Economic reform

[Rolling Thunder]

Good day, fellow denizens of the internet, and welcome to RT's economic reform thread, where we will discuss economic reform in both the political arena, but also in the abstract. I will lead the debate with a topic of my own (but please do not feel the need to speak only on that matter). I will, however ask that logical fallacies not be employed in this thread.

I will outline, in broad strokes, the economic reforms that I would carry out to my own country.

Firstly, the legalisation of marjuanna, magic mushrooms, LSD, amphetamines and a number of other currently illegal substances. These drugs would be subject to a varying degree of control: the stronger, like LSD and amphetamines, would be manufactured solely by licensed, reputable biochemical firms. The naturally -occurring and milder substances, particularly marijuana, would be placed under the same restrictions as beers and wines - a limited amount may be grown for private consumption, but strict licensing will follow the large-scale production and selling of it.

This will bring two advantages to Britain. Firstly, the police will no longer need to busy themselves so greatly in protecting the public from the use of these substances, and will be able to busy themselves with more appropriate tasks, like stopping real crimes. It will also deny organised crime a large proportion of their income, forcing criminals to either become legitimate businessmen (And thus abide by the law and pay tax), or lose money.

Secondly, it will likely allow us to benefit from a sizeable influx of thrill-seeking tourists who seek to experiment with these substances without the iron nostrils of the law breathing down their necks. This influx of wealth will help expand our tourism sector, likely providing several thousand unskilled jobs in the service sector.

Thirdly, the taxation revenues may be used to reverse the somewhat-shaky financial position of our government, putting us into surplus.

The same might also be said of my plan to legalise prostitution.


With the (hopeful) end of deficit spending and a substantial increase in government revenues, I would hope we would then be able to look towards restructuring our taxation structure to a less regressive one. Currently, with 20% VAT, council tax, and other punitive, stupid measures, a large proportion of the poor's income goes straight into the coffers of government. This is clearly both an economic inefficiency, and a inequitable state of affairs in terms of taxation. I would propose the reduction, with an eye to the abolition of, V.A.T, though maintaining the excise taxes on vices such as alcohol/tobacco/drugs, though how best to finance this I am uncertain.

[Thorn777]

Sure, but its not going to happen. To large parts of the masses it would mean the same as asking to legalize and tax pedo-porn.

The people need to "reform" first, so they can see the cost benefit. Also important on numerous other matters. Which means honest info and a realization that informing yourselves is just part of life and in your own best interest. People can no longer afford the auto-pilot, let others do whatever they do, and end the day with X-factor.

In any case, while I certainly support the "reform" you're raising, its not substantial in the way I think you think it is in saving the economy etc. There is great limits to this in comparison to the size of the structural economic problems. Like what use is it, when the "tax" is avoided legally and illegally? Is it going to be restricted to moms & pops operations employing lots of people and reinvesting in the communities, or do we end up with two or three cooperations and follow the path they ought to set.

Things like that...but lets not think about that, legalizing drugs and guns is just allot more fun to think about.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

But what should be taxed and why?

[Thorn777]

VAT, income-taxes, payroll, etc etc

because its now part of the legal economy like any other legal venture paying taxes.

Seems obvious. Sure you can ask "why tax legal ventures at all", well thats a democratic decision.

[Rolling Thunder]

Well, as I said, the cannabis is obviously going to be a mom and pops operation, as it's very easy to grow the damn stuff and the legislation will reflect that, with relatively liberal granting of licences to businesses intended to cultivate it for consumption. And frankly, in the UK, avoiding tax is fairly hard to do when you're not a vastly wealthy megacompany, which is unlikely to happen with cannabis production.

The complexity surrounding (safe) amphetamine, ketamine, LSD and so on production will naturally lead to a smaller number of firms (and a consequently less competitive market) due to the relatively high costs startup fixed in producing such drugs safely (small factories being needed). However, it's likely that this will bring in a substantial amount of additional revenue to the government - less than alcohol or tobacco, but still substantial enough that it could plug the gap between spending and tax income. Then we can wait for proper economic recovery to occur (which this will help spur on by increasing overall consumption and legal consumption), and then look to start restructuring the tax system to being more progressive and look to make the economy more efficient without diminishing service provision.

[Vizsla]

We're not known for our restraint.
If you legalised drugs don’t you think we’d be back to this again:



Productivity would fall and so would government revenue.

[Rolling Thunder]

We're not known for our restraint.
If you legalised drugs don’t you think we’d be back to this again:



Productivity would fall and so would government revenue.

You mean...back to the industrial revolution? I'm fairly sure this poster is trying to remind us of all of the evils of gin. As a seasoned drinker, I am quite aware of the evils of gin, especially when it tastes of herbs.

Was with you till that. It would have to be done incredibly carefully if at all. Because, and lets be honest, if you have walked past any prostitutes in your travels, you must have seen, most if not all are abusers or the abused, addicts and victims.

Well, the prostitutes I know on a personal basis are yes, ed up, though in part this is caused by their utter lack of recourse to the law or counselling when they (invariably) fall victim to sexual assault. But the fact is that we are all ed up in some way, there's no reason to turn one segment of society into pariahs just because they lie on their backs for money. Rather - taxey taxey tax tax. Thus may the human traffickers be identified and crushed in the iron fist of the law!

[Ahlerich]

I'm fairly sure this poster is trying to remind us of all of the evils of gin. As a seasoned drinker, I am quite aware of the evils of gin, especially when it tastes of herbs.

well you might be but what about the queen?

[Basil II the B.S]

You can legalize and sell drugs if you want, but no more free health care for drug users and abusers. I find the idea of paying to cure someone who just wanted to get high preposterous.
People must pay entirely for the drugs and the cure for whatever disease they may get. If they can't afford it, they'll pay the consequences in another way.

[Denny Crane!]

You can legalize and sell drugs if you want, but no more free health care for drug users and abusers. I find the idea of paying to cure someone who just wanted to get high preposterous.
People must pay entirely for the drugs and the cure for whatever disease they may get. If they can't afford it, they'll pay the consequences in another way.

So long as we treat alcohol in with that.

[Tankbuster]

So long as we treat alcohol in with that.

And if you want to be consistent, you'll have to do the same with obesity.
And people who get injured during sport activities beyond the mundane.

I think there is a conversation to be had about how much we are willing to pay for people who don't seem to care about their health, but there is a continuum there that quite frankly doesn't end.

[Denny Crane!]

And if you want to be consistent, you'll have to do the same with obesity.
And people who get injured during sport activities beyond the mundane.

I think there is a conversation to be had about how much we are willing to pay for people who don't seem to care about their health, but there is a continuum there that quite frankly doesn't end.

That never ends? Not so much in fact this can even be done under a fully public system, you are likely to get shunted down waiting lists and delayed preferment if you are a smoker in the UK and refuse to quit, entirely sensible policy.

[Tankbuster]

That never ends? Not so much in fact this can even be done under a fully public system, you are likely to get shunted down waiting lists and delayed preferment if you are a smoker in the UK and refuse to quit, entirely sensible policy.

I meant to say that it doesn't end if you want to be consistent about it. Obviously that's not a concern for many governments, so yes, there are laws of that nature in place.

I actually think it's all pretty sensible, but I find that lack of consistency very bothersome. For instance, people are very strenuous about it having to be applied to smokers, yet they're a lot less strenuous when it comes to, say, people weighing 20 stone and coming into the hospital with obesity-related issues. Or about their kid who broke his leg while going skiing.
If we're going to take people's lifestyle choices into account when it comes to giving them healthcare, fine, but again there's lots of lifestyle choices that need to be taken into account then.

And another concern I have with this kind of reasoning, is that it seems to forget why we have health care in the first place. It's not just because we feel empathy for other people, it's also because we have an economic incentive to make sure that other people don't become incapable to work because they can't pay their hospital bills or can't get treatment.

