Reply to post: Hmm

Hmm

Normally I end up agreeing with most of Tims articles because they do seem to be on the ball and sensible (to me at least). While I agree with some of this one I have found some things which dont quite sit right.

First I have been reasonably impressed with what little I have heard of the Randian approach. Particularly Paul Rands ideas of burning the excessively thousands of pages of taxation laws which help no one. Tax is a chore. It is the theft of your earnings that you make the effort for but then get taken to be spent by the gov. We obviously agree to it for social good items (as you mentioned about the cost/benefits of) but the more difficult and more exceptions we make creates loopholes (the latest witch hunt against business) and reduces the desire to just do it. The alternative is what we rally against now.

As for Sweden I would be interested in your opinion of- "Scandinavian Unexceptionalism: Culture, Markets and the Failure of Third-Way Socialism".

I am not convinced by the idea of the universal basic income because the slippery slope will punish the 'rich' for earning and give increasing amounts to support non-work. The biggest concern being that people travel through various safe zones to break into this country for money. Universal basic income may start as a good idea but more and more restrictions will be applied for who is deserving. Also we could have Germanys problem of enticing an immigration stampede which is only funny to those not affected by the problem.

A follow on problem would be the govs interference and tracking because they must put this money somewhere and they are more adept at taking money than giving. To cut down on fraud they are bound to insist on easily identifiable methods of interfering with your life (which will be easily subverted) and cause the same headaches as trying to talk to the HMRC (who would likely get this task). This is the picnic in a sandwich shop problem with all the bureaucracy and additional gov cost (duck houses, porn) that it en tales.

Finally wouldnt a universal basic income just shift prices up to compensate for the additional spending power (greater demand) but the same level of supply. For example housing prices shoot up if you increase the amount of allowed debt or the gov interferes by pushing money into buying/renting of property. No value is created but the additional spaffed money increases prices for no actual value. I would expect the basic goods (necessities) to increase in cost. However it might work if we can get rid of all the other benefits for working/not working or for buying a house in an area you cannot actually afford.

Of course I do agree we should stop taxing people earning minimum wage but I would go further than NI and income tax. The idea of taking with one hand to give back with another (with the processing fees in the middle) is daft and only good for creating jobs of little purpose. Less gov spending all the money and less interfering with everyones little lives would save a lot but also make it harder to run up such a huge deficit/debt. By selling gold, taxing to excess and spending every penny plus a whole lot more we had a lot of people wanting more and a recession leaving us with less. So many people looking to the gov to give them what they wanted and unhappy when they are told the money isnt there. And as we know that leaves us with people who think unbridled socialism, massive spending and Corbyn is the answer.