Euro Area

[Adrian II]

I think it's ironic that he first compares the EU to Hitler, and then a few paragraphs later complains that you can't oppose centralisation without being called a populist or a nationalist.

I think he is right that the Merkozy plan will go the way of the failed authoritarian grand projects of the past. And you misrepresent his statement about populism. Anyway, a transition doesn't seem as simple as that. For instance, what should happen to all debts nominated in euros? I suppose The Netherlands could kiss most of their 150 billion euro loans to Italy, Spain, Greece and Portugal goodbye. Our 40 billion export to these countries would possibly be halved because of their much cheaper new currencies. And that's only us. I would predict humongous instability throughout Europe. So what would be the proper mechanisms to more or less control such seismic movements?

AII

[Sarmatian]

I think it's ironic that he first compares the EU to Hitler, and then a few paragraphs later complains that you can't oppose centralisation without being called a populist or a nationalist. The article in NRC he refers to was infinetely better and more informative in every respect.

Anyway, I suppose the hypothetical return to national currencies (which I oppose) would be the mirror image of the introduction of the Euro: exchange rates for the nascent currencies are set, followed 1-2 years later by the introduction of actual printed money. Then a year or so where you can pay in both Euro's and the nations respective currency before the former is entirely abolished.
Next: the Netherlands pegs the guilder to the German mark, again waiving any pretentions of monetary policy, and a decade of whining of how Henk & Ingrid got financially screwed by the transition to the guilder.

It's actually quite more complicated than that - who's going to exchange their euros for drachmas? I certainly wouldn't. In theory you could trace all euros to the country that issued them, but then there would be a problem with a Finn going to the bank with 10,000 euros and getting markkas, marks, liras, pesetas and drachmas in return.

[Papewaio]

What do you guys think?
AII

It would also cause 'brand' damage similar to that of the US Congress bickering.

Considering the basis of the EU is first and foremost economic and you can't even get that right iff you give up on the Euro.

It would effectively dissolve any future ambitions of being a united Europe.

External nations including Russia, China and the US will be wondering how trustworthy the word of any European nation is if they cannot even look after their own EU members.

What treaty will be worth the paper it is printed on if the modern EU at the first pressure buckles and can't work out it's differences without having temper tantrums more beffiting a nusery "it's my currency not yours", "but I want all the benefit's and none of the hardwork", "I want your cheap labour but I don't want to support the country that makes it possible"

Talk about waving the white flag of surrender and truly putting Europe on the trash heap of the has beens. Do you have anything of value like the Marbles that some up and coming states can buy off you in the next hundred years or so? Maybe reposition your new fractured currencies around your ankles in an attempt to out compete Vietnamese labour for manufacturing outsourced from China.

Chose your long term trajectory now. Either deal yourselves in to the future with the Americans and Chinese or stop bitching about how great you were and will never be again. A united Europe has a future, a fractured one will just prove to the rest of the world that two world wars wasn't enough to knock some sense into such a tribal society.

You're on a cusp where Europe can still be something meaningful in the world. Or it can just be a stop over pit stop for the world shakers. A charming destination for tourist's looking for the charming and kitch "Oh look dear the Orient Express is going through Old Europe, do you remember A ma saying that they used to be world leaders until they started looking inwards and collapsed like the China and Japan of old."

Mind you I live in the world's largest quarry. So what the fudge do I understand about real politik.

[Furunculus]

I think he is right that the Merkozy plan will go the way of the failed authoritarian grand projects of the past. And you misrepresent his statement about populism. Anyway, a transition doesn't seem as simple as that. For instance, what should happen to all debts nominated in euros? I suppose The Netherlands could kiss most of their 150 billion euro loans to Italy, Spain, Greece and Portugal goodbye. Our 40 billion export to these countries would possibly be halved because of their much cheaper new currencies. And that's only us. I would predict humongous instability throughout Europe. So what would be the proper mechanisms to more or less control such seismic movements?

AII

i think you are on the money.

[Beskar]

your answer is to create a european federal tax?

good luck with that.

I have heard it would be cheaper for us to do that then the current system of giving the money to Europe straight from our existing taxes. Plus, if it was a straight tax, there would be far more resistance to it ever increasing, and thus European budget could not especially raise it like they do by demanding more money from the nations (which keeps it between politicians and not the tax payer and Europe).

