Greece Is Not India? Hellenic Banks Plan "Tax On Cash Withdrawals" To Combat Black Economy

Greek banks have proposed a series of measures to combat tax evasion, strengthen the electronic transactions and limit the use of cash in the economy, and as KeepTalkingGreece.com reports, one of the measures proposed is a special tax on cash withdrawals.

Bankers reportedly stress that cash money can easily and largely be channeled in the black economy. Therefore, a tax on cash withdrawals will drastically reduce cash transactions and by extension the black economy.

The bankers suggest that also credit and debit cards as wells as new technologies enabling cash-less transactions even for small amounts and mobile phones can be used for the purchase of a transport ticket or a newspaper at the kiosk.

The bankers proposal to the government also includes:

-Mandatory use of cards or other electronic payment networks for every transaction with professions where there is strong evidence of tax evasion or where cash is mainly used [ like bakeries, kiosks, street vendors and chestnut sellers?].

-Mandatory use of cards or electronic networks for transactions above a certain amount [this measure is already in effect].

–Reforming the tax system by introducing a revenue-expenditure system. Households or professionals will only be taxed on the amount of income that is has not been spent. In this way, households and professionals will have a strong incentive to seek receipts for any expenditure in order to increase their expenditure and reduce the tax amount they will have to pay.

-Obligation for all businesses and regardless of their size to pay electronically every salary and wage. (source: Kathimerini via Liberal.gr)

I cannot say who came with this revolutionary idea, some genius young academics or the Greek bankers themselves, those over 60 who have their secretaries or their kids doing their transactions for them using their own iphones and ipads.

I have no idea whether they have asked the country’s creditors to reform the tax system in a cash-less more-incentives Greek world, where households will be obliged to use revenue-expenditure books.

I absolutely do not understand how can one sleek and glossy group of bankers propose such measures and rule the economic system of a country where some 30% of population lives or is at risk of poverty, the welfare system has collapsed and thousands of families live on the 20- or 50-euro banknote a relative or a friend secretly stick in their pockets so that they buy some food, medicine or pay a small bill.

Not to mention those over 60 with minimum knowledge of electronic devices and applications and those over 80 who cannot even use a mobile phone.

Tax cash withdraws will of course give “capital controls” a new dimension.

I suppose the whole proposal has been drafted by a group of some academic professionals stuck in a huge bubble- Prove me wrong!

Are we going now about to ban cash and become India?

- Source, Zero Hedge

Britain Rejects Trump's Call To Make Nigel Farage US Ambassador

In his latest surprising tweet on Monday evening, Donald Trump revealed an unprecedented expression of support for Brexit campaigner Nigel Farage - whom he met after his election victory before any other EU leaders - to be made British ambassador to Washington, saying "many people would like to see Nigel Farage represent Great Britain as their Ambassador to the United States. He would do a great job!."

In response, Farage said: "I'm very flattered by the comments and I have said since I met the president-elect that I would like to do anything I can to act in a positive way to help relationships between our two countries." He then added on Twitter that "I have known several of the Trump team for years and I am in a good position with the President-elect’s support to help."

However, Prime Minister Theresa May, who congratulated Trump on his victory, was swift to reject such an undiplomatic proposal. "There is no vacancy," a Downing Street spokesman said when asked about Trump's remark on Tuesday. "We already have an excellent ambassador to the US."

As Reuters points out, it is highly unusual in the modern era for leaders to publicly suggest to foreign nations whom they would like to see as ambassador, though during strained relations they sometimes reject or expel envoys.

The way ambassadors are chosen in the United States and Europe differ significantly. It is common practise for the United States to appoint celebrities or campaign donors as envoys, for example when Richard Nixon appointed Shirley Temple as his envoy to Ghana in 1974. European states mostly appoint career diplomats or officials with long experience as ambassadors.

Farage, who spent decades campaigning for Britain to leave the European Union and helped force former Prime Minister David Cameron call the June referendum that brought the Brexit vote, spoke at a Trump rally during the U.S. campaign and visited the president-elect after his victory. As leader of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) and one of the key figures of the successful Brexit campaign, Farage has repeatedly angered EU leaders by predicting the collapse of the EU, which he says is run by an out of touch elite of "idiots".

Farage said Trump's suggestion that he serve as ambassador had come "like a bolt from the blue" but Trump understood loyalty in a way that those in the "cesspit" of career politics did not.

