he only thing that's rationed now that I can think of is certain tax breaks, like the ISA allowance.
And the bike to work scheme!
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
And now? (Not the White Paper thread)
(693 posts)-
Posted 9 years ago #
-
@kaputnik
We can't have a world with people biking to work willy-nilly thirty nine times a day. That would be absurd.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Seems there's no room for dissent in the new look SNP.
---
SNP suspends councillors over burning of Smith commission report
Nicola Sturgeon says Renfrewshire councillors’ ‘unacceptable’ actions fall short of high standards expected by the public
---
Posted 9 years ago # -
---
The three councillors, who include an office manager for the transport minister, Derek Mackay, were filmed setting fire to the report outside their Paisley headquarters, saying: “This is exactly what we think about it. No real powers for Scotland yet again from Westminster. We’ve been lied to yet again. There you go, Gordon Brown. Cheers,” before dropping the report into a bin.
---
(My bold).
Posted 9 years ago # -
Went to see Andy Wightman talk last night at the Common Weal cafe in Leith;
Fantastic speaker - knows his subject inside out and takes a very pragmatic view of the politics involved. Illustrates every point with real world examples to make even moderate blood boil.
Key learning was the extent to which the land of Scotland has become a largely secret, largely untaxed store of enormous wealth for a small group of people and how this has turned our economy from production towards rent exploitation.
The solutions include a public land register and land value taxation. The wiki on that is very good;
Posted 9 years ago # -
LVT has its attractions, but I'd be worried about basing a tax on a notional "value" determined by some committee of panjandrums. Far too open to abuse and mischief.
I also have doubts about imposing a tax where no actual transaction has taken place.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"I also have doubts about imposing a tax where no actual transaction has taken place."
Wightman's precise point was that you don't want to tax economic transactions. You want to encourage them.
What you tax is hoarding. That releases the hoarded wealth from the clasp of the rentiers. LVT encourages people to use land or sell it to someone who can use it.
Posted 9 years ago # -
The idea that land ownership is the root of our structural economic problems seems like fine, entertaining polemical overstatement, particularly if it lets you take a pop at some tweeded toffs, but overstatement nonetheless.
Posted 9 years ago # -
I can see his point but, being a devil, who decides what is "hoarding"?
For example, say I owned a nice large chunk of the Highlands (if only!). I'm happy for it to remain wild and I don't do anything that generates income from it. I'm just happy to have my little piece of heaven. Why should I then be *forced* into an action because someone else thinks they can put that land to better use? If they think so, then they can make me an offer. If it's enough then I'll sell (and pay tax on the transaction) otherwise it's "economic" for me to hold on to the land.
I'll admit that I'm looking to be educated here. I might check out Wightman's site later.
Posted 9 years ago # -
@Stickman and @Instography
I'll be reading his book in full in due course. I hope I haven't traduced his arguments.
Posted 9 years ago # -
@Stickman
Under LVT you can keep your highland estate, but you pay tax based on its unimproved rental value.
That rental value need not be based on its use as a leisure estate.
The system seems no more absurd to me than many of the ones we use now. Nip down to 30 Lothian Road and have a look at all the discrete little brass plates on the left of the main entrance if you want a glimpse into the mad, mad world of our present state funding arrangements.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Hmm. Need to get my head round the idea of taxing something although no economic activity is taking place.
Although the sentence "you can keep your highland estate" does appeal to me greatly. :-)
And I agree about the absurd situation with brass plates and myriad legal entities. To be honest, I'm starting to come round to the view expressed by some that abolishing corporation tax altogether is the best solution. Removes so many distortions, wheezes and dodges while also makes the incidence of tax more transparent on individuals.
Posted 9 years ago # -
@Stickman
Me too. Apart from anything else it hoovers up intellectual talent into game playing rather than production.
You need to be seriously smart to hide land.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"You need to be seriously smart to hide land."
My wife is very smart. I'm hoping smart enough to have hidden somwehere round the house the nicely gift-wrapped Highland estate that's now on my Christmas list. :-)
Posted 9 years ago # -
@Stickman
Last time I had proper flu I was out of it for a couple of days. I developed a fevered belief that Madame IWRATS had secreted Beinn Bhrotain somewhere around the house.
I wasn't a well boy.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Interesting evening reading Andy Wightman's site, then delving further into the pros and cons of LVT in the wilder parts of the web.
My extensive research* has reinforced my longer-standing scepticism of it. Too much imposition on property rights for my liking.
*ok, a few hours of googling. But isn't the point of the internet to give an outlet to
semi-anonymously express semi-informed opinions?Posted 9 years ago # -
@iwrats, did wightman say SCOTLAND became this way more explicitly following enclosure? No recent phenomenon?
Posted 9 years ago # -
@gembo
His speciality is Scottish land, but of course he did mention our pattern of enclosure compared to the English one. It appears that enclosure in Scotland was much better organised, often using a single act of parliament to cover the country where the English used one per common.
He suggested that there have been five successive waves of land grabbing in Scotland.
Posted 9 years ago # -
@Stickman
Interesting. Could you expand your critique and suggest an alternative system?
Posted 9 years ago # -
suggest an alternative system?
Much of my day job involves pointing out problems in other peoples' proposals. I'm good at that; not so much at coming up with alternatives. Also, coming up with practical alternatives isn't what the internet is for ;-)
Posted 9 years ago # -
@Stickman
Ha! I once gave myself the job title 'Glitchfinder General' on an obscure mainframe database. Took them years to spot it. They should have accepted it was my real title rather than hauling me over the coals.
I'd still be interested to know which part of LVT impinges on property rights in an improper way for you.
Posted 9 years ago # -
My issue with LVT is that it fundamentally goes against the idea of property rights (and by "property" I'm not just referring to land.
I should be free to do what I wish with my property, subject to the laws of the land and not interfering with the rights of others.
LVT goes against that, and imposes a charge on me for *not* doing what the state wants me to do with my property (putting land to an alternative use that it considers more productive).
Another issue is that some of the advocates of LVT view it as a way of "putting right" wrongs in the past, eg land grabs. Punishing people today for actions of those in the past doesn't seem very sensible.
Posted 9 years ago # -
If land ownership in Scotland stems from the original sin of the clearances then everything that comes after can only be judged in terms of whether it moves in the direction of righting or entrenching that wrong.
The fact that hundreds of years have passed makes little difference. If I nick your bike, there's no point at which it becomes legitimately mine.
Posted 9 years ago # -
If that bike was nicked two hundred years ago, you and many of your descendants have died, as has the person who stole it and his descendants, and the parts have over the years been stripped, separated and sold on then is punishing the current "owner" going to put right the wrong originally done?
Posted 9 years ago # -
It's like the Elgin marbles - still stolen. Or all that Nazi looted art. Or the damage done to indigenous people's. The passage of time doesn't make it right just harder to make right.
Posted 9 years ago # -
@ Insto all true, but I don't think any version of 'land reform' is planning a year zero option.
I think it's clear that any notion that some businesses should get exceptions 'merely' because they relate to large amounts of land is 'unfair'.
Significant agricultural 'subsidies' for doing nothing don't seem 'fair' to most people - though some will like the way that this keeps small farms going (eg in France...)
Not doing more with land - in a housing or employment sense - could be dealt with by Planning, compulsory purchase etc.
In the 20th C, 'death duties' were such that some big estates were sold off and big houses demolished.
Don't know whether this stopped because that dealt with 'all the dead wood' or it was decided that 'unintended consequences' were too great or that the 'vested interests' got themselves organised.
Issues about 'maximum land ownership' or 'nationality of owners' or 'appropriate developments' might be easier to deal with in independent countries, but they certainly need discussing.
Posted 9 years ago # -
I'm deeply uncomfortable with compulsory purchase statutes, or anything that involves the state allocating/removing property.
While it's usually done under the grounds of "public good", who gets to decide that? How can individuals be protected against abuse of state power?
I acknowledge that hold-out problems can arise, but it shows that the whole issue of land ownership and reform is a minefield. I fear that some of the proposals put forward are more to do with having a pop at "tweeded toffs" as Instography said upthread.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"While it's usually done under the grounds of "public good", who gets to decide that?"
Generally the Planning Committee of the relevant local authority - elected councillors who have a legal responsibility to rule according to laws created by government(s). They usually agree with the recommendations of full-time planning officers.
"How can individuals be protected against abuse of state power?"
That's a different sort of question!
"I fear that some of the proposals put forward are more to do with having a pop at "tweeded toffs" "
No doubt. And that may be seen to be (or actually be) 'prejudice'. It may also be seen as 'interference'.
That's what governments do - for good and bad reasons.
Whether that's drink driving ('that will kill off rural pubs') or minimum wage ('we should be allowed to pay what we like') etc. etc.
Just because things have 'always been' or 'suit some people' doesn't mean that they can't be looked at with a view to change.
Perhaps landowners are an easier target than bankers or multinationals which somehow do most of their 'economic activity' in Luxembourg...
Posted 9 years ago # -
"....or multinationals which somehow do most of their 'economic activity' in Luxembourg..."
...who are just following the laws and regulations set by our elected governments!
Posted 9 years ago # -
"...who are just following the laws and regulations set by our elected governments!"
That's why I said landowners are an easier target.
Land stays in the same place.
Money and its movement is more difficult to legislate for (apparently).
Posted 9 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
