Thursday, 8 December 2016

"Brexit case simple enough for a child, Supreme Court told"

From the BBC:

A six-year-old child would understand why the government does not have the power to trigger Brexit, a lawyer has told the Supreme Court. Richard Gordon QC attacked the government's claim it does not have to consult Parliament, suggesting this could "crucify human rights".

The QC for the government countered that a six-year-old child would understand why the government does have the power to trigger Brexit. Gordon Richard QC attacked the claim that the government has to consult Parliament, suggesting this could "strip it of its prerogative powers".

A move to call a six-year child as an expert witness to decide the matter was declined.




12 comments:

James Higham said...

Bring me a 6 year old child.

Mark Wadsworth said...

JH, you'll get in trouble by saying things like that.

Sean Vosper said...

Sorry to derail the thread but, you know, this is an LVT blog after all. Interesting article about the US - but I'm particularly interested if anyone here happens to know what the equivalent to that 18% number is for the UK. I'm sure that MW has mentioned it at some point or another - it's in the 2nd paragraph so you don't have to read it all or anything.
http://idiosyncraticwhisk.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/housing-part-191-affordability-is-not.html

Mark Wadsworth said...

SV, the 18% figure is probably correct for the UK if you look at overall averages. It is fairly consistent over time as well. OK, it might be 18% or 20% or 22% but let's not bicker.

But...

1. That is an average of a huge range. Renters in low income areas spend 20% of their income on rent and renters in high wage areas spend 50% of their income on rent. Recent purchasers with a big mortgage spend 30% of their income on mortgage repayments, those who bought fifteen or more years ago when prices were a lot lower spend 10% of their income on mortgage repayments and those who bought more than twenty years ago spend a few % or zero % on mortgage repayments. Landlords are paying negative % of their income in rent - their income IS rent.

2. The issue is not with how much renters or borrowers are paying, the issue is with who is benefitting at the other end (landlords and bankers). Clearly, under LVT, most people would on average still be paying 18% or 20% or 22% of their income in LVT - but that money would be recycled back to society in the form of tax cuts, public spending, citizen's dividend, paying off the national debt, whatever.

Bayard said...

"but that money would be recycled back to society in the form of tax cuts, public spending, citizen's dividend, paying off the national debt, whatever."

Surely you jest? Going on what history tells us, it would be spent on pointless foreign wars, buying arms, "white elephant" infrastructure projects, wealthfare, subsidies to favoured industries, ever larger salaries for top bureaucrats etc. etc.

Lola said...

B. You'd think so. But as LVT is an in yer face tax - that is most taxes are stealthy TPTB would find it a Damn' sight more difficult to indulge in their little peccadillos and rent seeking.

Serendipity strikes again. Mises today:
https://mises.org/blog/taxation-isnt-only-theft-its-destruction
Ignore the headline and read it.

So, of course, that's why TPTB are dead set agin LVT. It largely screws them. Excellent.

Bayard said...

L, for that matter, income tax is an "in yer face" tax, if you complete a tax return and pay once a year. It is extremely likely that, if ever LVT was introduced, it would be stealthified in exactly the same way as income tax has been.

TPTB are able to indulge in their little peccadillos and rent seeking because of the apathy of the population. That isn't going to change with a change in the tax regime. We only had what Mark calls "Georgism Lite" because of the effect of two world wars on the way people thought. Without an upheaval of a similar magnitude, nothing is going to change.

Lola said...

B. Yes. IT is an 'in yer face' tax if like me you're self employed. For average employee it is just a number on their pay slip. Their market clearing labour price is the net take home. PAYE IT is de facto paid by employers.

I don't see how you can stealthify LVT.

TPTB are devious buggers. 'O'Briens' everyone of them.

Are you advocating armed struggle then? :-)

Bayard said...

"I don't see how you can stealthify LVT."

Mark explained how many moons ago. I haven't read your link yet, but I will.

Lola said...

B I s'pose if the landlord is paying a tenant won't see it. If an owner occupier is paying...?

Bayard said...

L, I looked for the post I mentioned, but couldn't find it. Perhaps Mark knows where it is.

Mark Wadsworth said...

L, B, as to "stealthifying" LVT, I am a great believer in netting off all taxes and tax credits (i.e. welfare, pension or Citizen's income) into one figure for each person/household.

If it's a credit, pay it out. If there's a net tax bill, then collect it via PAYE if possible, it's all perfectly do-able. If you are self employed then there is no PAYE, but the LVT can still be dealt with as an extra line on their income tax assessment.