Why don't we start privatising the police?

He argues that British law and order is not just dependent on the police, but also on those who work in private security. He argues that where police are failing residents, they should be able to pay for private services to improve their security.

You can read the article in full in the Evening Standard here. 

Summary

Dr Tim Evans, ASI senior fellow, writes in The Evening Standard on the need for a radical reform in policing. He says Theresa May doesn't go far enough and suggests a number of measures that could be intorduced in London to involve more private security forces in policing. 

Lost work ethic and the welfare state

Sam Bowman talks on BBC Radio Scotland on the importance of further cuts to the welfare state. He argues we have an issue with dependency, with too many people now reliant on benefits rather than seeking self-sufficiency.

He also argues we need to scrap the minimum wage and introduce various supply side reforms, including cutting employment regulations, in order to allow more jobs to be created.

You can listen to the interview on BBC Radio Scotland here (from 1hr11 in).

Coverage on our sin taxes and minimum alcohol pricing report

Chris Snowdon's report 'The Wages of Sin Taxes' was released following Scotland's announcement on a 50p per unit minimum alcohol pricing. The report and our comments on the policy received widespread pick up with over 140 websites featuring our report and responses. Our comments featured on Radio 4's World at One and on nearly every national and regional Scottish paper. Below are some of the coverage highlights:

Radio Five Live: interview with Sam Bowman (listen here from 54mins)

The Scotsman: Chris Snowdon's analysis of minimum alcohol pricing

The Sun: Kicking no butts

Press Association, The Times, Daily Telegraph, Scottish Metro, Daily Record, The Herald, Press & Journal and Daily Express featuring our comments.

Guardian Comment is Free: Minimum alcohol pricing? Blame those vomiting girls

You can read the full report here and press releases here and here. 

Taxes on alcohol and cigarettes don’t discourage consumption and hit the poor hardest

·     “Sin taxes” on cigarettes and alcohol are designed to boost revenue, not improve public health

·     Minimum alcohol pricing will exacerbate poverty and entrench inequality without discouraging binge drinking

·     Most of the costs of drinking and smoking fall on individual consumers, not the public. There is no economic justification for increasing taxes on smokers and drinkers.

In a report released today, “The Wages of Sin Taxes”, the Adam Smith Institute condemns the government’s decision to increase taxes on cigarettes and alcohol this year and to introduce minimum alcohol pricing.

The report argues that ‘sin taxes’ (taxes on commodities seen as harmful to health) are ineffective in reducing consumption and are not necessary for recouping lost revenue. The taxes are highly regressive and force the poor to pay for the government’s mishandling of public finances.

The taxes don’t work

Cigarette taxes are now so high that increases drive smokers to the black market instead of discouraging consumption or raising more revenue. Sin taxes are more likely to deter moderate users than heavy users, whose demand for cigarettes and alcohol is relatively inelastic.

A heavy smoker or an alcoholic is unlikely to reduce consumption because of a price rise, making sin taxes an unreliable way of reducing consumption or improving public health.

The victims of cigarette and alcohol duty

Sin taxes hit moderate and heavy users alike. Research has shown that previous rises in cigarette tax have made only 2.3% of smokers quit, with the other 97.7% just paying more in tax.

Taxes on cigarettes and alcohol are regressive and hit the poor hardest. The average smoker spends £1660 a year on cigarettes – 20% of the bottom 10%’s income. Sin taxes are the most regressive indirect taxes, as they tend to target products that are disproportionately consumed by the poor.

Minimum alcohol pricing is also deeply regressive, only affecting the cheaper drinks consumed by the poor. Punishing poor people for enjoying a drink or a cigarette exacerbates poverty and treats the poor like children who need to be controlled by the state.

The public cost of smoking and drinking

Taxes on cigarettes and alcohol have often been justified by studies that claim to estimate the “social cost” of these vices. These studies include intangible costs borne by individual consumers, such as “emotional distress”, lost years of life, and individual expenditures on cigarettes and alcohol. These are personal costs, not social costs. They also fail to include the economic benefits the alcohol and cigarette industry gives to the UK in terms of employment and government revenue. Most of these studies should be relegated to the bin of junk statistics.

In fact, smokers and heavy drinkers do not cost the state more. Though smokers may cost more during their working lives, but non-smokers require greater expenditure in pensions, nursing care and welfare payments. Chronic diseases associated with old age are far more expensive than the lethal diseases associated with smoking and alcoholism. Smokers and drinkers are not a burden on the state, and the myth of saints subsidising sinners should not be used to justify tax rises.

The appeal of ‘sin taxes’

Despite the fact they hurt the poor and do not change consumer consumption, sin taxes have always been popular with governments as a source of revenue.

Sin taxes and minimum alcohol pricing should be recognised for what they really are - stealth taxes and paternalism designed to control the poor.

Chris Snowdon, author of the report and Adam Smith Institute fellow, says:

“Campaigners for sin taxes and minimum pricing often claim that “healthy citizens” are forced to bear the cost of other people’s lifestyles. In fact, the evidence shows that smokers take less from the communal pot than the average Briton and the money raised from alcohol duty comfortably pays for any burden drinking places on public services. If the aim of policy is to make individuals pay their way, the government should slash the beer tax and subsidise cigarettes. We are not seriously suggesting the government does this, but if politicians insist on increasing taxes on these products, they should admit that the purpose is to raise revenue. Essentially the government is forcing the people who are least likely to live to extreme old age to pay for the escalating costs of an ageing population.

“As we show in the report, amongst EU countries there is no relationship between alcohol prices and alcohol related harm, nor is there an association between cigarette prices and smoking rates. The only significant effects that sin taxes have are to make the poor poorer and black marketeers richer.”

This shared parental leave thing: my fault, I'm afraid

He first advocated the idea in his blogs on the Adam Smith Institute, where he highlighted that there isn't a gender pay gap but a motherhood pay gap. 

He highlights how non-party political groups like the ASI find practical solutions which address the problem. However he also argues a better legislative solution would have been to virtually abolish maternity leave itself. He calls into question the misuse of pay statistics. He argues that the real reason for the motherhood pay gap is as a result of attitudes around the responsibility of rearing children.

Read in full on Telegraph.co.uk here.

Summary

Tim Worstall writes on the Telegraph website on government plans for shared parental leave. He first advocated the idea in his blogs on the Adam Smith Institute, where he highlighted that there isn't a gender pay gap but a motherhood pay gap. 

He highlights how non-party political groups like the ASI find practical solutions which address the problem. However he also argues a better legislative solution would have been to virtually abolish maternity leave itself. 

Queen's speech: Coalition's piecemeal plans will not bring economic growth

9 May 2012

In response to the Queen’s Speech, the Adam Smith Institute gives its reactions to some of the key areas:

Coalition plans need to be far more radical to ensure economic growth
“The government seems determined to tinker around the edges of business and employment regulation. The tepid piecemeal modifications the government is proposing will do virtually nothing to make doing business easier in Britain, and that's the only hope we have of generating a strong recovery. Our export markets are weak and domestic demand is stagnant – without a supply-side revolution that slashes business taxes and employment regulation, we will not see growth.

“The Communications Bill is particularly concerning. One of Britain's best comparative advantages internationally is its dynamic and fast-growing tech sector. So far, the government has talked the talk about protecting this sector, but not walked the walk. The Communications Bill should establish the exceptionalism of the internet and protect it from the stifling regulation that is holding back the rest of the economy.

“Instead of more regulation like the immigration cap and the Communications Bill, the government should be throwing out the regulation book and starting from the ground up. It should determine which regulations are absolutely necessary and ditch the rest. In the meantime, companies with 100 employees or fewer should be encouraged to register their employees as self-employed under contract, to side-step much of the existing employment regulation. Growth won't come from anywhere else, so we can't afford not to unleash British business. Unless we tackle the regulatory blockages, competition and enterprise policy will bear little fruit.” Sam Bowman, Head of Research

On the Groceries Code Adjudicator – what will they think to regulate on next?!
“So now we are going to have an OfGrocer. What will they think of to regulate next? At this rate, almost the entire country will be employed in regulatory quangos, with hardly anyone left to produce things at all.” Dr Eamonn Butler, Director

On the Vickers Report – it won’t cure the problems
“The Vickers Report will not cure the problem of systemic failure. Only more sensible government policy on money, public borrowing and interest rates will do that. It was government excesses on both sides of the Atlantic that caused the false exuberance of the banks that ultimately could not be sustained and produced the inevitable crash. If anything, the proposals will make the situation worse, by making it explicit that taxpayers will bail out the 'retail' banks. The problem is that most governments round the world are broke, including ours, so we are in no position to insure everyone's losses in the event of another banking crisis, perhaps sparked by the collapse of the euro.” Dr Eamonn Butler, Director

On public sector pension reforms – long overdue, and must be in line with private sector
“The bill to reform public service pensions is long overdue, though it will be hugely controversial. But the pensions for public sector workers have to be in line with what people in the private sector can aspire to. Right now, the perceived superiority of public pensions – larger, inflation-proofed, with more generous sickness provisions and available at an earlier age than most private pensions – causes enormous resentment.” Dr Eamonn Butler, Director

On Freedom of Speech – welcome news but they won’t go far enough
“I am pleased to see measures to protect freedom of speech and reform the law of defamation. No doubt the government will not go far enough, but freedom of speech is essential for a healthy public debate on the important issues of the day. Right now people are unable to speak their mind for fear of being prosecuted or sued.” Dr Eamonn Butler, Director

Why the Euro is doomed to fall apart

He argues that having nations share a single currency as a result of their being neighbours is arbitrary and nonsensical. He argues that the Euro cripples poor areas.

Continue reading his blog on Telegraph.co.uk here.

Summary

Tim Worstall, senior fellow at the Adam Smith Institute, writes on Telegraph.co.uk on why the Euro will fall apart, arguing that it was an incredibly stupid idea in the first place. 

Growth and austerity

Sam Bowman, the Adam Smith Institute's Head of Research, argues on that Jeremy Vine Show that we should look to Germany and its austerity combined with growth. He points to Germany's labour market reforms, making it easier for firms to hire and fire people, reducing taxes on labour and reducing public expenditure. Growth comes from the private sector not the state. 

You can listen to his debate with Lindsey German on BBC Radio 2' Jeremy Vine Show here (from 6mins in). 

Sir Mervyn King's speech was just an attempt at self-justification

He argues that Mervyn King was more responsible for the crisis than anyone. 

Summary

Dr Eamonn Butler writes a letter to the editor of The Daily Telegraph in response to coverage of Sir Mervyn King's speech on the financial crisis and the Bank of England's role in it. 

Should Murdoch be forced to sell BSkyB?

He argues that no government agency should be able to take a business away from those who built it. He argues that to do so would damage the rule of law. He argues that if you really want to tackle media monopolies, you should start with the BBC.

Read in CityAM here.

Summary

Dr Eamonn Butler argues in CityAM that Rupert Murdoch should not be forced to sell his shares in BSkyB following the Leveson enquiry.