I just think it's a subject that's very complicated when you get down to the nitty-gritty.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

And if you want to be consistent, you'll have to do the same with obesity.
And people who get injured during sport activities beyond the mundane.

I think there is a conversation to be had about how much we are willing to pay for people who don't seem to care about their health, but there is a continuum there that quite frankly doesn't end.

Of course it ends.

The government just works out the relevant tax adjustment in the same way health insurers do it.

And serious sporting injuries are incredibely rare, as evidenced by the fact health insurers will charge less if you are physically active.

I meant to say that it doesn't end if you want to be consistent about it. Obviously that's not a concern for many governments, so yes, there are laws of that nature in place.

We do take into account sporting injuries, we're being consistent. That's what health insurers do.

But the reason we encourage sports and stuff is because you will be cheaper than anyone else.

[Tankbuster]

Of course it ends.

The government just works out the relevant tax adjustment in the same way health insurers do it.

And serious sporting injuries are incredibely rare, as evidenced by the fact health insurers will charge less if you are physically active.

Gee you guys really get hung up on an expression huh

We do take into account sporting injuries, we're being consistent. That's what health insurers do.

Really? (I don't mean that sarcastically, I just don't live in a country where private health insurance is all that common so I'm curious.)

So you're telling me that when you get a disease, all your risk factors are taken into account? For instance whether you're obese, whether you smoke, whether you did or not do physical exercise, that all has its repercussions on how much you have to pay?

I'm not completely sure I like that idea. Perhaps it's my experience with someone who developed a tumor at 40 years of age despite living a life far healthier than anyone I know (genetic predisposition), but I'm not sure we can accurately make judgements of that kind.

[Basil II the B.S]

Absolutely.

[justicar5]

The same might also be said of my plan to legalise prostitution.

Was with you till that. It would have to be done incredibly carefully if at all. Because, and lets be honest, if you have walked past any prostitutes in your travels, you must have seen, most if not all are abusers or the abused, addicts and victims.

Registered and monitored brothels may manage to do it, but hte checks would have to be stringent and the exits available.

You can legalize and sell drugs if you want, but no more free health care for drug users and abusers. I find the idea of paying to cure someone who just wanted to get high preposterous.
People must pay entirely for the drugs and the cure for whatever disease they may get. If they can't afford it, they'll pay the consequences in another way.

Tax them the cost, simple. The cost of treating alcohol and tobacco related diseases and injuries is more than covered by the taxes currently paid on the sales of said, and tbh I am ok with that, in fact I would like a minimum unit price, put beer back in the hands of the land lords, not as a promo at tesco. 50p a unit would help immensely, doesn't hurt pubs, doesn't hurt people who buy non own brand beers and spirits, makes getting blind in the street a non-cheap option. Note thats a minimum price, not a taxation

We're not known for our restraint.
If you legalised drugs don’t you think we’d be back to this again:



Productivity would fall and so would government revenue.

That was a propaganda poster when it first came out, and remains one.

[Condottiere 40K]

We understand how to deal with alcohol and tobacco, but a lot of us are wary on the effects of soft, let alone hard drugs on our children primarily and society secondarily. Marijuana use is so prevalent, it might not be that radical a policy to legalize with high taxation combined with an intensive education program targetted at school children to emphasize the dangers of such indulgence, and make the consequences of harmful actions performed under the influence prohibitive.

[Rex Germanius]

, though maintaining the excise taxes on vices such as alcohol/tobacco/drugs, though how best to finance this I am uncertain.

High taxes on alcohol are contributing to the binge drinking problem. Obviously cheaper alcohol would not solve the problem, there are also cultural reasons, but it doesn't help.

[Rolling Thunder]

High taxes on alcohol are contributing to the binge drinking problem. Obviously cheaper alcohol would not solve the problem, there are also cultural reasons, but it doesn't help.

Explain?