Translate | Traducir

dijous, 14 de juliol de 2016

No es verdad que vaya a subir el Impuesto de Sociedades


DANIEL LACALLE.- Se ha generado una enorme polémica con las declaraciones del ministro De Guindos sobre el impuesto de Sociedades. Ante una posible “multa cero” de Bruselas por incumplir el objetivo de déficit, se ha planteado un adelanto en el pago del Impuesto de Sociedades y posiblemente recuperar el fraccionamiento del mismo.

Conviene recordar que:

Adelantar pagos no es subir impuestos

Fraccionar no es subir impuestos.

Se trataría de recuperar una disposición aplicada en el 2013 y prorrogada en 2014 y 2015 por la cual las grandes empresas hacen pagos fraccionados calculados sobre su resultado contable, no sobre la base sujeta al impuesto. Es una forma de tributar por Sociedades típica en la Unión Europea y no significa subir impuestos.

Eso no hace que paguen más, sino que la recaudación sea más homogénea, y el tipo efectivo final no cambia. Piensen que mucha gente se ha llevado las manos a la cabeza porque los ingresos fiscales habían caído en el primer trimestre sin reparar en que el Impuesto de Sociedades arrojaba una cifra negativa (que se compensa a lo largo del año), por devoluciones y ajustes. Ese efecto, se homogeneiza fraccionando.

Y fraccionar y adelantar no es una subida, ni hunde a una pyme. Aplica sobre todo a las grandes empresas (el 100% del aumento de la recaudación por sociedades desde 2011) que están más que acostumbradas a hacer provisiones de gasto anual en sus resultados trimestrales y mensuales. 
Más...



Donald Trump tiene razón sobre la Juez del Tribunal Supremo, Ruth Bader Ginsburg



En dos artículos editoriales, The New York Times y The Washington Post lamentan las críticas lanzadas contra Donald Trump por la juez del Tribunal Supremo de los Estados Unidos, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Los editorialistas coinciden en que si bien no existe ningún requisito legal que obligue a los magistrados del más alto tribunal a abstenerse de hacer comentarios sobre una campaña presidencial la tradición de guardar silencio se ha revelado como la más conveniente, como se ha demostrado con las críticas de la magistrada Ruth Bader.

Esos comentarios han llevado a Donald Trump a pedir la dimisión o renuncia de la magistrada, que no se a retractado de sus comentarios.



Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg needs to drop the political punditry and the name-calling.

Three times in the past week, Justice Ginsburg has publicly discussed her view of the presidential race, in the sharpest terms. In an interview with The Times published Sunday, Justice Ginsburg said, “I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president,” joking that if her husband were alive, he might have said, “It’s time for us to move to New Zealand.”

Earlier, in an interview with The Associated Press that appeared on Friday, when asked to consider a Trump victory, Justice Ginsburg replied, “I don’t want to think about that possibility, but if it should be, then everything is up for grabs.”

On Monday Justice Ginsburg doubled down, calling Mr. Trump “a faker,” who “has no consistency about him.” In that interview, with CNN, she added: “He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego.”

Mr. Trump responded on Tuesday. “I think it’s highly inappropriate that a United States Supreme Court judge gets involved in a political campaign, frankly,” he told The Times. “I couldn’t believe it when I saw it.”

There is no legal requirement that Supreme Court justices refrain from commenting on a presidential campaign. But Justice Ginsburg’s comments show why their tradition has been to keep silent.
Más...




NOTHING SUPREME Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has said in recent interviews about the presidential election should surprise anyone familiar with her biography and her career on the court. A lifelong left-of-center lawyer and feminist innovator who was appointed to the high court by President Bill Clinton in 1993, the 83-year-old Justice Ginsburg fits the profile of a Hillary Clinton supporter to a T. Obviously, she would rather have a Democrat appointing her next new colleague, and possibly her replacement.

Nor were any of Justice Ginsburg’s disparaging comments about the presumptive Republican nominee, Donald Trump, untrue, at least not as we read the evidence. When Justice Ginsburg, elaborating on her previous anti-Trump remarks to the New York Times, told CNN this week that Mr. Trump “has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego,” she certainly got no argument from us on the merits. (A brief dissent from the justice on one point, though: She rightly protested that Mr. Trump has not released his tax returns but incorrectly chided “the press” for being “very gentle with him on that.”)

