Am I Becoming A Tory Boy?
Tuesday 2nd October, 2007 15:07 Comments: 4
I posted several ideas that I had back in May, and it appears that David Cameron is pinching them. Okay, maybe he isn't, but his new policies sound a lot like some of my suggestions. I said back in May:
Raise the stamp duty land tax threshold. After it's been raised, make it follow the inflation/deflation seen in average house prices in the UK on an annual basis. To make up for the shortfall, charge stamp duty on all additional homes.
Cameron has pledged to scrap the tax for first-time buyers on homes worth under £250,000. I notice that everywhere is reporting it as "for first-time buyers", which sounds a little ominous, but is obviously to help get new people onto the housing market without helping out Buy To Let. I still prefer my idea, people with two or more homes are either greedy, rich, or running it as a business.
Scrap inheritance tax. If you've worked hard to get your money, probably paid 40% tax on a fair chunk of it, then why should you get punished 40% all over again?
It seems that they also want to cut inheritance tax, raising the threshold from £300,000 to £1 million. House prices are, on average, still something like £250k, so most people probably won't be affected by the new £1 million mark. The cuts would be paid for with a fee charged to business people who register abroad for tax purposes, although Labour claim that the £25,000 levy on those who register for non-domicile status would raise only a fraction of the £3.5bn needed. So I guess my plan to scrap it does open up a £3.5 billion+ hole in my budget, so maybe Labour and the Conservatives have a better plan by raising it instead of scrapping it. At least in the short term until they find another way to bring money in. Even scrapping the ID scheme won't fill that black hole. Although the Tory party plan on using that to... fund more prison places. Which is good. And will be needed if they also keep their promise to end the early release scheme. However, I can see a big flaw in his numbers (see, it's not just me that has flaws in their ideas):
The Conservatives are pledging to end the early release scheme which would see 25,000 prisoners freed from jail this year to ease overcrowding. Instead, a Tory government would fund 1,200 more prison places by scrapping ID cards. (BBC News)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't 1,200 spaces a lot less than the 25,000 prisoners that will continue to require a space (in an already overcrowded prison system)? Also, what happens once the money from the ID scheme is used up? There must be maintenance costs involved with the extra facilities/spaces.
At least I was going to increase the amount of tax on petrol to make up for some of these things, and to coerce car drivers off the road or at least onto shorter commutes. I believe increasing the amount of tax by about 7.5p per litre would help raise the £3.5 billion that the Tory party want to make up for raising inheritance tax to £1 million. And you could always increase the amount of tax on spirits (and possibly lower it on beer). The tax revenue from spirits (around £2 billion?) is about half that of beer, and I believe beer sales have been falling (at the same time, the spirits sales have risen). The higher tax on spirits might encourage drinkers to drink lager or beer instead of shots of vodka and tequila, and the increased volume of liquid will slow the irresponsible (and usually teenage) drinkers down. They might end up puking a lot of liquid into the gutter, but at least they less likely to end up dead from alcohol poisoning or unable to stand, which would probably put less strain on the NHS (and therefore save some more money).
I don't think I totally agree with any party right now, but at least most of them are trying to do the right thing.
Raise the stamp duty land tax threshold. After it's been raised, make it follow the inflation/deflation seen in average house prices in the UK on an annual basis. To make up for the shortfall, charge stamp duty on all additional homes.
Cameron has pledged to scrap the tax for first-time buyers on homes worth under £250,000. I notice that everywhere is reporting it as "for first-time buyers", which sounds a little ominous, but is obviously to help get new people onto the housing market without helping out Buy To Let. I still prefer my idea, people with two or more homes are either greedy, rich, or running it as a business.
Scrap inheritance tax. If you've worked hard to get your money, probably paid 40% tax on a fair chunk of it, then why should you get punished 40% all over again?
It seems that they also want to cut inheritance tax, raising the threshold from £300,000 to £1 million. House prices are, on average, still something like £250k, so most people probably won't be affected by the new £1 million mark. The cuts would be paid for with a fee charged to business people who register abroad for tax purposes, although Labour claim that the £25,000 levy on those who register for non-domicile status would raise only a fraction of the £3.5bn needed. So I guess my plan to scrap it does open up a £3.5 billion+ hole in my budget, so maybe Labour and the Conservatives have a better plan by raising it instead of scrapping it. At least in the short term until they find another way to bring money in. Even scrapping the ID scheme won't fill that black hole. Although the Tory party plan on using that to... fund more prison places. Which is good. And will be needed if they also keep their promise to end the early release scheme. However, I can see a big flaw in his numbers (see, it's not just me that has flaws in their ideas):
The Conservatives are pledging to end the early release scheme which would see 25,000 prisoners freed from jail this year to ease overcrowding. Instead, a Tory government would fund 1,200 more prison places by scrapping ID cards. (BBC News)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't 1,200 spaces a lot less than the 25,000 prisoners that will continue to require a space (in an already overcrowded prison system)? Also, what happens once the money from the ID scheme is used up? There must be maintenance costs involved with the extra facilities/spaces.
At least I was going to increase the amount of tax on petrol to make up for some of these things, and to coerce car drivers off the road or at least onto shorter commutes. I believe increasing the amount of tax by about 7.5p per litre would help raise the £3.5 billion that the Tory party want to make up for raising inheritance tax to £1 million. And you could always increase the amount of tax on spirits (and possibly lower it on beer). The tax revenue from spirits (around £2 billion?) is about half that of beer, and I believe beer sales have been falling (at the same time, the spirits sales have risen). The higher tax on spirits might encourage drinkers to drink lager or beer instead of shots of vodka and tequila, and the increased volume of liquid will slow the irresponsible (and usually teenage) drinkers down. They might end up puking a lot of liquid into the gutter, but at least they less likely to end up dead from alcohol poisoning or unable to stand, which would probably put less strain on the NHS (and therefore save some more money).
I don't think I totally agree with any party right now, but at least most of them are trying to do the right thing.
Fab - Tuesday 2nd October, 2007 15:44 Correction, most of them are promising to do the right thing! Whether they actually do them is up for debate. To be qute honest, there really isn't what you might call an inspiring choice. I can't bring myself to vote Labour though, they look like shallow and real con men right now.
Funding prison places is NOT good. The ideal is to have prisons we don't need to use, after all.
That means both identifying ways of discouraging crime (find out WHY they're being committed, for starters), and also identifying courses of actions that decrease rates of re-offence.
Prison isn't particularly effective at either: what it does do is separate criminals from the rest of society. I don't think that helps them become ex-crims. It DOES protect society from the worst of them, and that's what prison SHOULD be primarily for.
Plus, given that we've all broken a law or two in our time, and probably feel that it was in some way justified, merely becoming stricter with laws is not an approach I feel entirely comfortable with ;)
That means both identifying ways of discouraging crime (find out WHY they're being committed, for starters), and also identifying courses of actions that decrease rates of re-offence.
Prison isn't particularly effective at either: what it does do is separate criminals from the rest of society. I don't think that helps them become ex-crims. It DOES protect society from the worst of them, and that's what prison SHOULD be primarily for.
Plus, given that we've all broken a law or two in our time, and probably feel that it was in some way justified, merely becoming stricter with laws is not an approach I feel entirely comfortable with ;)
I suspect crimes are committed because some people can't see any other way of surviving, but there are also reckless and irresponsible people too, and I'm not entirely sure how you combat them (quite often, a prison sentence is the last resort, and all previous attempts to discourage them have failed). One way to decrease rates of re-offence is to hold them in prison for longer, but at the same time it's more likely to institutionalise them and increase the likelihood of them re-offending. You have to be careful though, as attractive incentives to support people or get them back on track might also encourage people to commit crimes, especially if you no longer put them in prison. This is similar to how some lone parents are given so many benefits that they can choose not to work: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=485104&in_page_id=1770
Perhaps it'd be different if we had a child support agency that worked properly, as absent parents would pay for their children or possibly be more careful about who they procreate with, and it'd be less of a drain on state benefits, freeing up money for lone parents that genuinely deserve a helping hand.
I think you're right that we should only really put people in prison to protect society, but with so many laws giving so many rights, there aren't many alternatives to punish people (financial ones are only of use to people with money, and rich people could continually re-offend as long as they have enough money), which is why they're in there in the first place.
