|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Socialism in the City
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
This thread is prompted by seeing the mapped results of the UK election, in which (to a good approximation) the socialist Labour Party won a large majority of the constituencies in the major cities of England and hardly any of the constituencies composed of rural areas and small towns.
Maybe nothing new in that.
But it suggests a "what if" - what would happen if the national government devolved substantial powers to the councils of one or more non-capital major cities to enable them to give these city-dwellers the experience of living in a socialist state that they seem to want ?
What powers would this involve ?
Would such an experiment be a good idea ?
Or is it not socialism if people and businesses can opt out by moving out of the city to somewhere nearby ?
Speculation welcome...
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
I wasn't aware that the Labour party was socialist anymore?
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
Practically there's a problem if you (can) skip and chose between the two (or more systems) depending on what's convenient now.
And of the two governments (as supposed to societies), that (short term) hits the socialist one worse.
But to some extent that genie is already out the bottle. It's just only available to the extent you control the government (and private sector equivelents) through time.
[ 10. May 2015, 11:08: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
The political map shows that of the North East, North West, Yorkshire and the Humber and London regions still support the Labour party. London and Ynys Mon (Anglesey) are exceptions, but otherwise the Labour areas coincide with where the coalfields are (and the mines were).
It is not the cities, it is towns in the col areas and pit villages that are the Labour areas. This could be another of Thatcher's legacies.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
I used to live in the People's Republic of South Yorkshire in the mid-80s, before Thatcher's wildly anti-democratic rate-capping law came into force.
The high rates were supported by the local population - it wasn't paradise, but everything seemed to work very well. No one bothered to bring their cars into Sheffield, because the maximum bus fare was (iirc) 5p.
So your 'experiment' has already been carried out, more or less successfully, in at least one region.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
While Miliband's Labour Party was slightly to the left of Blair's Labour Party - a difference just perceptible to the naked eye - Miliband's tablet of stone said nothing about returning the means of production to the workers. So it would no more have been a socialist state had Miliband won than it was when Blair was PM.
The OP appears to have some odd notions of socialism. If it didn't say otherwise on the profile, I'd suspect the OP of being American.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lucia
Looking for light
# 15201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
The political map shows that of the North East, North West, Yorkshire and the Humber and London regions still support the Labour party. London and Ynys Mon (Anglesey) are exceptions, but otherwise the Labour areas coincide with where the coalfields are (and the mines were).
It is not the cities, it is towns in the col areas and pit villages that are the Labour areas. This could be another of Thatcher's legacies.
And Oxford East, a patch of red in a sea of blue. No coal field there though!
Posts: 1075 | From: Nigh golden stone and spires | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Heavenly Anarchist
Shipmate
# 13313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
The political map shows that of the North East, North West, Yorkshire and the Humber and London regions still support the Labour party. London and Ynys Mon (Anglesey) are exceptions, but otherwise the Labour areas coincide with where the coalfields are (and the mines were).
It is not the cities, it is towns in the col areas and pit villages that are the Labour areas. This could be another of Thatcher's legacies.
And Oxford East, a patch of red in a sea of blue. No coal field there though!
Cambridge turned from yellow to red, though we are also in a sea of blue. The only thing you could mine round here is peat.
--------------------
'I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by.' Douglas Adams
Dog Activity Monitor
My shop
Posts: 2831 | From: Trumpington | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
OddJob
Shipmate
# 17591
|
Posted
Surely 'socialism' is as hard to define as 'Evangelical Christianity', and nobody holds the exclusive right to do so in either case.
Posts: 97 | From: West Midlands | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OddJob:
Surely 'socialism' is as hard to define as 'Evangelical Christianity', and nobody holds the exclusive right to do so in either case.
What constitutes a practical evidence of socialism? Probably. But any dictionary or encyclopaedia will give you a concise and pretty constant definition. Though I see that American ones for some reason tend to stress the involvement of the state, whereas nobody else does.
Dafyd's understanding is mainstream.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I wasn't aware that the Labour party was socialist anymore?
Clearly not socialist enough for some. And presumably too socialist for many of those who didn't vote for them ?
But feel free to use whatever definition of "socialism" you want in addressing the question.
If you'd like city-level government to have more powers in order to implement locally some of what all those city-dwelling Labour voters wanted to see implemented nationally, what powers ?
And if it's a bad idea, what's wrong with it ?
