Showing posts with label recession. Show all posts
Showing posts with label recession. Show all posts

Sunday, 14 October 2012

Thoughts on tax from JFK...

****

It's hard not to smile at the likely discomfort that this might cause for all those "progressives" who wish to tax anyone with slightly more income than average until their bones crack. Here's JFK on tax:

An economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.

So there you have it "progressives", one of your saints believed that cutting taxes led to growth and higher tax revenues. And he is right. Go watch the whole speech.

If we want growth, we must cut taxes. It really is as simple as that. And not the cut taxes for one set of folk while raising them for others. Not the cut taxes and load it on to duty. Actually cut taxes - and if that means government has to do a little less, that the welfare system is simpler and targeted to the needy and that people take more responsibility for their own health, then so be it.

....

Thursday, 19 July 2012

Police, crime and public honesty - a statistical lesson

****


It is pretty clear that rates of crime don’t correspond to any of things we’re always calling for – more coppers (on the beat of course), tougher sentencing, bigger prisons, capital punishment or flogging in the public square.

Recorded crime...fell by 4%, continuing the long downward trend in crime since 1995, and dropping below 4m offences for the first time in 23 years.

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) said violent crime had fallen by 7%, including a 2% fall in robberies.

We’d also been told – mostly by chief constables protecting their empires – that reductions in police spending during a recession would result in a surge of crime:

Acting Chief Constable Chris Weigh of the Lancashire force said the loss of front line officers had resulted in an “inevitable” increase in the number of offences being committed.

Seems this top copper was wrong! The real problem is that – because we’ve focused on police, punishment, prisons and probation – we don’t really understand why crime has fallen so rapidly over the past 20 years. Or indeed whether it will continue to fall. What we will be able to say is that the overall funding of policing and economic recession does not lead to more crime.

So what are those factors? Well it seems that simple economics is a factor – stealing stuff is harder and selling it on is more difficult (as well as less lucrative). So professional thieves have shifted to other crimes:

...with significant rises recorded in the last two years in metal thefts triggered by soaring commodity prices

While the opportunist has taken to nicking bikes and lawnmowers from sheds.

However, the truth may be that we’re really a lot more honest than the authorities give us credit:

Mobile phones deliberately left in pubs and clubs by Sussex Police to catch thieves were all returned.
 
Officers planted phones fitted with tracking devices in nine clubs and pubs in Hastings and St Leonards as part of Operation Mobli on Saturday night.
 
However the phones were handed in at the bar or security staff and not one was stolen.

...


Thursday, 12 July 2012

Bradford's parking fines and the economic downturn...

****

In the latest (Q1 2012/13) Bradford Council financial monitor there's a bit on why the Directorate of Environment & Sport is predicting an overspend. Amongst other things it says:

Revenue generated from Car Parking Services is currently declining; this is primarily as a consequence of the economic downturn and a reduction in income from parking fines. Our analysis raises questions about the trade-off between less income than planned and the positive outcome of more law-abiding parking.

Implicit in this statement is that the 'economic downturn' is responsible for a predicted reduction in income from fines. No-one was able to provide any substantiation for this a today's meeting. Probably because the real evidence suggests the opposite:

Traffic tickets go up significantly when local government revenue falls, they found. Their study showed for the first time evidence of how "local governments behave, in part, as though traffic tickets are a revenue tool to help offset periods of fiscal distress." ...

Controlling for other factors, a 1 percentage point drop in local government revenue leads to a roughly .32 percentage point increase in the number of traffic tickets in the following year, a statistically significant connection.

My feeling is that this reflects more enforcement rather than more bad driving - perhaps (although I'm pretty sure most Bradfordians would giggle at this suggestion) the City's drivers are behaving better?

....

Saturday, 28 April 2012

The only bit of the economy that's growing is...

****

...government.

As I observed yesterday in a point about jobs, these cuts, this austerity - at least as far as the public sector is concerned - seem pretty illusory:

Well, strictly, “government and other services”, so it includes defence, the National Health Service and so on, but also private education and private healthcare. That sector of the economy has expanded by more than 5 per cent since 2008; health and social care has expanded particularly strongly.

The only austerity measures have been tax rises - higher taxes on buying stuff, the closing of so-called loopholes and an avalanche of increases in duty on things like booze, fags and petrol.

