Discussion about this post

User's avatar
jim peden's avatar

I've thought a little more on what I said earlier and I don't want to be prescriptive about what positions or agencies can or can't exist. A Chancellor of the Exchequer would be fine as long as he doesn't have the power to, say, dictate tax rates. A Treasury is also fine provided its functions are limited to, for example, assessing the financial consequences of policy proposals made the panocracy way. The remit would have to be very carefully written.

The issue is keeping political power out of the hands of the agencies of state, which is essential if we're to have direction given by only the voters. A shrewd operator might find a loophole in whatever job contract was written that would allow them to manipulate the system to their own advantage or that of their pals.

Expand full comment
David Simpson's avatar

One reservation I have is how the executive function is carried out. So, for example, the panocracy might decide that VAT be reduced to 10%, income tax limited to a maximum of 40%, that a wealth tax of 1% p.a. on all assets be imposed, and that the overall burden of taxation / expenditure as a proportion of GDP should not exceed 35% p.a.

The Treasury / OBR could report on the estimated impacts of these policies on government spending, growth etc but who is going to implement the policies, make the day to day decisions, respond to events in the wider world? Who is going to be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and how will he / she be appointed, be answerable to the people and how often? Daily? Weekly? Annually?

Expand full comment
1 more comment...

No posts