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Clearly not socialist enough for some. And presumably too socialist for many of those who didn't vote for them ?
For those who weren't thinking clearly and took their cue from the Murdoch empire presumably (who clearly thought that the younger brother of Castro was about to march into number 10).
Anyway, since the difference between support for the various arms of the state differs in degree rather than kind between the Tories and current Labour party, I think you should define what you feel to be socialist in the context of your OP.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
If you'd like city-level government to have more powers in order to implement locally some of what all those city-dwelling Labour voters wanted to see implemented nationally, what powers ?
And if it's a bad idea, what's wrong with it ?
I think that an excellent argument can be made that different parts of government work most effectively at different spatial scales. A national government would be extremely inefficient at prioritising renovation of primary schools, local government would not be the appropriate level to decide international policy. It's called subsidiarity.
The question then isn't "is it a good idea to have some powers devolved to local level?", the question is "which powers?"
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The question then isn't "is it a good idea to have some powers devolved to local level?", the question is "which powers?"
It's also not obvious that the power to decide broad policy and the power to implement details should reside at the same level. It is sensible for some local-level body to decide which primary school to renovate next. It is not obvious that that body should have the power to levy its own taxes in order to pay for those schools. It can simply be handed a budget according to some standard formula and be told to get to work.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Yes, that's part of the "which powers?" question.
The decision about which school to renovate is a power.
The raising of taxes to pay for that is a different power.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
...and the decision about which school to renovate is meaningless without the power to pay for it.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
And bearing in mind that some of the wealthiest councils are amongst the ones who've had their central grant cut the least, we could end up with a ludicrous balkanisation across the country: the poorest areas which have little opportunity to raise revenue being sunk further into deprivation, while the richest areas being able to provide all the shiniest things for its already-wealthy residents.
Redistributing wealth away from prosperous parts of the country is a prerequisite for local democracy to function effectively. Otherwise all councillors will be able to decide on is which services to cut.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
Central government is very keen to devolve decision making to local authorities when the outcome is always going to be at best controversial if not a death wish for the local authority (Moving responsibility for providing Accommodation for Travellers from central to local government was a first-rate example).
The main reason for this is that central government retains control of funding, by limiting block grants to what it considers "fair" and capping council tax if a local authority should take it upon itself to defy central government, irrespective of the local elections about the very issues that have been devolved to it!
In short, because local authorities do not have fiscal sovereignty, they cannot currently do what they want to do or even what the voters want them to do. If they had the fiscal sovereignty then I expect that would be insufficient, so they would have to back it up with additional intervention funding from the European Union and that would, in all probability, increase the contribution required from the "BLue zone" of what is currently the United Kingdom.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
In short, because local authorities do not have fiscal sovereignty, they cannot currently do what they want to do or even what the voters want them to do. If they had the fiscal sovereignty then I expect that would be insufficient, so they would have to back it up with additional intervention funding from the European Union and that would, in all probability, increase the contribution required from the "BLue zone" of what is currently the United Kingdom.
You're right that some tax-raising power would need to be devolved. Perhaps some form of local income tax ? Supplemented by the power to borrow money, to issue bonds against future tax revenue ?
Presumably there would still be a block grant from general taxation, calculated on the basis of some benchmark level of provision of services. So that the devolved cities could have a positive rate of local taxation and spend more than the benchmark, or a negative rate and spend less.
You may be right that the EU would try to force the national government to contribute more if and when the devolved cities cocked up the local economy.
But although the UK election result was the original starting point, I was trying to frame the discussion in a way that was equally applicable to Shipmates from elsewhere. Or is the politics of the urban-rural divide a peculiarly British issue ?
Some people talk as if cutting their own throats was preferable to voting Conservative. In a country which has just signed up for another 5 years of Conservative government. I don't want to see any minority oppressed. In response it seems only natural to ask the more general question - can you, with a little generosity of spirit on both sides, have a left-leaning city within a right-leaning country ? And if so, what does it take and what are the problems and the risks ?
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
In response it seems only natural to ask the more general question - can you, with a little generosity of spirit on both sides, have a left-leaning city within a right-leaning country ?
Let's take the issue of fiscal sovereignty. Is your left-leaning city able to pay its own bills? It might be - if it's a left-leaning city with a reasonable share of both poor and wealthy inhabitants, and if the wealthy inhabitants share (or at least are content with) the left-leaning policies and aren't about to scarper to Torytown next door at the first glimpse of a redistributionist policy, then there's no reason why a left-leaning city can't raise higher local taxes and provide more services.