However valid her comments may have been, though, and however in keeping with her known political bent, they were still much, much better left unsaid by a member of the Supreme Court. There’s a good reason the Code of Conduct for United States Judges flatly states that a “judge should not . . . publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office.” Politicization, real or perceived, undermines public faith in the impartiality of the courts. No doubt this restriction requires judges, and justices, to muzzle themselves and, to a certain extent, to pretend they either do or do not think various things that they obviously do or do not believe. As the saying goes, however, “hypocrisy is the compliment vice pays to virtue.”
Más...



Giro copernicano en la política exterior turca

Tras normalizar relaciones con Rusia e Israel, Turquía quiere hacer las paces con Assad


FOREIGN POLICY.- In the past month, Turkey has worked to turn two old rivals into new friends. On June 27, Turkish officials announced a deal normalizing relations with Israel after a six-year rift in the wake of the deadly Mavi Marmara incident. That day, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan also expressed regret to Russia over the downing of a Russian warplane in November 2015, which paved the way for the two countries to patch up their relationship.

The fate of Syria looms large over Turkey’s foreign-policy “reset.” Could Ankara alsoextend an olive branch to its greatest enemy: Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime?Could Ankara also extend an olive branch to its greatest enemy: Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime?

Turkey cut all diplomatic ties with Syria in September 2011, after Assad refused to institute reforms to defuse the growing protest movement against his rule. Since then, Turkey has been supporting the Syrian opposition, which aims to topple the Assad regime, and hosting more than 2.5 million Syrian refugees on its soil. A small, left-wing nationalist political party now claims that the rising refugee crisis, Russia’s heavy-handed military campaign in Syria, and a powerful Syrian Kurdish militia’s land grab in the northern part of the country leave Turkey no choice but to engage with the Assad regime. In fact, the leaders of that party already claim to be passing messages between Turkish and Syrian government officials.

The Homeland Party (Vatan Partisi), a nationalist movement with an anti-Western and anti-American platform, is chaired by Dogu Perincek, a well-known socialist politician in Turkey; its vice chair is Lt. Gen. Ismail Hakki Pekin, the former head of the Turkish Armed Forces’ Military Intelligence. Perincek and Pekin told Foreign Policy that they had meetings with members of the governments of Russia, China, Iran, and Syria during the last year and conveyed messages they received during these visits to high-ranking Turkish military and Foreign Ministry officials.

Perincek and Pekin — a socialist leader and an army general, respectively — may seem like something of an odd couple. Their political collaboration started in prison, as both men were detained in 2011 in relation to the Ergenekon case, which alleged that a network belonging to the “deep state” was plotting a military coup against the elected government. Both men share a staunch Kemalist political outlook based on a very strict adherence to secularism and Turkish nationalism, as well as an “anti-imperialist” outlook that makes them wary of American and Western influence over Turkish politics. In 2016, the Supreme Court of Appeals overturned convictions in the Ergenekon trials, ruling that the “Ergenekon terror organization” did not exist at all and that evidence had been collected illegally.

Perincek and Pekin first met Assad in Damascus in February 2015. During this meeting, Perincek said, both parties agreed on “the need of Turkey and Syria to fight separatist and fanatical terror groups together.”
Más...



Referéndum o democracia

Un référendum en Grande-Bretagne ? C’est une aberration. Puisqu’il revient aux Britanniques d’avoir inventé la démocratie dite « représentative », de manière à contourner les passions populaires et aboutir à des décisions réfléchies. Et il appartient au philosophe anglais Edmund Burke d’avoir mis en forme cette théorie de la représentativité ; de par le monde, il est considéré comme le père intellectuel des démocraties contemporaines. Burke, il y a plus de trois siècles, nous mit en garde sur le risque de confusion entre démocratie authentique et exaltation populaire ; un Parlement lui paraissait le juste intermédiaire pour prendre le temps de la délibération et adopter des lois qui ne seraient pas regrettées, dès le lendemain, par leurs auteurs mêmes. Depuis lors, l’histoire des référendums a justifié l’intuition de Burke : partout, le référendum conduit à des aberrations, à l’exception de la Suisse parce qu’il est ancré dans les mœurs et s’applique dans des cantons de taille assez modeste pour que l’on y délibère. Cette exception vaut aussi pour quelques Etats de l’Ouest américain qui perpétuent, pour les affaires locales, cette tradition de la démocratie directe : la légalisation récente du cannabis au Colorado s’est faite par référendum d’initiative populaire.

