MBK spotted this nugget in Simon Heffer's suggestions for the Queen's Speech:
Derelict Land Bill
To prevent the concreting over of the Green Belt, local authorities should be empowered to levy a tax on the owners of industrial land lying derelict in designated development areas. The rate of tax would increase annually until the land was sold or developed.
It's a pity he isn't capable of extending this logic to unused residential land (if it's not being used, how do you know whether it's industrial or residential?) and thence to all land, there are plenty of bad taxes which could be reduced or scrapped, which he mentions later on:
Finance and Enterprise Bill
There is no economic growth because there is no growth strategy, so this would be aimed at providing both. The finance part of the Bill would cut personal and corporation taxes, reduce VAT to boost consumption and remove prohibitive payroll taxes that deter employers from hiring staff. It would also outline spending cuts, notably in overseas aid, local government and welfare benefits, to fund these lower taxes. The enterprise element would reduce regulations on employment and with them the bureaucracy of human resources and health and safety rules.
It's hard to disagree with that bit either, apart from his attempt to blame it on welfare benefits. The main problem with those is that the withdrawal rates are too high and they aren't universal.
Maybe there's something wrong with me, but the only item on his list with which I'd have to 100% completely disagree is the ranting about "increasing penalties for all forms of trafficking and supplying [drugs]."
Every little irritant helps
1 hour ago
11 comments:
"increasing penalties for all forms of trafficking and supplying [drugs]."
The sensible thing of course is to legalise it and gain the benefits of taxing it. Did no one learn the lesson that prohibition gave us all those years ago? Apparently not.
Anti, that's the infuriating thing. There are a lot of people e.g. Bob Ainsworth, George Schultz who learn the lessons and suddenly see the light... after they have retired/been chucked out.
If using drugs was more commonplace people would probably lower the amount of work they needed to do for a particular standard of living, and thus the amount that the political classes can extract in rent would fall.
SB, there is little to suggest that usage would increase markedly if drugs were legalised. And as Anti points out, there's tax to be collected on the drugs and savings to be made in stupid-law enforcement. So the pol's aren't being cynical, just incredibly stupid.
I'm just trying to come up with some rational reason that drug supply would be kept for the benefit of the criminal classes.
SB, I assume it's for the benefit of the crime fighting and do-gooding classes. Or plain stupidity.
There's usually some money making scheme or hypocrisy behind most of the things the do-gooding classes want.
Well, it may not be LVT but at least it would have a similar effect on derelict land.
I would imagine that if it was enacted, there would be a rush to reclassify derelict industrial sites as "urban farms".
"There's usually some money making scheme or hypocrisy behind most of the things the do-gooding classes want."
I reckon in this case its the hypocrisy of the neo-puritans (aka bansturbators) and the money-making schemes of their fakecharities.
Exactly on the "all land" bit.
On drugs, yes, why oh why does no one ever ask what is compelling people to take addictive levels of drugs in the first place? Its bizarre. They accept harmful drug addiction as much as land addiction, never asking what lies beneath.
That's not to say that drug addiction is right or wrong. I'm just pointing it out. In fact I think drugs are great.
Post a Comment