More Brexit LOLZ

From City AM:

Retail industry experts have warned gaps could appear on supermarket shelves if the government does not secure the right customs agreements and infrastructure investment required to prepare the UK for Brexit, retail experts have warned.

That's nonsense for a start.

Supermarket shelves are pretty much the most valuable and coveted space of all, which is why supermarkets effectively rent shelf space to food producers. They's be stupid to leave them empty, they'll just display something else instead (i.e. home-grown food).

A lot of stuff on supermarket shelves is from outside the EU and that manages to get here OK...

In a report highlighting the changes the UK will face on leaving the Customs Union, the British Retail Consortium (BRC) said the government must not "underestimate the complexity and scale of the challenge" the transition poses...

The trade body has estimated that customs declarations could rise in number by between 55m and 255m per year, and that an extra 180,000 companies could be filing declarations for the first time, if the UK leaves the EU on the terms set by the World Trade Organisation.

In addition, ports must be ready to handle a higher throughput of regulatory documents after Brexit to avoid delays.

Hey, let's not bother with all this regulatory crap. Of course we have to have spot checks at borders, that's what they're there for, but can't we just continue on the assumption that if something is good enough for the EU market it is good enough for ours and just wave it through?

Killer Arguments Against LVT, Not (421)

A slightly more coherent one from the comments at Sackerson's:

Like most of our age, I can remember the introduction of poll tax. At the time council tax (rates) was going through the roof and had no bearing on demands or ability to pay.

Sadly the poll tax was equally badly implemented, yet if it had been implemented fairly it would have been a much fairer alternative and much better understood. The poor implementation and the "poll tax riots" by all those who never paid bugger all for the services they received scuppered the tax.

We are now faced with council tax that now that the brakes have been taken off go the same way as rates. What is basically wrong with council tax/rates is that only roughly 38% - and that was from the chief accountant in Suffolk twenty years ago - actually pay the tax; the reasons are all there to see but too long-winded to go into now, but in essence there was nothing wrong with the poll tax if it had been properly administered. After all this current tax is to pay for services enjoyed by all but less than half contribute!

The second half is incorrect. I don't know what the collection rates for Council Tax were twenty years ago, but unsurprisingly, collection rates are actually close to 100% and jsut about every home is liable for Council Tax.

He defeats his own argument in favour of a Poll Tax by saying that Domestic Rates had "no bearing on demands or ability to pay". A Poll Tax would have even less correlation with ability to pay. Most low income people own or rent lower value homes and smaller households own or rent smaller homes (or at least could choose to do so), so under Domestic Rates/LVT, the tax payable is nearly always affordable.

As we well know, riots aside, Poll Taxes are very difficult to enforce and collect, there's no way you can "implement it properly", let alone fairly. And they are antithetical to having a welfare system, before we try and collect a separate tax from low income people, it's much easier just to reduce their benefits/old age pension.

But the fundamental misconception is the idea that the government should charge for services provided to 'people' generally, especially if people are compelled to use those services or compelled to pay for something which they might not use. So charging individuals who choose to apply for a passport = OK, but if we had compulsory ID cards, then charging for them = not OK or charging people a fraction of the cost of upkeep of a local park (which they might or might not use) = not OK.

Nope.

The government (or 'the state' or 'society') is the ultimate arbiter on who owns which bits of land and provides the framework within which rents can arise in the first place. So it should charge for benefits accruing to land (or landowners). Who generates the rental value? Everybody and nobody, so to whom does it belong? Everybody and nobody, but short of throwing the proceeds into the North Sea, the government might as well spend it on things which benefit everybody (welfare payments, health, education, whatever), or which benefit the economy in general.

It's impossible to spend money in a way which benefits everybody equally because a lot of the benefits of 'good' government spending or action lead to higher rental values (roads benefit or burden some bits of land and leave most others unaffected). But that doesn't matter because that extra value can be recycled back into the system (and the owners of the burdened land get a tax cut to compensate them).

Killer Arguments Against LVT, Not (420)

From a thread on the YPP Facebook group:

Will Smithy: [Land Value Tax] was one bit of the manifesto i didn't hugely agree with, VAT i believe is a fairly progressive tax as the more you spend the more you pay. I was very interested in all the VAT ideas because thats a great way to transfer wealth. I've read some interesting articles proposing raising VAT to 40% and ridding all other tax's and they offer just as convincing an argument as yours...

Maths isn't his strong point, he appears to think that government spending adds up to 170% of government spending:

Old peoples pensions and those who require regular medical attention thats 80% of the governments budget gone, the remaining UBI would be such a tiny amount it wouldn't be useful... I would be interested to see your numbers, you must have cut something pretty big because 90% of Government spending wouldn't really change under UBI i.e. Schools, NHS, Defence Transport, Agriculture, Debt payments.

[He then debunks a claim which we never made]

I just cannot see LVT providing £750B a year, so i think other tax's will be necessary. [My VAT proposal] aims to put money back into peoples pockets which puts money back into the economy for people to spend on other business's so the aim is the similar even if it does embrace VAT.

Wealth inequality is an argument in favour of VAT and against LVT, apparently:

Many people will go through life not owning a house but still paying plenty of tax

Asks a dumb question:

Would you like to see LVT paid annually or on death? I've seen both suggested.

He doesn't like the answer and shows his lack of financial savvy:

I just don't understand how it could work done annually. I mean i own a house i'm renting out to pay of my mortgage before i move in, but at the moment i get £1,600 Rent and pay £1,700 mortgage each month, i don't know how i could pay a monthly LVT ontop. Especially if for any reason i wasn't employed for a month or so.

He doesn't understand tax incidence:

Would rents just rocket up 2x to cover this?

He decides they would, despite Mark Foster explaining tax incidence to him:

For many low income people doubling rent would be much more significant than removing their tax.

All i can see is articles talking about why its good not how it would apply.

I refer him to the KLN blog, he now goes full Homey on us:

Only just started reading it, but already you've upped my tax from around 3.5k a year to £10,0000. I can imagine later in the reading i will find I'm not worthy of owning land and should be forced to sell to somebody earning more.

If he only pays £3,500 a year tax (income tax, NIC, VAT, council tax) then his earnings can't be much more than £10,000 a year. How did he manage to persuade the bank to lend him well over half a million quid? Like all his sums, it doesn't add up.

I don't understand why rents wouldn't rise by the exact amount of lvt in any area. I cannot find any example of any country who have tried this. The housing stock doesn't increase and demand doesn't decrease, it would just hurt the poorest.

Progressive taxing has shielded the poorest from most of the tax burden but I'm there's nothing to protect them from rent rises. And the transition would see too many people declaring bankruptcy,

There would be no public benefit for poorer people to sell their homes to richer people.

Scott Grant and Mark Foster step in again, to no avail and are brushed aside, he gets rantier:

I believe rents are indeed elastic, people NEED to live in London, i pay 50% of my salary in rent i could pay more. Likewise i could and would just raise my rent to compensate the last money. Anybody in North London would be paying a tax of £40,000 - £60,000.00 a year... you would just case an insane crash.

Might as well call for just renationalising all property and redistributing it based on your wish's if your planning to bankrupt everybody with a mortgage. I am now firmly in the opinion this would be a terrible idea and it seems the rest of the world is with me because nobody is pursuing this policy.

I point out for the second or third time that LVT is a straight swap for VAT and NIC. If people can afford to pay VAT and NIC they it must be pretty obvious that most can afford to pay LVT instead.

He plucks another figure out of the air and then claims it's wrong:

People spend nowhere near 20% of their income on VAT, so thats a silly comment

He refuses to accept that the YPP proposal under discussion would retain income tax.

I was all for the idea of taxing wealth ownership instead of wealth creation but i would do it though big inheritance tax's. I don't believe it would be unfair to tax somebody's estate at 90%, but a 3% LVT a year could end up meaning you owe more than your assets and millionaire renting wouldn't be putting in a fair share.

If 50% of the country would be bankrupt by a country decision, then its the governments responsibility to make sure it doesn't happen. theres an easy argument that its not for the greater good.

I just don't understand how anybody with a mortgage wouldn't go bankrupt, I have a Tiny Tiny Tiny mortage and i would be bankrupt i can only assume that means anybody with a larger mortgage would too.

It would even mean out government would default on its debt because our 1.8Trillion debt wouldn't be secured by 10Trillion in property anymore.

(I can't make head or tail of this next musing, but include it for the LOLZ: i wonder how much extra money the government could make if they just stopped making it perfectly legal / acceptable to pass your house onto your kids entirely tax free as long as you gift it to them.

I step in again: Rents would go up as other taxes are cut. The LVT is no more dramatic than higher mortgage interest rates, which most people can afford out of the VAT and NIC they save.

