Sorry, could not help myself, but there's one more good idea I've had banging about.
A 1% profits tax on American corporations to pay for military expenses in Iraq, with a loophole. The loophole is that if you instead invest the money in Iraq's economy, you don't need to pay the tax. The tax would be in effect for 10 years.
Thus, either our government finallys starts paying for this war, or Iraq starts getting rebuilt by America's private sector. It boggles the imagination to think what it would be like. Trusts would be set up to invest in Iraq, allowing small businesses to simply put their money there to avoid the tax, and perhaps even make a profit. Iraq would be flooded with thousands of American business men from these trusts. Any time an Iraqi company gets launched, or an oil field needs building, or an infrastructure project needs financiering, there would be an American waiting, willing to assess the contract, efficiently execute it, and try and turn a profit. Maybe even Ford would set up a plant, or Wal-Mart would make some stores, but that's unrealistic.
The Iraqi government would be bombarded with lobbyists offering advice on how to best regulate the economy to fit their needs. More stable regions, like Kurdistan, would at first enjoy a flood of investment, provoking a competition that would lead other regional governments to enact measures so as to lure investments. Iraq's overall economy would boom with the investment, providing the ultimate deterrent to terrorists. Long term relationships would be formed between Iraqi and American business men, laying the basis for the ultimate long term alliance: an economic one.
Really I can think of few better ways to insure a successful outcome in Iraq.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
first how do u define corporation?
second, do the corporations get a bigger say in what happens in iraq?
if not , how is that policy fair?
Sir anonymous, you define "corporation" the same way the US law defines corporations when they license them. It's not a contentious or controversial term.
They get as large a say as their investment, seeing as they choose where to put it. And if you're a believer in capitalism like me, I think it's perfectly fair that a capitalist should get to reap the full and lawful benefits of his/her investment.
Furthermore, we use a very similar system with charities here in the US, allowing corporations to deduct from their taxes what they donate to charities.
The definition of a corporation, the properties of capitalism, tax deductions, this isn't obscure knowledge. Did you honestly not know the answers to these questions, or do you have a legitimate contention with the idea?
That's not a bad idea.
Post a Comment