Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday February 28 2019, @07:37PM   Printer-friendly
from the innovation++ dept.

French President Emmanuel Macron has called for increased use of data technologies such as blockchain in the EU to boost the agriculture industry and address concerns over food traceability.

Inaugurating the 56th International Agricultural Fair in Paris at the weekend, Agridigitale.net reports, Macron spoke of the need to authenticate and track agricultural products amid growing consumer concerns over issues such such as the recent Polish beef scandal, saying:

“Let’s do this in Europe, [be at the] the vanguard of agricultural data by developing tools that will track every product from raw material production to packaging and processing.”

[...] The call for innovation came as part of a multi-part strategy that the president outlined in his speech. Europe’s agricultural policy going forward, he said, would be based on the protection of farmers and consumers against climate change and market risks, farming more ecologically, and using technology and innovation to help to solve industry challenges.

https://www.coindesk.com/french-president-says-blockchain-could-put-europe-at-vanguard-of-innovation


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday March 01 2019, @02:09AM (2 children)

    by bob_super (1357) on Friday March 01 2019, @02:09AM (#808518)

    Econ 101 :
    if you spend 98% of the money you earn on mandatory expenses (house/food/clothes...), and prices go up 3%, you're screwed.
    If you spend 50% of the money you earn on mandatory, and 50% on discretionary, prices going up 3% are annoying because you either save less, or get less stuff you don't absolutely need. But you're not screwed.
    Same reason getting a specific amount of money with a flat income tax, or by raising sales tax, hurts the poor more than the rich.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 01 2019, @02:29AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 01 2019, @02:29AM (#808524)

    I see.

    I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but it sounds like for you ideally everyone would pay a tax that is the same percent of their "disposable income"?

    How is disposable income determined? For the same "total income", if I choose not to have kids/dog/car/mortgage/etc, will I then have more disposable income and so be taxed more than someone who has the things on the "disposable list"?

    Basically it seems to me like this policy punishes frugal people who are using up fewer resources and rewards the opposite.

    • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday March 01 2019, @09:20AM

      by bob_super (1357) on Friday March 01 2019, @09:20AM (#808609)

      No silver bullet that we know of, since if one of the two hundred countries had figured it out over the last few centuries, everyone would be copying...

      To generate the amount required to keep a modern government going (plus waste), you could go flat income or consumption tax and oppress the poor, progressive income tax only and be unfair to the rich, causing them to flee, or some mix, which is the usual compromise.
      The tax compromise does traditionally help and reward those who take on the burden of growing the armed forces and future taxpayer base, as well as those who risk their savings to try to create companies which will hopefully end up paying taxes.
      While the less frugal pay a lot more in consumption taxes (at the shop and at the pump), the more frugal may be enjoying many of the benefits without paying specifically for them or enjoying the subsidies present in many countries (Europe) rewarding frugality. Indeed, there's still a lit road and a cop when you bike, and the bus running at a loss to fight congestion is enabling the frugality and therefore the higher disposable income. So maybe it's not fully unfair that the higher disposable income is taxed more than the lower, because it does balance a bit.
      The equilibrium point hasn't been found, because there are always winners and losers. Europe and CA nanny-state you, encouraging virtuous behaviors which save money and the environment and taxing harmful behaviors, as a way to get more income based on more than just arbitrary numbers. Tech will allow your taxes to soon reflect the exact amount of road damage you did, per miles and vehicle used...

      It's a complex topic which does easily fill a few walls with books. The fundamental point which you read in my short post is indeed that, for a given revenue to be collected, the goal to keep the peace (and the Guillotines in their closets, from which they spring if income inequality crosses a threshold) is to try to implement the magic curve which is progressive with people's disposable income. Not because it's fair to tax the frugal more than the wasters (those get taxed as they waste), but because that's essentially where you can.