The life expectancy gap between rich and poor people in England is widening, despite years of government and NHS action, a hard-hitting National Audit Office report reveals today.

Extensive efforts have failed to reduce the wide differential, which can still be 10 years or more depending on socio-economic background, says the public spending watchdog. While life expectancy has risen generally, it is increasing at a slower rate for England’s poorest citizens.

In Blackpool, for example, men live for an average of 73.6 years, which is 10.7 fewer than men in Kensington and Chelsea in central London, who reach 84.3 years. Similarly, women in the Lancashire town typically die at 78.8 years – 10.1 years earlier than those in the London borough, who reach an average 89.9.

The gap in life expectancy between government-designated areas of high deprivation and the national average has continued to widen, so Labour’s aim of reducing it by 10% will not be met, the NAO concludes. The failure to meet the target has cost an estimated 3,300 lives.

The report criticises the Department of Health and the NHS for making too little progress to tackle this key barometer of inequality. Although the DoH set a target in 2000 to reduce health inequalities and published a strategy in 2003, real NHS action did not begin until 2006, it says.

“The Department of Health has made a concerted effort to tackle a very difficult and long-standing problem,” said Amyas Morse, head of the NAO.

“However, it was slow to take action and health inequalities were not a top priority for the NHS until 2006.”

The service was also slow to apply three key policies, including giving more poor people drugs to reduce their blood pressure or cholesterol level. “These have yet to be adopted on the scale required to close the inequalities gap,” the NAO said.

The report also highlights a continuing lack of GPs in poor areas with high health need, despite shortages having been identified as a problem in 2000. It is also unclear whether an extra £230 a head spent in some areas to improve health outcomes has had any real impact.

Professor Alan Maryon-Davis, president of the UK Faculty of Public Health, said the disparities showed the inequality of English society. “If we see ourselves as a civilised society, these gaps are an indication of unfairness, which shouldn’t be there, and is an unfairness which costs lives, damages people’s health and will eventually be a huge burden on the NHS if they aren’t tackled,” he said.

But the NAO report did contain good news about improvements in the health of England’s poorest citizens, he added. “The health of the people in the poorest areas is going in the right direction – that’s good news. We shouldn’t regard that as a failure. But the bulk of the population are improving their health at a faster rate.” He urged ministers to resist any temptation to cut spending on health inequalities in the tough financial climate.

Anne Milton, the public health minister, emphasised the government’s belief in health equality. “Everyone should have the same opportunities to lead a healthy life no matter where they live. We want the public’s health to be at the very heart of all we do, not just in the NHS but across government,” she said.

“This report shows that efforts have been made to address health inequalities but that more needs to be done to tackle the deep-rooted social problems that cause ill-health. I want to see the NHS, doctors and local government acting at the right time to improve the health of those who need it most.”

The NHS Confederation, which represents most health service organisations, admitted that more progress was needed. Jo Webber, its deputy policy director, said: “The NHS and its partners, especially in local government, have a responsibility to help stop people falling into and continuing in ill-health rather than picking up the pieces when it may be too late. Encouraging improved health requires a focus on all aspects of society, including economic inequality, and quality of life in early years.”

Tammy Boyce, of the King’s Fund health thinktank, said the NHS could only achieve so much. “Tackling health inequalities is not a task for the NHS alone. It requires a co-ordinated, long-term commitment across government to address the wider causes of ill health such as poverty and poor housing,” she said.

“The first test of whether the coalition government is likely to succeed where the previous government failed will come in this autumn’s spending review. It is vital that cross-cutting issues like health inequalities are not overlooked in the scramble to deliver spending cuts on a department-by-department basis.”

Michelle Mitchell, charity director at Age UK, said the big gap in life expectancy had to be tackled in the light of the government’s intention to increase the age at which people can draw the state pension. “With a 13-year disparity in life expectancy between different areas of the country, it’s shocking that primary care trusts are still failing to use simple and effective treatments to help tackle the problem.

“This report follows the government’s announcement last week to raise the state pension age further and faster, which will hit those with a shorter life expectancy in the poorest areas of Britain hardest,” she said. “In this context, tackling health inequalities is more urgent than ever and the government must set ambitious targets to close the yawning life expectancy divide.”

