t’s pretty obvious brexit tanked the economy and Covid was used as a cover up as to why it’s still so rubbish.
The big joke is that most who voted Brexit did so on the grounds of reducing the inward flow of newcomers from EU countries. That was pretty much the priority in the mind of 7 out of 10 leave voters.
About 1 in 10 voted on the sovereignty issue,
1 in 10 voted as a protest against the “bent bananas” and fishing fiasco.
The final 1 in 10 were totally bewildered, closed their eyes and jabbed the voting slip in a random Pinata donkey game fashion.
Ooo, got behind on this thread, and know you all have factors that I’m knowledgeable, but I’ll add this.
This morning, our state governor is making the media rounds announcing a proposed constitutional amendment that will end property taxes on primary homes in Florida. This will make entry level homes more accessible, allow families to buy and sell as their needs change, and be a shot in the arm for building and home improvement sectors. The predicted tax revenues from this measure is expected to increase net tax revenues by double digits.
Among other revenue-inducing streams, y’all need to consider other revenue streams than taxing on top of taxes on top of taxes which does nothing but squash the economy (the owner who has to pay taxes is going to put off hiring out a roof replacement or updates). Why is it that Florida made $128B in and the UK only made $32B? don’t think I’ve seen a tourism campaign for the UK in ten years - at least.
I agree with your summary of why people voted to leave, although the split may be different in different places. However I would add that quite a few were voting against Cameron as they were snubbing what was seen as elitist Westminster (and thus also Brussels) and the treatment the tories had meted out to the country in the previous years. I do not know if this was a voting decision or a factor to make a voting decision but that mindset did exist.
I’d also note the rising infantilism of thinking and behaviours in the UK. This child-like thinking is that everything should be simple and do-able, everything is right or wrong, every issue should have a straightforward answer. Of course that is not true - life is complicated. But when someone confidently says here is a simple answer to your problems - that apparent panacea is lapped up. It worked with the idea of leaving the EU and it is now working with asylum seekers.
I felt this way about Brexit and I feel the same about the mansion tax. The underlying issue is far more complex and far more difficult to resolve (postcode lottery council tax disparities).
The idea is that if that money is not taxed, it stays in the market in the form of home maintenance, discretionary spending, or business growth, which has more robust movement and recirculation of taxable money through the economy.
I might not be all that correct here but…
A situation I encountered back in the nineties that sounds similar…
We wanted to have a look round ‘Fountains Abbey’ in North Yorkshire…
We arrived at the gate. Mrs Fox and me, My mate Jim and his wife and child.
Admission was about 20 quid per adult, and a family ticket for my mate was almost 50 quid…
A lot of money in those days so we declined.
We could see the grounds were almost empty so most people would have done the same as us and turned round and left…Surely, if the admission was reasonable, then more people would have paid, so more profit…
So by removing some taxes, surely, it would encourage people to buy and sell properties which is good for the economy yes? The more people buying and selling, the more tax, albeit at a slightly less rate…People always respond to cheapness, just look at how well Aldi and Liddle are doing in the UK…Put taxes up and people stay where they are and save their brass.
I’m often fascinated by the Star Trek claim that at some time in the future, money no longer exists as a concept…and that the concept of greed and hoarding is thus no longer relevant.
Wouldn’t it be nice?
Naturally, nowadays, the “shirkers”’and the avaricious totally ruin that as a possibility.
Would it? I mean money (cash) is just a token of exchange for something else, we attribute value to it. Once upon a time it would have been shells. AI will never remove the transactional nature of humanity. People would just go back to barter and work around what would doubtless be a poor system. “The machine stops” by EM Forster may one day be reality.
Its not just Star Trek that put forward such an idea. The books of Iain M. Banks put a name to it - post-scarcity. The idea is that there can be sufficient food, shelter, commodities for everyone in abundance. Anyone and everyone can have anything because it is simply there to be had. As there is no want and everything is available then nothing has a price.
Funnily enough, this is just about possible today, if it was possible. The total wealth of the world is enough to give every single person a decent life - enough food, enough shelter, etc. It would mean people at the favoured end of the wealth spectrum giving up quite lot of course. So that won’t happen.
The generic global economic model requires an ever increasing population in order to maintain an expanding market. Thus, it is inexorably one doomed to fail at some point. I have no idea what will be the predator in the Malthusian model, perhaps it will be related to climate somehow.
One of the problems with that is the fact that nobody would have to work, so no commodities.
And if AI and robots did everything, people would get fat and lazy so we would have to create more Gyms for people to go and exercise to replace the manual labour…Wait a minute!
I think it will be the ignorance of humanity to the effects of harming the biodiversity of the planet. everyone is focused on climate change effects on our lives rather than the effects on plant & animal life of general pollution, exploitation and destruction of Earth’s resources.
