What really happens in a “free market”

Five years ago, the state of Kansas (USA) was taken by its Republican Governor, Sam Brownback, into the most aggressive free market economy imaginable – the sort that has been favoured by our own Conservative government. It involved tax cuts (or even no tax at all) for the rich and big companies. Last week the policy was cancelled as a hopeless failure.

Last week, the Republican-controlled Kansas legislature took the remarkable step of overriding the governor’s veto, finally repealing his signature tax cuts. Those tax cuts, which reduced personal income tax rates and imposed no tax at all on many kinds of business income, went into effect in 2013, and were touted by Brownback and other leading supply-side figures as the best way to boost growth, bring back jobs, and make Kansas richer.”

… On the day that the tax cuts were enacted, the Kansas City Star ran a story in which the governor’s revenue secretary, Nick Jordan, promised that the tax cuts would yield big benefits for Kansas. It’s worth quoting a paragraph from that report in full since it sets out Brownback’s own terms for his tax “experiment.”

Nick Jordan, the state’s revenue secretary, said the administration ultimately imagines the creation of 22,000 more jobs over ‘normal growth’ and 35,000 more people moving into the state over the next five years. And he expects the tax changes to expand disposable income by $2 billion over the same period.”

In fact, over the period Kansas lost 49,000 jobs, ended up with a population 85,000 less than anticipated and disposable income was $20 billion short – and it had a lower growth rate than surrounding states. It got so bad that parents, angered by cuts to school funding, took the state legislature to court and got previous levels of funding reinstated.

“The idea that cutting taxes especially for the rich will boost growth and make everyone better off remains a central, if misguided, element of many economic proposals. President Trump’s tax plan, for instance, includes trillions of dollars in tax cuts that would flow overwhelmingly to millionaires and wealthy corporations.

It even includes a very similar proposal to Brownback’s policy of giving a special low tax rate for so-called “pass-through” income.

With the remarkable failure of the Brownback tax cuts in Kansas, we can hope that at least some leaders and economic policymakers will begin to adjust their theories to meet the facts, just as the Republican-controlled Kansas state legislature has done.”

http://uk.businessinsider.com/kansas-experiment-with-tax-cutting-failed-on-its-own-terms-2017-6?r=US&IR=T

Read more here:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/7/15753510/kansas-brownback-tax-reform

Telegraph: planning permissions being granted in wrong places

Planning permissions granted for new homes are being concentrated in the wrong areas, where there is less need for housing, according to new research by Savills.

It found that there is a lack of 90,000 planning consents for homes in the least affordable and most in-demand areas of the country.

Only 20pc of planning consents in 2016 were in the most unaffordable places, where the lowest priced homes are at least 11.4 times income. However, 40pc of the country’s total need for new homes is in these markets, while there is a surplus of consents in the most affordable locations.

Research found that in areas where the house price to earnings ratio is over 11.4, which includes London and much of the South East, there is a shortfall of 73,000 planning consents for homes.

Since the National Planning Policy Framework was launched four years ago, with the aim of simplifying the system, there has been a 56pc increase in the number of consents granted.

But analysis shows that there has not been any increase in the areas where affordability is most stretched and where housing need is the greatest.

The Savills report said: “This means we are not building enough homes in areas where they are most needed to improve affordability and support economic productivity.”

Only 41pc of local authorities have a housing plan which sets out housing need and a five-year plan of how to cater for it.

Savills also modelled the potential impact of the Housing Delivery Test, which was announced in the Housing White Paper last February and would assess need based on market strength in an attempt to build “homes in the right places”. It found that it would double London’s housing need to more than 100,000 homes.

Chris Buckle, Savills research director, said: “There continues to be a massive shortfall in London and its surrounds and it is this misalignment of housing need versus delivery which could ultimately hinder economic growth.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/uk/planning-permissions-new-homes-granted-wrong-areas-says-new/

Money versus safety: money always wins out

” …The Observer has learned that successive governments have commissioned and paid for – over the past 12 years – a series of reports into the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of sprinkler systems in the construction of new buildings, including schools and care homes. All have concluded beyond any doubt that they should be used.

Yet last year fire experts were enraged when ministers decided to loosen, not tighten, regulations to allow new schools to be built without sprinkler systems at all. The need to build more schools fast and cheaply appeared to have prevailed. “Everybody bombarded the ministers in education,” says King. “Meetings took place with ministers and they went back to have another look at their guidance and it is still pending today, because they are still trying to hedge their bets.”

It is understood that in March or April this year Barwell [last Housing Minister before the election] agreed in principle to meet the all-parliamentary group for the first time, but the meeting never happened because May called a general election and Barwell, no longer a member of parliament, moved to Downing Street to advise her. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/17/tragedy-grenfell-tower-lives-money-fire-safety

Which old nag will Swire back next time?

Swire was all for May – both Remainers who turned.

He fought (or rather didn’t fight) the election on her being the right woman for the job – “strong and stable” and our only hope to avoid a ‘coalition of chaos’.

We now face a ‘coalition of chaos’ of Tories and the DUP and May is almost certainly on her way out. Who will Swire back next? Perhaps BoJo – an old Etonian who will almost certainly want his old schoolmates around him.

And don’t forget, Swire (who complained of ‘vile comments’ about him in the election) has issued no censure of his good mate George Osborne – who described Mrs May as a “dead woman walking”.

Please, Claire Wright run again! Please!

The new Housing Minister – does he really matter?

Alok Sharma [is the new housing minister] … Sharma is the 15th housing minister since 1997 and the seventh since 2010, suggesting that most have only a limited time to develop expertise. Sharma, 49, an accountant by profession, comes to it as a housing novice. I’m sure the industry will be keen to colour in what looks like a blank sheet of paper“.

David Smith, Sunday Times Home, Opinion page 6(paywall)

Owl says: really no need to worry, Mr Smith – developers (aided by enthusiastic local authorities) have been in charge of housing foy YEARS and have no intention to relinquish control to a mere housing minister – who doesn’t even have a seat in the Cabinet.