As for Kinship, I feel more kinship with the Scanians of Sweden then I do with the Londoners in the South. Europe Federal Union is something I would encourage and not oppose.

[Adrian II]

Considering the basis of the EU is first and foremost economic and you can't even get that right if you give up on the Euro.

Uhh, hit me

Well, I don't think the EU is first and foremost about economics. And it certainly isn't first and foremost about a common currency. Remember we got along well without one for 50 years. Most of the present eurozone economies would be much more competitive without the euro; the weaker ones would be able to devaluate and the stronger wouldn't have to bail out the weaker ones in the midst of a recession.

Most importantly, each country would retain (or regain) its sovereignty. Further centralisation according to the Merkozy plan would mean putting half a dozen member states under guardianship of an outside agent, i.e. the ESFS or so-called 'future European IMF'. It would spell the end of democracy for these countries since the richer member states would propose to them a deal akin to the one Athens proposed to the Melians.

It would effectively dissolve any future ambitions of being a united Europe.

I think it might enable Europe to re-unite. It is deeply devided now, if you hadn't noticed, and Merkozy is stretching it to breaking point. Any more of this and we will be looking at encampadas throughout the continent. And as much as I hate camping, I'll be joining them.

AII

[Kralizec]

It's actually quite more complicated than that - who's going to exchange their euros for drachmas? I certainly wouldn't. In theory you could trace all euros to the country that issued them, but then there would be a problem with a Finn going to the bank with 10,000 euros and getting markkas, marks, liras, pesetas and drachmas in return.

I think he is right that the Merkozy plan will go the way of the failed authoritarian grand projects of the past. And you misrepresent his statement about populism. Anyway, a transition doesn't seem as simple as that. For instance, what should happen to all debts nominated in euros? I suppose The Netherlands could kiss most of their 150 billion euro loans to Italy, Spain, Greece and Portugal goodbye. Our 40 billion export to these countries would possibly be halved because of their much cheaper new currencies. And that's only us. I would predict humongous instability throughout Europe. So what would be the proper mechanisms to more or less control such seismic movements?

I imagine (allthough I'm not exactly well-versed in this sort of thing) that there'd be a long interim period in which national, new currencies exist on paper and pegged to the Euro. This will give time for a lot of government bonds to reach maturity; for those that do not mature in the interim, they'll be "partitioned" into multiple bonds notated in all the different currencies of the former Eurozone. Wether anyone would want to buy new bonds in Drachme or Lira is of course the problem of Greece and Italy, and noone elses. Or at least directly.
For private debts; I imagine that many will renegotiate and pick a relatively stable currency as a bench mark: say, at this point the debt is worth 100.000 Japenese Yen, and when payment is due we expect payment in [French Francs, Liras, Pesetas etc.] worth the same amount in Yen.

As I said before though, I'm not in favour of disbanding the Euro currency. I imagine the resulting situation will be a lot worse then during or before the Euro.

[Kralizec]

Uhh, hit me

Well, I don't think the EU is first and foremost about economics. And it certainly isn't first and foremost about a common currency. Remember we got along well without one for 50 years. Most of the present eurozone economies would be much more competitive without the euro; the weaker ones would be able to devaluate and the stronger wouldn't have to bail out the weaker ones in the midst of a recession.

Most importantly, each country would retain (or regain) its sovereignty. Further centralisation according to the Merkozy plan would mean putting half a dozen member states under guardianship of an outside agent, i.e. the ESFS or so-called 'future European IMF'. It would spell the end of democracy for these countries since the richer member states would propose to them a deal akin to the one Athens proposed to the Melians.



I think it might enable Europe to re-unite. It is deeply devided now, if you hadn't noticed, and Merkozy is stretching it to breaking point. Any more of this and we will be looking at encampadas throughout the continent. And as much as I hate camping, I'll be joining them.

AII

Is the EMU currency itself the problem, or the half-assed institutions that surround it?

Arguably, the current problems would have been a lot smaller if we had a Stability & Growth pact that contained more realistic criteria and was properly enforced.

The EU government structures need to be rebuilt, in my opinion in the likeness of the German government. A Bundestag composed of European parliamentarians and a Bundesrat composed of representatives of the national governments. A proper government who answers to, and can be sacked by the Bundestag. A clearly defined group of tasks in which the EU is competent, the rest being the domain of the national governments.

