dislocations caused by natural calamities, etc.

These deductions from the "undiminished" proceeds of labor are an economic necessity, and their magnitude is to be determined according to available means and forces, and partly by computation of probabilities, but they are in no way calculable by equity."

... where Marx bangs on at length about how insurance premia are necessarily to be deducted from the distributable proceeds of labour?

Alex

Let us take, first of all, the words "proceeds of labor" in the sense of the product of labor; then the co-operative proceeds of labor are the total social product...These deductions from the "undiminished" proceeds of labor are an economic necessity, and their magnitude is to be determined according to available means and forces, and partly by computation of probabilities, but they are in no way calculable by equity.

Economists: really awful prose since 1848.

ejh

It's like rock 'n' roll. Even good writers write badly when writing on the subject.

dsquared

Yes that's the bit; you can occasionally win pints off Marxists by betting that some forms of surplus value are inevitable even under socialist production. Also in the economic manuscripts of 1844, "insurance companies divide the losses of individual capitalists among the capitalist class as a whole".

The comments to this entry are closed.

friends blogs

blobs

Blog powered by Typepad

my former home