This title of this post is a quote uttered by a panellist on the BBC show "Mock the Week" This is a usually funny topical news quix interspersed with jokes and stuff. The subject came up of new Conservative policies.
One panellist mentioned the policy of cutting taxes on business. "Which means", he said "More money for bastards".
One wonders just how to respond to such unfunny and crass stupidity. It's wrong on so many levels.
In the first place, taxes on business are taxes on shareholders. Many of these are not rich, and how can anyone say how many of them are "bastards"?
The sheer prejudice encapsulated in the remark is staggering. Suppose a panellist said "More money for the unemployed - means more money for lazy bastards?" Or "Help for immigrants - more money for welfare scroungers". Or "Moslems - they're all murdering bastards." Or "Christians - they're all hypocrites".
Only shareholders and businessmen, it seems. can be slagged off by the BBC.
On another level, who does he think creates the wealth that payes the tax that goes to teh BBC and pays his appearance fee? Without business there's no wealth at all.
And also, the easy to understand principle of tax incidence applies - who actually pays a tax.
Taxes on business don't fall on the business in a vacuum. It is a cost imposed on business, so inevitably raises prices. If business taxes were cut, we might see inflation fall but the businesses would be more profitable so wages can go up.
There's always a case to cut business taxes to nothing, on the grounds that the simpler the tax system the better. See Tim Worstall for arguments better than I can put it.
Showing posts with label Private enterprise. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Private enterprise. Show all posts
Sunday, 26 August 2007
Monday, 19 March 2007
Property rights mean power
"The Economist" last week reported on the move in China to grant property rights to the people.
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_RRTVDSV
That's the link, but it's subscription only.
It's not quite what it might appear. But it's a step in the right direction, of course. Trouble is, once a ruling class holds all the property in the country, how easy will it be to prise their hands off it?
It's commonly reported that the majority (some say 70%) of Chinese industry and commerce is privately run in recent years. The report shows, though, that this has been achieved without there actually being clear title to the assets in use and even the land the new factories are built on hasn't been bought and sold for the purpose. Whoever has the power to do so, can take land from peasant farmer for a pittance. Corrupt officals do it, or connive at it with the rich class.
Communist theory says that goods of value to the community should be held in common, that is, they are not privately owned but managed in the community's interest. To control such assets for your own use, means to deprive the community of them - stealing from the wider group. Hence the slogan "Property is theft" (was that Proudhon?).
Apart from the issue of stewardship - property is better kept by people who own it - there is the issue of who decides what is the best interest of the community. If a farm is to be turned into a factory, who takes the higher income - the farmer who no longer has the land? Or the factory owner who turns the peasants into wage earners?
In a world of private property, enforced by law with independent judges, the farmer has rights which have to be compensated. The factory owner has to ensure that his business plan covers the real costs to the community from the loss of the farmland.
So: private property protects the community.
But pity the poor Chinese peasants.
Exploited by landlords and corrupt officials under the old Empire.
Subjected to tyranny and destructive taxation by the Kuomintang.
Seduced by the Communists
Starved in the Great Leap Forward.
Tormented by the Cultural Revolution.
Crushed at Tiananmen Square.
Given a glimpse of hope by the spectacular economic growth of modern times.
Now back to exploitation and corrupt officials.
Unless the new element - the growing skilled middle class - can flex its muscles and change things. Everyone must hoep that that can happen.
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_RRTVDSV
That's the link, but it's subscription only.
It's not quite what it might appear. But it's a step in the right direction, of course. Trouble is, once a ruling class holds all the property in the country, how easy will it be to prise their hands off it?
It's commonly reported that the majority (some say 70%) of Chinese industry and commerce is privately run in recent years. The report shows, though, that this has been achieved without there actually being clear title to the assets in use and even the land the new factories are built on hasn't been bought and sold for the purpose. Whoever has the power to do so, can take land from peasant farmer for a pittance. Corrupt officals do it, or connive at it with the rich class.
Communist theory says that goods of value to the community should be held in common, that is, they are not privately owned but managed in the community's interest. To control such assets for your own use, means to deprive the community of them - stealing from the wider group. Hence the slogan "Property is theft" (was that Proudhon?).
Apart from the issue of stewardship - property is better kept by people who own it - there is the issue of who decides what is the best interest of the community. If a farm is to be turned into a factory, who takes the higher income - the farmer who no longer has the land? Or the factory owner who turns the peasants into wage earners?
In a world of private property, enforced by law with independent judges, the farmer has rights which have to be compensated. The factory owner has to ensure that his business plan covers the real costs to the community from the loss of the farmland.
So: private property protects the community.
But pity the poor Chinese peasants.
Exploited by landlords and corrupt officials under the old Empire.
Subjected to tyranny and destructive taxation by the Kuomintang.
Seduced by the Communists
Starved in the Great Leap Forward.
Tormented by the Cultural Revolution.
Crushed at Tiananmen Square.
Given a glimpse of hope by the spectacular economic growth of modern times.
Now back to exploitation and corrupt officials.
Unless the new element - the growing skilled middle class - can flex its muscles and change things. Everyone must hoep that that can happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)