[Adrian II]

Good ideas, Kralizec, both on the transition away from the euro and on possible future institutions. Only in the present climate there is no room and no political will for a complete institutional rehash. Without this bloody euro mistake we might have been able to progress politically and get our house in Brussels in order, for which a Bundestag/Bundesrat (or US Congress/Senate) model might be suitable - and by that I mean workable as well as equitable. I just don't see it happening now.

AII

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It would also cause 'brand' damage similar to that of the US Congress bickering.

Considering the basis of the EU is first and foremost economic and you can't even get that right iff you give up on the Euro.

It would effectively dissolve any future ambitions of being a united Europe.

External nations including Russia, China and the US will be wondering how trustworthy the word of any European nation is if they cannot even look after their own EU members.

What treaty will be worth the paper it is printed on if the modern EU at the first pressure buckles and can't work out it's differences without having temper tantrums more beffiting a nusery "it's my currency not yours", "but I want all the benefit's and none of the hardwork", "I want your cheap labour but I don't want to support the country that makes it possible"

Talk about waving the white flag of surrender and truly putting Europe on the trash heap of the has beens. Do you have anything of value like the Marbles that some up and coming states can buy off you in the next hundred years or so? Maybe reposition your new fractured currencies around your ankles in an attempt to out compete Vietnamese labour for manufacturing outsourced from China.

Chose your long term trajectory now. Either deal yourselves in to the future with the Americans and Chinese or stop bitching about how great you were and will never be again. A united Europe has a future, a fractured one will just prove to the rest of the world that two world wars wasn't enough to knock some sense into such a tribal society.

You're on a cusp where Europe can still be something meaningful in the world. Or it can just be a stop over pit stop for the world shakers. A charming destination for tourist's looking for the charming and kitch "Oh look dear the Orient Express is going through Old Europe, do you remember A ma saying that they used to be world leaders until they started looking inwards and collapsed like the China and Japan of old."

Mind you I live in the world's largest quarry. So what the fudge do I understand about real politik.

All this has already happened, "Merkozy" is now aknowledged as the only actual entity capable of providing a solution, and our stock markets are in a dive because those two won't bite the bullet, every dat the dissultion of the Euro becomes more likely and more desirable. I think we have already passed the point of no return, there isn't time for a new treaty to be drawn up, haggled over and voted through in referenda in order to create actual democratic institutions, and even if there was "Merkozy" would not relinquish their power to an elected European government.

The Euro is toast.

On the up side, the US, China and Russia are also in at least as much trouble. China was never going to rule the world, any more than the Soviets, the US is just past it's sell by date (and what a short date) and Russia is totally dependant on it's Tzar for good governence.

I have heard it would be cheaper for us to do that then the current system of giving the money to Europe straight from our existing taxes. Plus, if it was a straight tax, there would be far more resistance to it ever increasing, and thus European budget could not especially raise it like they do by demanding more money from the nations (which keeps it between politicians and not the tax payer and Europe).

As for Kinship, I feel more kinship with the Scanians of Sweden then I do with the Londoners in the South. Europe Federal Union is something I would encourage and not oppose.

I heard that was a lie. It would just result in more taxation, money would still come from the individual states and the EU would just become more beurocratic. The very idea they should be allowed tax-raising powers when their accountants will not sign the account book as legit is insulting.

as to Kinship, Scandanavians are the Cousins of the English, as are the Irish - it's no wonder you feel kinship - that doesn't mean you should be politically yoked to the Greeks and Italians as well.

Good ideas, Kralizec, both on the transition away from the euro and on possible future institutions. Only in the present climate there is no room and no political will for a complete institutional rehash. Without this bloody euro mistake we might have been able to progress politically and get our house in Brussels in order, for which a Bundestag/Bundesrat (or US Congress/Senate) model might be suitable - and by that I mean workable as well as equitable. I just don't see it happening now.

AII

Maybe, but increasingly I have come to believe that the EU has always been a mirrage, success has been more to do with war-fatigue and the threat of the Soviets and their nukes than any actual inherrent worth in the EU project.

