Yesterday I was out and about and spotted multiple front cover display of the latest Economist, with a headline which went: The flat-tax revolution.
I liked this, and took a photo of it, but it came out blurry, and before I could take a decent number to make blurriness less likely I was chased away by a security guard mumbling about copyright, etc. So here is the Economist version:
Final paragraph of the story:
It is true that the flat-tax revolutionaries of central and eastern Europe are more inclined to radicalism than their politically maturer neighbours to the west and across the Atlantic. Mobilising support for sensible change is far harder in those more advanced places – but not impossible. In tax reform, as 1986 showed, the radical programme can suddenly look easier to implement than the timid package of piecemeal changes. Now and then, the bigger the idea, and the simpler the idea, the easier it is to roll over the opposition. The flat-tax idea is big enough and simple enough to be worth taking seriously.
Portillo was wittering on yet again, on the telly last night, about how the Conservatives had to go for the “middle ground”, and electorally speaking that may well now be true, if getting votes for whatever will get votes is all that you care about. Accordingly, I look forward to the time when a flat tax is middle of the road, and when flattening the damn tax into the road so that there is nothing left of it is the “extremism” that Portillo et al will then be warning us all against.
Dammit Brian, have you had your camera surgically implanted into your hand?
It will be a long uphill struggle on this side of the pond. Flat taxers try to ignore the elephant in the corner. That Elephant is the simple fact that the Tax sysytem has very little to do with Taxes. In America, the Tax system is a means of social control and a revenue source for politicians and business. Any income it produces for the Government is incidental. That is why we have Deficit spending without limits.
The Socialists in the USA have problems winning elections. They have two fingers left on the levers of power. One is the Judiciary, the other is tax policy (deductions) for social engineering. The Judiciary is under serious assault.
The Conservatives see tax policy as the ‘horn of plenty’. Corporate welfare is alive and thriving in the good ‘ol USA. When you throw the politicians making a killing into the mix, you have an unholy trinity that will put aside ALL other diferences to defend their rice bowls.
A Flat Tax will only work if there are no deductions. Throwing a flat tax in on top of the current system will just add more zeros to the bag limit on the current license to steal.
“There are two things that are important in politics.
The first is money and I can’t remember what the second one is.”
— Ohio political boss and U.S. Senator Mark Hanna, 1895
The Socialists in the USA have problems winning elections.
Could have fooled me, they went 538-0 in November.
– Josh
Wild Pegasus, that should be 537-1 (Ron Paul).
Mark Stein’s article in today’s Daily Telegraph is relevant to what you have written here.
One only moves public opinion by arguing for the truth, if one allows the left to go unopposed in argument one can not complain when they win elections (to Mr P. – if one accepts social democracy, why should people not vote for social democrats rather than members of the Conservative party?)
Also the present system of ever higher government spending and taxes and ever more regulations can not go for ever – sooner of later it must fall, for the laws of economics do exist and can not be repealed by Parliament.
When the present system runs into serious trouble people will look for those who presented arguments against it and presented plans for reform.
If the Conservative party does not present such arguments it is not a question of not winning the next election, it is a matter of never winning an election.
Where do you go shopping, Brian? Where I live, security guards are beefy thugs of the reformed felon variety, and are not strong on guarding against copyright infringement.
Of course, this isn’t a flat tax, it is a flat rate tax…
“When the present system runs into serious trouble people will look for those who presented arguments against it and presented plans for reform.”
Would that this were true. Unfortunately they’ll do what they always do, which is move over to the other party. And when they mess things up, they’ll move back again. I have some hope that the LibDems can interrupt this, if only to provide some variety.
I’m not a big fan of flat rate taxes, though if they’re part of the big bang that helps get rid of deductions then I’ll take them – only one deduction is valid, and that’s the X units of local currency per person in your family that it costs to keep them alive. IMHO, of course.
I too saw Portillo on TV last night and was not impressed; I’m glad he’s leaving Parliament, I think he’s tired and past it.
It’s obvious that the Conservatives will not win this election. It’s been obvious for ages. I wonder if Michael Howard ever wonders why his colleagues knifed IDS in the back and replaced him with a man 10 years older?
The only hope for the Conservatives is to regroup after the election and ditch the NuLabor Lite routine.
I predict that the wheels will fall off NuLab in the next Parliament. Brown is already scrabbling around for cash to pay for his colossal expansion of state spending. I feel sure he will have to raise taxes, and he’s kidding himself if he thinks the voters won’t notice a rise in National Insurance. I think an economic recession is on the cards, and then he will lose his reputation for prudence, and with it NuLab’s main selling point. It will be at that time that el Phonio Maximo will decide to hand Gordie the poisoned chalice before nipping off to become a Euro Nabob.
