A genuine invitation to take part in the fake news...

This turned up on my Facebook feed for a dance class I attend.  I've blanked a few things out to protect the innocent.  Does 'recreating' a dance class count as 'fake news'?  Should I attend?

Design Your Own Budget (Spending)

Here are my spending plans:

Core functions of state (defence, law and order, legal system, fire brigade, refuse collection, road maintenance etc) = £75 billion
Debt repayments and paying off existing public sector pensions = £50 billion
Citizen's Income scheme, plus a bit extra for disability (from here) = £250 billion
Education vouchers: £3,000 per year for school age children = £30 billion
Health vouchers to cover bare minimum medical costs/private medical insurance = £60 billion

Total = £465 billion.

For the Faux Libertarians, anything more than £75 billion is "too high" of course, but it's a lot less than the current government's spending plans of £669 billion, of which about £150 billion is deficit spending. The point is that 'the state' (that's all of us by the way, not just 'the government') does generate a surplus or a profit. It's just a question of whether we allow that surplus to be collected privately by landowners or whether we spend it on stuff that benefits all of us.

The last two items may seem a tad stingy, as the total current budget for those two areas is £205 billion. A large part of the cost pointless bureaucracy of course, but in my tax proposals, I am leaving local councils another £100 billion of wiggle room. If people really want more to be spent on schools and hospitals, then local councils will be able to do so.

Hmmmm, what can George cut?

Isn't it great that George wants us to join the government of Britain and help him tackle the deficit? In this new spirit of all being in this together, I thought I might highlight a few little known 'essential public services' over the coming weeks that are hanging ripe!

Proposed cut number 1 - The 'Food Vision' Food Mapping Toolkit. Seriously I'm not joking folks, the following is taken word for word from their website!

What is Food Mapping?

Food mapping has been defined as the process of finding out where people can buy and eat food...

Why carry out food mapping?

Food mapping is an opportunity for policy makers at local and national levels to work with others to develop an evidence base for assessing need, developing action plans and monitoring progress. In doing so, food mapping could help bring about positive change and effectively tackle the interlinking barriers to healthy food access. Food mapping can help inform an appropriate, joined-up and supportive policy framework for improving food access over time.

Benefits?

Gather evidence which can be used in grant applications to secure funding for food projects.

Drawbacks?

Food mapping can be time-consuming and expensive and so it is important that it is properly resourced and that you have enough staff...

The FT highlights a bit of Indian Bicycle Marketing...

From today's FT editorial:

This week, Andrew Lansley, the Conservative party’s health spokesman, broke a political taboo; he said something relevant about the coming fiscal crunch. He explained that the Tories intend to protect the NHS and aid budgets in 2011-14, but, to pay for this commitment, will require 10 per cent cuts in other departments’ budgets. Mr Lansley’s analysis was cogent. The response was not.

Gordon Brown, still the UK prime minister, reacted with metronomic predictability. He robotically repeated his tiredest line of attack: "This is the day when they showed that the choice is between investment under Labour and massive cuts under the Conservative party."

This assault is dishonest.

Mr Lansley’s arithmetic was based on the assumption that both parties would spend the same amount in total. If the Tories are planning any "cuts", it is only because they are copying the government’s fiscal plans. Once inflation, debt service and unemployment spending is stripped out, Mr Brown intends a 7 per cent fall in real spending over the period.

Indeed, Andy Burnham, the Tiggerish new health secretary, suggested that NHS spending would also be shielded by a Labour government, implying that the two parties are actually proposing exactly the same spending plans.

Rather than highlighting real differences, the government is trying to draw dividing lines between the parties by exploiting the ambiguity in its own fiscal proposals. The prime minister fought for years to establish Labour as the party of fiscal discipline while he spent furiously. Now Mr Brown is frantically pretending to be profligate, when, in truth, he has been stuck with prudence.

So there we have it, Nulabour, Blulabour in a nutshell. It's all about presentation - the substance is the same.

The 50% tax rate - a stroke of genius, actually

Having read several newspapers and watched a couple of hours of telly since yesterday's Budget, the two aspects that got the bulk of the coverage - in roughly equal measures - were the 50% tax rate and the plans to double overall government borrowing over the next few years.

The 50% tax rate is a stupid jealousy surcharge that won't raise much money (if at all) but a minor niggle in the grander scheme of things (seeing as there are loads of people in the UK with an overall marginal tax rate in excess of 50% anyway), the really important and/or terrifying bit is the planned government borrowing.

Maybe, just maybe, the 50% tax rate will in fact increase tax revenues by a couple of billion a year, WTF has that got to do with the planned borrowing of £700 billion? There's just no comparison is there? That's an average borrowing of £20,000 per taxpayer that's all going to have to be paid back in future (or eroded by inflation).

"New car tax rates for 2009"

Great! Let's have some jealousy surcharges that will achieve absolutely nothing as follows:

1) If you already own a 'gas guzzler', and decide you don't want to pay the higher charge, you can always sell the car. But the second hand value will be depressed by the fact that the purchaser assumes the liability for the higher rates. So you have already lost your money, and you might as well stick with it.

2) Second hand values are now falling faster than normal because consumers are tightening their belts a bit, so no doubt the price of new cars will fall slightly as well to maintain the equilibrium. As to 'gas guzzlers', if the list price is £30,000 now, then once the new rates come in, the showroom will have to drop the price by about £770 to compensate the purchaser for the additional VED in the first five years or so.

Finally, once a car is on the road, the actual cost of petrol is only a fraction of the overall running costs, so having decided to stick with your old car (scenario 1) or bought a new car for slightly less (scenario 2) you might as well continue whizzing round in it.

Disclaimer - I do not own a car and don't believe in all this 'man-made-climate-change' nonsense, it's the middle of March and it's still bloody freezing!

Caveat - the fact that this tax will raise money without changing people's behaviour is, I suppose, A Good Thing (a bit like Land Value Tax), but they are still hypocrites of the highest ordure.