Stewart Dimmock - champion of common sense

According to today's Metro*, Stewart Dimmock has sort of won his Court case, saying that Al Gore's film should not be shown to all schoolchildren as it is brainwashing.

The judge** agreed that the film "contained statements about climate change for which there was insufficient scientific evidence".

So far, so good, unfortunately, the Department for Children, Schools and Families have now decided that the film will be shown in a "more balanced way".

What the f*** does that mean? Either you show it or you don't!***

* Update - LFB has found the link on the BBC website here. Interesting how the right-wing Metro reported this as a victory for Mr Dimmock but the left-wing BBC presented it as a victory for Al 'Lying F***wit' Gore, who according to something that Tim W uncovered, has bought himself a beachfront property, despite his claims that sea levels are going to rise by 22 feet. What a complete f***ing bastard.

** It appears that not all judges are bastards, liars or f***wits.

*** WOAR gives a full explanation of how little this means in the comments. As ever, ta muchly for that, WOAR.

Beyoncé Knowles - champion of human rights

The Mad Mullahs Of Malaysia told Bouncy that she wasn't allowed to wear her skimpy outfits.

Unlike the delightful Gwen Stefani, who wimped out and covered up, Bouncy told them to get stuffed and is doing a concert in Indonesia (also a Muslim country, but nowhere near as strict) instead.

Bouncy, you rock!

Racism is so not funny

I was absolutely appalled at work when a colleague told me the one about the black Jewish boy*. I think that this sort of thoroughly offensive 'humour' should have been left dead and buried in the 1970s, along with Bernard Manning.

* The boy asked his Dad whether he was more Jewish or more black. His Dad replied that it was a difficult question and asked why it was relevant. "Well" said the little boy "The lad at the end of the road wants to sell his bike for £20. I'm not sure whether I should offer him £10 or just nick it".

Google search "effect of tax on unemployed"

Somebody stumbled across my blog via the above search, not that I can track down where I was on the list.

Two things I can offer up in evidence, if he or she ever comes back ...

1) "Families and work" by Annette Walling, ONS, 2005. To summarise, married/cohabiting mothers whose partner is in work, who by and large are not entitled to benefits, and thus face an average tax/benefit withdrawal rate of 25% up to an average salary of £25,000 have an employment rate of 80%. Married/cohabiting mothers whose partner is unemployed, who are entitled to fairly chunky benefits, but face an average tax/benefit withdrawal rate of 74% up to an average salary have an employment rate of 44%.

2) "Labour supply and marginal tax rates"by A J de Bruin, that boils it down to the simple formula that say "the amount of paid labour would increase by [around 3%] ... if the tax pressure on labour income was reduced by 10% (i.e. a reduction in the marginal tax rate from 40% to 36%)".

Seeing as most basic rate taxpayers face an effective marginal tax/NI rate of 41% (including Employer's NI), that means we could more or less eradicate unemployment by scrapping Employer's NI and getting the marginal rate down to 33% (22% basic rate tax plus 11% Employee's NI).

And if not, it must be worth a f***ing try!

Glass ceiling

We don't have a glass ceiling where I work.

Which is arguably a shame, because the young women who work on the floor above us are all incredibly nice to look at.

UK house price crash - here we go again!

The housing market has reached the top of the 18-year cycle and is now going into reverse, as widely predicted.

Next time, can we wait 'til the bottom of the market and replace Council Tax, Stamp Duty Land Tax, Inheritance Tax, Capital Gains Tax and the TV licence fee with a fiscally neutral Progressive Property Tax (like in Northern Ireland or Denmark) as a small fixed percentage* of the current market value of all residential property** and then gradually turn this into Land Value Tax by exempting the first £100 per square yard and charging a higher percentage on the balance, then exempting £200 per square yard, and so on? Puh-lease?

This will act like a higher interest rate on land values, so dampening house price bubbles (and hence credit bubbles) in future.

* as to the precise rate and why pensioners will be able to afford it, see my comment in reply to ChrisC's.