As long as the economy seems to be doing well NuLab will do well. Brown has had the luck of the devil so far, but I give it another two years at most. The Conservatives must be ready to step in with an exciting and positive alternative to NuLabor statism when that happens.
The only thing I can say for sure is that Michael Howard will not be the leader of the party when that happens.
John K writes:
“I too saw Portillo on TV last night and was not impressed; I’m glad he’s leaving Parliament, I think he’s tired and past it.”
I think he’s unstable. How he can square his hardman “SAS!” act with his subsequent squishy arty-liberal views is cause enough for doubt.
“Brown has had the luck of the devil so far, but I give it another two years at most.”
Brown has, indeed, had a great deal of luck. The extent to which the chancellor of any country can today do more than marginally influence his exchequer is open to doubt. Brown’s fortunes were artificially boosted by a post-Tory rocket, an inevitable (relative) decline in Europe and, above all, the proliferation of inflation-busting Chinese goods.
That latter bird is about to come home to roost as inflation hits China and energy prices soar to match its insatiable demand. Then there is the long-forgotten spectre of an inevitable balance of payments crisis. Couple these with Brown’s socialist spending policies finally imploding and John K’s vision of Bliar leaving his old chum to pick up the pieces becomes, I suspect, a pretty accurate view of what lies in store for us.
The question is, can the libertarian Right (assuming that isn’t an oxymoron) re-group in time?
There is no sign that the Conservative Party is even remotely aware of this challenge – so to whom does the chalice pass?
I actually don’t think that Portillo is tired. It’s more that he deliberately cultivates a quiet, courteous, even deferential manner towards his opponents, which looks tired, if you prefer your politicians more vehement, confident and unapologetic.
For what it is worth, I agree with him, stylistically. Compared to him, most other Conservatives come over as wet blankets from the planet Tharg. Weired, weak, sad. I just wish Portillo used his superior style to say things I agreed with, instead of copying his opponents about policy also, which (I agree with Paul Marks) simply amounts to campaigning for them. The Conservatives have no need to surrender on policy. They just need to come over as less freakish.
Brown reminds me of Anthony Eden, who spent year after year in Churchill’s shadow, but then cocked it all up when he finally got the job. I don’t believe Brown is especially well liked by the voters, and I certainly don’t think he will be liked when his taxing and spending finally falls to bits. He seems to me to be an unreconstructed Old Labour dirigiste, who would, if given his head, very soon crash and burn.
But, Brown might, as Prime Minister, surprise me. He might turn right round and sort out the mess he has inherited from himself. That would be a surprise, though.
I find John K’s scenario for the immediate future convincing, except that Michael Howard might hang on. He won’t do well in the coming election, but he might do just well enough to stick around, given that no one else would be any better.
As for the camera thing, they’ve become quite small in recent years, and you can fit them in your pocket. You don’t need a tripod, or a blanket, or a big silver box on a stick filled with high explosive, like in the old days, or if you want something smaller, the services of Q. You can buy small cameras in the shops. And, the pictures come out in colour. I carry mine with me always, in my jacket pocket.
That was my purchasing spec: the best digital camera for not-stupid money that I could fit in my pocket and have with me always.
Mine has a 10x optical zoom and an anti-shake device, which is brilliant. It’s the Canon PowerShot S1 IS. A little bulky, but it fits, pocket-wise.
My previous one, a Canon A70, got smashed when I fell over recently, and smashed myself quite a bit also. Unlike my Canon A70 I am now recovered, although it felt bad for a while.
Of course, if I did have a camera implanted in my hand, I could have carried on photoing regardless of the security bod, because he wouldn’t have realised.
It was a comment not regarding the size of the camera, moreso that you seem to take it everywhere!
And Colin’s right; most of the shopping centre security guards I come into contact with possibly haven’t heard of copyright, probably couldn’t spell it and certainly would have no idea about its implications.
Actually, that’s not fair. There is a sub-genus of security guard that wants to put the world to rights and rushes around scolding for any infringement perceived, whether it’s in their brief or not. Also found in the police force, though they’re rather less harmless when in uniform.
Rgds,
Wild Pegasus, that should be 537-1 (Ron Paul).
I was speaking of the electoral college. There are only 435 Representatives.
– Josh
Ah, my mistake!
Wild Pegasus, name one.