Randomly Selected Article or Link

Utter madness! Bliar for Europe?

Dear God, please, no! Or rmaybe, just perhaps, France wants Britain out? Alternatively, Sarkozy recognizes that Blair failed to do anything of any use during the last British rotating presidency that the best way to hamstring the whole organization would be to put the useless, lying, egomaniacal shit in charge permanently.

Tony Blair could be EU President - Telegraph:
By Toby Helm and Bruno Waterfield in Lisbon
Last Updated: 5:47pm BST 19/10/2007

Tony Blair has been placed in the frame to become the first permanent President of the EU after France launched a campaign to install him in the powerful new Brussels job.

Nicolas Sarkozy, the French President, touted the former Prime Minister as his preferred candidate after Gordon Brown and fellow leaders agreed the EU Reform Treaty, which establishes the new post from January 2009.

In my last post I set out what I considered to be the three necessary reforms to create a more equitable society - Land Value Tax (or "The Single Tax"), Citizen's Income and Ownership for All.

In the comments, Tim Carpenter, Head of Policy at the Libertarian Party UK had several objections that I would like to address:

Tim: "LVT can seem fine and dandy at the first off, but over time who decides the future value of your land?"

Why does anyone need to decide the future value of your land? In any case, even if that were necessary the market does that anyway even at present - what people pay for a property reflects their view of what it's worth into the future - they are, literally paying up front, to the previous owner, the rent for a number of years into the future. I agree there are issues with a "100% Land Tax" where the community attempts to collect 100% of the rent (as I and other geo-libertarians would advocate). This would make the capital land value tend toward zero and how would you know whether it's moving up or down over time? Well, the answer I believe is that it would trade at a discount or premium reflecting the buyer's and seller's view of whether the "passing rent" (ie the LVT bill) was set too high or too low.

Tim: "It is fraught with risks, opportunities for corruption and chaos. If you think compulsory purchase was bad..."

As I understand it several of the big RICS member firms have discussed this and have proposed a valuation regime that they would be comfortable bidding for and would expect to be able to handle things like appeals. The Oxfordshire pilot study showed that on average there was only a need to value about one site in ten - ie that that many nearby sites would share the same land value. And there are developing ever more sophisticated data and models for modelling things like "landvaluescape" and how it changes in reaction to things like new infrastructure.

I only don't believe it is as daunting a task as taxing incomes in the multitude of ways we currently do.

Tim: "If CBI is only half what is needed to live on, then surely we will still need welfare."

The Joseph Rowntree report I mentioned included a lot of things that go much further than the "basics needed to survive" (and the headline figure of £13,400 was "pre-tax". Not that I claim that would halve the bill. However the removal of the deadweight loss created by the other taxes that would be repealed, and the ending of subsidies, particularly on agricultural land and other tariffs on the necessities of life would make them cheaper. Two ways to be wealthier - have more money or make everything you need cheaper. As Frank Gallagher in "Shameless" says "Make poverty history; cheaper drugs now!"

Tim: "Removing the minimum wage is fine but be under no illusion, the CBI will be factored into that wage (or lack of)."

But, first, they would also be factoring in the lack of payroll taxes and income taxes - they'd have nearly 40% more in their "wage bill" to play with in many cases. Second, the CBI has two purposes in my mind - one of them is to give people enough to survive, just, day to day, but the intentional beneficial effect of that is that people have a cushion that empowers them to say "no" to a coercive deal from an employer. If the marginal benefit from working x hours for y pay is not worth it and you know you can survive until you get another, hopefully better, offer, this changes the balance of power between employer and employee. And, because it is the same for all workers, and not just the ones currently stuck in the benefits trap, the employers are more likely to have to listen and produce decent remuneration. Though I do concede that there would be hundreds of thousands of currently civil servants in the job market to depress wages...:)

Tim: "It will be no solution to poverty AFAICT and your assertion that it would eradicate x y or x is not explained. I think parish provision is an interesting one, but frankly, look at places like S Wales and you will find that parishes will have little or no wealth creation so no money to spend on their army of dependants - central funding will be needed in precisely the places where people say it causes problems of unconditionality - for once the parish is spending other peoples' money the problems are right back with you again."

However, the LVT is more likely to move economic activity to areas where companies, and employees, and therefore also companies as employers, will pay less tax, which is turn will raise the economic activity in poorer areas and tend to level out regional disparities of economic activity. It cannot be any worse than the current situation where some regional economies make up more than half of their regional GDP from state handouts and subsidies to individuals and businesses.

Tim: "As another person has mentioned, the mutualist company can occur NOW. What is to change here? The fact that it does not happen now should either make you ask what stops it legally/financially or regulatory OR that it is actually a factor of how humans are socially, in that it takes certain individuals the gumption to kick start a company (and that is NEVER to be underetimated) and once they do so, why would they then let a whole load of strangers take just as much out of it as he/she does?"

I certainly don't underestimate the setting up of a company. I have been an employer for precisely one month in my life and it was a bloody nightmare. But it would certainly be less troublesome if I was not burdened with all those damn tax calculations! But again, I refer the honorable gentleman to the answer I gave a moment ago - the "cushion" that empowers the employee to say "no" a bit more; to hold out for a better share of the total returns to a business. This of course goes to the core of mutualism as I see it, as opposed to the anarcho-capitalist type of libertarianism. Mutualists believe that the current capitalist system is lop-sided, "toxic" and that it is itself a coercive and damagingly hierarchical system. Empowering labour to hold out for a better deal, making use of new corporate forms like limited liability partnerships and so on, will accelerate this change.

...and finally...

Tim: "Monetary reform and changes to fiat issuance will not happen by itself. The problem is coming up with something to replace it that actually works. I have seen many attempts and none appear to work or are just a cover operation for hatstand ideas like "social credit"."

