One re fairness in taxation, and the other in connection with central vs local taxation.

Firstly, Ian Bell, in the vaguely left leaning Glasgow Herald, writes a thoughtful essay on

Is there any such thing as a fairer tax?

which I felt deserved a response in the online "Comments", as follows...

A good starting point would be a tax on privilege.

Exclusive rights of use of a Commons, such as land, non-renewable energy or even the "Creative Commons" of intellectual property,all fall within this category.

As does the privilege of Limitation of Liability enjoyed by investors.

So, a tax on Land Rental Values (or "Location Benefit Levy") is not a bad start. In Denmark it used to gather in - relatively painlessly, and completely unavoidably - around 30% of the tax take, although this is withering on the vine now that the people who own Denmark are in power.

Those who cannot afford to pay in cash could simply give up a minor %age of equity - a variation on Professor Bell's concept.

A "Carbon levy" into an "Energy Pool" dedicated to direct investment in energy production and energy savings would be infinitely preferable to the completely fatuous idea of monetising something completely without value - ie CO2 - which is brought to us by the same people who brought us the Credit Crunch.

And why not abolish Corporation Tax, and replace it with a "Limited Liability Levy" collected at the clearing level on gross corporate revenues.

That would put an entire industry of professional tax advisers out of business overnight.

Secondly, there is an interesting piece from Michael Portillo in the Sunday Murdoch

Brown's fallen into Salmond's tax trap

which is as relevant to Wales as it is to Scotland.

I entirely agree with Michael Portillo's view of Salmond

In Scottish politics Salmond performs with an elegance and fluidity that make his opponents look elephantine, like a latterday George Best weaving his way around the flat-footed defenders of a political Raith Rovers.

that he runs political rings around everyone else. IMHO Salmond is the most accomplished UK politician there now is.

Portillo's take on central vs local taxation is based upon bitter experience in government, and worthy of reading on that account.

I became minister for local government just after the Thatcher government introduced the poll tax to England, the year after the Scots had started to pay it. I defended it then and later under Major I worked to scrap it and replace it.

Having thought hard about local government finance, I am convinced that an income tax supplement must be part of any equitable local tax system. I admit that earners would pay more and high earners much more, but greater social justice is not a powerful argument against it.

More importantly, raising the money in that way would enable local government to grow in scope and importance. By comparison with almost every country I know, we suffer from chronically weak local government and from central government that is too powerful. Decisions are made remotely, national policies are imposed although they are inappropriate in most localities and terrible amounts of public money get wasted.

At present local government is little more than an instrument of Whitehall. It is dependent for most of its income on the Treasury which can therefore dictate most of its policies. It simply cannot be otherwise for as long as local authorities are forced to raise their money through a levy that is unrelated to ability to pay.

I think that there is a strong argument that taxes on income (as well as the taxes on Privilege/Property referred to above in my comment) should all be collected locally and then passed upwards, for any regional and national spending deemed necessary.

ie reversing the existing centralised mechanism. My understanding is that income tax is collected in this way in Norway, I'm not sure about elsewhere.

The leading parties are constantly searching for a big idea that could be trans-formational. Salmond has hit upon it, admittedly for opportunistic reasons. Sadly, neither Brown nor Cameron is willing to offend income tax payers or risk competition from more effective city leaders.

I find it difficult to disagree, with a wry comment that most politicians ever have anything other than opportunistic reasons....

Salmond's approach is right in principle, and he cannot lose politically by taking it.

Portillo, who IMHO is both intelligent and a pretty straight guy, demonstrates in his last remark the need for a backbone transplant which could have made him a statesman.

After all, I once proclaimed that the poll tax would be the platform on which the Tories would win the following general election. In my defence, even as I said it I knew it was incredible.

The tragedy is, that he says this in his defence...

"Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky