this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2023
26 points (100.0% liked)

World News

35818 readers
421 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] caoimhinr@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago

Is windfall when a breeze blows them out of a 5th story window?

[–] tinwhiskers@kbin.social 4 points 2 years ago

Belousov told RBC, a business channel, that the companies themselves proposed the taxes.

Yes, yes. I'm sure they did :-/

[–] Kachajal@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.

[–] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Kachajal@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago

Indeed, I think it'd be more accurate to say that both are hurting their people due to war spending rather than implying neither are.

[–] Rinox@feddit.it 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It's a bit different though. The fall for Russia is actually massive, since last year they were still having a big surplus, while now they are facing a pretty serious deficit. Moreover this deficit comes at a time of increased spending and decreasing oil revenue, which makes up a very big part of the Russian GDP and most of the government's budget.

A shrinking economy with higher expenses and growing deficit is a potent combination and will probably call for even more taxes as the government tries to find a substitute to falling oil revenues.

[–] 133arc585@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Can you give a citation for "decreasing oil revenue"? From my understanding their oil revenue has not decreased, it's just that it's not to the same partners (or at least not without passing through intermediaries like India where people can then buy it and not feel guilt by association).

[–] UnbeatenDeployGoofy@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago

A dictator ultimately has to answer to someone. If he's losing support from the rich, I wonder what would happen next.

[–] brain_in_a_box@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

4 billion doesn't seem like much at all? How much have other countries spent on the war so far?

[–] reverendphil@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago

That's a translation issue, it's a window-fall tax.

[–] Raphael@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago

Taxing the rich, fair enough, should've done way earlier.