You\’ll recall, you well informed person you, the fuss that Nick Shaxson made over the City\’s Cash last year? How appalling it was that the City of London had some huge secret war chest of cash that was used to prop up the entirely evil system of late financial capitalism?
How the newly enobled Baron Glasman of Stoke Newington railed against this iniquity, how Ritchie leapt aboard the bandwagon and insisted that billions should be confiscated and used for the good of the nation?
Interestingly, a report on how the City\’s Cash is collected and how it is spent has recently been posted onto the net.
You can read it here.
This is what that man with the deep, deep, knowledge of banking, economics, taxation and the righteous way of living told us:
They tell him they’ve only got £3 billion of assets.
That’s £3 billion they don’t need to promote banking and £3 billion we need to save libraries, and so much more.
It’s so obvious what needs to be done – and the last thing that this money need do is promote global banking, but that’s what it’s being used for.
It really is time this tax haven within the UK was abolished.
If you read the actual report, they\’ve some £126 million coming in a year. Make up your own mind as to whether that\’s a decent return on £3 billion of assets.
How does that get spent? £55 million a year on schools, £19 million a year on open spaces (Hampstead Heath, Epping Forest etc), £17 million a year on markets (Billingsgate, Smithfield etc). That\’s the bulk of it, right there, in very standard indeed Local Authority type expenditure (why Yes, LAs do pay for schools, parks, markets, in places right across the country).
And, as I pointed out before, The City does have something of a financing problem. There are very few residents (9,000 I think?) meaning that there\’s not much to be had in council tax from them. And business rates, which you\’d think (in fact you know they are) would be substantial on some of the most valuable business properties in the world, well, that cash doesn\’t go to The City Corporation. We\’ve a centralised system you see, it goes off to central government where it is then allocated out around the country on the basis of need.
And as the City has City\’s Cash it doesn\’t have any need for any of the business rates so all of the business rates raised in the City go off to Burnley and the like.
So what we actually have, quite unlike what Glasman, Shaxson and Murphy tell us, is a local authority largely financing itself off land rents and the accumulated surplus from centuries of those land rents. Providing quite standard local authority services from that investment income. And the vast majority of current taxation raised from inside the City\’s boundaries is sent off to poorer regions of the country to pay for needed services there.
It is indeed possible to change the law, confiscate the City\’s Cash and spend it on libraries elsewhere. But if that is done (quite apart from the effects of changing the law to confiscate the money of a lawfully constituted LA) then there won\’t actually be any more money for libraries in Burnley: for the City would now need to be funded from the business rates which would have to be returned to the City rather than sent to Burnley.
In short, everything that Mssrs. Glasman, Murphy and Shaxson have told us is entire bollocks as none of them bothered to do a lick of research. I managed to work it out from first principles, a bit of internet looking about and logic. Took about an hour. And here\’s the confirmation.