If, on the other hand, your left-leaning city requires significant subsidies from richer, right-leaning areas in order to operate, the position is more difficult. Can such a city successfully levy more taxes from its poorer populace in order to be able to spend more, or is it hoping to decide to spend more money and have someone else pay the bills?
The degree of subsidy which poorer areas receive from richer areas is fundamentally a national question. It can't be determined on a local basis.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
if it's a left-leaning city with a reasonable share of both poor and wealthy inhabitants, and if the wealthy inhabitants share (or at least are content with) the left-leaning policies and aren't about to scarper to Torytown next door at the first glimpse of a redistributionist policy.
That's the issue. It's one thing to idly wonder how many rich people would leave the country if redistributionist policies were enacted by Westminster, but when we're talking about city-level policies then the likelihood that the richer residents would move to the next town over in order to avoid such taxes is massive. Hell, they wouldn't even have to switch jobs!
What the city would be left with is a massive hole in the finances that has to be filled by a poorer population. So either cuts would have to be made or taxes would have to go up again, leading to a vicious cycle which would only end when the only ones left in the city - barring relatively well-paid left-wing people, of course - would be the ones that can't afford to either move or pay taxes.
Or to put it another way, I don't think that any major kind of socialist movement would be possible on such a small scale. To properly work, those policies need to apply on a large enough scale that the rich can't easily up sticks and leave.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Socialism in the city sounds like Stalin's socialism in one country, and is similarly absurd. Well, it depends on what you mean by socialism, but surely classically it has the meaning of transnational, or overcoming boundaries of any kind. But, as we see with Stalin, it has been perverted.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
Isn't the United States, with significant governing authority vested in the hands of the various states, kind of a living example of what such a devolved system would look like?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Also surely the powers of the mayor of London is a prime example of this already existing....?
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
But a left-wing mayor doesn't produce a socialist London, unless socialism is being given some arbitrary meaning. The City carried on with its leveraged buy-outs, beggars continued to beg, whores to whore, and so on.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
when we're talking about city-level policies then the likelihood that the richer residents would move to the next town over in order to avoid such taxes is massive. Hell, they wouldn't even have to switch jobs!
Seems to me there are two answers to this.
There's a hard-left answer which brands such behaviour as a Crime against the People and demands the devolved power to declare a state of emergency, seal the border, and not let people through without an exit visa...
And a soft-left answer which says that whilst the aim is ever-increasing government spending and an ever-increasing tax take to pay for it, we're content to progress slowly. To let people get used to paying an extra 1% tax before we raise it to 2%. To monitor the trends in migration and house prices, and if the less-left-leaning residents are moving out faster than the ideologically-sound are moving in, then we need to slow the pace of change and reduce the sense of threat. To prioritise the win-win policies over the win-lose ones, whilst still believing in the latter.
Not sure if there's any middle ground between the two...
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Seems to me there are two answers to this.
Seems to me there are three answers to this. Make the city a genuinely brilliant, vibrant, happy place to live. Lots of public transport, parks, leisure facilities and high-end shopping, excellent schools, a top-grade university... you know. Stuff like that.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Make the city a genuinely brilliant, vibrant, happy place to live. Lots of public transport, parks, leisure facilities and high-end shopping, excellent schools, a top-grade university... you know. Stuff like that.
If you can do that while still easing the burdens of the poor, that's great - that's a win-win policy that everyone, left or right, can vote for.
But what you're talking about means things like leaving people enough disposable income that they can afford to eat out. It means a system that encourages small business - ethnic restaurants, boutique shops, etc. it's saying get the generation of wealth right and there will be money for the poor. Doesn't sound like socialism to me...
But a good answer. Up to this point the question of how to run a city well seems to have been rather less interesting than the question of how to make sure that "the rich" don't escape punitive taxation...
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Make the city a genuinely brilliant, vibrant, happy place to live. Lots of public transport, parks, leisure facilities and high-end shopping, excellent schools, a top-grade university... you know. Stuff like that.
If you can do that while still easing the burdens of the poor, that's great - that's a win-win policy that everyone, left or right, can vote for.
