DNB: crypto exchange Binance operates illegally in the Netherlands – update – IT Pro – News

It is decided by Parliament. Which in turn is determined by you and me.

It’s definitely a joke † † And the big money therefore also determines and decides when it is criminal money or not. Literally heard of the tax inspector (family) who handled the big boys. They can do creative accounting to an extent that citizens can not come close to.
This is now seen with the very large companies – they pay almost no tax. And do not tell me that they do this according to the rules. For the rules are precisely laid down to make this possible. It is certainly not in the spirit of the law.

But this only shows how little you have an idea of ​​how much money is actually going on in the economy.

Nonsense. I’m just saying it does not matter – it’s not a question of whether only 0.01% of all money is criminal or 10%. The point is that the amount of money mainly consists of hot air (outstanding loans) and that the limit is arbitrary – because the big money (read: the big companies / enormously rich) determines what the rules are.
And with the leverage effect of money, it’s important how much money is available. For 10 euros, no one in the government will ‘relax’ the rules, for thousands of euros.
The Cayman Islands were an example of how money ‘behaves’. The small saver has nowhere to park his money so he gets taxed. And it can be relatively little of what is in circulation in total. The point is that from a certain limit, the load goes towards zero instead of increasing or at least remaining the same. And it’s all legal. But is that right? No, of course not, because that way a small part of the population pays less and less tax, and the rest has to be absorbed – because the costs only increase (eg due to an aging population, and now a pandemic).
You keep mentioning that there is a lot of money in circulation – that’s exactly what’s wrong, because a large part of it has no support whatsoever (apart from future income perhaps). That was what caused the crisis. It’s a pyramid scheme. Non-existent products can be traded on the stock markets (eg grain and oil). This construction was conceived by banks and therefore mainly provides money to banks and large investors.

If you do not have money, do not worry about this either.

But it is precisely the small saver who suffers from this. The big money is there. Not in a savings account of course. And the little saver, for example, is busy saving up for his house. It will be very difficult to succeed. So see yes, even that tax is not commensurate with the savings rate.

beautiful rules from the public nowadays you pay only 1.5% in interest or something like that

I think you do not fully understand the mortgage interest deduction … Income tax meant that you could deduct money from which you had to invest. In principle, the interest rate also rose at the same rate as the savings rate (not like that anymore!). Now the ‘beautiful rules’ are as follows: After 30 years of deduction, it stops (while you really want to live longer and therefore have to live). Many forms of mortgage have been abolished – funnily enough the most advantageous. Also the mandatory investment of equity on sale (undervalue is not even discussed while it is actually a thing). All the rules to actually ban it, but in the meantime, fewer and fewer people have enough money to buy a house. The fact that two-income earners have almost become compulsory is also not very useful from a social point of view. This while the number of singles is increasing, making home ownership increasingly difficult.

The interest rate is still higher than 1.5% because people rarely have to finance a part and thanks to all the supplements it rises nicely again.
Subsequently, house prices in the Netherlands rose enormously because the mortgage rate is so low 8) 7

Overpopulation is more the root of this than the “banks”.

In the cities yes – but they fill up due to the deteriorating working climate. This is especially evident in countries where the gap between rich and poor is even greater.
Banks are making it more and more difficult to own houses. Social rental housing is a stumbling block. Not much better than the big companies of the past, who placed work homes around the factory area (and then rented it out). Pure wage slaves.

Crypto is not going to change the whole mortgage lending.

No, it will not. But any change that puts less power in the hands of the banks could break the current stalemate.

Leave a Comment