Also see – Taxed To Death our film special on this issue

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jul/02/poor-in-uk-dying-10-years-earlier-than-rich

]]> http://renegadeeconomist.com/blog/telegraphpoor-uk-dying-10-years-earlier-rich-years-government-action.html/feed 0 http://renegadeeconomist.com/headline/independent-forget-mortgage-debt-happy-renter.html http://renegadeeconomist.com/headline/independent-forget-mortgage-debt-happy-renter.html#comments Sun, 27 Jun 2010 09:54:22 +0000 admin http://renegadeeconomist.com/?p=934 First-time buyers are suffering, and mortgage rule changes could lead to yet more misery, so perhaps it’s time to consider the benefits of being a tenant, writes Laura Howard

George Osborne’s recent pledge to dismantle the Financial Services Authority and hand greater powers to the Bank of England could be the final nail in the coffin for the nation’s first-time buyers.

Under the Chancellor’s new arrangement, the Bank would have the authority to place a cap on the amount that mortgage lenders could hand out to borrowers – and some fear this could mean maximum loans of 75 or 85 per cent of the property price.

Ray Boulger, the senior technical manager at broker John Charcol, insists that the move would particularly hurt first-time buyers, by denying them a mortgage that they could afford or driving them to finance part of it with an unsecured loan or a credit card. “And this is a group that the Government claims it wants to help,” he says.

Things are sticky for first-timers already. Since the banking crisis hit in 2007, those yet to get on the property ladder will need to raise at least a 10 per cent deposit – a sum that, in spite of the recent housing crash, is often unobtainable. For example, the average house price is now £169,162 according to Nationwide, following a 0.5 per cent monthly rise.

Even if average first-timers can muster up the required £17,000 and qualify for a mortgage on the remainder, they will pay through the nose in interest. According to Moneysupermarket.com, the average interest rate on a 90 per cent mortgage is currently 5.83 per cent, compared with 4.2 per cent for a loan of 75 per cent of the purchase price.

“This translates into an extra £144 each month for someone buying a £150,000 home, which is already a major impact on first-time buyers’ monthly budgets,” says Hannah-Mercedes Skenfield of Moneysupermarket.com. But she adds that a 75 per cent loan-to-value cap on mortgages would make things worse still. “We have grave concerns about this possibility – it seems like a new government is trying to fix a complex problem with a blunt instrument.”

High property prices combined with increasingly obsolete mortgages will result in a generation of the “haves and the have nots” when it comes to property, says Helen Adams, director of FirstRungNow.co.uk. “Generally speaking, only those with wealthy, generous parents, or very well-paid jobs, will be able to step on to the property ladder. Those who can’t get a mortgage and don’t inherit a property may well be committed to a lifetime of renting.”

Evidence of this is already under way. Figures from the Association of Residential Lettings Agents (Arla), the industry body, reveal that there were 3.8 million privately rented homes last year, compared with 2.4 million in 2001.

A recent report published by the National Landlords Association (NLA) has also revealed that as many as one-in-five households could be renting from a private landlord in the next 10 years. NLA spokesman Alan Ward said: “At a time when government funding is strapped, it is private investment that will enable essential housing needs to be met. Rather than being seen as a last resort, private tenancies are becoming the choice of many people who need the freedom to choose homes where they need and for as long as they need.”

There are several clear benefits to long-term renting, according to Peter Bolton King, the chief executive of the National Federation of Property Professionals. “Unlike house prices, rents have risen almost exactly in line with the average wage since 1994 – which makes renting more affordable in spite of low mortgage rates. Tenants will also escape the cost of repairs and maintenance to their homes, as this will fall to the landlords, and have total flexibility to move.”

If you are looking to stay put for the long-term, Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreements (ASTs) – the contracts used in the private rented sector – can state any duration of tenancy agreed by both landlord and tenant. But an AST lasting several years should incorporate break clauses which will allow either party to exit or continue the arrangement, says Mr Bolton King.

Tenants should also be prepared for landlords to use break clauses to hike the rent up – especially when the contract spans several years, he adds. However, such raises should typically be in line with the Retail Price Index (RPI) measure of inflation.

Economies of scale will apply though, which means you can use the longer-term tenancy as a negotiating tool to barter down your starting rent. “Especially for landlords with larger portfolios of property, long-term tenancies are attractive,” says Mr Bolton King. “It’s expensive and time consuming to keep switching tenants.”