"I am in a good position with the President-elect’s support to help. The world has changed and it's time that Downing Street did too," Farage said in an article written for the Breitbart news website. "I would do anything to help our national interest and to help cement ties with the incoming Anglophile administration," Farage said.

- Source, Zero Hedge

Trump. Right. Okay, the world's gone nuts: Russell Brand The Trews

You can’t scare people by telling people having Donald Trump in power will make things terrible, if the world they’re living in is already terrible!

The ONLY thing people cared about was CHANGE!!
The Election of Donald Trump means it is no longer possible to ignore that REAL CHANGE is required…

While we certainly don’t advocate all of Russel Brand’s views, he may be the only liberal in the world gets the conditions that just brought Donald Trump to power (and agrees with the real reasons the American people voted him into office)

- Source

Gaddafi-like Death to Clinton's Political Career

In this episode of the Keiser Report, Max and Stacy discuss the gruesome Gaddafi like death to a political career. They look at the role of Obamacare premium increases in middle income voter discontentment with the Democratic Party. In the second half, Max interviews Dr. Michael Hudson about what went wrong for Hillary.

- Source

Proof The Gold Price Based On Cost, Not Supply & Demand

The notion that the gold price is based on the economics of “Supply & Demand” turns out to be incorrect as the cost of production is the leading factor. This is also true for most commodities and energy.

Unfortunately, economists and most analysts in the precious metals community will continue to believe that the economic principle of supply and demand determines price. If we look at the data provided in this article, the individual will see how closely related the cost of gold production is to the spot price.

That being said, the information in this article is only to show the “commodity pricing mechanism” of gold, not its true store of value. There’s a big difference which 99% in the Mainstream media do not understand… and probably a good percentage in the precious metals community as well.

Top Two Gold Miners Cost Of Production vs. The Gold Price

I decided to take the data from the top two gold miners, Barrick and Newmont, for this exercise as they are the largest two gold producers in the world. Yes, I could have spent several days compiling data from the top 20 gold miners, but I don’t have the luxury of being paid by a financial institution for my analysis. Regardless, Barrick and Newmont provide a good representation of the cost of producing gold in the entire industry.

According to my “Adjusted Income Approach” in determining the full cost of production, I constructed the chart below. One thing that is not included in the adjusted income approach is dividend payouts. I included this in my total cost per ounce for Barrick and Newmont:



Here we can see that as the price of gold increased over the past 15 years, so did the cost of production for these top two gold miners. In 2000, the total average cost to produce gold for Barrick and Newmont was $243 versus the spot price of $279. Thus, the average profit margin was 13% for these gold mining companies that year.

As the average price of gold surged to a record $1,669 in 2012, the average cost to produce the yellow metal for Barrick and Newmont increased to $1,386. Yes, it’s true that these two gold miners enjoyed a 17% profit margin that year, but what is wrong with that?? Companies must have profits so they can pay for new projects, shareholder dividends or surplus cash for lean years when losses are incurred.

If we compare the increase in the gold price from 2000 to 2012 versus the cost of production, we will see a very interesting similar trend:

Gold Price Increase vs Cost Of Production 2000-2012

Gold Price Increase 2000 – 2012 = 498%

Gold Cost Increase 2000 – 2012 = 470%

While the average gold spot price increased 498% from 2000-2012, the cost of production for Barrick and Newmont jumped 470%. To put it another way, the difference between the increased cost of production (470%) and the average spot price (498%) in the 2000-2012 time period, was a lousy 6%.

- Source, SRSRocco, Read More Here

Keiser Report: Chattel on Corporate Balance Sheets

In this episode of the Keiser Report, Max and Stacy discuss the 3/5ths compromise as people become ‘chattel’ on corporate balance sheets. In the second half, Max continues his interview with author and journalist Tim Shorrock about the ‘Asia Pivot’ and the truth about North Korea.

- Source, Russia Today

New Poll Shows Americans See Media As Much Greater Threat To Election Than Russian Hackers

These are some pretty damning results for the mainstream media. Not only does the American public see the media as a bigger threat to election results than Russian hackers, it’s not even close.

The Washington Examiner reports:

Voters fear the media far more than Russian hackers when it comes to tampering with election results.

According to a Suffolk University/USA Today poll, 46 percent of likely voters believe the news media is “the primary threat that might try to change the election results.”

The national political establishment was the second most-suspected group at 21 percent, and another 13 percent were undecided.

Foreign interests, including “Russian hackers,” ranked fourth with 10 percent and “local political bosses” came in last with 9 percent of likely voters as the main threat to truthful election results.

- Source, Zero Hedge