The public sector - and all us politicians hovering round its honey pot - isn't where the austerity is biting. We're OK - it's the bloke who hasn't had a pay rise in five years and can't afford his pension any more, the pensioner on a fixed income while inflation rockets and the mum juggling a part-time job with a couple of children, who are being bitten.

And - however much it may pain the big unions, the Labour party, the panjandrums of civil service and the state employees at the BBC - the answer is still just what is was back in 2008, and 2009, and 2010, and 2011...

...cut taxes on incomes, reduce the tax on jobs that is employers national insurance and stop treating businesses as if they are the spawn of Satan rather than the only hope for us seeing out the recession.

Get on with it...

....

Sunday, 23 May 2010

Oh dear, free markets make us less free do they?

****

Now I don’t want to scare y’all but we’re all doomed.

At least in the opinion of two clever chaps writing in today’s Sunday Telegraph. They start well:

"According to the economist Friedrich von Hayek, the development of welfare socialism after the Second World War undermined freedom and would lead Western democracies inexorably to some form of state-run serfdom."


Not a lot to argue with there – Hayek, along with Popper, was the man who exposed socialism for what it really is: a threat to our freedoms. But then Peter Boone and Simon Johnson go and spoil it with this execrable nonsense:


Hayek had the sign and the destination right, but was wrong about the mechanism. Unregulated finance, the ideology of unfettered free markets, and state capture by corporate interests are what ended up undermining democracy both in North America and in Europe.

Oh dear, free markets make us less free do they?

This simple sentence contains its own contradictions – the words “free market” and “state capture by corporate interest” do not sit together. After all the state is captured (by whatever interest) in order to fix things to the benefits of that interest. That, my clever friends, is neither “free” nor a “market”.

More importantly, Hayek was absolutely and specifically right in the reasons for the problem – the inexorable expansion of the welfare state. And there, at the heart of the credit crunch, lie the real issues – corporate welfare in the form of guarantees to banks and individual welfare in the form of requirements to bend lending rules to match “social outcomes”. Yet the new masters of the universe are those grand men, trained in dirigisme by France’s grand schools, who propose further intervention, direction and control as the solution.

Our bloated welfare systems suck up nearly 20% of GDP – we’ve ended up like the wealthy family who supports Uncle Edward out of duty, supplying his whisky, allowing him to lunch out with friends and to stay in the old house despite him contributing precisely zero to maintaining the family’s wealth or income. And worse still the rest of the family has been spending the kids’ inheritance on trips to the theatre, season tickets for the opera and generally living high on the hog.

We may not like what has happened. We may be righteously angry with the bankers. It may be imperative to make substantial changes to the way financial systems operate. But if you think – like these two clever chaps do – that the “market” for money is in any respect free, unfettered, unregulated or gung ho, think again. Along with property markets, finance is the most controlled, interfered with, worried over and state-directed sector of our supposedly free system.

The current problems are a failure of regulation rather than a consequence of freedom. And we are to believe that putting in place a new super-structure, new rules and different oversight will make it all better? We’ll be back – in five, seven or ten years – with a new crisis, another recession, another failure of regulation. But we’ll clutch ever tighter to the welfare state that protects us failing to recognise that it is that very welfare state that, like a giant parasite, is eating up our wealth, our authority and our civilisation. Hayek was right and these two ever so clever chaps are wrong – intervention, regulation, control and state-direction are the problem not the solution.

....

Monday, 23 November 2009

Welcome to the Nessie Recession?

***

Ian Pearson from Futurescape is predicting a "Loch Ness Monster" recession:

"...rather than a double dip, our view is that we are looking at more of a roller-coaster decade in which we will see regular rises and falls in different economies around the world. Our colleague Ian Pearson refers to this as a ‘Loch Ness Monster’ downturn – with uneven peaks and troughs emerging with very little warning. The pain will be felt quite unevenly – those economies that have done most to curb or prevent their banking system from entering into huge leveraged debt transactions and complex high volatility derivatives contracts are likely to fare best – or suffer the least relative pain."

And in support of this a report from Société Générale is cited that warns clients:

"...to prepare for a possible "global economic collapse" over the next two years. They highlighted that total US public and private debt was now 350 per cent of GDP and many years of deleveraging would be inevitable – even without further shocks. The report warns that even without any new public spending, within two years, government debt would rise to 125 per cent of GDP in the US and the Eurozone, 270 per cent in Japan and 105 per cent in the UK."

So batten down the hatches guys - and if you're in business: stick to the knitting!

...