I’m surprised that there is still support for the idea that the rich can be as rich as they like and it doesn’t matter. That wealth and those incomes don’t exist in isolation. In fact rent seeking activity is probably the biggest burden on people globally.

As for whether the state is efficient at allocating resource or not, well it’s rather hard to get the required data. Certainly what is available indicates that we are generally rather worse off following the big privatisations. The only one held up as an example is BT and, for that example to work, there are some pretty big assumptions.

What is relevant, and at least gets MSM lip service these days, is the concept of well being. Most importantly this doesn’t rely on out and out performance but rather how evenly the proceeds are divided. The most efficient mechanism for this is government, whether it’s operated efficiently or not is another matter. If your libertarian ideal worked so well then there would never have been a need to conceive a welfare state. Changes of that magnitude don’t happen if things are even close to ticking along.

Barclays AGM was yesterday.

Apparently a question was asked of Chairman Agius about the appropriateness of him being on the board at the BBC. Many thanks to whoever did that (it wasn’t me).

I don’t have details of the question or the answer but if anyone reading here does have the details…

On the grand scale of things it’s not a big issue of itself, but it is symptomatic of a bigger issue.

The results of the AGM votes are now available. 30+% of those voting voted to reject the Remuneration Committee’s report, but when translated into shares voted, the block vote of the institutional shareholders ensured that everything went through without a problem.

http://group.barclays.com/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobheadername1=Content-Disposition&blobheadername2=MDT-Type&blobheadervalue1=inline%3B+filename%3DPoll-results.pdf&blobheadervalue2=abinary%3B+charset%3DUTF-8&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1231960125127&ssbinary=true

Why would there not be a stable tax base?

Low taxes on the low paid will surely increase their spending power, and the take on indirect taxes.

The state is an inefficient allocator of resources for many things-and the larger the state the greater the bureaucracy-and the greater the waste. The best person to look after the citizen is the citizen himself surely-but he must be allowed to keep most of the fruits of his labor. It is a ridiculous situation where saving is discouraged by taxation-only to have to fall back on the state later.

The rich can be as rich as they like-as I said above, it is totally irrelevant. They can spend as much as they like on trivia-again, irrelevant. It is probably worthy of study as to the point at whichwealth brings no material or mental benefit to its owner-and the wealth is, in any event then used for the common good (Isn’t Bezos fundin fusion power research-surely a good thing).

Putting the too much of the citizens money through the government machine only benefits those who rule us.

The Philip Greens of this world benefit from operating in an economy with a well developed and funded infrastructure, legal system, security, etc., and a healthy, well-educated – and well paid workforce – with disposable income. And while it makes sense for individuals to reduce their tax burden – it is a fallacy of composition to assume this will lead to a general benefit – eroding the tax base and offshoring profits reduces investment in infrastructure, health, education and training. Pushing a heavier tax burden onto an already indebted workforce slashes demand – killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

The last laissez-faire experiment ended in tears – with accelerating inequality, slum tenements, and an impoverished, uneducated workforce amid which sat pockets of affluence – the kind of conditions we are busily recreating. You can have a low-tax, low social mobility, high inequality economy where millions exist in poverty – or a higher taxed, less unequal society which ensures a basic level of education, health and income for all – but you can’t have a low tax economy that operates in the interests of more than a self-serving elite.

Neoliberals like to pretend that wealth creation is solely down to the talents and efforts of individuals, but the truth is, we really are ‘all in this together’ – none of us know what life will hold in store. We have no choice over whether we will be born into poverty or riches, whether we will suffer ill health or disability. It’s very easy for the ‘winners’ in such a lottery to forget their good fortune and ascribe their success to their own efforts – attributional biases kick-in. The potential Philip Greens who contract cancer in childhood, suffer abusive relationships, become disabled, and so on, are out of the frame of reference.

Philip Green avoided tax on £1bn; it would take someone on median income 40,000 years to earn £1bn – it’s just a question of balance.

This article illustrates the way that balance has been tipped over the last four decades – it’s no coincidence that it has culminated in the collapse of the world economy.

http://goo.gl/YxxTG

The cheerleaders of neoliberalism should’ve been more careful what they wished for.

It is irrelevant how rich the rich are-the important point is how poor the poor are.

The tax system in the UK is flawed beyond redemption, with the poorest paid actually paying somewhere in the region of 60%.

There should be no income tax payable below £15K and thereafter a flat tax payable on income generated in this country, no matter where the recipient lives.

Incidentally, whether or not one agrees with the personal tax arrangements of Mr. Green, his privately owned business employs tens of thousands of people in the UK, and obviously sells products which people wish to buy. The contrast with “the City” of which he has been a critic throughout his career, (hence his company being private) could scarcely be greater. No-one has to support Green’s business-we all compulsorily support the City. I wish the UK had more like him.

He must have some good chefs.