Since 2007, deposits – which typically amount to between four and six weeks’ rent – will be held by the lettings agent and protected by the Government’s Tenancy Deposit Scheme. According to figures from the TDS, the average deposit amounts to £1,000, but don’t expect to earn any interest on it – even if it’s being held for 10 years, says TDS spokesman Malcolm Harrison. “The lettings agent will probably argue that the interest barely covers the administration costs of holding the deposit in a ring-fenced account. Or if they do pay interest, they might charge an administration fee.”

A thorough inventory – that states what furniture and appliances are in the property, and in what condition, when your tenancy begins – becomes especially important with long-term renting. “With the best will in the world,” says Mr Harrison, “who is going to remember what was and wasn’t there five years later?”

Staying in any home for several years will mean it needs to be redecorated and, as a tenant, you will be entitled to do this. However, the AST is likely to state that the property will need to be restored back to its original condition before you move out.

All tenants, regardless of the length of contract, will need to undergo a credit and reference check to ensure they are a reliable payer. Costs vary but, at a typical £50, this is one charge that will fall at the tenants’ doorstep.

Bricks & torture: ‘A mortgage would have cost £1,300 a month – renting is just £750′

Lucy Kemp, 29, and her partner, Dan Nash, 27, pulled back from the brink of buying their first home in Birmingham last month in favour of continuing to rent.

“We put an offer in at £210,000 against the £230,000 asking price and began looking for mortgages,” said Lucy, a marketing account manager. “But only having access to a 10 per cent deposit, the cheapest deal we were offered was a three-year fix priced at 6.5 per cent. With bills, this would work out at more than £1,300 a month.”

Instead, Lucy and Dan found a larger, more central two-bed apartment with en suite and terrace, available for rent at £750 a month. “The money we are not spending means we can continue having fun and that we have retained total flexibility to move to a house with a garden when the time is right.”

Lucy was also worried about tying her money up in a dubious property market.

“If you buy an apartment, you can’t extend it to increase the value – you have to rely on the market to increase or even hold its value – and I don’t trust that at all.”

Lucy and Dan are not worried that they have never been homeowners. “My mother only bought one house in her life but things are different now. We move around more so long-term renting suits us.

“Some people say renting is throwing money down the drain, but you have to pay to live, and it offers a whole host of other benefits.”

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/money/mortgages/forget-about-mortgage-debt-ndash-become-a-happy-renter-instead-2011347.html

Warren Buffett and Bill Gates are acting as if they’ve discovered the fountain of youth as they are now telling other billionaires they don’t need to spend their lives addictively pursuing and hoarding wealth.  On the surface this is noble, even though most people learned such things from their pet as a kid.  They’re inspiring other billionaires to follow their lead.  So we’re supposed to cheer right?  Many people are cheering.  The comments range from “thank you!” and “bless you Warren!” to the more worshipful “you are a hero!” and “this proves Microsoft’s commitment to humanity!”

Wow—the power of corporate PR.  It’s unfortunate that snake oil has always been a bestseller.  So rather than cheer, I’ll give a different perspective on what this billionaire PR campaign might be all about.

The real reason Gates and Buffett are doing this in the media now is because they’re still doing what they’ve done their whole adult lives—serving their bosses, the moneyed establishment behind Wall Street.  While the exponential growth machine was inflating, the establishment wanted them addictively pursuing EPS and share growth, and they dutifully did so better than most.  But now that the machine is shutting down, the fact is that billionaires won’t be able to pursue wealth—the game is over for a while.  And now that we’re headed for a major dose of deflation that will cause a lot of pain for a lot of people, the establishment wants Gates and Buffett on TV talking about charity.  Why?

Among other things, it’s a preemptive strike against the rage of the lower classes that will result from the final reckoning with our broken monetary system and the fact that the corporate system has shifted American jobs and production offshore.  This is an orchestrated billionaire PR campaign, kicked off at a dinner with David Rockefeller himself, “lord” of the US banking establishment.  Gates and Buffett are providing strategic marketing through CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) mouthpiece Charlie Rose and other major media arms of the establishment, then companies and smaller billionaires are following their lead and giving away money in return for more PR effect.  Two examples:

Corporate charity:  JP Morgan Chase got a lot of bang for its buck on June 9th announcing a $5 million charity program for education.  CEO, billionaire, and inner CFR member Jamie Dimon said, “As a company, we’re highly committed to serving our local communities…We’ve now seen that when corporations listen to the communities they serve, they can learn a great deal and, in turn, help worthy causes achieve goals that would have never been possible.”

Billionaire charity:  Marc Benioff, CEO of salesforce.com, billionaire, and CFR member just gave away $100 million to a hospital in San Francisco.  The PR master has stirred many on Facebook to lawd him with near religious fervor and thank him for caring so much for his community.  It’s the corporate suit equivalent of a rock concert.

Again beyond the PR, this is part of an organized campaign being run by the corporate ruling class.  While the most powerful folks at JPM Chase know the truth, the non-profit team inside the bank and an individual like Marc genuinely believe in what they are doing.  They’re decent people.  They just don’t realize how their compartmentalization within the mega corporate structure keeps them from seeing the truth of the debt-based corporate empire they’re serving.  So what’s the truth?

Will the Real JP Morgan Chase Please Stand Up?

Let’s start with JP Morgan Chase.  It is a voracious institution driven by ruthless usury putting people, towns, counties, states, and countries in debt.  It has fed the multi-generational billionaire families that have controlled the bank through history (the merger of JP Morgan interests and Rockefeller interests behind Chase) while making a few of its operating officers like Jamie Dimon billionaires as well.  It has done so by being the most powerful member of the Federal Reserve cartel that puts the US government in servitude and forces all of us to borrow and pay interest in order to have money, i.e. in order to survive.  So the bank effectively controls the rest of us in an economic structure similar to the old days of feudalism.

Some specific examples are useful to help understand the true character of this institution.  The bank, sometimes through foreign surrogates, has a track record of being involved in the financial crises that put foreign governments under even more debt from the Anglo-American banking establishment and give western corporations more power and control over natural resources and other assets.  The bank helps drive smaller levels of government into insolvency, with Jefferson County Alabama being the most obvious current example.  The bank has been accused of insider market manipulation, most recently in the silver market.  The bank has participated in the general banking attack on much of the world having blown indebtedness, and therefore asset bubbles, to such stratospheric heights that major “discontinuous adjustment” is guaranteed, to use an innocuous Greenspan phrase for “unprecedented catastrophe.”  And the bank showed how ruthless its operating officers can be in the aftermath of the collapse of 2008 when they had no problem jacking up credit card rates and kicking people out of their homes as Jamie Dimon went on CNBC to tell Americans they better pay up so his team can keep pocketing millions.  At the same time, the powers behind the bank were extorting the government to put the nation in even more debt, transfer billions to them, and hand them valuable assets like WAMU.

This should reveal the truth behind Jamie Dimon’s claim that Chase “serves its communities.”  That is PR spin straight out of Orwell’s 1984 where corporate propaganda from a smooth Harvard billionaire replaces truth.  I also hope this helps put in perspective a $5 million charity handout designed to give them PR value.  $5 million isn’t even pocket change to Chase.  It’s a tiny drop in the ocean of money that has been stripped from the population in the first place through usury.  So a helpful analogy to this Chase charity stunt might be a viciously abusive husband who gives his wife a Reese’s peanut butter cup after 10 years of broken bones, hospital visits, and psychological horror.  Don’t be a sucker.

Marc Benioff and the Truth of the Tech Boom

In Marc’s case, the story is far less severe.  He’s not in the dark usury business.  He’s not evil.  But the gap between truth and PR is still wide.  He became a billionaire in the 2nd phase of the tech boom in which the establishment chose Web 2.0 technologies for its corporate empire vs. the old client/server architecture from the 1st tech boom.  At the micro level, people inside his company think they’re benevolently serving human progress.  But the macro perspective reveals that salesforce.com is just one small component of the overall new world economic order being built by the financial empire that rules much of the world.  His product helps the corporate system go global and turn away from national and community loyalties.  So salesforce.com’s gain is, for example, the industrial midwest’s ruin—so much for the idea that he loves community.  As a few comfy employees in the company have gotten rich IN the tech bubble, manufacturing towns have been destroyed BY the tech bubble.  His product also puts data in the “cloud computing” architecture on the internet beyond corporate firewalls and national borders so the banking establishment can further consolidate power and control.  This explains why a CFR lawyer was a top officer at the company for a few years and why a public CFR representative like Colin Powell would speak at a Benioff conference for techies, not typically a venue where one sees national leaders who have more important things to do.

