Is windfall when a breeze blows them out of a 5th story window?
They should do this here. Not for war obviously, we could buy some trains or something. Instead we get no windfall tax and a military spending extravaganza. And soon, we’ll get cuts to services I’m sure.
Belousov told RBC, a business channel, that the companies themselves proposed the taxes.
Yes, yes. I’m sure they did :-/
To think this is some sort of bad scenario for Russia is to be blind. They are starting to effectively tax the national bourgeoisie, the thing the Usonian “left” prides so much they should do to fix all of their homeland issues regarding quality of life, and here is painted, under the lenses of a right wing news site, as a bad thing. Under any logical circumstance if a country needs money, what makes the most sense if you don’t want to hurt the people, is to tax companies, otherwise you will end up having low wages, or you will cut spending on some other form of social welfare, which in turn then produces inflation and destabilises the country since the spending power of the working class gets diminished.
This is what Seishi Hinada, National Executive Committee member of ZENKO and the International Strategy Center, has to say about plans for the re-militarisation of Japan as a strategic geopolitical landmark in the eyes of the US to control East Asia:
The Japanese government is making the most of the war in Ukraine and the rocket launch by DPRK is getting the general public behind its policy of massive military expansion and acquiring the capabilities to attack foreign bases. Regarding the military buildup by the Japanese government, the general public seems to be in support of those policies, but there are weak points. When it comes to a tax hike for the sake of military expansion, the approval ratings will drop. So Kishida cannot talk out loud about the tax hike, and the only option he has left is to cut the budget in every other field: social welfare, health care, education, and the rest of it. In addition, the Japanese population is shrinking quicker than anticipated. So the government is asked to take drastic measures to deal with this issue too. But again, they cannot finance it because they allocate a large share of the budget to military expenses. By exposing these contradictions, more and more people will realize the necessity to radically shift the policy of military alliance and military buildup toward peaceful dialogue and disarmament. The general public’s consciousness is changing. Kishida’s support base is not so strong.
And he’s not some sort of “tankie” or radical left wing person, he’s someone that for decades has opposed the US occupation of Okinawa with military bases. In any circumstance, even if Russia is economically in not such a great position, this is the correct move to either get a grip, or gain some strength, not the move of a delirious and dying government.
That’s a lot of fancy paragraphs just to miss the point that he could have done this, not because his finances are in the red since he made the abysmally stupid blunder of invading Ukraine, but to benefit society within his borders.
This kind of things are not done “because the finances are in red”, countries do not “go red” in finances, they are simply allocating more money to the military because now it is some pressing matter that needs more funding. I cannot think of a single reason why invading Ukraine has been a bad movement for Russia. Gas prices have skyrocketed in Europe and they are buying Russian gas branded as Indian for exorbitant prices; it has opened new commercial opportunities for them and Asia; it has produced dedolarisation; and whatever you may say about the war, who’s winning or who’s loosing, wars are money makers. Look at almost every war the US has caused since Vietnam, they have lost most of them in a tactical standpoint when it comes to fulfilling its objectives, yet they have make a lot of money because the military-industrial complex gets its share and it gives back something to the State. In Russia this is even more profitable for the State since their military-industrial complex is not privatised as the one in the US and production isn’t that expensive. They could very well lose the war and win in the economical side of things, while Ukraine could win the war and be left in an economically destructed scenario.
Still, that was never the point I tried to make, because what the news article is trying to argue, is that this is some kind of bad scenario for Russia. It is not, I’m not talking about morality or ethics, or what Russia should have done to benefit its people. I’m simply stating this is not some bad case scenario, this is the best strategy Russia could have taken in order to secure military funding without risking any economical implosion. I just mentioned the thing about the working class because in simple economical terms, if you diminish the purchasing power of the working class, you trigger inflation, and the neoliberal solution for inflation is to lower/stagnate wages and start cutting on funding for welfare in general, which just worsens inflation and lowers quality of life. And basically a right wing news site is arguing this is something bad, which makes perfect sense because they want to maintain this narrative that the solution to things is never to tax the bourgeoisie, but attack the proletariat, only they painted with a coat of “Russia bad” and left wing liberals falling to this trap.
Putin has maintained power by keeping a grip on the distribution of wealth to the oligarchs. If he starts taking money from them they will cease any support. They are the keys to his rule and if he doesn’t keep them fat and happy they no longer have a reason to continue to support and will turn on him.
You could say so, but this also guarantees a more prolonged stable economy in the long term and the national bourgeoisie (what you call the oligarchs), are not so deep rooted as they are in the US, for example, Russia has inherited a relatively strong State infrastructure and mechanisms from the USSR, so they can’t do whatever they want (although of course they influence very much). If they can guarantee the stability, by the looks of it, they could win in other scenarios where Russia starts being an even more important international player, so they could cover costs for profits in the future.
Russia posted a first-quarter deficit of almost 2.4 trillion rubles amid the war in Ukraine.
Putin has absolutely destroyed Russia’s economy and population for decades to come, for absolutely no reason and no benefit.
That’s just tragic.
Just FYI, 2.4 trillion rubles is only about $28 billion USD.
The USA alone has spent about $40 billion on the war. If we look at the state’s deficit as a whole, not just war spending: the USAs first-quarter deficit is about $230 billion.
If you calculate the first quarter deficit as a fraction of the country’s GDP, the difference between Russia and the USA is negligible. If you wouldn’t say that the USA is “destroying the economy and population for decades to come” on the monetary front, it makes no sense to make that statement about Russia either.
You’re right, I hadn’t actually realized how small a number that was. That’s almost suspiciously small, given the sanctions against Russia.
Mind you, I was also thinking of the sheer amount of brain drain and population drain Russia’s war has resulted in for them.
Also, USA’s spending on its military-industrial complex compared to its spending on every other part of its government is destroying its population, but that’s another issue.
A dictator ultimately has to answer to someone. If he’s losing support from the rich, I wonder what would happen next.
Taxing the rich, fair enough, should’ve done way earlier.
That will improve his support.
4 billion doesn’t seem like much at all? How much have other countries spent on the war so far?
That’s a translation issue, it’s a window-fall tax.
