«The more I learn about China, the more I begin to think that the Chinese Govt. is maybe the most representative govt. in the world.»
It is not going to last: the chinese government have chosen to implement "thatcherism with chinese characteristics" and like in England and the USA they will only represent affluent property-owning middle-class people and wealthy shares-investing upper-class people:
* A right-wing think-tank in the 1970s discovered the basis of the electoral success of thatcherism: that people who own property, cars, share-based pension accounts vote significantly to the right of people who rent housing, use public transports, have defined-benefit pension *even if they are low income and status* and the value of their ownerships is small. As a result most western governments have been undermining renting, public transport, final-salary pensions and subsidise property ownership, car travel, share pension accounts, quite successfully.
* A large majority of CPC officials and central and local government officials and their families have significant portfolios of properties, shares and own several cars, and since they have been trained in marxism they understand very well which class they belong to and what are their class interests (anti-socialdemocratic, anti-socialist, anti-communist).
* The chinese government have privatised almost all housing, have been subsidising car travel (but they are still investing in public transport at least, but that will not last) and now the government wants to switch from final-salary pensions to share-based pension accounts.
"Beijing is pushing Chinese citizens to plan for their own retirements
On December 15, Chinese authorities launched a national expansion of their two-year old pilot private pension pilot project. According to the state circular issued jointly by tax, finance, and human resource bureaus, citizens participating in either of the two primary state retirement systems are authorized to open private pension accounts."
«There were even prophetic council house sales by local Tories in the drive to create voters with a Conservative political mentality. As a Tory councillor in Leeds defiantly told Labour opponents in 1926, ‘it is a good thing for people to buy their own houses. They turn Tory directly. We shall go on making Tories and you will be wiped out.’ There is much of the Party history of the twentieth century in that remark.»
A famous USA Republican political strategist (Grover Norquist) also said:
«The growth of the investor class -- those 70 per cent of voters who own stock and are more opposed to taxes and regulations on business as a result -- is strengthening the conservative movement. More gun owners, fewer labor union members, more homeschoolers, more property owners and a dwindling number of FDR-era Democrats all strengthen the conservative movement versus the Democrats. [...]
But going into November, what actually saved it for the Republicans was the investor vote, which went heavily R. Why? One, they didn't blame Bush for the collapse of the bubble. They were mad at having lower stock prices and 401(k)s, but they didn't say Bush did this and that caused this. Secondly, the Democratic solution was to sic the trial lawyers on Enron and finish it off. No no no no no. We want our market caps to go back up, not low.
[...] Now if you say we're going to smash the big corporations, 60-plus percent of voters say "That's my retirement you're messing with. I don't appreciate that". And the Democrats have spent 50 years explaining that Republicans will pollute the earth and kill baby seals to get market caps higher. And in 2002, voters said, “We're sorry about the seals and everything but we really got to get the stock market up.»
«In Europe and North America the solution for this kind of administrative fog is decentralization. Those decisions that can be made in the local area will be made there because [...] my mum and her community council. [...] In practice, though, the government is outsourcing blame for a funding decision that was ultimately taken in London.»
Localism means in essence localizing tax taking more than spending decisions: if the locals want to spend more then they have to tax themselves more. The important "detail" is that residence is heavily segregated by income, and taxing nationally and spending locally means that taxpayers in mostly-affluent local councils end up involuntarily donating their tax money to spenders in mostly-poor local councils.
The basic question is: why should the state send to affluent Guildford even a single cent of the tax money extracted from the poorer residents of Linlithgow *or vice-versa*? Why should the "Partnership Centre" of Guildford be funded by Linlithgow taxpayers *or vice-versa*? The politicians in Guildford would be praised for providing a "Partnership Centre" to their residents without costing them a penny, and those in Linlithgow would be criticized for higher taxes without any corresponding benefit to their residents, *or vice-versa*.
Recent governments in London have virtually abolished the difference in central government funding to affluent and poorer areas (by cutting the extra funding to poorer areas) to avoid doing that. This ensures that affluent areas can enjoy good public services even with low (in percent) levels of taxation, and poor areas have an "incentive" to become richer :-) instead of soaking the taxpayers in affluent areas.
Residence is heavily segregated by income also because:
* House builders tend to build single-income-band estates, that is estates with similarly priced houses targeted at the same income band, usually either affluent professional middle class or wealthy business owning "petty bourgeoisie" (no builders want to spend money on making houses for working class customers).
* Also different areas tend to attract different types of income bands: areas with lower services and cheap land will tend to attract businesses (warehouses, call centres for example) that employ working class people, those with better services and higher costs land will tend to attract offices employing middle class people.
Also in general in England (and in some other places) many middle class and upper class people do not like to share their neighbourhood with lower class people, so they use zoning and regulations to ensure that lower class people cannot afford to live in their neighbourhoods. For example, from the USA:
The more I learn about China, the more I begin to think that the Chinese Govt. is maybe the most representative govt. in the world.
«The more I learn about China, the more I begin to think that the Chinese Govt. is maybe the most representative govt. in the world.»
It is not going to last: the chinese government have chosen to implement "thatcherism with chinese characteristics" and like in England and the USA they will only represent affluent property-owning middle-class people and wealthy shares-investing upper-class people:
* A right-wing think-tank in the 1970s discovered the basis of the electoral success of thatcherism: that people who own property, cars, share-based pension accounts vote significantly to the right of people who rent housing, use public transports, have defined-benefit pension *even if they are low income and status* and the value of their ownerships is small. As a result most western governments have been undermining renting, public transport, final-salary pensions and subsidise property ownership, car travel, share pension accounts, quite successfully.
* A large majority of CPC officials and central and local government officials and their families have significant portfolios of properties, shares and own several cars, and since they have been trained in marxism they understand very well which class they belong to and what are their class interests (anti-socialdemocratic, anti-socialist, anti-communist).
* The chinese government have privatised almost all housing, have been subsidising car travel (but they are still investing in public transport at least, but that will not last) and now the government wants to switch from final-salary pensions to share-based pension accounts.
https://www.cfr.org/blog/beijing-pivots-towards-private-pensions
"Beijing is pushing Chinese citizens to plan for their own retirements
On December 15, Chinese authorities launched a national expansion of their two-year old pilot private pension pilot project. According to the state circular issued jointly by tax, finance, and human resource bureaus, citizens participating in either of the two primary state retirement systems are authorized to open private pension accounts."
«A large majority of CPC officials and central and local government officials and their families have significant portfolios of properties, shares»
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2014/03/how-thatcher-sold-council-houses-and-created-a-new-generation-of-propertyowners.html
«There were even prophetic council house sales by local Tories in the drive to create voters with a Conservative political mentality. As a Tory councillor in Leeds defiantly told Labour opponents in 1926, ‘it is a good thing for people to buy their own houses. They turn Tory directly. We shall go on making Tories and you will be wiped out.’ There is much of the Party history of the twentieth century in that remark.»
A famous USA Republican political strategist (Grover Norquist) also said:
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0903/0903norquistinterview.htm
«The growth of the investor class -- those 70 per cent of voters who own stock and are more opposed to taxes and regulations on business as a result -- is strengthening the conservative movement. More gun owners, fewer labor union members, more homeschoolers, more property owners and a dwindling number of FDR-era Democrats all strengthen the conservative movement versus the Democrats. [...]
But going into November, what actually saved it for the Republicans was the investor vote, which went heavily R. Why? One, they didn't blame Bush for the collapse of the bubble. They were mad at having lower stock prices and 401(k)s, but they didn't say Bush did this and that caused this. Secondly, the Democratic solution was to sic the trial lawyers on Enron and finish it off. No no no no no. We want our market caps to go back up, not low.
[...] Now if you say we're going to smash the big corporations, 60-plus percent of voters say "That's my retirement you're messing with. I don't appreciate that". And the Democrats have spent 50 years explaining that Republicans will pollute the earth and kill baby seals to get market caps higher. And in 2002, voters said, “We're sorry about the seals and everything but we really got to get the stock market up.»
I'd be interested to know how 12345 Hotline responds to nuisance callers, compulsive moaners, obsessive whingers.
«In Europe and North America the solution for this kind of administrative fog is decentralization. Those decisions that can be made in the local area will be made there because [...] my mum and her community council. [...] In practice, though, the government is outsourcing blame for a funding decision that was ultimately taken in London.»
Localism means in essence localizing tax taking more than spending decisions: if the locals want to spend more then they have to tax themselves more. The important "detail" is that residence is heavily segregated by income, and taxing nationally and spending locally means that taxpayers in mostly-affluent local councils end up involuntarily donating their tax money to spenders in mostly-poor local councils.
The basic question is: why should the state send to affluent Guildford even a single cent of the tax money extracted from the poorer residents of Linlithgow *or vice-versa*? Why should the "Partnership Centre" of Guildford be funded by Linlithgow taxpayers *or vice-versa*? The politicians in Guildford would be praised for providing a "Partnership Centre" to their residents without costing them a penny, and those in Linlithgow would be criticized for higher taxes without any corresponding benefit to their residents, *or vice-versa*.
Recent governments in London have virtually abolished the difference in central government funding to affluent and poorer areas (by cutting the extra funding to poorer areas) to avoid doing that. This ensures that affluent areas can enjoy good public services even with low (in percent) levels of taxation, and poor areas have an "incentive" to become richer :-) instead of soaking the taxpayers in affluent areas.
https://ifs.org.uk/sites/default/files/styles/wysiwyg_full_width_desktop/public/2024-12/Figure%203.png.webp
Residence is heavily segregated by income also because:
* House builders tend to build single-income-band estates, that is estates with similarly priced houses targeted at the same income band, usually either affluent professional middle class or wealthy business owning "petty bourgeoisie" (no builders want to spend money on making houses for working class customers).
* Also different areas tend to attract different types of income bands: areas with lower services and cheap land will tend to attract businesses (warehouses, call centres for example) that employ working class people, those with better services and higher costs land will tend to attract offices employing middle class people.
Also in general in England (and in some other places) many middle class and upper class people do not like to share their neighbourhood with lower class people, so they use zoning and regulations to ensure that lower class people cannot afford to live in their neighbourhoods. For example, from the USA:
https://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2024/01/10
https://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2024/01/11
Security: "Sir! Step away from the laundry!"
Father: "Why? I'm in my own yard"
Security: "Clotheslines are banned in in this neighbourhood, sir!"
Father: "But I'm trying to save energy."
Security: "Sorry, sir, but outdoor drying is associated with poverty! It reduces property values!"
Father: "Oh..."
Mother: "What happened?"
Father: "It turns out clotheslines are prohibited"
Mother: "You're joking"
Father: "The association claims they reduce home values by 15%"
Mother: "15%? You mean, that silly, million dollar McMansion across the streeet is only worth $850,000 if we hang out our laundry to dry?"
Father: "Yup."