The ideologues on the right hate public spending on principle.
quote:
But what you're talking about means things like leaving people enough disposable income that they can afford to eat out. It means a system that encourages small business - ethnic restaurants, boutique shops, etc. it's saying get the generation of wealth right and there will be money for the poor. Doesn't sound like socialism to me...
It's not capitalism. Capitalism means that businesses with lots of capital buy out small businesses, destroy town centres etc etc.
(The reason it is called capitalism is because it favours entities with lots of capital - that is chiefly banks, which get to hoover up vast quantities of subsidy, bailout, tax breaks - then big businesses.)
quote:
Up to this point the question of how to run a city well seems to have been rather less interesting than the question of how to make sure that "the rich" don't escape punitive taxation...
I haven't seen anyone show any interest in punitive taxation other than you.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
But what you're talking about means things like leaving people enough disposable income that they can afford to eat out. It means a system that encourages small business - ethnic restaurants, boutique shops, etc. it's saying get the generation of wealth right and there will be money for the poor. Doesn't sound like socialism to me...
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
You have absolutely no idea what socialism is, do you?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
The whole thread is vitiated by that - WTF is meant by socialism? Stalinism? Increased tractor production? We have always been at war with Eastasia!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
Okay Doc and quetz, instead of pointing out that we don't know what socialism is, please explain it to us.
Explain why - under socialism - Russ' comment about small businesses and expendable income is incorrect.
Give us the truth about Socialism and how it will really work in the bright sunny uplands that will follow a True Socialist victory in an election.
We are all eager to know what Socialism really is.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I've already given you a taster, increased tractor production, the nationalization of women, 4 legs good, 2 legs bad, compulsory dungarees, and free beer. Any problems with that?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Okay Doc and quetz, instead of pointing out that we don't know what socialism is, please explain it to us.
Explain why - under socialism - Russ' comment about small businesses and expendable income is incorrect.
Give us the truth about Socialism and how it will really work in the bright sunny uplands that will follow a True Socialist victory in an election.
We are all eager to know what Socialism really is.
How about (and I'll admit this is idealistic and other explanations exist and are probably far better) the economy being run for the benefit of mankind as a whle, as opposed to the current situation in which it is run by and for those who own the assets employed?
Whatever the alternatives may be, widening the proportion of the population that benefits from economic activity has to be at the top of the list.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Okay. Let's try this for starters.
Currently, about the only way that local authorities can benefit from commercial activity in their district is via the business rates. While (afaiui) business rates are collected locally, they are set nationally, and up until only recently (2013) kept nationally. Now councils get to keep half the business rates, in return for a reduced block grant.
This is only half the story for businesses, however. Rents are often controlled by FacelessPropertyCo, who own a bazillion properties and see voids as part of their business plan. They can own whole town centres and run them as they wish - they're more concerned about the price of the land than the economic activity on it.
One of the reasons why every shopping street looks the same is that only big chain stores have the financial clout to rent frontage there, and when a unit goes vacant, it's either a charity shop (rent free, commercial rate free, tax break for the owner) or simply left empty. For FacelessPropertyCo, it's an entry on the balance sheet, for the shopping centre, it's an eyesore and often a catastrophe. Not, note a lack of enterprise from the local population. And any rent charged by FPC leaves the local economy (and ends up in a tax haven somewhere).
So one proposal would be simply this. A tax on based on land value, paid by the owners to the local authority. Regardless of the economic activity taking place on it. The LA could use that to defray business rates as it saw fit.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So one proposal would be simply this. A tax on based on land value, paid by the owners to the local authority. Regardless of the economic activity taking place on it. The LA could use that to defray business rates as it saw fit.
And as the owner of the land I would increase the rents on those businesses which are on my land in order to defray the extra tax you have proposed. Those businesses will pass on their rent increases to their customers.
Also, you say you want to raise a tax in spite of someone not having the ability to pay... that is what you mean by collecting tax on the land value regardless of any economic activity on the land, isn't it?
Isn't that merely a hidden way of punishing people for owning property? Isn't that simply a way of implementing a policy of "property is theft" without actually having the courage to state it outright?
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So one proposal would be simply this. A tax on based on land value, paid by the owners to the local authority. Regardless of the economic activity taking place on it. The LA could use that to defray business rates as it saw fit.