As I think I said in response to another comment, I'm actually quite agnostic about how monetary reform should happen and what direction it should take. Personally I like the Hayek idea of fully privatised commercially competing currencies. I am told that the legislation actually already exists to allow commercial "complementary" currencies run by corporations. Air miles, Nectar and Kit-Kash are but early examples.

But consider this - if you collect 100% land rent and the capital value of land falls towards zero, the structure of the money system is bound to change - a large proportion of our broad money is lent into existence to pay for land in the form of mortgages. At the very least banks are going to need to have to adjust to that.

Actually I believe the real question is what lengths states will go to to prevent what I see as inevitable change if we allowed it. I haven't played there for a long time, and the hype about it seems to have died down a lot, but "Second Life" and "Kiva" are but a glimpse of what might be to come.

Incidentally, I presume I've been linked to in a discussion on the Libertarian Party forums (link will only work if you are a member and registered on their forums).  And that, now they have closed the public forums that were accessible to non-members, I am unable to see what people are saying.  I believe that none of these three policy areas step outside the bounds of libertarianism.  In fact that they address more inequities that create coercive human relationships than, say, anarcho-capitalist flavours of libertarianism do.  It would be nice to get the jist of what you are saying, if anything, over there!

As mentioned on ConservativeHome today, all credit must go to Welsh Tory leader Nick Bourne for sticking to his guns after complaints were made about a blog post in which he unashamedly attacks the BNP:

"One worrying feature about the Assembly election campaign was the increase in votes for the BNP.

"Whilst the turn out in the Assembly elections went up slightly on 2003, it was still woefully low, particularly if one compares it to the sort of turnout achieved in the French Presidential elections of 85%, the 44% that was achieved in Wales seems derisory in comparison.

"The growth in votes for the BNP is, however, worrying. The message of racial division, which they put forward anti-immigrant, anti-Semitic, and anti those Britain’s who are of immigrant descent, is rightly something which the four main parties abhor and condemned on Equality Day during the election campaign. "

However, I can't help but remember this piece also on ConservativeHome a few months ago, showing that 12% of Tory voters ranked the BNP as their second choice party. Are they sure that "99% of those 180 complaints were from BNP activists?"

Technorati Tags: conservatives, BNP

...the Standards Board and the Adjudication Panel for England.

I have few doubts that much of what Mr Morshead says about Ken is true...Ken's jibes 'endanger' democracy.

He is abrasive, has a habit of opening mouth before engaging his brain, and as a result upsets people. But for God's sake who created a system in which a quango could set aside the electorate's democratic decision? And it's worth remembering that in Ken's case at least, his is the most democratic system of election for a single position we have in this country so far.

But Ken's is just one of hundreds of cases every year where this body of unelected gamekeeper, judge, juror and executioner rolled into one hold in the balance peoples' political fortunes.

Surcharging, which the system was intended to replace, was indeed iniquitous. To suffer potentially the loss of everything for what might have been a horrible mistake seemed harsh. But in practice, was anyone ever surcharged if a hearing found they had made an honest mistake as opposed to having been genuinely corrupt or recklessly negligent? I doubt it.

What has replaced it is a system based on tittle-tattle where vexatious claims can be used to put local politicians effectively in suspense for months, often thus far at least with no prospect of even the basic right to expect your costs covered when the claim is disproven - and in some cases this must have come perilously close to the bankruptcy of surcharging anyway...despite having WON your case!

We have a system for getting rid of politicians if we don't like the way they behave, for example if we think their boorishness outweighs their effectiveness in doing the job they were elected to. It may not be perfect. But it does not rely on a kangaroo court of appointed placepeople that has little respect for natural justice. It is in the gift of us all. It's called the next election. If you don't like him, don't vote for him. It's that simple.

If anything threatens to endanger public confidence in local democracy it is that the Adjudication Panel can stick two fingers up at the electorate.

Over at ConservativeHome they're spinning the line that "Green Taxes" such as those that might be recommended by the Gummer-Goldssmith review might hit the poorest hardest:

Green action mustn't punish the poor. Green taxation - like the congestion charge and VAT on domestic flights - can fall most heavily on the poorest.

Zac Goldsmith: Green taxes
must not appear to be the rich
telling the poor what
they cannot have!

According to our figures I think they need to look either at who would be most affected, or who they are calling the poorest. It would of course not surprise any of us to find that they don't really count the really poorest as poor, just the "lower middle classes" from whom they want some votes. But, if they do mean the lowest rungs of the British wealth ladder, then according to the line that Chris Huhne, Green Lib Dems and other have been pushing it is not in fact these people who would be most affected.

33% of households do not have access to a car. Most of these are the least well off households. If money from the congestion charge puts more into public transport these people gain. Similarly I very much doubt that the very poorest, if they travel terribly far at all, travel by air, internally or overseas. These are the "National Express" customers if anything. It would cost me more in time, money and effort to get to a cheap flight airport before flying as it would be to get a coach service to my destination. And on overseas flights, it is the well off and moderately well off who can afford to take multiple breaks a year. The European city weekend break several times a year is not the stuff of the Housing Benefit claimant (unless he's also an MEP I suppose).

However, they are right about one thing, yet fail to address it. Green taxes will hurt the poor the most if the poor are always driven to living on "marginal land". For it is they who, as well as having to keep up their housing costs, will have to commute because housing prices near where they work or socialize are unaffordable to them. Only Land Value Tax, as I wrote in one of my first ever blog posts, can change that and give people a real choice as to whether to live closer to work or commute with the attendant higher travel costs that green taxation will bring.

The Tories therefore, like all the other main parties including the Lib Dems, signally fail to address the biggest environmental tax issue of all - the taxation of location values.