Tuesday, 19 November 2013

Tax varying powers or pointless tokenism.

One of the first articles I wrote on this blog was admission that I found the nitty gritty of financial arguments hard to grasp and the only one i really understood was  The Sam Vimes "Boots" Theory of Economic Injustice

To save you from clicking on the link I'll reproduce it.

A really good pair of leather boots, the sort that would last years and years, cost fifty dollars. This was beyond his pocket and the most he, Vimes, could hope for was an affordable pair of boots costing ten dollars, which might with luck last a year or so before he, Vimes, would need to resort to makeshift cardboard insoles so as to prolong the moment of shelling out another ten dollars. 
Therefore over a period of ten years, he, Vimes, might have paid out a hundred dollars on boots, twice as much as the man who could afford fifty dollars up front ten years before. And he would still have wet feet.

The Sam Vimes "Boots" Theory of Economic Injustice Men at Arms (Terry Pratchett)

So I admit that that the argument over he proposal to devolve a limited income tax-varying system on a par with Scotland - dubbed the “lockstep” - 

The system would mean the different bands of income tax could not be varied (up to 10p in the pound) independently from one another and has been criticised as too restrictive, with the Silk Commission recommendations specifically recommending greater flexibility.

Since I believe that Scotland has not used these powers it seems likely that the Assembly will be unlikely to do so as well.

So we seem to be offered a referendum that offers a choice of a Tax system that may not be (or even unlikely) to  use.

So what's the point?

As i said I may like most of the Welsh Electorate find the nitty gritty of economic argument difficult to grasp . But this looks like sheer tokenism . I'd vote yes in referendum for this because its a small step but in doing so I will not be expecting it to change Wales  and how we raise our own money much.

No comments: