Their complaints could be echoed by non-managerial employees (and a lot of managers) in practically any employment and most countries. Inflation always hits cost of living before it hits wages. There would be no point to inflation if it were not a semi-invisible regressive tax.
Other than that, I guess it's good to know the Vatican continues to eschew transparency? Or can't afford to acquire it?
Since the Vatican for all intents and purposes does not have its own currency there is no way the government of the Vatican can directly benefit from inflation unless they are a net debtor in Euros. (Thus is because they do not get any seigniorage.) If pension benefits are not indexed to the price level in Rome, then the real value of their pension liabilities declines as the price level increases. On the other hand if they are a net lender with fixed long term interest rates they are harmed by inflation.
But clearly if wages have not gone up with inflation for a long time, while the price level has been increasing, the government’s real expenditures on wages would be declining and that should have helped them balance their budget.
The hypocrisy of the Vatican in regard to this is just awful. Clearly they would condemn any private employer who treated its employees this way, just like they would condemn any country that has the same immigration laws as they have.
I don't think the Vatican deliberately employed inflation as a regressive tax, but that the governments and banks that it shares currency with did. But yes, the Vatican probably used the time-dependence of inflation and stagnant wages to catch a financial break. A lot of employers did, some because they could, others because it was the only way to stay in business. I didn't know that had been condemned.
Their complaints could be echoed by non-managerial employees (and a lot of managers) in practically any employment and most countries. Inflation always hits cost of living before it hits wages. There would be no point to inflation if it were not a semi-invisible regressive tax.
Other than that, I guess it's good to know the Vatican continues to eschew transparency? Or can't afford to acquire it?
Since the Vatican for all intents and purposes does not have its own currency there is no way the government of the Vatican can directly benefit from inflation unless they are a net debtor in Euros. (Thus is because they do not get any seigniorage.) If pension benefits are not indexed to the price level in Rome, then the real value of their pension liabilities declines as the price level increases. On the other hand if they are a net lender with fixed long term interest rates they are harmed by inflation.
But clearly if wages have not gone up with inflation for a long time, while the price level has been increasing, the government’s real expenditures on wages would be declining and that should have helped them balance their budget.
The hypocrisy of the Vatican in regard to this is just awful. Clearly they would condemn any private employer who treated its employees this way, just like they would condemn any country that has the same immigration laws as they have.
I don't think the Vatican deliberately employed inflation as a regressive tax, but that the governments and banks that it shares currency with did. But yes, the Vatican probably used the time-dependence of inflation and stagnant wages to catch a financial break. A lot of employers did, some because they could, others because it was the only way to stay in business. I didn't know that had been condemned.