[Papewaio]

Uhh, hit me

Well, I don't think the EU is first and foremost about economics. And it certainly isn't first and foremost about a common currency. Remember we got along well without one for 50 years. Most of the present eurozone economies would be much more competitive without the euro; the weaker ones would be able to devaluate and the stronger wouldn't have to bail out the weaker ones in the midst of a recession.

Most importantly, each country would retain (or regain) its sovereignty. Further centralisation according to the Merkozy plan would mean putting half a dozen member states under guardianship of an outside agent, i.e. the ESFS or so-called 'future European IMF'. It would spell the end of democracy for these countries since the richer member states would propose to them a deal akin to the one Athens proposed to the Melians.

EU formed out of the EEU, not out of a revolution, it didn't have anything like the Enlightened Independence statements of the US. It isn't a Federation of nations like Australia. It was formed out of an Economic Union, who once it dropped the Economic part out of the EEU created the Euro.

From the outside it has looked first and foremost about the money. It's not about representation for the people, they can't directly vote for EU officials. The only thing they get is travel, trade and the ability to spend money... hmm tourism and trade seems pretty much economic to me. And once things start getting tough something as benign in the long term as a common currency is looking at getting dropped. Forgive me if it doesn't tarnish the capabilities of the EU... after all it ain't a military superpower... it's supposed to be an economic one.

[Louis VI the Fat]

On the up side, the US, China and Russia are also in at least as much trouble. China was never going to rule the world, any more than the Soviets, the US is just past it's sell by date (and what a short date) and Russia is totally dependant on it's Tzar for good governence.

Let's assume this is all true.

Power, however, is relative. Who then, do you think, would rule the world if not Europe, the US, Russia and China? Liechtenstein?

the EU would just become more beurocratic.

That's racist!!1! Fear of Eurabia!

WHAT IS YOUR OPINION OF YOUTH CAMPS




Louis - the face of France is no longer the beret but the beurette.

[Furunculus]

EU formed out of the EEU, not out of a revolution, it didn't have anything like the Enlightened Independence statements of the US. It isn't a Federation of nations like Australia. It was formed out of an Economic Union, who once it dropped the Economic part out of the EEU created the Euro.

From the outside it has looked first and foremost about the money. It's not about representation for the people, they can't directly vote for EU officials. The only thing they get is travel, trade and the ability to spend money... hmm tourism and trade seems pretty much economic to me. And once things start getting tough something as benign in the long term as a common currency is looking at getting dropped. Forgive me if it doesn't tarnish the capabilities of the EU... after all it ain't a military superpower... it's supposed to be an economic one.

the eu formed out of the iron and steel community:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europea...teel_Community

The ECSC was first proposed by French foreign minister Robert Schuman on 9 May 1950 as a way to prevent further war between France and Germany. He declared his aim was to "make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible." The means to do so, Europe's first supranational community, was formally established by the Treaty of Paris (1951), signed not only by France and West Germany, but also by Italy and the three Benelux states: Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.

It was political.

Its purpose was to prevent germany walking over europe again, for the french to avoid be walked over again, for the benelux countries to avoid be treated as a gateway to said walking. The germans were embarrassed, the french nervous, and the benelux countries weary.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Let's assume this is all true.

Power, however, is relative. Who then, do you think, would rule the world if not Europe, the US, Russia and China? Liechtenstein?

South America, look at Brazil: developing and largely stable democracy, growing population, largely quite young, and large untapped natural reserves.

The US, by contrast, is largely tapped out on the resource front, has an aging population, and overburdened state and a falling birth rate.

China has a powerful economy, but not per capita, a large democratic deficit and a demographic time bomb that will hit when all those young men realise there are no women fro them to marry and procreate with. Like the US it is also largely tapped out on the resource front, which is which is it why imports massive materials.

Russia shares a border with China, had limited natural resources remaining, a large democratic deficit and a growning and decrepit infastructure whose modernisation is hampered by rampant corruption and cronyism.

Europe, seperately or as the EU, has all the problems of the US (including rising religious fundamentalism) and a democratic deficit.

Whatever the shape of the future, it won't be what we are expecting, but if Europe wants to be powerful again then she will have to go to war and take something from someone else. As you said, power is relative - it is also zero sum.

[Papewaio]

It's still an economic solution. It wasn't formed out of warfare, their isn't a Euro Foreign Legion, it wasn't formed to give more representation to the people, it wasn't formed as a supranation. It was formed over economic ties, and now with no cold war looming over them to unite behind... The EU is having trouble to handle the current economic crisis.