I don't think any of this is about making laws stricter, it's simply making sure that offenders serve their entire sentence. The last thing you want is to release someone early when they don't appear to have changed their ways: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_east/7011175.stm
So how do you stop persistent offenders? Or how do you do it without resorting to extreme measures like the "three strikes law"/habitual offender laws, the death penalty, or sending them off to Australia again? I don't have any good answers. The system is broken, there's no easy or obvious way to fix it.
The analysis said Labour will never achieve its goal of persuading large numbers of lone parents to abandon a life on benefits because a huge proportion of them simply refuse to do so.
The study, produced by the Department for Work and Pensions, suggests much of the £3.4billion spent on attempts to encourage lone mothers to find jobs over the past ten years has been wasted.
It declared that Government campaigns 'struggle to make significant headway against the firm decision of some lone parents to choose not to work', and put this proportion at between 12 and 50 per cent.
The study, produced by the Department for Work and Pensions, suggests much of the £3.4billion spent on attempts to encourage lone mothers to find jobs over the past ten years has been wasted.
It declared that Government campaigns 'struggle to make significant headway against the firm decision of some lone parents to choose not to work', and put this proportion at between 12 and 50 per cent.
Perhaps it'd be different if we had a child support agency that worked properly, as absent parents would pay for their children or possibly be more careful about who they procreate with, and it'd be less of a drain on state benefits, freeing up money for lone parents that genuinely deserve a helping hand.
I think you're right that we should only really put people in prison to protect society, but with so many laws giving so many rights, there aren't many alternatives to punish people (financial ones are only of use to people with money, and rich people could continually re-offend as long as they have enough money), which is why they're in there in the first place.
I don't think any of this is about making laws stricter, it's simply making sure that offenders serve their entire sentence. The last thing you want is to release someone early when they don't appear to have changed their ways: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_east/7011175.stm
Christopher Beresford, 18, died, along with two other men who were travelling the wrong way on the M4 at Newport, and an elderly couple in the other car.
...
It has emerged that in March, Mr Beresford pleaded guilty at Newport youth court to dangerous driving, taking a vehicle without consent and driving without insurance or a licence.
Then 17, he was given a 12-month detention and training order, but was released last month from Parc Prison, Bridgend, under the supervision of a youth offending team.
Mr Davies, who is also a special constable, said: "This case graphically demonstrates the need to end all forms of early release.
"It has once again proved it's a fallacy that letting people out of prison is cheaper than keeping them in. Persistent offenders are responsible for half of the crimes committed.
...
It has emerged that in March, Mr Beresford pleaded guilty at Newport youth court to dangerous driving, taking a vehicle without consent and driving without insurance or a licence.
Then 17, he was given a 12-month detention and training order, but was released last month from Parc Prison, Bridgend, under the supervision of a youth offending team.
Mr Davies, who is also a special constable, said: "This case graphically demonstrates the need to end all forms of early release.
"It has once again proved it's a fallacy that letting people out of prison is cheaper than keeping them in. Persistent offenders are responsible for half of the crimes committed.
So how do you stop persistent offenders? Or how do you do it without resorting to extreme measures like the "three strikes law"/habitual offender laws, the death penalty, or sending them off to Australia again? I don't have any good answers. The system is broken, there's no easy or obvious way to fix it.
The criminal justice system is a horrendous mess which impacts on the prison system. The trouble is that there are too many vested interests (ie lawyers) thus no one is going to suggest simple yet effective solutions. The prisons end up being at the butt end of this malarky and the prisoners don't get proper treatment/education. They do need more prison spaces and more wardens just so that prisoners are kept in and then looked after properly. At the moment they get shuttled around a lot between different prisons before being released early to free up space. This does not allow them to use education or rehab facilities before being dumped back on society. Hence the persistent offender rates are going to be so high.
I am just sick of Labour spinning out 'new' initiatives and not just saying that they are going to shut up and just fix things, make them more efficient and just do simple, non-vote exciting policies that makes stuff work rather than just grabbing the headlines. If only they would put competent people in charge instead of yet more ideologically driven and media obsessed party hacks.
I am just sick of Labour spinning out 'new' initiatives and not just saying that they are going to shut up and just fix things, make them more efficient and just do simple, non-vote exciting policies that makes stuff work rather than just grabbing the headlines. If only they would put competent people in charge instead of yet more ideologically driven and media obsessed party hacks.