As we drift towards the tricentennial instalment, let's just look at this nonsense idea that "Taxation of the rental value of land is state appropriation of private property! So landowners deserve compensation!".
There's a long list of reasons why this is nonsense, and here are the main ones:
1. If the government had to compensate people for the amount of tax they pay, then it would never raise a penny. If you pay £10,000 income tax a year, the government would have to send you a refund of £10,000, which seems pretty pointless. Why is the situation with taxes on the annual rental value of land any different? It would also make a mockery of the whole thing, it would be like compensating criminals for loss of immoral earnings while in prison.
2. All occupier of land are getting compensation because they are enjoying/consuming rental value of land worth at least as much as the tax. If they think that the tax is too high, that just means that somebody else is prepared to pay more than them and they can move elsewhere (just like tenants do). If your local library stops providing books for free and starts charging £1 for each book you take out, well either use the library and pay or don't. That's your choice.
3. LVT is in itself the compensation that a land owner has to pay "everybody else" for the state-protected right to exclude them and hence place a burden on them. A bit like the "polluter pays" principle.
4. Similarly, every land owner is also being excluded from all the bits of land he doesn't own, so is entitled to his share of the tax paid by all the other land owners. That's your compensation. Whether the LVT pot is spent on core functions of the state, "free" public services, earmarked vouchers, flat rate exemptions or a straight Citizen's Pension/Dividend in cash is a separate debate.
5. Proper LVT'ers are as united in their loathing of taxes on output, earnings and profits as they are united in favour of taxes on land (and other government protected monopolies or cartels). So another way in which people will be compensated is that for every £1 LVT they pay, their other taxes go down by £1.
6. For sure, older homeowners will see the unearned paper capital gains they have accumulated over the years disappear, but was that a real gain anyway? The good news is that their children's and grandchildren's gain (much smaller purchase mortgage) will more than make up for this; overall, the family is richer because their total mortgage interest bill will be a fraction of what it is now.
7. There are some freebies as well: with taxes on productive activity reduced or phased out, the economy can grow by at least ten percent. LVT encourages more efficient ways of doing things, adding another five per cent (dampens boom busts etc). Instead of that extra value going via higher rents/interest into landlords' and bankers' pockets, LVT will constantly recycle this extra wealth (as well as the five or ten per cent of GDP which already goes into landlords' and bankers' pockets) back into the economy (at its simplest, via the Citizen's Dividend), so even lower earners and pensioners will benefit.
8. In practical terms, all these old people who wail about having "bought their houses out of taxed income" effectively got their houses for free; they paid off a tuppence ha'penny mortgage donkey's years ago and have lived rent free for decades. Recent purchasers only paid small deposits, and it is only that small deposit which was paid out of taxed income; and these recent purchasers will be able to pay off their mortgages twice as quickly (even in the absence of a radical debt jubilee) because the LVT they pay in future will be only half what their current tax bill is (basic maths).
9. The only people deserving in any way of compensation are recent first time buyers who were tricked into taking out large mortgages in the last ten years. As it happens, those recent purchasers, with very low house price-to-income multiples will be paying at least £10,000 a year less tax in future, so it would not take them long to get back out of negative equity and only half as long to pay off the rest of the mortgage. But in crude political terms, it seems fair enough to write down their outstanding mortgages to the new, lower selling price of their homes, and the banks will just have to accept a ten or twenty per cent reduction in the value of their residential mortgage assets. The maths of this is tortuous, but take it from me, it can be done without the world coming to an end.
10. I'm sure there are plenty more items which belong on this list, I'll add to it as we go along.
Thursday, 10 January 2013
Killer Arguments Against LVT, Not (298)
Posted by
Mark Wadsworth
at
09:06
40
comments
Wednesday, 9 January 2013
First they came for the unemployed....
... and I didn't speak out, despite being unemployed and unemployable and living off taxpayer funded benefits myself.
In fact, I enjoyed the moral high ground while it lasted, gleefully joining in the witch hunt and kicking those further down the heap, because I was over 65 (or 60 if a woman).
Oops.
Posted by
Mark Wadsworth
at
20:37
6
comments
Labels: Iain Duncan Smith, Pensioners, Welfare reform
The wrong end of the wrong stick
From Marie Claire:
Just over 250,000 people took part in the US study, which looked at people's consumption of soft drinks, tea and coffee. Ten years later 11,311 participants aged between 50 and 71 at the start of the study were diagnosed with depression.