Since that is supposed to be the EUs strong suit one should start looking at the fundamentals and understand why theist fifty years have been successful.

For starters no war in Europe means that there has been more prosperity for all. But why hasn't there been a war? Maybe because of the nuclear arms race by the US and the USSR... A prosperity in Europe paid for outside of the EU.

Financial services are supposed to be Europes strong point... Why the the GFC... Surely Europes vaunted vaults should have had been more robust... So if economics and financial services aren't enough to unite Europe what is?

Remaining individual sovereign states is fine. Just don't expect to have as much world political clout when both China & India have middle class populations greater then the size of Europe. After all their networks and economic clout will each rival the entire EU.

[Papewaio]

Power is not a zero sum game otherwise the cavemen would have the same power as modern man. Europe is on the right track, real long term prosperity can be found more readily through economic entanglement not resource pillaging.

[Adrian II]

From the outside it has looked first and foremost about the money. It's not about representation for the people, they can't directly vote for EU officials.

Of course the EU represents the member nations and we want to keep it that way. What's happening with the bail-outs is already democratically questionable. Here's what the Bundesbank said in its latest report, as translated for our English speaking friends by The Telegraph:

The Bundesbank is questioning the legality of the EU bail-outs, warning that the eurozone is drifting towards a debt union without "democratic legitimacy": "The latest agreements mean that far-reaching extra risks will be shifted to those countries providing help and to their taxpayers, and entail a large step towards a pooling of risks from particular EMU states with unsound public finances. Unless there is a fundamental change of regime involving a far-reaching surrender of national fiscal sovereignty, it is imperative that the 'no bail-out' rule – still enshrined in the treaties – should be strengthened by market discipline, rather than fatally weakened."

Since practically no member state will accept 'a far-reaching surrender of national fiscal sovereignty' any attempted move in that direction as per Merkozy is stilborn. And enforcing 'market discipline' under the standing arrangements is nonsense, too. Just today we have heard that Greece's economy is shrinking at an alarming rate. The only way forward is for certain nations to leave the eurozone.

AII

[Louis VI the Fat]

if Europe wants to be powerful again then she will have to go to war and take something from someone else.

Excellent. I propose you take Australia and we take the Sahara. Each ten million square kilometers of desert with a narrow strip of habitable land near the coast.

If the Germans want in too we'll keep 'em down together. We'll overcome any Yank objection by dazzling them with our culture, to which they in the end secretly desire. They'll be in our camp.

But does China sleep this time?



Louis - Gah! I'm so good at plotting global domination! Why oh why wasn't I born in my beloved nineteenth century?

[gaelic cowboy]

Countries have left currency unions before I see no reason it cant be done again.

Ireland left a currency union properly in 1928 but it was still pegged, about 1961 it properly issued a currency cos up to that point all Irish money was redeemable in London (even though it was printed in Dublin)

I dont see why it's not possible to go back, just because it's hard does not mean it impossible it would probably take maybe 20-30 years at least.(plenty time to sort it)

[gaelic cowboy]

But does China sleep this time?

Sleep they will indeed do Louis sure there in a massive ponzi scheme, when looked at from Ireland all the hallmarks are there it's pretty obvious really.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Power is not a zero sum game otherwise the cavemen would have the same power as modern man. Europe is on the right track, real long term prosperity can be found more readily through economic entanglement not resource pillaging.

Of course it's a zero sum game, because (as Louis said) it is relative, if I become more powerful your power diminishes relative to mine, and therefore relative to everyone else.

[Papewaio]

On a ranking system yes.

On a system that measures quality of life factors: no.

My nation increasing it's inhabitants length of life, reducing disease, reducing infant mortality, increasing literacy, increasing freedoms and choice makes my nation more powerful. And doing the same for another nation only increases my nations security and power.

Zero sum would not have allowed us to go beyond the groups of Chimps. Game theory neatly explains a lot of this particularly the need to factor in future interactions.

Zero sum can only exist in a static environment.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

On a ranking system yes.

On a system that measures quality of life factors: no.

My nation increasing it's inhabitants length of life, reducing disease, reducing infant mortality, increasing literacy, increasing freedoms and choice makes my nation more powerful. And doing the same for another nation only increases my nations security and power.

