Monday, March 19, 2012

How Our Taxes Work

Saw this on the telegraph from one very clever poster


"Mr Clegg’s rise in tax allowances will disproportionately help the better
off"
We frequently see this sort of statement from journalists made as a criticism of any proposed tax cut.  Those making it are either being intellectually dishonest or are simply incapable of understanding how the tax system works.  Tax cuts will always give bigger tax breaks to the better off for the simple reason that they pay more tax in the first place (and of course every tax rise will disproportionately hurt the better off but doesn't seem to get pointed out very often)  What is important is that tax cuts help the poorer relatively more than they help the better off - the family who are struggling to make ends meet are going to appreciate an extra £10 a week far more than the family who has plenty of disposable income already will appreciate the extra £100 a week.
For a (slightly) humorous explanation of how the tax system works, try the following:
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten
comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it
would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the
arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are
all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of
your daily beer by $20.' Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the
first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.
But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they
divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted
that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would
each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's
bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the
amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued
to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to
compare their savings.
'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'
'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too.
It's unfair that he got ten times more than I got' 'That's true!!'
shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only
two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'
'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks so the nine sat
down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill,
they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money
between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is
how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the
most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for
being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they
might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat
friendlier.


Credit to simoncarter for this.

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

Ken Livingstone - why is such a poisonous man the Labour candidate in London?

Two big stories in the news today regarding the race to be the next mayor of London, neither are good for Ken.

Firstly the question of Ken's tax avoidance.  Labour's ever vocal champion of the poor has been smacked around recently the way he has organised his finances.  Ken has avoided paying the 50p top rate of tax - which he earnestly supports - by paying himself through a front company Ken is managing to get away with the much lower corporate rate, about 20 percent.  Mehdi Hasan spectacularly broke ranks to criticise Ken last night, though he still some how managed to bring it round to a ringing endorsement for the Labour candidate.  It's funny that Ken thinks the government should block people from voting or holding public office if they avoid tax, yet somehow manages to justify his behaviour to himself.  One rule for Ken, another for the nasty bankers.

Meanwhile, Livingstone bizarrely requested that the government introduce legislation barring an individual from holding any other employment while serving as Mayor of London.  This would of course force Boris to give up his newspaper column, though is another hypocritical turn from the former mayor, who held several other jobs during his time in office.  The government's response, written by the rather witty Grant Shapps MP, is quite a good read.

Does Gingrich actually want Romney to lose?

Since his poor showing in Iowa at the start of the Republican primary process, Newt Gingrich has made it clear that his primary goal is no longer to win the nomination himself, but to prevent Mitt Romney from doing so.  The endless barrage of Romney attack ads took Newt from a December poll surge to a distant fourth place in Iowa.

Gingrich is really staying in this race to take delegates away from Romney, rather than in some vain hope he may actually win.  The irony is that this tactic is having the reverse effect; Mitt picked up at least half the delegates and six states in a comprehensive victory.  Prior to this round of votes Rick Santorum was the clear challenger to Romney; this hasn't changed, but Romney has considerably widened the gap.

If Gingrich really wants to stop Romney, he needs to drop out now and throw his full weight behind Santorum.  The big race yesterday was in Ohio, where Romney won by less than 13,000 votes, Gingrich pulled in 175,000 votes, a long way behind the top two, but a number that dwarfs Romney's winning margin.  Many commentators have suggested that Gingrich probably cost Santorum in Michigan last week.  Indeed, if Gingirch pulled out, his supporters would have split decisively to Santorum; if Gingrich votes would have sneaked him through in Michigan, they would have delivery a thumping Santorum victory in Ohio.  In both cases Newt's candidacy enabled Romney to secure a majority of the delegates at stake.

What does this mean for future primaries and caucuses?  Next week sees votes in Nebraska, Alabama, Mississippi and Missouri, with Illinois and Lousiana going to the polls the week after.  Nebraska will probably deliver for Santorum, as will Missouri, which gave him a stunning victory in a non-binding primary a few weeks back.  Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana are all fertile territory for the Gingrich campaign, he should pick up at least two of these and a comfortable majority of the delegates.  The unfortunate irony is that this is about as far as it goes for Gingrich; his support is marginal everywhere except the deep south, and he cannot expect to pick up much more support once the polls close in Lousiana, leaving him far short of the delegate count Romney holds now.  Gingrich cannot win but Santorum possibly still could.

Santorum during his years at Carmel
Highschool in Mundelein, Illinois.  Santorum
is the only candidate with real ties to the
state.
This brings us to Illinois, a state that could go for Romney or Santorum.  The 5th most populous state in the US and comfortably the largest prize left in the mid-west, Illinois houses the city of Chicago, and represents Romney's best prospects in the next few weeks.  If Ohio is the big swing state for Super Tuesday, Illinois is the swing state for the rest of March.  Santorum needs a comfortably win here to stop Romney taking a decisive lead.  If Gingrich throws his weight behind Santorum, he will probably take the state, otherwise Romney will probably edge a victory the same way he did in Ohio and Michigan.

