Shall we close the week with a few letters? Yes! Let’s…
Dear Sir,
Having followed Capital & Conflict since its inception, this latest issue, Your Financial Dunkirk Moment, seems to strike a less measured tone. Certainly, if the Brexit vote results in a very narrow majority, it is reasonable to assume EU officials will descend on London to offer better terms. If the vote to leave is by a clear majority, then I doubt a Dunkirk Moment will arise. The UK is not Cyprus, it is the fifth largest economy in the world, and there will be no tolerance for EU officials. There will instead be calls for Parliament to repeal the European Economic Communities Act forthwith, and with it, for all subsequent related treaties to be struck from the statute book. Indicative is the rising popularity of Tory Brexiteers versus those in the Remain camp. Nonetheless, financial turmoil will occur short-term but longer term the UK will have a far brighter future out of the EU.
Regards,
William J
I certainly don’t disagree about the long term. And neither does Charlie Morris of The Fleet Street Letter. But the short term could be much more volatile than expected. The point of the Dunkirk letter is to alert British investors to the threat. And the threat is more than just uncertainty. It’s that the “Remain” camp is going to throw the kitchen sink at the country in a ruthless fear campaign.
In your Budget Review, you wrote:
The sugar tax, by the way, is ridiculous. What business does the government have telling people how much sugar they can put in their body?
The issue here is consistency. If you are going to take that line, then let’s repeal government taxes on alcohol and tobacco. Anybody remember what the Boston Tea Party was about?
Anton
Pick me! Pick me!
It was about no taxation without representation, at least indirectly. The colonists felt that the Tea Act violated their rights. They were taxed by an English Parliament that didn’t represent them. It was essentially an argument for self-government or local rule.
The larger point about repealing “sin taxes” is spot on. What business does a Conservative government have singling out behaviours it finds socially unpopular and, thus, taxable? The whole point of living a free society is so other people can’t ban your behaviour simply because they don’t like it and they have an electoral majority.
And don’t bring up the public health costs of obesity, lung cancer and excessive tea drinking. A health system that pays for everyone’s care – even when poor health is generated by poor individual habits – is going to rack up huge bills. If you don’t subsidise bad personal health decisions with free healthcare then you don’t have the “public health” justification for alcohol, tobacco and sugar taxes.
But a fuller discussion of taxes, politics and rebellion is beyond the scope of today’s letter. I’ll leave it at that. You’re welcome to let me have it with both barrels. Send notes to [email protected].
Category: Economics