1) No, I am not a Thatcherite.
2) Yes they lowered the asset tax. Are you familiar with it and at what level it kicked in at? This wasn't a tax on multimillionaires, hundred millionaires and billionaires. So paying 1-1.75% on assets is quite a bit. Particularly when you will be paying income tax on interest earned, and capital gains on gains. But your car, your house, etc all those get taxed. I have already stated that there needs to be a major tax reform, across all levels of government and include a real property tax. But I don't really support the asset tax unless it is applied to individuals at a high enough threshold.
It is also not effective when Argentinians either leave the country, or redomicile in Uruguay and then operate from there so they don't end up paying it.
They have had this tax for how many years, and what is the current state of things? Not so effective. There are studies that have looked into wealth/asset taxes globally and you can feel free to study them if you wish. If they are to apply them, then do it correctly in a meaningful not counterproductive way.
3) Again, What companies are evading VAT? All the large companies are paying it. If smaller individuals want to keep to sets of books then that is the individual make a decision and I disagree with it. But I believe this is more of an issue on the smaller scale monotributo level, and they do not need to pay VAT. VAT is only charged by SAS, SRL and SA companies not monotributos.
I have stated that they need to get rid of the informal economy and everything has to be in the formal economy. This is literally what they are trying to do, and they have increased the fines for even delayed submissions to realistic penalties now. People complaining about services and budget cuts while at the same time not wanting to contribute taxes is a obviously a problem.
4) As I have already stated, they have had wealth distribution already for how long and what has been the result of it? I don't think wealth distribution right now is going to help for aforementioned reasons. What they need are policies to reduce bureaucracy and enable the economy to grow. The starting/reference point here is not necessarily the same as in other countries given both the history and actual scenarios. Also, they need an affordable credit market which has only restarted last year.
5) I am not sure how you suggest they are protecting the 1%, while at the same time they are trying to remove the protectionist policies that would hurt the monopoly and cartel like behaviors of the Argentine industrialists. Why would they be doing that?
6) What do you mean they haven't proven to responsible management of the federal budget? They implemented austerity measures and are running a fiscal surplus. What previous administration has done this, or what other countries?
1) Always interesting to see people say they want to make a point and move on without offering the counter party a chance to respond.
2) I have criticised him for this behaviour/rhetoric. I agree it offers no benefits. Unfortunately we are seeing this as more of the norm as the state of politics in parts of the world these days as politics has become more polarized than ever.
3) However, it is interesting that you were trying to call me a Thatcherite and imply my beliefs and I may have read your message as if it included an undertone. You were trying to attack the person not ideas. So I would suggest you heed your own advice and try to remain calmer and keep to the discussion.
4) He thinks he is doing things right by the country and for the betterment of the citizenry. This obviously falls along philosophical boundaries. The benefits are not split based on what party you voted for. I agree he shouldn't be calling name as I've stated. But I think the left is also guilty calling names to the right, and of not really trying to think about the plans, or observe benefits. I have seen clear reduction in inflation and a steadied exchange rate, floating within bands without government involvement in trying to maintain the peso (except around the election time) and I see people around here are generally more hopeful for the future. Therefore, listening to people on the left suggest that there has been no reduction in inflation and everything else accomplished is non-sense.
5) Whether you want to buy-in or not is up to you. Enough of the population voted to support him, or elect other parties that are in general agreement and supportive of the policies. You may want to take a pause and really try and think about how all the policies are actually working, and what they are trying to achieve and see if you agree. Of course, this needs to be done with a blank slate, and putting party affiliation to the side. It shouldn't be done with bias.
As a private citizen I am not sure what personal involvement "at the table" you expect. Typically, citizenry may communicate with their representative etc, but it is the elected officials and bureaucrats that design, write, and pass bills/laws.
6) Again, I think his communication is poor towards the part of the country that didn't vote for him. But the other points are so far just accusations. I don't know the history of Argentinian politicians, but have there not been corrupt ones on the left? Are there not corrupt ones in every country. I am not supporting it, but I suppose the point is, even if they are corrupt, will benefits still be shared with society? (Yes billionaires will always benefit, but if the economy is good and growing for everyone else also, that is also good).