What’s really sad about the tech billionaires is that their wealth was driven by putting the rest of the world in massive debt.  They don’t understand this.  They think they really are “self-made” billionaires as described by establishment rags like Forbes.  But as Teddy Roosevelt said, business elites don’t know much outside their own business, so they don’t realize the true mechanism that funneled so much wealth into the tech industry and their personal bank accounts.  As a result of Greenspan and team driving the real estate debt boom and the US government massively increasing its debt at the same time, the Wall Street cartel had new unprecedented levels of liquidity to funnel into the corporate empire system.  This gave corporations billions to allocate to new capital projects, and since Wall Street governs the corporate system, it dictated how that money would be spent.  So guys like Marc saw their share prices shoot to the stratosphere as corporations funneled to them billions in funny money backed by the debt that would soon drown millions of people.

Truth vs. Corporate PR

This is the truth of the corporate system, our supposed captains of industry, and the tech billionaires we admire for entrepreneurial efforts.  This is the truth that more and more Americans are waking up to.  And this is therefore likely the reason the CFR corporate establishment is encouraging guys like Marc to dole out money in a coordinated campaign designed to make people admire billionaires and the corporate system that rules them.  If they can buyoff enough of the population with charity PR, they might avoid the reckoning that would otherwise be coming their way.  They will be able to stay peacefully in their billionaire enclaves separate from real communities as the rest of the population suffers in the next phase of deflationary decline coming our way.

So Warren, Bill, Jamie, Marc, am I glad some of the money that was sucked into your accounts by the debt system is being given back to the community?  Absolutely.  But will you go further?  Will you learn the truths this article discusses?  Will you actually get out in your communities, meet real people, learn about how their indebtedness is directly proportional to your wealth, and work with them to change the system rather than writing a check, hiding behind PR professionals, and serving the CFR agenda?

The people are awake to the truth now.  The system is reverting back to reality.  The PR matrix is coming down.  You should move beyond the fake PR facades as well.  Warren, you said the dinner with Lord Rockefeller was almost like a therapy session.  I promise you’ll feel even better if you simply choose truth over PR. As opposed to the narcissists that Rothkopf calls the “superclass” which surrounds you, most people are forgiving by nature. You don’t have to hide behind PR any longer.

By Damon Vrabel http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/24501

View here – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuysYXlJ43I&feature=player_embedded

If the claims of David Cameron and Nick Clegg are to be taken at face value, here in the UK we now live under a radical transforming government unprecedented in its progressive ambition.  Of course, there is nothing in the coalition agreement to justify the hyperbole, but there may be a glimmer of  hope. For the first time since long before the last coalition was dissolved in 1945, the cabinet now boasts three members who are on record as supporting the principle of land value taxation (LVT), a radical and potentially transforming policy if ever there was one.

The euro is under threat – along with our entire free-market system, warns Edmund Conway in today’s Telegraph.

Between the SEC charges and the congressional panels, the government is finally doing its job going after Goldman Sachs, right?  And this last week in April ends with the Justice Department picking up the baton, which puts Goldman under threat of criminal prosecution.  Things have suddenly gotten serious.

Two weeks ago on a radio interview, I suggested the SEC investigation will either be a chump charge to pacify the masses or it might potentially be the beginning of the sacrifice of Goldman Sachs for reasons explained below.  The Justice Department referral makes the latter more probable.

Criminal prosecution is indeed appropriate.  Goldman deserves to be broken up.  In fact, all banks of that size need to be broken up so that power is passed down to state and local economies, and countries are no longer held hostage by the mega firms.  Is that what is happening here?  Are we being saved from the financial parasites that have destroyed our economy?

Childlike Perspective:  Left vs. Right

The left thinks so.  The major media establishment is suddenly, as if by script, trumpeting the idea that government is cracking down on boogie man Goldman Sachs.  This view says, “Yey! Our good government servants that have our best interests at heart are fixing those greedy Wall Street parasites.”  That’s the entire purpose of the congressional panels—a stageshow for the Wall-Street-funded media to promote this narrative. But those very same government officials were the ones who did what Goldman Sachs representatives and the real powers behind Wall Street told them for the last 20+ years.  They still get all of their money from Wall Street.  Have they suddenly turned on the very people who feed them?  Of course not.