Zero sum would not have allowed us to go beyond the groups of Chimps. Game theory neatly explains a lot of this particularly the need to factor in future interactions.

Zero sum can only exist in a static environment.

"Quality of life" is not particularly relevent to political power, which doesn't mean I dissagree with your statement, I still don't see it as relevent, however.

[Papewaio]

Because if you are basing a government on the theory of consent: "The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government."

Then the power of a government increases with the quality of life of its people.

[phonicsmonkey]

Consent is a key issue here.

European monetary union is founded on a false premise - that a group of countries can share a common currency without a common fiscal policy. The current crisis amply demonstrates the folly of this premise.

Indeed, it is not too hard to imagine that the original architects of the monetary union knew this full well and simply pushed ahead without due regard for the ultimate consequences. For the whole project was always political and not economic as has already been noted.

To my mind there are these possible long-term outcomes to the current situation:

- The union survives with full fiscal union. This is highly unlikely as it would effectively also be political union. If a government has no control over its revenue and expenses it cannot be said to be politically sovereign in any meaningful sense. I don't think either the political class or the voting public in any european country is ready for this. Just look at the abject failure of the last round of referenda. This is where the issue of consent comes in.

- The union dissolves. Highly unlikely as the political desire for monetary union is still strong enough in some sigificant quarters and the fear of how the markets would react to a break-up of the monetary union is even stronger. In practical terms this needn't be difficult - as noted above, currency unions have dissolved before and there are metrics available on which to base the exchange rates for a transition back to domestic currencies. As to Euro-denominated debt it is not hard to envisage a series of swap deals whereby it could be exchanged for the equivalent debt denominated in the local currency of the country of the issuer.

- The union survives with very limited fiscal union. Such as Euro-denominated bond issuances backed by the full faith and credit of some or all EU members who are also in the monetary union, to replace or stand behind the questionable debt of those peripheral countries currently targeted by the markets. This is tantamount to a sticking plaster on an open wound. It will succeed in 'kicking the can down the road' as the Americans would say but will not solve the inherent problem of discordant fiscal policy among member states. Lack of 'harmonization' if you will. And another crisis will one day result. Nonetheless I see this as the most likely outcome as it involves the path of least resistance for policy-makers, market participants and the public.

[Brenus]

“the beurette”: The biscuit?

The problem with the so-called “bail out" is that they are not bail out. They are just prolonging the agony of the populations for the profit of the banksters. As viruses, these debts killed the bodies they infected, but in order to gain(survive) more (longer), they successfully transfer the burden of the payment (reinforce the bodies)to the citizens of each country and have to jump to another one when the "host" is dead (valid for viruses and banksters).
The best example of this transfer is England where Private Loses of the Banks were transfer in Public Debt thanks to Brown. It worked for the UK, increasing the debuts thus justifying the cuts.
I thought economy was simple: Consuming can’t exist without income that can’t exist without jobs. With not consumption, not taxes, no income for the states. No income for states means debts can’t be paid.

[Sarmatian]

Consent is a key issue here.

European monetary union is founded on a false premise - that a group of countries can share a common currency without a common fiscal policy. The current crisis amply demonstrates the folly of this premise.

And yet, United States use the dollar for a few centuries and they don't have a common fiscal policy, ie. level of taxation varies between states.

Someone has gotten that idea out and I'm surprised people actually bought it without thinking about it.

[Centurion1]

'Yeap, especially when all the alleged solutions are failing. Greece is worse now than before after the IMF ECB and EU ?bail out?. The debts increase because the politicians allowed the banskers to plunder the country.'

Yeah it's not right, I got enough already I don't need anything from the Greeks. I am really sorry for them it wasn't me. I think I'm turning into a born-again leftie. Banks are rotten they destroy

Lol use your head, fiscal conservatives (true fiscal conservatives) do not bail anyone out. Any conservative who does betrays their purported ideals.

[Centurion1]

And yet, United States use the dollar for a few centuries and they don't have a common fiscal policy, ie. level of taxation varies between states.

There are federal taxes. The state collects things like property and retail taxes.

[Sarmatian]

There are federal taxes. The state collects things like property and retail taxes.

I know, but at the end of the day, you as an individual pay different total amount depending in which state you live. Corporations likewise.