Here's another proposal: the government empowers local authorities to purchase city/town centre land from the FPCs. It would require a large initial outlay, especially if the land was bought at market price, but thereafter the local authorities would be able to use commercial income from that land in order to reduce the block grant they receive from government. And as a nice bonus, the local authorities would be motivated to ensure that all frontages were occupied as vacant lots wouldn't generate any income.
Taxpayers would benefit because they wouldn't have to pay more in order to keep local services running, and they'd get more vibrant high streets into the bargain. Small businesses would benefit because the landowner would be motivated to rent vacant properties to them. Local authorities would benefit because they'd have a guaranteed (and potentially lucrative) revenue stream. Government would benefit because it wouldn't have to pay as much block grant to the local authorities. And the people running FPCs would benefit because they'd get a nice big wodge of cash in their back pockets.
The only stumbling block would be the initial outlay required. But even that would pay for itself over the long term, so could be funded through borrowing or bonds.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So one proposal would be simply this. A tax on based on land value, paid by the owners to the local authority. Regardless of the economic activity taking place on it. The LA could use that to defray business rates as it saw fit.
And as the owner of the land I would increase the rents on those businesses which are on my land in order to defray the extra tax you have proposed. Those businesses will pass on their rent increases to their customers.
Also, you say you want to raise a tax in spite of someone not having the ability to pay... that is what you mean by collecting tax on the land value regardless of any economic activity on the land, isn't it?
Isn't that merely a hidden way of punishing people for owning property? Isn't that simply a way of implementing a policy of "property is theft" without actually having the courage to state it outright?
A land tax is a way of taking the price of land and levying a fair and proportionate rate on it (if you want to go into more detail, try starting here).
Once levied, it becomes in the owner's best interest to increase the economic activity on that land - which may or may not include decreasing rent charged to occupiers in order to insure full occupancy, renovating properties and ensuring good infrastructure. What it doesn't do is reward economic inactivity - such as land banks, derelict sites, empty shops and treating the occupiers as cash cows.
quote:
Also, you say you want to raise a tax in spite of someone not having the ability to pay
Highlight the part of my post where I said that. Or retract. Whichever.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Here's another proposal: the government empowers local authorities to purchase city/town centre land from the FPCs. It would require a large initial outlay, especially if the land was bought at market price, but thereafter the local authorities would be able to use commercial income from that land in order to reduce the block grant they receive from government. And as a nice bonus, the local authorities would be motivated to ensure that all frontages were occupied as vacant lots wouldn't generate any income.
Yes. Absolutely. I thought compulsory purchase a step too far for deano, so wasn't going to mention it right now, but since you have, it's on the table.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Highlight the part of my post where I said that. Or retract. Whichever.
I already did. Read my post after the elipses. If someone has a piece of land and there is no economic activity taking place on that land, by definition they will have no income from the land. But you want to take taxes from them anyway, disregarding any (or no) economic activity on the land.
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Yes. Absolutely. I thought compulsory purchase a step too far for deano, so wasn't going to mention it right now, but since you have, it's on the table.
Oh no, feel free to be honest. I welcome honesty and truthfulness when discussing socialism. Especially from socialists themselves. I find they are wary of stating their intentions baldly; perhaps they fear that ordinary people will misunderstand their intentions. But surely if the intentions are good then there is nothing to fear from a truthful stating of those intentions from the beginning.
Besides, it is - and will forever remain - merely an academic debate.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I thought compulsory purchase a step too far for deano, so wasn't going to mention it right now, but since you have, it's on the table.
I wasn't thinking of compulsory purchase so much as simply buying the land off them at a price they'll accept.
Come to think of it, simply buying the company would have the same effect. And with only one negotiation rather than lots.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Highlight the part of my post where I said that. Or retract. Whichever.
I already did. Read my post after the elipses. If someone has a piece of land and there is no economic activity taking place on that land, by definition they will have no income from the land. But you want to take taxes from them anyway, disregarding any (or no) economic activity on the land.
So your definition of "unable to pay" encompasses "owns land worth millions". Ooookay.
You realise you're making my ideas look more sane and reasonable by the moment, don't you? ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Highlight the part of my post where I said that. Or retract. Whichever.
I already did. Read my post after the elipses. If someone has a piece of land and there is no economic activity taking place on that land, by definition they will have no income from the land. But you want to take taxes from them anyway, disregarding any (or no) economic activity on the land.
So your definition of "unable to pay" encompasses "owns land worth millions". Ooookay.