The right thinks this crackdown is bad because Wall Street and Goldman represent a benevolent free market.  This view goes beyond childlikeness and approaches insanity, like Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein thinking of himself as an angel from God.  Wall Street, the Fed cartel, is a government creation.  There is nothing “free market” about it.  It is the most powerful monopolized cartel in the history of the world.  Conservative media mouthpieces who trumpet Wall Street do not have a clue about our monetary system.  They have never looked beyond the false religion of neoclassical economics, which conveniently ignores the issue of money.

Conclusion: rule out the simplistic view of the left and right.  The Washington DC government has served Wall Street and big business for decades.  There is no divide between big government and big business.  They go hand in hand.  Neither could exist without the other.

Adolescent Perspective:  “They’re All Criminals”

Another group of people, far more accurate than the left vs. right disciples, think that Wall Street is just a predatory bunch.  Bringing down Goldman Sachs would therefore be a good thing in their view.  But they think DC government is a predatory bunch as well.  They see through the salesmanship and PR pumped through the corporate media.  They understand that frat boy behavior creates a self-serving clique whether on Wall Street or in Washington DC.  In fact, they understand how the boys in both groups get their power from working together.  It is all one club.

Conclusion: as correct as this view is, it leaves us paralyzed.  Adolescents are brilliant at seeing through adult facades, but they may fail to see the higher level picture.

The Godfather:  Who the Criminals Work For

The key to what is really happening is to understand that the suits we see on television are not in charge.  A bunch of random self-serving people would not be able to pull off strategic, coordinated plans—the adolescent view is only half correct.  There are people far above the pay grade of a senator like Chris Dodd or a wage servant like Lloyd Blankfein.  He may be the top operating officer at Goldman, but by definition that means he is a servant of the ownership class—the Anglo mafia—that controls all money in the system.  The fact that he earns a wage and gets a W2 at the end of the year means he and his firm are not in charge.

Goldman Sachs is effectively a capo regime.  It is a powerful player in a game of controlled chaos.  It was given a territory and was then expected to deliver the goods.  And Goldman delivered better than all the other capos in the system.  It reaped the rewards.  Goldman’s officers were paid better than any other regime throughout the last several decades.  Its hit men were the most productive. The most loyal—Rubin, Paulson, etc—have been inducted into the upper level circle around the Godfather and removed from the stressful street jobs that bring public scrutiny.  Those guys made their hundreds of millions and no longer care whether Goldman exists or not.  And from the Godfather’s perspective, there comes a time when capos have served their purpose.  At that point, their life is in danger.

“The Game of the Century:”  Bobby Fischer and the Queen Sacrifice

But capos typically are not sacrificed unless doing so would serve a Machiavellian purpose.  So what would be the purpose of sacrificing Goldman?  Well, in one of the more famous games in chess history, 13-year-old Bobby Fischer brilliantly pounced on his opponent and guaranteed victory by boldly sacrificing his queen on move 17.  The queen is the most powerful chess piece.  Average people would narrowly play a game defensively protecting their queen and assuming any chance to take your queen would lead to victory.  But that elementary view would be precisely the weakness upon which a true chess mind, a Godfather, would prey.  Beware of the bait being laid in front of you.

Goldman Sachs is very much analogous to a queen in the chess game being played by the ownership class—the richest pools of private capital controlled by multi-generational wealthy families that hover above countries via the central banking system.  It has been one of the most potent pieces on the board for many years, its most recent attack being on the entire nation of Greece.  But as the endgame comes into view, perhaps the most brilliant play to reach checkmate is now the queen sacrifice.  Goldman employees had better be sending their resumes to JP Morgan Chase—a critical chess piece in the endgame that will be protected at all costs.

The Great Global Restructuring

What is the end game?  The ownership class is attempting to restructure the world under a new financial system.  We have had a global currency for a long time—the US dollar—but it has run its course.  Wall Street has leveraged up the dollar as far as possible.  The dollar now holds most nations hostage thanks to the power of the bond market, the central banking system.  The ownership class needs a new debt-based currency and banking structure to maintain control as they pump the capital engine through the 21st century.  This is why the G20 is working feverishly to build up the IMF, BIS, and new global financial rules.  This time the production center will be China rather than the US, which is why China and Japan are the most asset-rich countries in the world while the western world is the most indebted.  The west is on track for decades of slow decline while Asia is on the verge of seeing “the rising sun.”

So unfortunately the government vs. Goldman Sachs story has nothing to do with reforming Wall Street in the interest of average Americans. Rather, it is a strategic move to further the endgame of consolidating Wall Street power, focusing public rage on Goldman to protect JP Morgan Chase, fueling new regulations to clamp down on the smaller banks that we so desperately need, and creating a global structure even bigger than the already “too big to fail” banking system.  This may be setting up one of the biggest, most successful queen sacrifices in history.  We should take the queen by all means—Goldman is a predator.  But heed the lesson from 13-year-old Bobby Fischer.  Be wary of checkmate.

Source Link:  Canada Free Press

By Damon Vrabel  Saturday, May 1, 2010

None of the parties have spelled out how they would cut the deficit. Since their various proposals will scarcely dent it, whoever wins the election will have to implement further tax rises and spending cuts.

Is raising NICs a good first step, though? Hardly. With unemployment high and incomes squeezed, it is staggering that Labour wants to raise taxes on labour. Hitting ordinary voters’ main source of income is hardly progressive. Worse, it will harm the recovery by raising the cost of labour and penalising effort. That will crimp pay, cost jobs and discourage working – limiting the tax take and raising benefit spending.

NICs and income tax inflate the cost of employing the average worker by half, according to the OECD, while a single person on two-thirds of average wages faces a marginal tax rate of more than 40 per cent. Hiking taxes on hard work is perverse.

While the Conservatives are right to oppose a “tax on jobs”, Labour and the Lib Dems are right to question George Osborne’s scarcely credible claim that nebulous “efficiency savings” will cover the revenue shortfall. But that does not make rescinding the NIC rise “unaffordable”. It just means the parties need to find better ways to raise extra revenue. Here are three.

First, tax harmful things, such as carbon emissions. A levy of little more than £10 a tonne could fill the £5.6bn gap left by the Tories’ rescinding of Labour’s 1 per cent NIC rise. Raising the rate as emissions fell would ensure a steady stream of revenue. It would also stimulate clean-tech industries and the green jobs of the future, without picking winners.

Second, bring forward reforms to encourage people to retire later. As the first baby boomers reach 65 this year, they should bear some of the burden of adjustment, while working longer would also replenish savings crushed by the crisis. Raising the retirement age by three months a year for the next 20 years and removing incentives for early retirement and obstacles to working longer would reduce pension outlays, raise tax revenues and boost growth.

Third, introduce a tax on land values. Whereas taxing work is wasteful – less is produced and no tax is raised on the lost output – land is in fixed supply so a tax on it is less harmful (and impossible to avoid). Shifting the tax burden from labour to land would therefore boost economic growth, according to an OECD study.

Taxing land values could also limit property bubbles, which divert funds from productive investment in booms and then cause terrible busts – without discouraging development (unlike property taxes), mobility (unlike stamp duty) or investment (unlike interest rate rises).

It would also be fair. Whatever the merits of capitalism, there is nothing intrinsically desirable about the initial distribution of property rights. Britain’s history is such that land is distributed more unequally than in Brazil. There, 1 per cent of the population owns 49 per cent of the land; here, 0.3 per cent owns 69 per cent.

Land appreciates not through landowners’ striving, but that of others. As talented and industrious people have flocked to London, the value of the 300 acres of fields – now Mayfair and Belgravia – passed down to successive Dukes of Westminster over three centuries, has sky-rocketed to an estimated £6.5bn. Better, surely, to tax that windfall rather than the work of those who generated it? A land tax would also pay for much-needed infrastructure investments that raise surrounding land values.

Replenishing Britain’s public finances will involve painful choices. But it is also a chance to make tax fairer and less harmful to growth. Wise politicians should seize it.

The author is a visiting fellow at the London School of Economics’ European Institute. His new book, ‘Aftershock: Reshaping the World Economy After the Crisis’, is out on May 6

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/apr/12/buy-to-let-first-time-buyers