Despite doubling the rent he charges his tenants to cover the LVT, he won't be able to afford the LVT.  That's like the missing homes conundrum. Apparently he earns so little that his VAT and NIC savings will be negligible, but once he's paid off the mortgage he will earn more and the savings will kick in:

Sure, once my mortgage is paid i would have no problem paying a LVT, its just why fuck everyone with a mortgage. Isn't there a better why to implement without having to fuck over one part of society... any implementation of LVT would hit anybody with a mortgage hardest.

Perhaps you can think of a way to mitigate this and then more people might come round to liking your idea... You will mainly be hurting those who have just come out of what you are describing. First time buyers not hitting people who benefitted from Skyrocketing land prices. (my parents home went up 1,200% in value from 1990 - 2015)

I try numbers yet again which he completely ignores:

Avg FTB couple, home value to income ratio = 4, times 3% LVT minus existing council tax = 11% more of income in tax.

NIC plus vat is about 30% of earnings = 30% less of income in tax.

Overall, net disposable income after tax up by >20% or so.

That is not hurting, that is a massively helping.

He ignores that completely of course.

Fun Online Polls: Protest marches; students and immigration targets

The results to last fortnight's Fun Online Poll were as follows:

What's the correct response if people with whom you disagree organise a march?

Ignore them, hope they get bored and perhaps organise your own event a few weeks later - 84%
Organise a violent counter-protest to ensure maximum coverage and encourage them even more - 9%
Other, please specify - 8%

Good, I was with the majority on that. People don't seem to get the "other, please specify" option, it got eight votes but only three people left comments, heck knows what the other five were voting for.

Thanks to everybody who took part (104 voters).
---------------------------------------------
Just to change the topic a bit, let's look at the whole mess that Ms T May is making of immigration targets, in particular how students from overseas fit in.

The debate seems to jumble three topics;

a) whether we should have immigration targets at all (large employers against; nationalists and low-paid Brits in favour);

b) whether overseas students should be included. One the one hand, they pay top dollar to be here and should be welcomed like any other high-spending tourists IMHO; on the other, some of them overstay their visas (again, whether that is acceptable or not depends on your point of view)

c) what the actual figure for over-stayers is. For some reason the lefties (see linked article from NS) seem to think that the fact that the true number of over-stayers is very small (allegedly) is a reason to exclude them. Logic fail - if the number is so small, it doesn't matter whether they are included or not (seeing as the official target is a made-up number to start with, which the Tories have no intention of actually delivering).

So that's this week's Fun Online Poll.

Vote here or use the widget in the sidebar.

Daily Mail on top form

From The Daily Mail:

'Mother' is arrested over murder of boy, two, who was found dead in an empty house as a man, 31, is held in police custody...

Officers were called to the £700-a-month two-bedroom rented property at around 12.05am yesterday to reports of a domestic incident.

Trigger's bench

The weather's far too nice for intellectual effort so I did this instead:

Daily Mail on top form

Multi-millionaire stockbrocker, 62, bludgeoned his sleeping wife to death on New Year's Day then hanged himself in the barn of their £1.2m farmhouse after she demanded a divorce

Thanks to the EU, scientists could flee Germany in the 1930s.

From The Evening Standard:

We should learn from post-war Britain, when scientists from abroad made this country a research superpower.

The article then lists some examples of famous scientists who fled Germany for England (primarily to Oxford colleges, of course) in the 1930s. You can't blame the author of the article for the by-line - post 1945, scientists went to the USA.

If British universities are to thrive for the next century, as they have done for the last, it is important to learn lessons from history... Of all the things that Brexit will deliver, let us all hope that it does not threaten scholarship, research and teaching. Things do not turn out well when that happens.

My* GCSE results

Art - B
Biology - A
Chemistry - A*
English language - B
English literature - C
German - B
History - B
Maths - A*
Physics - A

That's good enough to stay on and do his chosen A-levels, so it's good enough for me.

* Not literally mine obvs, but I was as nervous as The Lad when I said goodbye to him this morning.

"One in 10 adults owns second home, says think tank"

From the BBC:

At the other end of the scale, four in 10 own no property at all...

Those most likely to own a second home are baby-boomers, currently aged between 52 and 71. They also typically live in the south of England...

"Policy makers should consider what more can be done to ensure that home ownership doesn't become the preserve of the wealthy for generations to come," said Ms Gardiner.

The only thing which will sort this out is land value tax. Or at least a reintroduction of Georgism Lite, but that will take longer to have any effect.

If you're not prepared to support either of those, you might as well stop moaning. Ms Gardiner also makes the mistake of assuming that people own land because they are wealthy, when it is the other way round in most cases.