chris667":ry2ub994 said:
While not directly related to the privatisation of Eurostar, this is very interesting background:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/pers ... owing.html
I've read the thrust of such articles, and I have to say, I don't always buy into their thrust.
Which always seems to be - we'd better tip-toe around the rich, else they'll feck-off with their tax. Problem is, the arguments are... either cleverly comprised, or naively constructed - there's always a big occluded middle in their contention (not necessarily the suggestions on taxation).
ALL the parties and supporting ideologies that could effectively form a government, are going to have to raise a significant amount of tax. This oft-touted ideal, small government, low taxes? Ain't going to happen any time soon. It's just not going to happen. It may be something the tories would cite as an ideal, but the reality is, it's just not tenable, nor have they got form for being able to pull it off. Merely hand-wave whilst they give with one hand of tax cuts, whilst take with another, by implementing a new, or raised, stealth / indirect taxation.
Taxation, these days, is all about trying to smoke it past the wrong guy - as the article says, extract them most whilst pitching it at a level that will make the goose hiss least. It's not like either Conservative or Labour governments haven't gleefully and willingly exploited the cash cow that is indirect taxation - the only difference is the relative level of honesty in doing so. Labour will traditionally tell you that some increases in taxation are a necessary and limited pain, that's worthwhile. Conservative will still try and peddle the line that they're all about low taxation, whilst doing it anyway.
The reality was, as soon as they realised, that they could exploit it at the levels they did, they were always going to be backing the leggy horse, with a wonky hip. Because some of these thing were always going to be affected by being punitive. There's only so long you can pitch tax at smokers and boozers and not expect it to have some impact on behaviour - same with fuel taxation. And none of these things were really about control of damaging activity - they were merely about extracting the most taxation, whilst appearing to have a bit of a lame excuse (but they can do their politicians hand-waving about that...) - look at the thing about "controlling" e-fags. Really? Risk to health? Or risk to taxation revenue stream.
Problem is, though, when such things start to dry up a bit. They have to cast their net further and wider. And then they came for...
And where does this leave us? Some political ideologies still try to peddle a lie about them being about lowering taxes, whilst the Wizard is behind the green, velvet curtain. Some naive supporters believe them and use it as a point of debate. Problem is, it ignores what they actually need.
So... what makes more sense, when revenue gathering is underperforming? Well sure, if you're a floated company (or a political party trying to assert an ideological point, and put themselves in a more favourable position for an election), image might be integral to survival, and a short-term injection of cash from various sources, good enough to be parlayed into stats.
But we've always suffered from over-politicising and diddling with things for short-term-ism, whilst on an ongoing basis, we get a shittier end of the stick. For medium to long-term future, what makes more sense? Retaining a position in a currently profitable enterprise, of which England, plc, could garner ongoing revenue to help with the hole in it? Or more short-term sticking plasters, that are more about ideology, and politics, than they are about what's better for the country on a longer than current election-term basis...
I know what I think they'll do - what is best for THEM, dressed up as something else.
