MIND-BLOWN! Brand talks to David Graeber who wrote one of the best books I've ever read. They discuss the ponzi-scheme that is the current global economic system and explain how the debt based money system is controlled by the banks. They also talk about the inevitable debt cancellation that will have to come and giving everybody an individual basic income. Wish I could have been involved in this conversation. https://soundcloud.com/thehuffingtonpos ... st-week-01 So Brand and Graeber - in your opinion are they just spouting nonsense or offering real alternatives like I believe?

MIND-BLOWN! Brand talks to David Graeber who wrote one of the best books I've ever read. They discuss the ponzi-scheme that is the current global economic system and explain how the debt based money system is controlled by the banks. They also talk about the inevitable debt cancellation that will have to come and giving everybody an individual basic income. Wish I could have been involved in this conversation. https://soundcloud.com/thehuffingtonpos ... st-week-01 So Brand and Graeber - in your opinion are they just spouting nonsense or offering real alternatives like I believe?

"debt based money system is controlled by the banks"

Not controlling it very well though are they ?

Quote LeighGionaire="LeighGionaire"MIND-BLOWN! Brand talks to David Graeber who wrote one of the best books I've ever read. They discuss the ponzi-scheme that is the current global economic system and explain how the debt based money system is controlled by the banks. They also talk about the inevitable debt cancellation that will have to come and giving everybody an individual basic income. Wish I could have been involved in this conversation. https://soundcloud.com/thehuffingtonpos ... st-week-01 So Brand and Graeber - in your opinion are they just spouting nonsense or offering real alternatives like I believe?'" Of course there are other economic systems, indeed in extremis there is only one sustainable one: hunter- gathering. I am not sure that there is any that would support the current human population as well though. It will all end in tears however.

Quote LeighGionaire="LeighGionaire"MIND-BLOWN! Brand talks to David Graeber who wrote one of the best books I've ever read. They discuss the ponzi-scheme that is the current global economic system and explain how the debt based money system is controlled by the banks. They also talk about the inevitable debt cancellation that will have to come and giving everybody an individual basic income. Wish I could have been involved in this conversation. https://soundcloud.com/thehuffingtonpos ... st-week-01 So Brand and Graeber - in your opinion are they just spouting nonsense or offering real alternatives like I believe?'" Of course there are other economic systems, indeed in extremis there is only one sustainable one: hunter- gathering. I am not sure that there is any that would support the current human population as well though. It will all end in tears however.

Instead of writing off everybody's debts as the link suggests (which would punish people who tried to be prudent) I'd give everybody in the country say £25,000 which must be used to write off existing debts or if you are fortunate not to have that much debt you get to keep the extra, so anybody with no debt gets £25,000 for free.

I'd also nationalise the banking system and only loan out most new credit for things that actually produce something like new houses or new machinery. For mortgages I'd only allow 2 X yearly salary for the loan ammount or 3 X Joint salary for couples. I'd also create the interest money needed to pay back the debts and spend it into the economy.

I'd also throw in a law that bans anybody from owning more than two houses. Obviously this would crash the price of houses and send a lot of people into negative equity. If that is the case I'd allow them to hand back the property if they want with no debts attached or freeze interest payments on the mortgage if they want to continue living in it.

In answer to the title question. Yes.

An economy based upon free market lines but with much stricter regulations, employment laws and company taxation in order to incentivise companies to act in the manner we wish them to.

If we don't want unnecessary amounts of people employed in zero hours contracts (or any other employment issue) then give tax breaks to those who treat their employees well and whack up taxes on those who don't.
For instance John Lewis etc would get tax relief whilst Amazon etc would be taxed to the hilt.

We use certain types of both personal and business taxes to incentivise or disincentivise certain types of spending or investment behaviour so why not for issues such as employment or corporate social responsibility.

As mentioned, housing is a major issue and often a big cause for poverty. The prices are simply far too high caused in part by increased lending, too many buy to let and not enough housing built. As suggested, bring in much stricter regulations on house ownership and mortgages along with properly funded council housing. On top of that strict controls on the rental market, not only are house prices too high but rentals are far too high too. Not helped by the student rental market.

I would also say there needs to be much, much more transparency and responsibility from private companies. Including much more transparency about their ownership, their finance & taxation, their employment practices, political & charitable donations and sourcing of products/materials. I'd be half tempted to make them liable to Freedom of Information requests for certain things like public bodies. Though that would need looking into.

I would also steadily reduce "other taxes" such as VAT, certain duties etc and put more on income tax to get a fairer tax system and hopefully a better redistribution of wealth.

If we can get:
- more stable, better & better paid employment
- far lower house prices and rentals (alongside proper mortgages)
- & proper corporate taxation and responsibility
Then the economy would be far more efficient and far fairer than it currently is in my opinion.

There are other, more political, issues such as regional representation that I think are vital too but they're not directly economy related.

Forget income tax or corporation taxes.

Introduce Land Value Taxation and you could basically scrap all other taxes, relying instead on excise duties to (dis)incentivise.

Unlike people, land does not have a habit of offshoring, it tends to stay where it is

Not again - this is the most bonkers idea you have ever come up with and you have come up with a few.

Where in the entire world does this system exist and thrive - it doesn't, why is that because it does doesn't make any sense on any intelligent level.

The sole reason it has not been adopted is that those who stand to contribute most are the weathiest. Those individuals and corporations who already avoid paying their fair share of taxation by various avoidance techniques.

They simply wouldn't allow their political puppets to introduce such a progressive system



[url=http://stuartjeannebramhall.com/tag/singapore/Various places[/url

As to land tax, how are /should be values assessed? I am not au fait with the theory behind it,

Usually it is according to the maximum developed potential of the land. So the value of a hectare of heathland or forest would be less than a hectare in London. The level of infrastructure is also taken into account: why should a taxpayer in Inverness be paying for Crossrail?

But that's ridiculous. Who assesses the maximum developed potential? The infra-structure has been developed by someone (in the 19th century by private capital) and so they get penalised. I thought the theory was land was taxed based on it being undeveloped? That again has a problem, as it would encourage the whole country to be concreted over - a person owning it would be taxed and so would need to get value from it rather than leaving it as a nature reserve, or whatever. The whole thing seems utterly nonsensical and destructive in either case.

There are such things as planning laws.

A nature reserve (or other "green" land that has no development potential) may be given a value of £0.001p per hectare, whereas a site in The City may be valued at £1bn per hectare.

Look at the DLR: Real estate prices jumped massively along the route, some were empty sites, contributing little or nothing to the local economy at all. On completion, the owners of thos sites saw a massive increase in the value, while the UK taxpayer footed the bill. Is that equitable?

And when you ask "who will value the maximum developed potential?", it's not something that we have no expertise in. A massive revaluation went ahead during the 1980s in preparation of the Poll Tax. Look back to the conversion to North Sea gas as another example of a huge change in infrastructure. I can also remember the arguments against unleaded gasoline, with oil companies and their stooge politicians complaining that "it would mean AN unleaded pump on every forecourt.

The "Tax Gap" is too large, something radical needs to happen to close it