I am pleased to see that on a low-ish turnout (86 votes), 80% of people who took part in last week's Fun Online Poll agreed with the statement "All money that changes hands purely because of existing laws (as distinct from free exchange) counts as 'tax'."
I gave examples of such privately collected taxes last week, the basic idea being that all 'rent-seekers' (such as Messrs Osterhaus and Pachauri, who are on the swine-flu and climate-change bandwagons respectively) are trying to funnel money into their own pockets. Whether that goes via the state (i.e. our taxes pay for the NHS, which then pays for immunisations and Tamiflu) or direct from one private business to another (selling carbon permits which your business obtained for free) is neither here nor there.
The problem is that while right-wingers lambast this type of rent-seeking, they have a bit of a blind spot when it comes to the rent-seeking that they indulge in themselves, primarily via the land market. A majority of commenters on this post thought it was an outrage to expect those land-owners who stand to benefit enormously from the construction of Crossrail to make some sort of modest financial contribution to its construction costs, even if the decision to do so were taken democratically.
With that in mind, it puzzles me that so many people voted as they did. Ah well.
--------------------------------------
In a more light-hearted vein, and inspired by Rantin' Rab, this week's Fun Online Poll asks "Have you had an affair with Tiger Woods?"
Vote here or use the widget in the sidebar.
Sunday, 13 December 2009
Fun Online Polls: privately collected taxes & Tiger Woods
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
The man is clearly most persuasive when he has identified the correct path to the hole. That being the case I'd suggest a further option: "not yet".
It was a favour, OK?
TFB 'Not yet' counts as 'No'. Innocent until proven guilty.
MTW, if you weren't paid, it counts as an affair.
to make some sort of modest financial contribution to its construction costs, even if the decision to do so were taken democratically
How would it be actually done democratically, Mark?
JH, for workings see here. I did say that those people in the 'catchment' area would be given a vote on whether they wanted the development to go ahead.
Do they still use carbon shafts?
if I lived in the city and was asked to pay towards Crossrail as it would make me wealthier - preferably by more trade than a higher house price, I would. Similarly if I was asked to pay a share to bring extra infrastructure, say sreet lights or sewerage to my village I would vote against it even if it would increase my house price and might even bring me more trade.
That looks like democracy to me.
Check out "The Ballad Of Tiger (Cheetah)Woods"
@ youtube.com/thisisjohnnyblack
Post a Comment