**this is easy to calculate. HM Land Registry already know how big each plot is, and in each postcode sector there are about fifty or a hundred sales each year, they can work out what the average price paid per square yard is, and everybody gets a PPT bill of average value for his postcode sector times plot size in square yards.

"Unions mobilised for election"

Journalists love this whole will-he-won't-he stuff, because it is all pure and utter speculation and rumour. I doubt whether even The Goblin King has made up his mind yet.

Anyway, to join in the fun, I think we have to look at this in the wider context: neither party really wants to win the next election.

a) If The Goblin King really wanted to win, he could just say "OK, we'll have a referendum and a General Election in November" and he'd walk it. But he doesn't want a referendum and he doesn't particularly want to be in power when economy goes tits up, which is the trap that Labour sprang on Major back in 1992 and why Labour are still in power now. So he has to hang a bit longer and, using Callaghan as an analogy, call an election in 1978 and LOSE, thus making sure Tories take the rap for the Winter Of Discontent.

b) If Tories really wanted to win, then surely they would have spent the last few years laying into Nulab sleaze and incompetence. But they never bothered. Because they don't want to fall into the same trap as Major either. Which is why they fanny about changing their minds about every topic under the sun. So when the Tories lose, whatever Nulab do, the Tories can honestly say that they said they'd have done the opposite. And I think the Tories will make a referendum part of their manifesto pledge, safe in the knowledge that their bluff will never be called (as the Tories are basically totally in thrall to the EU just as much as Nulab or the LibDems).

Let the market decide!

Beautiful article by Prof. Tim Leunig in today's FT, saying that the government should stop micro-managing and leave it up to the markets.

"Hurrah!", shout the Tories.

"Boo!", shout the socialists.

Well, in this case, probably not...

... because the article is referring to the housing market, saying that homes should be built where land prices are highest, i.e. round London, Oxford and Cambridge. And these are Tory NIMBY heartlands. I can already hear them muttering about "concreting over the South East", "unsustainable development", "overburdened infrastructure", "mass immigration" and "the UK is much more densely populated than France or Germany"* and so on.

So funnily enough, as shit as Labour's planning interventions have been and always will be, I think it's one-nil to the socialists this time.

* It was never clear to me what the population densities of France and Germany have got to do with sensible housing policy in the UK, but the NIMBYs keep trotting it out.

Tax Benefit Model Tables (4)

I was just checking my last couple of posts for accuracy, and another thing caught my eye.

Per Table 2.1a (page 114 of pdf), if unemployed single women has no kids, her net income is £59 a week, with one kid it's £126 and with two it's £175.

So that's a baby bonus of £67 for the first kid and £49 for the second one.

Let's compare that with baby bonus for married couple, also LA tenants (for consistency), where hubby is earning £500 and wife stays at home, even before they have kids (a highly unlikely scenario - nearly all such women have a job). Before they have kids, their net income is £304 after housing costs, Table 1.4b (page 68 of pdf). With one kid, we skip to Table 1.5b (Page 80) and their net income after housing costs is £324 per week. With two kids, Table 1.6b (page 92) their net income is £328.

So that's a baby bonus of £20 for the first kid and £4 for the second.

How about splitting the difference and making Child Benefit a flat £34 per child and scrapping Child Tax Credits, as recommended by the Citizen's Income Trust?

Is it any wonder that the number of children born out of wedlock has risen to over 40%? Sure a lot of these are cohabiting, but if you're not married it's easier to pretend you're not cohabiting, so the Mum can get her snout in the welfare trough.

Right, that's enough welfare porn for the time being!

David Willetts speaks

From yesterday's speech "...fear of litigation means school trips and adventure holidays are now abandoned. Instead, children get their excitement by retreating to their bedrooms to play video games or the artificial stimulus of drink and drugs."

Fine so far, I think he's sort of missing the point a bit, but what's this?

"Nearly half of all gangs now meet in public playgrounds"

For f***'s sake David, don't keep us in suspense like this! Where do the other half of gangs meet? In shopping centres? In church halls? Somebody's front room? And where do they go once they have met? I will not rest until I find out! Do these gangs prefer swings, slides or roundabouts? So many questions!!