Ms. Orr\’s economic plans

Financial institutions that granted unrealistic mortgages at the height of a market they inflated themselves should be taking the hit here. Mortgages that default as interest rates rise need to be put under the control of local authorities, who will rent to a home\’s former owners at rates reflecting the fact that they have acquired a long-term asset (or part of one, under shared ownership).

Sorry? What?

Repossessions become council property?

Well, doesn\’t that just bankrupt the entire banking system overnight.

And I do mean overnight, as they\’ve now no security against their entire mortgage book. Oh, and mortgage interest rates overnight become 19%: unsecured lending you see.

This plan might need just a tad of adjustment perhaps?

Silly George, along with his silly political party, believed that the public sector was \”squeezing out\” the private sector. He is a dolt. Mostly, services are provided by the public sector, precisely because there is no money in them.

What?

Sorry, did hubby leave some of his old heroin lying around or something? Education is a service which some provide for profit: health care is a service which some provide for profit.

For a start, offshore companies need to pay a yearly levy, based on how many people they employ, in a direct contribution to the costs of educating people to the level that is amenable to these employers (whether they are employed here or abroad).

Err, yes, I think so. The education of the people is now the property of the State: thus you should pay the State for using the education of the people. Umm, folks, this is helotry, slavery to the State. And, err, a tax on jobs: way to reduce unemployment there, eh?

No, I think that putting down that crack pipe would be a really good idea.

6 comments on “Ms. Orr\’s economic plans

  1. Would it be possible for our society to distribute time with a little more social justice?
    That’s another quote from the article.
    Made me laugh.

  2. Thanks for the upfront admission that the banks’ mortgage books are balanced atop a bubble of inflated house prices/land prices. Makes the neo-LVTers’ argument for them:the whole banking crisis stems from them taking on board as security too much residential land of highly unstable value.

  3. That she hasn’t even heard of the lump-of-labour fallacy should be enough to warn anyone off whatever it is she’s taking. That most Groan readers haven’t heard of it either is the principal problem.

  4. “For a start, offshore companies need to pay a yearly levy, based on how many people they employ, in a direct contribution to the costs of educating people to the level that is amenable to these employers (whether they are employed here or abroad).”

    It doesn’t quite do what she wants, but perhaps it would be good enough if we simply extended the principle of loans to all schooling, not just the Universities? Then companies would have to pay people so that they could pay back their education, in direct proportion to the number of people said companies employ and in direct proportion to the amount of education those workers have consumed.

    Isn’t that what she wants?

    Best of all, people educated in, say, France would not have to pay back anything at all. Which also seems to be what she wants. This could work. Certainly be much simpler than any other scheme that might come to mind.

  5. That was the first thing I thought SMFS – why not just have people pay for their own damn education in the first place, then the reimbursement for it is automatic through their wages.

    Anyway, why only off-shore companies? Presumably they pay tax on their profits before repatriation or distribution to shareholders? Not to mention the contribution they are making via income taxes on their workers’ wages – a levy based on the number of people they employ, you might say.

  6. It’s the multinationals, with their tax-dodging, monopolising practices. It really is very difficult to persuade them to pay their way under current global conditions

    Oh I see. She’s got that covered. I’ve got an answer for her – abolish company tax and stick with consumption and income taxes. Then, as long as their workers are resident in the UK, it’s not possible for the company to dodge its obligations.

    Too simple?

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.