tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8205333.post1527176179349200208..comments2023-10-16T11:28:03.544+00:00Comments on Anomaly UK: Employment PolicyAnomaly UKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04780148789321563441noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8205333.post-8524669088060286172012-05-03T21:27:56.478+00:002012-05-03T21:27:56.478+00:00Mouse: you totally misunderstand my point about ta...Mouse: you totally misunderstand my point about taxation. It is not simply that taxing people less will make them richer and therefore more willing to employ people. Though true to some extent, that is probably not all that significant. Rather, it is to do with what people do with the income they already have. All of that is spent in one sense, on consumption or investment. The government taxes cigarettes to make people smoke less, and taxes petrol to make people drive less. It also specifically taxes employing people at a very high rate, making employing people a less attractive form of consumption than importing goods or simply taking time off, and a less attractive investment than buying machines or consumer lending.Anomaly UKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04780148789321563441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8205333.post-30286147444903262702012-05-01T20:14:33.247+00:002012-05-01T20:14:33.247+00:00"Land Value Tax is still a tax, and is still ...<i>"Land Value Tax is still a tax, and is still bad, but it's less economically destructive than the taxes we currently have."</i><br /><br />When I first started off thinking seriously about tax simplification, I thought the same, but the more I think about it, there is an irreducible minimum of taxation which will always be collected, even in the absence of publicly collected taxes, and that is land rents. Income tax is, OTOH, entirely man-made, you can abolish it if you like, but you can't abolish land rents.<br /><br />Land rents can only arise in a stable, law-abiding country, and land "ownership" can only exist with the state to back it up - compare for example rental values in Kenya with those next door in Somalia, or rental values under Ian Smith compared to those under Robert Mugabe.<br /><br />So LVT is a question of rendering unto Caesar, of course, you can spend the proceeds sensibly (pay off national debt, spend it on things which boost economy and rental values further or dish out as Citizen's Dividend) or waste it (quangocracy, aid payments etc) that's a separate topic, the same can be said for income tax.<br /><br />Consider - perhaps you live in a housing association house and rent your business premises from Crown Estates - all your rent goes to the government, and at least some of that will be spent on stuff which benefits you. <br /><br />Why would it be better if you rent your home and business premises from a private landlord, who pays little or no tax?Mark Wadsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07733511175178098449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8205333.post-34771592420201956892012-04-23T08:20:24.788+00:002012-04-23T08:20:24.788+00:00Two Irish stories are relevant here.
1) An Irishm...Two Irish stories are relevant here.<br /><br />1) An Irishman who introduced a friend of his as "Someone I worked with when I was unemployed." <br />2) A SPGB speaker at Speakers's Corner was declaiming to the only person who would listen to him, an Irish drunk, about the wickedness of the Capitalists, how they oppress and exploit the workers. The Irishman's retort was, Haha man, did you never hear of tieving?<br /><br />In your case, the inference is, did you never hear of getting the Unemployed to work for you? The true nature of Welfare is as a subsidy which keeps alive those people who work for rich mean bastards when the rich mean bastards have no need of them. Straightening things out so the rich mean bastards can get their tax back and pay for services directly without their money passing through the hands of the taxman and from there to the unemployed does not seem to work. Lady Richlist, I am sure, pays no tax at all, as she has her money offshore: does this mean she can afford to pay her cleaner twice the going rate? Does it ****. A 100% markup on a good or service is not at all unusual: you probably pay it on most of the things you consume. <br /><br />Our legal system ensures that a working man's wife, on divorce, gets half his estate. Cleaners, childminders and cooks, who do essentially the same job, get no such protection. The market says they have to be paid peanuts, and they are paid peanuts.<br /><br />Lower taxes would directly lead to lower unemployment? Totally untrue. Maybe it works out on a World level, lower taxes in England leading to lower unemployment in China, but ordinarily lower taxes will mean higher unemployment. To have any benefit on the home economy, you would have to be one of the cheapest countries in the world, and those countries probably have low taxes already.<br /><br />Otherwise, we would expect this scenario. The Conservatives/Republicans get in power, they lower taxes, unemployment falls, GDP rises, they lower taxes again, unemployment is non-existent, no one ever votes for Labour/Democrats again. When did that last happen?<br /><br />The culture of equality, it must be admitted, does not help. If you gave job preference to men, then all men would be employed, but only a portion of women. The unemployed women would then attach themselves to an employed man, reducing their welfare dependance. If you employ Englishmen in preference to foreigners, then the unemployed foreigners will probably move elsewhere to work. The Englishman, if unemployed, becomes chargeable to the parish.<br /><br />All I can think of is some alternative currency, which can only be only be spent on employing people: as a supplement, not as the whole wage: or perhaps we could just admit that the unemployed are really just underpaid casual and menial workers and accept it.A Nonny Mousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15824713232073772433noreply@blogger.com