A Proposed EU Budget

French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel have agreed a proposed EU budget.  As you might expect, I have a question.  One of the points of agreement is the purpose of the “single eurozone budget” they want to create:

The EU will set up a single eurozone budget to boost investment and promote economic convergence among all 19 member states.

What does this purpose statement mean, exactly?  Who will pay into the budget and in accordance with what parameters?  Who will pick the investments to be supported and on what basis?  On these two matters, details are yet to be worked out, certainly; it’s early in the process.

But the larger matter is what these two mean by “economic convergence.”  Do they seriously intend to move the successful nations—the ones fiscally responsible, that don’t tax heavily or spend profligately, that actively enforce their (tax) laws—toward those nations that are less responsible, even irresponsible, that see their tax laws as suggestions rather than requirements, in addition to seeking to move (with what enforcement mechanisms?) those less responsible, even irresponsible, nations toward the successful ones?

That is, after all, what convergence means: bringing the two sides toward each other, rather than just one side toward the other.

So: why should the successful nations, the fiscally responsible nations, be held back in favor of those nations that have chosen a lower course?  Or is that not what Macron and Merkel meant with their convergence plan?

Why Should There Be a Cap?

Scott Atlas wrote in a recent Wall Street Journal that all of us should have access to health savings accounts, instead of just the few well-off among us who can afford the high deductible health coverage plan that’s currently a prerequisite for having an HSA.  He also wants to raise the cap for contributing to one to $7,350 per year.

He’s on the right track, but he stopped short.  Why should there be a cap on HSA contributions?  Why can’t we contribute as much or as little as we want instead of what Government will permit?

Of course, with a properly low, flat income tax rate, tax reduction/avoidance/savings facilities like HCAs, IRAs, 401(k)s, etc, would have less value because there’d be less taxes to be avoided.  We’d have more of our money in our hands to spend as we see fit and to save for the purposes that suit us rather than suit the men of Government.