Sensible Taxation

25 Nov 2019 

During this election campaign, all parties are making promises (or threats) concerning taxation.  All these proposals seem to accept that the current system of income taxation is to be                   maintained, whereas it is quite obvious that this system was devised for a time when calculations were done by abacus and is not appropriate for an age of calculating machines let alone sophisticated computers!

It really is quite absurd that the amount of tax one pays varies from zero per cent up to £12,500 pa and goes up to 20 per cent to £37,500 and so on and so forth.  It would clearly be hugely more sensible to relate total income to total tax payable by a formula which governments could put in place and which allow an incremental tax rate to increase to a level and at a rate of increase they think is appropriate.  This should enable the government to be able to predict much more accurately than now how much income tax they could be expected to harvest in a given tax year. 

This formula would apply to all taxable income but there would obviously be an amount of tax which is not profitable to collect and that would be deducted from the total.  This would replace the current personal allowance and be available to everybody.  This would remove one of the more bizarre features of our current tax system - the withdrawal of the personal allowance between incomes of £100,000 to £125,000 per year income which leads to a marginal tax rate of 60% which then falls again to 40% and above £150,000 to 45%.  This is really ridiculous and a more rational income tax system would also discourage some of the complicated methods of tax avoidance which costs taxpayers a lot of money and robs the treasury of much income.

Another tax which urgently needs revision is inheritance tax.  The industry of avoiding inheritance tax probably costs more money than the tax itself yields. This should surely be replaced by a more sophisticated form of capital taxation which does not depend on death.  The present avoidance mechanisms are hugely complex and fighting them costs the revenue a great deal of money.  It is difficult to know exactly how to do this but there are examples in other countries where capital gain and/or capital is taxed on a more rational basis. 

Climate Change

25 Nov 2019 

There can no longer be any doubt that climate change is real and that global warming is already now having a harmful effect on human communities in many parts of the world.  There is also a great deal of pressure to reduce CO2 output (and hopefully methane output as well) by substituting renewable energy sources for fossil fuels and reducing overall energy use. These will, if successful, slow down and possibly arrest the harmful effects of global warming.  However, there are two much more fundamental changes that are required if there is to be any real prospect of reversing global warming.  These are:

1) reduction in the global human population;

 2) increasing the efficiency of photosynthesis by widely grown plants which would enable greatly increased consumption of CO2. 

It is worth pointing out that these two changes will, on evolutionary timescales, most probably happen anyway.  It is likely that, as global warming continues unabated,  there will be epidemics and starvation and warfare on a very large scale and that the world population will indeed decrease.  Over an evolutionary timescale, hundreds of thousands or millions of years, plants will also evolve to make use of the raised CO2 levels by having an increased efficiency of photosynthesis.  However, it would be greatly in the interests of the human population that now exists that these changes should be brought about by less catastrophic means and over a hugely shorter timescale. 

A reduction of the human population

The average family size is decreasing particularly in wealthier communities and increasing standards of living is one attractive option for reducing population growth. In recent years contraceptive implants (for example Etenogestrel) have been developed that,  given subcutaneously, can prevent pregnancy for up to five years. Making these available universally and free of charge could make a substantial further impact. Unfortunately, there would be opposition to such a move from some religious groups who continue to regard humanity as an endangered species.

Increasing the efficiency of photosynthesis

The current efficiency of photosynthesis is roughly one per cent of the energy provided by the sun to plants.  I have been told at a meeting, but cannot quote the source, that the upper theoretical limit of photosynthetic efficiency is ten per cent.  George Porter, a distinguished photochemist, pointed out many years ago in his  1995 Rajiv Gandhi memorial lecture that increasing the efficiency to five per cent would allow all the energy and food needs of the planet to be met on the acreage that is currently being planted.  Undoubtedly achieving this would not be easy.  The primary enzyme concerned, rubisco, is notoriously inefficient and it has proved difficult to change it.  However, the idea - even put forward by some distinguished scientists - that evolution would have provided greater efficiency, if feasible, is incorrect.  The efficiency of photosynthesis must balance the amount of carbon dioxide available and highly efficient photosynthesis in a time of low CO2 levels would simply drive the CO2 levels even lower and cause the plants to die.  Therefore the need for this highly efficient photosynthetic plant is only temporary and once the CO2 levels have been brought down again it would need to revert to the previous less efficient photosynthetic mechanism. 

There should be a real Manhattan project-scale effort put into the project of raising the efficiency of photosynthesis as this would on its own rapidly solve the climate problem.  It is therefore particularly depressing that the Green movement still continues campaign against the genetic modification of plants for reasons that are difficult to fathom.  One hopes that wider counsels and more common sense can be brought to bear. 

Update on Brexit

Now that we have a government preparing for a no deal Brexit it is perhaps appropriate to make some predictions of how this will affect United Kingdom.

It would seem almost certain that Scotland would decide to become independent of England and to remain in the European Union - with or without the approval of the Westminster Parliament. This would leave a hard border between England and Scotland for which absolutely no provision is being considered.

It is almost as likely that the Northern Irish would also leave the United Kingdom. They would have the option of joining the Irish Republic to form a united Ireland or to form a new union with the Scots. I would hesitate to predict which they would choose.

The Welsh would probably also wish to stay within the EU and decide either for independence on their own or perhaps also form a union of the Scots

This would leave England isolated and almost certainly severely economically and politically damaged. I would guess that within a few years they would apply to re-join the European Union - but that would not recreate the United Kingdom.

Is this what was voted for in the 2016 referendum?  I think not.

22 Jul 2019

The assisted dying debate

Some days ago I listened to the House of Commons debate on assisted dying. Powerful arguments in favour were put forward, many for patients with motor neurone disease who were not necessarily predicted to be within six months of death.

The arguments against depended almost solely on the contention that because assisted dying might be abused to pressurise dependent old people into suicide that therefore all assisted dying should be prohibited. 

This is not a compelling or even an acceptable argument.  There is almost no human activity that cannot be misused and the answer cannot be to prohibit all such activities.  For example, driving a car can be abused by speeding or driving when intoxicated or causing accidents by lack of attention, but nobody in the past has suggested that driving a car should be forbidden because of these abuses.  Social media on the internet appear to be famously subject to misuse of a whole variety of kinds some of which endanger the mental health of people who make use of them and yet there has been no major campaign to forbid the use of the internet.  To take the argument to its extreme, you might say that one should prohibit all sexual intercourse because of its abuse by rape.  In that case, presumably the human race would either die out or would have to be repopulated along the lines laid out in Brave New World by artificial techniques.  It is really hard to believe that even the most “pro-life” members of the House of Commons would really support such actions.

It is only where there is compelling evidence that it is really impossible to put in place regulation that prevents major and significantly common abuse that the prohibition argument can be allowed any validity at all.  This is certainly not the case with regard to assisted dying.  Where assisted dying is allowed – Holland, Belgium and Oregon being good examples –  no evidence is forthcoming that there has been any serious problem with such abuse.  In these circumstances this argument against assisted suicide should be abandoned.