Friday, Feb 13, 2015

First tax cut should be VAT cut outside London

The Planner: Welsh retail decline bucks the trend elsewhere in UK

Clearly, London can sustain 20% VAT (Well, except for marginal shopping areas), but Wales, now that NIRP is coming, should clamour for VAT outside Cardiff to be slashed down to 10%. Eliminate it in those towns where more than half the shops are closed, and reform business rates. We are one but are not the same. As said, negative rates will cause government surplus and tax cuts will be the only way to boost demand and remove deflation.

Posted by libertas @ 02:28 PM (6324 views)
Add Comment
Report Article

18 Comments

1. libertas said...

Oh, and get rid of that blasted toll bridge to Wales. With NIRP, borrowing that funded the bridge can be re-structured and we can pay it all off in one hit or slash payments down to near zero.

Are you starting to understand what the market is telling us about the future of our "economies"?

Friday, February 13, 2015 02:30PM Report Comment
 

2. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.

 

3. libertas said...

Socialists in the Soviet Union and National Socialists in NAZI Germany used such pseudo psychoanalysis to label dissent to their policies as mental illness. They took dissenters to the Gulag and KILLED them.

Does my distaste for central bank intervention, excess taxation and government debt un-nerve you?
Do you hate me for saying that market reactions like NIRP are the solution not the curse?
Do my claims that the Bank of England is defrauding borrowers by lying about intentions to raise rates make you uncomfortable?
Do my assertions that buying a home is more economically rational than renting for most upset you?
Does it make you feel silly when I point out that when renting, you still buy, but just for somebody else, that this is one market you cannot avoid participation in unless you live under a bridge?

I myself see the clinging on to failed economic policy as more of a perversity than the expression of alternative points of view. Similarly, I find it perverse to see a poster like you sling baseless accusations around with zero attempt to debate these points of view.

Friday, February 13, 2015 02:52PM Report Comment
 

4. mister ed said...

Well, it was tongue in cheek, Libby, but obviously you take things very seriously.

But let’s look at your points in turn.

“Socialists in the Soviet Union and National Socialists in NAZI Germany used such pseudo psychoanalysis to label dissent to their policies as mental illness. They took dissenters to the Gulag and KILLED them.”

As far as I know, no-one on this forum is advocating a dictatorship.

All I will say is that I do find some of your behaviour odd. The postings about toll bridges on a site dedicated to housing matters apart, there is the matter of you making repeated assertions that you are stopping posting on this site, only to then just days later make multiple postings of news items, followed by rambling personal postings.

“Does my distaste for central bank intervention, excess taxation and government debt un-nerve you?”

Not at all. In general I believe in capitalism, free markets and individual responsibility. But just as acknowledging the small but essential role that government plays in advanced capitalist economies does not mean a love for the Soviet Union, neither does criticism of over-regulation mean going in the opposite direction. A sense of perspective is always a good thing, and absolutism always fails at some point.

“Do you hate me for saying that market reactions like NIRP are the solution not the curse?”

Hate you? I don't even know you. As for market reactions being a “solution” (whatever that may be), this is essentially an a priori assertion with no empirical evidence to back it up. You’re entitled to your opinion, of course. But don’t expect people to believe you just because you make the same assertion multiple times.


“Do my claims that the Bank of England is defrauding borrowers by lying about intentions to raise rates make you uncomfortable?”

Not at all. There is no way I can know if the BOE is lying or not. They’ll raise rates when they feel it is necessary.

“Do my assertions that buying a home is more economically rational than renting for most upset you?”

Again, not at all. Buying a house is perfectly economically rational under normal market conditions. Whether it’s an economically rational thing to do under very abnormal market conditions, with house prices greatly overvalued in terms of average wages, the economy limping along and house prices falling in many areas is quite another matter. But you make your choice, and you live with it.

And let’s not forget that not all decisions are “economic”. For many people, important things include their children’s schooling, the environment they live in, and all sorts of stuff. For instance, in my case I rent in an area which has enabled my children to get places in two of the best schools in the UK — state schools which are better than many private schools. To get such a great standard of education would cost me at least £40K a year in school fees, so in my case renting is a bargain, especially since I can live in a lovely area for £1,000/month without having to spend £600K on buying a house.

“Does it make you feel silly when I point out that when renting, you still buy, but just for somebody else, that this is one market you cannot avoid participation in unless you live under a bridge?”

You don’t make me feel silly at all — see previous point about the great deal I get as a renter. With the savings I have and my very decent income, I probably could buy a house if I wanted to, but given there are houses in my area that have been on sale since last summer, and that prices are falling, I really can’t see any rush.

As for being unable to participate in the housing market without living under a bridge, I am very able to not participate, and I don’t live under a bridge. Once my kids leave school I might buy somewhere for cash, or I might move abroad and rent a nice place in the sun. We’ll have to see.

You also seem to be labouring under the assumption that most people don’t buy a house because they choose not to. Most people don’t buy because they can’t afford to. And as the population of ageing renters increases, more people will be unable to afford the rent. And these people will probably have children who also can’t afford to buy. What then? Well, it’s either serious government action to solve the housing crisis or possibly serious social disturbance.

“I myself see the clinging on to failed economic policy as more of a perversity than the expression of alternative points of view.”

What economic policy is that? The only economic policy I see in the UK at the moment is keep house prices as high as possible to give a false sense of prosperity. I can’t see any policies to genuinely stimulate the economy. The UK is bankrupt.

“Similarly, I find it perverse to see a poster like you sling baseless accusations around with zero attempt to debate these points of view.”

Many people have tried to debate these things with you. However it seems that when you’re asked for empirical evidence to back up your claims, or even the reasoning behind them, you tend to either not answer or come out with more wild speculations. Alternatively you just start a different thread where you post more of the same stuff.

Friday, February 13, 2015 06:45PM Report Comment
 

5. reticent said...

Well said, mister ed.

Saturday, February 14, 2015 07:57AM Report Comment
 

6. libertas said...

You want imperial evidence? You say I do not provide any?

How about Carney about turning on interest rate hikes, saying with a forked tongue that deflation is upon us and rates will be cut.

How about me saying that taxes need to be cut to stimulate demand, and that negative rates on UK debt will facilitate that, citing real examples of a failed policy of excess taxation in relative marginal parts of the economy such as Wales that cannot sustain London levels of tax. I do not need to explain how negative rates create government surplus given the quantity of government spending presently servicing the national debt.

If you are blind to the imperial evidence I provide, maybe you need to visit Specsavers?

Saturday, February 14, 2015 11:05AM Report Comment
 

7. libertas said...

You will start seeing more stories like this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/11411491/Cut-alcohol-duty-demands-English-sparkling-wine-boss.html

Cut alcohol duty, grow 12,000 jobs in the UK wine industry. And its true. NIRP will make this inevitable. What else can government do to stimulate demand? How can they justify not cutting taxes when they have surplus?

I am looking forward to a virtuous cycle here.

Saturday, February 14, 2015 11:46AM Report Comment
 

8. libertas said...

Plus, once they cut those taxes, get the 12,000 new jobs, overall tax receipts will rise, and social security bills will plummet. Thus amplifying the surplus and future demands for tax cuts. Until the economy is on its feet enough for rates to start rising again.

Saturday, February 14, 2015 11:47AM Report Comment
 

9. mister ed said...

@6

Er, it's "empirical".

And what you've just provided above is not empirical evidence. It's speculation and opinion.

Those situations you predict may come to pass, they may not. The outcome will be based upon hundreds of factors that you nor anyone else can reasonably foresee.

All that we know at the moment is that the UK is bankrupt, and things are not looking rosy from either an economic or social point of view.

Saturday, February 14, 2015 11:48AM Report Comment
 

10. quiet guy said...

"And what you've just provided above is not empirical evidence. It's speculation and opinion."

Seconded. You have made some valid and interesting points about central bank interest rates but so many of your posts are just ideologically driven posturing. Also, the tone of your posts - gloating about how well you are doing - isn't very appetising either.

I was also a bit taken aback by the assertion that "the Bank of England is defrauding borrowers." Broadly, speaking our central bank has done everything in its power to assist borrowers - to the point that we are in danger of raising a generation of borrowers that think of ZIRP/NIRP as normal.

Saturday, February 14, 2015 02:21PM Report Comment
 

11. libertas said...

Quiet Guy. BOE TOTALLY defrauded. They gave forward guidance that rates would rise at the same time as funding people to get in fixed rate mortgages. Since that time, deposit requirements have fallen and rates have plummeted on the open market. Help to buy front ran future affordability requirements and these suckers not only are servicing overly expensive mortgages but the State has undue ownership of their properties.

BOE should have been honest and said that they do not know which way rates are going. They should say something like "If inflation does this, rates may do that" but not say "Rates will rise" because frankly, they are not in control of global capital flows and must react. If defrauding is a strong term, they were at least negligent of the duty of care and wildly inaccurate in giving said forward advice.

Sunday, February 15, 2015 06:29PM Report Comment
 

12. debtserf said...

Caveat Emptor.

Sunday, February 15, 2015 10:10PM Report Comment
 

13. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.

 

14. mark said...

I simply cannot understand why VAT has to be so high, where is all the money vanishing to ?

Cannot drive more than 200 yards without hitting a substantial pothole

Litter all over place

road drains flooding

hidden road signs (either dirt or bushes covering them)

broken street signs

pathways falling to bits

road humps crumbling into potholes

social help declining

local amenities closing down

local police station open 9-5 (5 days a week) just in case you get murdered during those hours as criminals do not work outside office hours

grass verges not cut

bins barely emptied

recycling being dumped into landfill

rates are far too high

street lamps out and not being replaced

infrastructure collapsing

council chiefs earning over 150k and driving sports cars

this list is just the tip of a corrupt iceberg in the UK, the public are being screwed at every angle and being taxed to within an inch of killing the golden goose


VAT should be brought down to 10% and put on every item, it makes it simpler, fairer

car tax should only be on petrol then it is fair

wagon freight should be moved onto trains when entering the UK rather than foreign hauliers not paying any taxes nor needing any fuel and driving on roads increasing wear and tear damage

not sure what any UK government is actually doing other than holidaying on our money

Tuesday, February 17, 2015 10:27AM Report Comment
 

15. libertas said...

Mark, finally somebody talking my language.

To answer your question, where is it going. Look at the trillions spent on wars and banker bailouts. Also, a NHS where there is no obligation to prove citizenship when we know that probably 10% of Londoners are undocumented. I think this is an EU policy. The EU does not want Britons to be provided for by the British Government, for then we affiliate ourselves with it.

A major element is interest on the national debt, which if rates go negative, we start to see a stealth default on steroids where not only do we default on the debt but we get paid for defaulting.

But this is something that has happened for generations. How is it that Britannia once ruled the waves, and yet most people lived in poverty during those days. They always syphon off the cash and then anything the let us have is bled out via taxes and inflation. They use scientific formulas, this is how feudalism was run, where people get just enough to get by, only just, but not enough to be independent or to start to revolt.

When folk get a but uppety or have enough time on their hands to start pondering the meaning of life and the value of the bureaucracy above them, they slap on a bit more to the cost of living. Read 1984, it explains this in detail. It is less about stealing wealth but destroying it, because, to paraphrase Orwell, a satisfied populace with ample leisure time, food and wealth would sooner or later question the value of the hierarchy above them and seek to shake free from it. Indeed, that is what the upper and upper middle classes are obsessed with. They spend most of their time and energy employing lawyers and accountants to find ways to absolve them of their obligations to the bureaucracy. The government knows this, tolerate an element of it in the chattering classes, but are petrified of dissent becoming widespread.

Tuesday, February 17, 2015 06:57PM Report Comment
 

16. libertas said...

Orwell discussed that the purpose of war was to destroy wealth, for the reasons I state above. The unwashed masses believe that war is to steal wealth. No, if you read history and exchanges between despots of old, when there was an uprising they would write to their cousins who ran "foreign" countries. They would say "cousin, the masses are rebelling. We must have a war with you to occupy them. Do you have similar folk you want to be cannon fodder?"

Tuesday, February 17, 2015 06:59PM Report Comment
 

17. libertas said...

Reality is that this world is awash with abundance, if only we could recognise it and unify against the psychopaths who destroy it to get ahead and the sociopath enforcers who support them as they clamber over our bodies to climb the ladder.

Tuesday, February 17, 2015 07:02PM Report Comment
 

18. mister ed said...

@17

"Reality is that this world is awash with abundance, if only we could recognise it and unify against the psychopaths who destroy it to get ahead and the sociopath enforcers who support them as they clamber over our bodies to climb the ladder." -- Libertas, HPC Post

"This attitude of churlish indifference seems like nerdish deference contrasted with the belligerent antipathy of the indigenous farm folk, who regard the hippie-dippie interlopers, the denizens of the shimmering tit temples, as one fey step away from transvestites." -- Russell Brand, Revolution

I think the similarities of style are anything but accidental.

Could Libertas and Brand be one and the same?

Thinking about it, has anyone ever seen Libertas and Russell Brand in the same room at the same time?

Q.E.D. my dear fellows.

Friday, February 20, 2015 04:39PM Report Comment
 

Add comment

  • If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
  • If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
  • Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
  • Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
  • Please adhere to the Guidelines
Username  
Admin Password
Email Address
Comments

Main Blog | Archive | Add Article | Blog Policies