Partout ailleurs, le référendum conduit à des conséquences regrettables, le Brexit n’en étant que la plus récente manifestation. Le résultat n’aurait pas dû surprendre tant il s’inscrit dans une histoire malheureuse, une histoire qui reste à écrire. Les référendums n’ont eu pour objet principal que d’approuver les coups d’Etat et exalter les passions nationalistes. En France, les deux Napoléon y eurent recours, ainsi que le Général de Gaulle, de nombreux caudillos en Amérique latine et Adolf Hitler : un palmarès peu glorieux. Ces plébiscites ne font appel au peuple que pour contourner le peuple, en attisant une passion passagère et en formulant la question de manière biaisée : ce que De Gaulle résuma par « Moi ou la chaos ? », question à laquelle il est difficile de répondre Non.

Les référendums ont aussi beaucoup servi pour inventer des nations, en particulier après le Traité de Versailles de 1920. Découpant l’Europe sans égards pour les minorités, les auteurs du Traité faisaient ratifier leur arbitraire par des votes populaires. Ces scrutins étaient-ils démocratiques ? Absolument pas : la démocratie n’est pas l’écrasement des minorités par la majorité, mais le respect des droits des minorités comme limite à la toute puissance de cette majorité. Les appels présents à référendum des indépendantistes, en Catalogne ou en Corse, après l’Ecosse, s’inscrivent dans cette haïssable logique de mépris des minorités. L’argument des indépendantistes, comme celui de tous les auteurs de plébiscites, relève d’une entourloupe que l’on peut faire remonter à Jean-Jacques Rousseau : le mythe de la « volonté générale ». Celle-ci n’a jamais existé que dans le cerveau fumeux du philosophe et de ses disciples révolutionnaires français à qui l’on doit, comme application pratique, la Terreur de 1793.| GUY SORMAN 
Más...

La basura financiaba a Convergencia



Algunos dirigentes de la antigua CDC advirtieron que la nueva Convergència podría tener problemas con el nombre Partit Demòcrata Català (PDC). Al poco, el líder de Demòcrates de Catalunya (DC), Toni Castellà, salió a hablar de “soberbia”, de “que en política vale todo” e impuso una serie de condiciones para no ir a los tribunales. Por si fuera poco, el diario El País avanza este jueves que Interior ha decidido no registrar al nuevo partido nacido de la extinta CDC por entender que contraviene la normativa de denominación de partidos. El registro de partidos políticos rechazó a finales del 2015 la inscripción de un Partit Demòcrata de Catalunya por su parecido con Demòcrates de Catalunya. Porque el gran parecido, va en contra de la ley.
Más...



¿Por qué la Esclavitud Sexual no es una prioridad feminista?


QUILLETTE.- That Nadia Murad’s #StandforYazidiWomen campaign hasn’t captured the attention of Western feminists is an appalling oversight. Some of the most popular feminist topics on Twitter last year included equality for public nudity, sexism in the tech industry, and racial diversity for Oscar nominations. Yet the topic of global sexual slavery brings a scarcely believable absence of attention.

The Yazidis, viewed as devil worshippers by their captors, were overrun by ISIS in north-western Iraq in August 2014 in the beginning of what is now being recognised as a genocide. Most of the men and older women were instantly slaughtered. Thousands of younger women and girls were taken to the Islamic State’s ‘caliphate’, where they were traded among Jihadists as sex slaves.

Nadia is a survivor of this mass sexual enslavement, and now a human rights advocate. Regarding her fight, Nadia said “I am continuing to do this, with resiliency, because millions of women and girls have no rights. Their lives were destroyed, and their lives will remain destroyed if we don’t say anything. To bring back their rights, we must speak up.”

In such areas of the world, it isn’t just ISIS responsible for the worst of crimes. The soldiers of Bashar al-Assad have engaged in a deliberate campaign of systematic rape and torture as a tool of widespread demoralisation. But within Western feminists circles, such crimes gain significantly less attention than online harassment, representation in the media, and the ‘gender pay gap’.
Más...