With the north eastern states, California and Utah pretty much in the bag for Romney, Santorum needs big wins  in Illinois and the rest of the mid-west to have any chance of catching up.  At the end of the day though, he cannot defeat Romney without taking the deep south and the only way that will happen is if Gingrich pulls out and gives Santorum his support.

Gingrich is in this race to stop Romney, if he stays in though, he may just fail.

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

Liberal Tolerance



In the words of Matt Stone, "I hate conservatives, but I really fucking hate liberals."

UK's Digital Economy Act seeks to kill net neutrality

BT and Talk Talk have today lost an appeal against the Digital Economy Act 2010, which would force ISP's to monitor customer usage, and introduce a graduated response scheme that could eventually lead to users getting cut off.

This bill represents a massive intrusion into user privacy, as well as a huge cost to ISP's who would be forced to implement the bill.  Net neutrality is one of the great vestiges of freedom we have in our society, it's just another thing for the government to infringe upon.

BT and Talk Talk lose file-sharing appeal

Another very real concern is what this means for universities and libraries, which provide internet access to their  students and members.  This bill seems to hold these institutions responsible for what users do, a foolish form of collective punishment.

Monday, March 5, 2012

No Bail for Chris Tappin

So Chris Tappin has been denied bail by US authorities apparently, "Federal prosecutors told a court in El Paso, Texas, that Mr Tappin could be a "danger to the community" if released."  

What a joke, a 65 year old grandfather with no criminal record.  How can the British government just hand people over like this?

A more worrying question is why do the British people do not care more?  Surely we should be concerned if British citizens are handed over to the American authorities without any British court ever being allowed to examine the evidence against them?  I personally believe British citizens have a right to fight their case before ever being shipped out of the country.  If people like Tappin are guilty then a fair and proper process in the UK would probably see them extradited.  Extradition without such processes is surely a breach of Mr. Tappin's democratic rights, a breach that should make all Britons shift uncomfortably.

Young Libertarians can make UKIP exciting.

Libertarianism is fuelled by youth nowadays.  Just look at what is happening in America, where Ron Paul is consistently polling highly amongst voters under 30, taking this age group in several states.  UKIP, while the only real Libertarian party in the UK, finds itself sorely lacking in support from those under 40 and 18-24 year olds especially.  This seems like a market UKIP should really be trying to tap.

Young voters where always the domain of the Liberal Democrats, but since the coalition and the tuition fees fiasco this support has dried up even more rapidly than the parties support in other corners.  This seems like an open opportunity for UKIP.  Younger voters are naturally more libertarian inclined nowadays and the party finds itself in the bizarre position of being the most significant party not advocating tuition fees.

As Michael White pointed out in the Guardian last night, the defection of Alexandra Swann to the UKIP cause is arguably more significant than the defection of Roger Helmer MEP, because she represents the future and a different constituency than the party's traditional base.  UKIP would be wise to put Swann and other articulate, young members at the forefront of it's campaign.  Perhaps the party can shed the image of old Thatcherite s in exile and move forward as a young, energized and enthusiastic party.

What is the EU thinking now?


The EU has released a new promotional video for itself...I don't understand why the EU needs a commercial, but this is just offensive.

Update:  Haha, the EU took the video down, fortunately @DanHannanMEP had the foresight to make a copy.








And the EU has released a statement regarding the video.  Apparently the reaction of people in their target 16-24 age group has been 'positive' err...

Also you have to one about the interests of an organization that has a 'Directorate-General of Enlargement'

Sunday, March 4, 2012

Roger Helmer UKIP's newest MEP

Just watched through Roger Helmer's speech at the UKIP conference yesterday.  Doing some background research I can't say I'm sure about this guy, but he may one statement I very much liked:


"I was born into a Britain that was free, and independent, and democratic.
All I ask is the right to die in a Britain that is free, and independent, and democratic."


Amen.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YN-TB7yS9_U

Second for Paul in Washington State

So Ron Paul has successfully taken second place in Washington state, beating out Rick Santorum who was polling only narrowly behind winner Mitt Romney.  Paul had been polling around ten points lower than his final result.

http://www.google.com/elections/ed/us/results

It is looking more and more like game over for Rick Santorum, after narrowly failing to take Michigan this week this result is an unexpected shock in a state where he was really expected to compete.  Santorum's polling numbers are in retreat across the Super Tuesday states.  The irony is the Newt Gingrich, who is staying in the race to 'hurt Romney', has been running a terminal campaign for a while now, and is probably dragging Santorum down with him.

Saturday, March 3, 2012

Starting New

So I've thought about starting this for a while, but I've really had an idea on how.  I'm writing now because of two events.  Firstly, the visit yesterday of Harry Cole (News Editor of the Guido Fawkes blog) to St Andrews, discussing the question of Scottish independence, the various actors, and how that campaign may play out.  The second event was the defection of Alexandra Swann from the Conservatives to UKIP.  Deputy chair of the Conservatives youth wing until the last election, Swann's defection is shocking because of how easily she could have moved up the Conservative ranks.  This defection is a coup for libertarians and Euro-sceptics.

2012 is an interesting year for libertarians with Ron Paul forcing himself to the front line of the American political debate and the Eurozone crisis firmly entrenched in the headlines.  I hope to use this blog to discuss political events on both sides of the Atlantic, I hope you like what I have to say.