Comments on: Monoline: is this the faultline? http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2008/01/22/monoline-is-this-the-faultline/ Richard Murphy on tax and corporate accountability Wed, 07 Jan 2009 17:27:18 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Tax Research UK / Financial tsunami http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2008/01/22/monoline-is-this-the-faultline/#comment-374390 Tax Research UK / Financial tsunami Fri, 08 Feb 2008 09:34:36 +0000 http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2008/01/22/monoline-is-this-the-faultline/#comment-374390 [...] have mentioned this before. I think the risk is [...] [...] have mentioned this before. I think the risk is [...]

]]> By: Tax Research LLP http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2008/01/22/monoline-is-this-the-faultline/#comment-361037 Tax Research LLP Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:16:23 +0000 http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2008/01/22/monoline-is-this-the-faultline/#comment-361037 Chris I think your idea is converging with that I wrote called People's Pensions at this point - and I welcome that. See http://neweconomics.org/gen/uploads/5tszyf45onhtul304dxxkfzk12082003133509.pdf Richard Chris

I think your idea is converging with that I wrote called People’s Pensions at this point - and I welcome that.

See http://neweconomics.org/gen/uploads/5tszyf45onhtul304dxxkfzk12082003133509.pdf

Richard

]]> By: Chris Cook http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2008/01/22/monoline-is-this-the-faultline/#comment-359855 Chris Cook Thu, 24 Jan 2008 01:46:58 +0000 http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2008/01/22/monoline-is-this-the-faultline/#comment-359855 Why is borrowing by governments necessary? That is only a convention, because the Public/Private divide is based upon an assumption that "Public" = State and "Private" = owned by a Joint Stock Limited Liability Company. But there is no reason whatever why assets should not either remain in State ownership, or (better in my view, in the hands of a Custodian) and revenues "unitised" through the use of alternative legal ownership "wrappers". For instance, in Canada, the entire Capital market consists of a combination of listed shares and listed units in the gross income of listed companies. Partnership and quasi partnership vehicles would be even better IMHO - look at the Blackstone IPO, as an example where the Chinese did not buy conventional shares, but units in a Blackstone Limited Partnership revenues. So the Chinese get the income, and Blackstone maintain control. Why should we not have a "National Equity" subsuming a large part of the ludicrous "National Debt"? If we dispense thereby with conventional debt repayment, and offer a reasonable (eg 1 to 2% index linked) return on this "Public Equity" we really CAN do something about public investment. Wouldn't it be fairly obvious for Child Trust Funds to be invested at a reasonable index-linked rate in the very schools and medical facilities the child will be using when he grows up, instead of being placed on interest-bearing deposits and eroded by inflation, or (worse) gambled on the Stock market... Why is borrowing by governments necessary? That is only a convention, because the Public/Private divide is based upon an assumption that “Public” = State and “Private” = owned by a Joint Stock Limited Liability Company.

But there is no reason whatever why assets should not either remain in State ownership, or (better in my view, in the hands of a Custodian) and revenues “unitised” through the use of alternative legal ownership “wrappers”.

For instance, in Canada, the entire Capital market consists of a combination of listed shares and listed units in the gross income of listed companies.

Partnership and quasi partnership vehicles would be even better IMHO - look at the Blackstone IPO, as an example where the Chinese did not buy conventional shares, but units in a Blackstone Limited Partnership revenues. So the Chinese get the income, and Blackstone maintain control.

Why should we not have a “National Equity” subsuming a large part of the ludicrous “National Debt”?

If we dispense thereby with conventional debt repayment, and offer a reasonable (eg 1 to 2% index linked) return on this “Public Equity” we really CAN do something about public investment.

Wouldn’t it be fairly obvious for Child Trust Funds to be invested at a reasonable index-linked rate in the very schools and medical facilities the child will be using when he grows up, instead of being placed on interest-bearing deposits and eroded by inflation, or (worse) gambled on the Stock market…

]]>