Researchers have said downing four cans a day raised the risk of depression by 30 per cent, with diet versions presenting the biggest problems. In comparison, drinking four cups of coffee a day makes you 10 per cent less likely to develop mental illness...
OK, these findings might be correct or not; statistically significant or not; and they say nothing about cause and effect, but hey.
Emer O’Neill, from the Depression Alliance*, said: "We’re really pleased to see that research continues to be done in order to raise awareness. Diet has a huge impact on mood and fizzy drinks, alcohol, caffeine can have a negative impact on a person’s health when consumed excessively."
Well duh.
"Excessively" means that something has a negative impact, so that's meaningless, but the survey does not mention alcohol and actually says that people who drink four cups of coffee a day are less likely to develop mental illness. Not more. Less.
* Interestingly, less than half the DA's income appears to be from the Dept of Health or NHS trusts, and they have genuine members (although it's not clear how many of their members are Big Pharma), so are they a fakecharity or not?
The DA also gets £50,000 a year from The Tudor Trust, which has £250 million of investments and splashes the cash on various righteous causes. The joke is that this trust was set up by an early owner of "the construction company George Wimpey Ltd" so it's a conscience-salving exercise as much as anything.
Posted by
Mark Wadsworth
at
14:55
4
comments
Labels: Alcohol, Coffee, Mental illness, Taylor Wimpey
Short List
Famous heroin addicts who were fat.
I can think of two (one old Nazi and a current pop star. Not that he's ever had any hits or anything, but he's in the papers a lot).
Posted by
Mark Wadsworth
at
07:45
16
comments
Tuesday, 8 January 2013
For some reason, this houmous label reminds me of that famous scene in Charlie Chaplin's "Gold Rush"
Posted by
Mark Wadsworth
at
20:08
1 comments
Mummy says: "Family is being held to ransom over Santa dispute"
From the BBC:
The family is being "held to ransom by little Billy" due to the dispute over the non-appearance of Santa in the shopping centre in January, Mummy has said.
Mummy called for an end to all public tantrums following revelations that Santa will not appear again for another eleven months - and that includes quiet sulking - following a fifth minute of whining in the shopping centre.
It's not fair
Little Billy spat out his dummy, kicked his sister Siobhan on the shin and shouted at Mummy in the food court. Daddy threatened to take everybody straight home in response.
Bending down to pram level and speaking firmly, Mummy said: "It's not acceptable that those who say they want to see Santa again - in January - are actually doing it by showing us all up in public and ruining our little family outing. It's disgraceful, frankly."
I hate you
Mummy described the continuing bad behaviour as "profoundly depressing" and said she was "fully supportive of the great efforts which Daddy is taking to crack down robustly on those who continue to behave like a spoiled brat". She called for Billy to "come off it" in order to allow her to pop into Clark's to see if she can find some new school shoes for Siobhan.
"We will not be able to get a solution while the family is being held to ransom," she said.
I wish I'd never been born
Three family members have been kicked or shouted at and eight passers-by were on the point of saying something, bringing the total number of mildly irrirated adults since the Santa protests began to 104.
Billy has been told off for threatening to get out of the pram and is due to be sent to the naughty step as soon as the family gets home. Siobhan has so far resisted the temptation to ask when the Easter Bunny will be coming.
Posted by
Mark Wadsworth
at
16:23
5
comments
Labels: Children, Northern Ireland, Theresa Villiers
Maths puzzle: Gender based seating preferences on Tube trains.
As I was about to get off the Tube this morning, I noticed that there were six women on the row of six seats opposite me and five men and one woman on the row on which I was sitting. None of the people concerned appeared to be travelling together, it was twelve individuals.
I see this quite often, and I wonder to myself, is this because women have a preference for sitting next to other women rather than next to men (perfectly understandable, women use less space etc) or is this purely a random thing? (Let's ignore the possibility that men prefer sitting next to other men, because this is merely the equal and opposite).
Now, if we have a fixed pool of five men and seven women, and they sit down at random, we can calculate the probability of there being six women on one row*, it is 16.3% (Method A).
But this is a meaningless calculation because there is no fixed and limited pool: hundreds of people will get on and off each Tube train in a forty-minute journey. Just because the last passenger to sit down was a women does not materially affect the odds of the next passenger being a man or a woman (like tossing coins rather than pulling coloured balls out of a hat).
So the other way of calculating the odds of having six women in a row is 0.5^5 = 3.125% (Method B).
COUNTERPOINT: as Kj in the comments says "The objections to Method A are correct, but then again, if there is a 0.5 chance of every passenger being either sex, on average the pool of potential sitters is also roughly 50/50".
I definitely see this phenomenon (all women on one row, all men on the opposite row) quite often, certainly about once a week (ten journeys) and more often than once or twice a month (forty journeys).
There again, I only really notice it if there is a clear pattern, which might only exist for part of the journey. I'll have to start running a tally, but my question(s) to the great minds reading this is:
Which is the better way of calculating the odds of six women (each travelling alone) ending up sitting next to each other on a six-seat row? Method A or Method B, or is there an even better way, Method C, and if so, what is Method C?
Supplementary question: if you knew how often this "all women" pattern emerged, would you be able to work out the marginal preference of women for sitting next to women?
* There are 7 permutations of having 6 women on one side and one on the other, 21 permutations of 5 and 2; and 15 permutations of 4+3 = 43. 6/43 = 16%.
Posted by
Mark Wadsworth
at
12:45
27
comments
Labels: Maths, Probability, Public transport
Monday, 7 January 2013
Fun Online Polls: New Year's Honours & FirstBuy
The results to last week's Fun Online Poll were as follows:
Who would have been on your New Year's Honours list? Multiple selections allowed.
None of the [below] - 89 votes
Prof Peter Higgs - 58 votes
Kate Bush - 26 votes
Quentin Blake - 22 votes
Ewan McGregor - 12 votes
Seb Coe - 9 votes
Martha Lane Fox - 4 votes
Arlene Phillips - 4 votes
Bernard Hogan-Howe 2 votes
Cherie Blair - 2 votes
Tracey Emin - 2 votes
Stella McCartney - 2 votes
Hector Sants - 1 vote
Margaret Beckett - 1 vote
There was a good turnout, with 161 people taking part (big thanks as ever). More than half voted "None of the above" so if we are doing this by simple majority, then nobody would have been on the List.
Taking a more relaxed view, Higgs, Bush and Blake definitely deserve an "honourable" mention (if you don't know who Quentin Blake is, or if you do know and you don't love his scribbles, then shame on you).
--------------------------
And lo, Cleggeron have re-announced the FirstBuy scheme for the umpteenth time (the previous Labour government had already announced and re-announced it half a dozen times in their last couple of years):
* The government is to guarantee up to £10 billion to support increased building of both new affordable homes and homes for private rent.
* The FirstBuy equity loan scheme will also be extended to help first-time buyers get a foot on the housing ladder.
* However, developers are to be freed to ignore 'unviable' council targets for affordable homes.
* Further planning reforms will accelerate major housing projects.
For whose benefit is all this?
Vote here or use the widget in the sidebar.
Posted by
Mark Wadsworth
at
19:15
0
comments
Labels: David Cameron MP, FOP, Home-Owner-Ism, Nick Clegg, Seb Coe
"Ecuadorian President Warns of Possible ‘Cow Attack’ Before Elections"
From Before It's News:
Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa has said that cattle may try to kill him prior to upcoming elections. Citing reports of a plot to “destabilize the region,” Correa said the threats were “credible,” given the history of bovine involvement in Latin America.
Correa alluded to reports by Chilean journalist Patricio Mery Bell, who allegedly passed on information to the Ecuadorian government that President Correa’s life was "under threat" by renegade Texas Longhorn.
"There are many cases of [ruminants] interfering" in Latin American affairs, Correa said during a campaign tour in the coastal province of Guayas. "These are credible [reports] because this has happened before in Latin America. Salvador Allende - gored to death in the Santiago Bull Run. Hugo Chavez - dying of Mad Cow Disease. Che Guevara - trampled by Bolivian alpacas. Or possibly llamas, apparently they're the same species, just two different names. The Falkands War - all about control of the South Atlantic dairy industry...
Posted by
Mark Wadsworth
at
16:55
3
comments
Labels: CIA, Conspiracy, Cows, Hugo Chavez, Mad Cow Diseases
"Rabid bobcat attacks Massachusetts man"
From The Daily Mail:
A man in Massachusetts says all he heard was a hiss before a bobcat pounced on him in his own garage, sinking its teeth into his face and its claws in his back... It then ran out of the garage and bit Mundell's 15-year-old nephew on the arms and back. Mundell and his wife pinned the cat to the ground and shot it dead.
All very unpleasant. At least cows don't have rabies!
UPDATE: Actually they do.
Posted by
Mark Wadsworth
at
15:28
5
comments
Labels: Animals