You realise you're making my ideas look more sane and reasonable by the moment, don't you?
No, I'm just trying to clarify the point. If I won a piece of land, that is all it is... a piece of land.
Now if there is no economic activity taking place on it but you still want to tax me based upon the value of that land, how would you expect me to pay?
You were the one who included the phrase "Regardless of the economic activity taking place on it." All I'm trying to do is clarify whether you will still want the tax paying even if there is zero economic activity taking place on it.
It is a straightforward question isn't it?
As a follow up, would you expect farmers to pay the tax on their land?
If so would it be fair to expect a farmer to pay the same tax per square mile when their economic activity is growing wheat, as opposed to a square mile in London where the economic activity is rent to retail, homes, factories etc?
[ 14. May 2015, 10:54: Message edited by: deano ]
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Okay. A land tax is proportionate to the value of the land.
If the land is in the middle of nowhere and is a swamp, its value is very low and the tax next to nothing.
If the land is in the middle of a city, it is very valuable and will attract a greater level of tax.
Yes, even if there is nothing on it. If you can't afford the tax, then you'll have to sell the land. For millions. The next owner will then have to decide whether or not to redevelop the site and realise the economic worth of the land.
Note that this discussion is taking place in the context of how municiple socialism might work. The idea of a land tax is not to tax what is on the land, but the land itself. You can build what you like - offices, shops, flats, whatever - on it. Those won't attract any more tax on top. This is simply a way of making sure that there is economic activity within a city, and ensuring that derelict spaces are quickly brought back into use.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Adding that, no. An owner-farmer will pay a land tax proportional to the value of the agricultural land. A tennant farmer, nothing - the estate they rent the land from pays the tax.
If the estate then raises the rent to the point the tennant farmer can no longer afford it, the estate still has to pay the tax, and also get no income from the land.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
But all that will happen is the costs will be pushed further down the food chain until at the very end those people who shop in Aldi and Pound shops will be paying the tax in increased prices.
So as the landowner I won't pay anything extra. I'll pass the costs on ultimately to the very people you think you are trying to protect.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
So as the landowner I won't pay anything extra. I'll pass the costs on ultimately to the very people you think you are trying to protect.
You don't seem to know anything about the free market either.
Scenario 1: you don't develop the land. You pay tax on it.
Scenario 2: you do develop the land. You pay tax on it.
Scenario 3: you do develop the land. You attempt to shift the burden of tax onto the tennants. The tennants go elsewhere. See scenario 2.
So it's in your best interests, given that, as the landlord, you are liable for all of the tax, to firstly, bring the land into economic use, and secondly, set a rent at which you can profit from that economic use without gouging the tennants.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
In response it seems only natural to ask the more general question - can you, with a little generosity of spirit on both sides, have a left-leaning city within a right-leaning country ?
Let's take the issue of fiscal sovereignty. Is your left-leaning city able to pay its own bills? It might be - if it's a left-leaning city with a reasonable share of both poor and wealthy inhabitants, and if the wealthy inhabitants share (or at least are content with) the left-leaning policies and aren't about to scarper to Torytown next door at the first glimpse of a redistributionist policy, then there's no reason why a left-leaning city can't raise higher local taxes and provide more services.
If, on the other hand, your left-leaning city requires significant subsidies from richer, right-leaning areas in order to operate, the position is more difficult. Can such a city successfully levy more taxes from its poorer populace in order to be able to spend more, or is it hoping to decide to spend more money and have someone else pay the bills?
The degree of subsidy which poorer areas receive from richer areas is fundamentally a national question. It can't be determined on a local basis.
The system in the U.S. demonstrates how dysfunctional that can be, though.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
So as the landowner I won't pay anything extra. I'll pass the costs on ultimately to the very people you think you are trying to protect.
You don't seem to know anything about the free market either.
Scenario 1: you don't develop the land. You pay tax on it.
Scenario 2: you do develop the land. You pay tax on it.
Scenario 3: you do develop the land. You attempt to shift the burden of tax onto the tennants. The tennants go elsewhere. See scenario 2.
So it's in your best interests, given that, as the landlord, you are liable for all of the tax, to firstly, bring the land into economic use, and secondly, set a rent at which you can profit from that economic use without gouging the tennants.
But the costs don't stop at the tenant! The tenant passes the costs on to the consumer by raising their prices? Thus the consumer pays your tax.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
