Only the first paragraph was published under the heading” ‘Wealth tax’ will not work”.  

*************************************************************************
Owen Smith’s “wealth tax” is not a wealth tax, it is an investment income tax.  It may help to finance the NHS, which is great, but it would do nothing to reduce the growing inequality of wealth in the UK and the dangerously growing awareness of that inequality.  To tackle this wealth gap, he must start talking about the positive redistribution of inherited wealth in each new generation.
 
He should take a leaf out of the Liberal Party’s policy book (see . Genuine Opportunity).
 
Once we are out of the EU, we can and must introduce a gradually increasing UK Universal Inheritance payment for all 25 year old UK-born UK citizens, financed and clawed back in due course from the more fortunate by taxing cumulative lifetime receipt of capital gifts and bequests.

The Liberal Party notes with considerable disappointment the recent vote on the future of Britain's Trident nuclear deterrent.


At a time when one would have imagined national politicians would have been digesting the ramifications of the recent EU referendum, they have instead allowed themselves to be distracted by a polarising and highly contentious domestic issue.

It is even arguable that the Conservative government have seen this as an opportune moment to promote the renewal process, with the opposition Labour party lukewarm in its opposition to Trident and consumed with a potential leadership contest.

The replacement of Trident is expected to cost in excess of 31 billion pounds, at a time when further austerity and cuts to public services now seen inevitable.

It is a commitment to an unaffordable military asset over the next 20 years, when conventional forces are already stretched and the Chilcot inquiry report highlighted poor levels of equipment.

The recent Bastille Day tragedy in France should remind us that conventional and not nuclear deterrents are the most pressing consideration in this age. Not the renewal of a questionable military asset, with little relevance to modern geopolitics or domestic security.

Hi im a new member to the liberal party! Doesnt seem to be much activity here but hope i can help to improve it. My name is simon and im from staffordshire do you have a midlands group at all?

The following letter is published with the headline “Tackle the Wealth Gap”
in the first column of the weekly Oxford Times this morning,

Sir – Now the UK is to be fully independent, we must tackle the wealth gap
between the rich and the poor which was partly responsible for the Brexit
decision. All political parties, whether left, right or centre, should
address the question, which they have ignored for too long, of the
quasi-feudal inequality of inheritance of capital wealth.

   The EU will no longer be able to object on grounds of discrimination if
all 25-year-old UK-born, rather than EU-born, UK citizens, in London,
Glasgow or anywhere else, receive, as they should, a basic minimum UK
Universal Inheritance, financed out of taxation on the giving and receiving
of capital gifts, bequests and inheritance from the previous generation of
UK tax payers.

   This real, continuation, traditional UK Liberal Party policy must now be
introduced as soon as possible, because in order to be fair to adjacent year
groups of 25-year-old UK-born UK citizens, it can only be introduced
gradually.

   The Liberal Party proposal is that UK Universal Inheritance should start
at a mere £1,000 and be increased annually by that amount for ten years or
more up to about 10% of average wealth in the UK.

   Inheritance Tax on giving and bequeathing would be reduced and renamed
Capital Donor Tax, with significantly reduced exemptions and reliefs.

   UK Universal Inheritance would then be financed, and clawed back from the
more fortunate, by a new cross-referred progressive tax on cumulative
lifetime receipt of unearned capital gifts and bequests, including the UK
Universal Inheritance itself.

   As things are, some inherit unearned billions, free of tax, during their
lifetime, while all too many others never inherit any capital at all.  Other
political parties should stop inveighing against inequality or demanding
greater equality of opportunity for all without even mentioning the positive
redistribution in each new generation of vastly unequal unearned inherited
wealth.

Dane Clouston

Oxfordshire Liberal Party

Member, Liberal Party National Executive Committee

Now this country has voted to disengage from the wider European community, it is time for us to look to the future direction of this nation both economically and socially.


As a first step, let us reform UK capitalism with a form of UK Universal Inheritance, starting at £1,000 a year for UK-born UK 25 year old citizens in Glasgow as well as in London, financed and clawed back from the more fortunate by a progressive tax on cumulative lifetime receipt of capital gifts and inheritance. 

An opaque inheritance system has allowed the top 10% of this nation’s inhabitant to accumulate 44% of the nation’s wealth. It was more often than not never earned by its recipients, but passed from generation to generation using loop-holes and exemption in inheritance taxation.

To paraphrase the biblical parable, this is inherited money which is not working for the common good of society.

Under a Universal Inheritance scheme, such wealth would be taxed at 25% after taking allowance for a life-time allowance on giving. Even with an allowance set as high as 200k pounds, it would still exclude most professional people and business owners who have earned, and not inherited wealth.

This radical move will result in the levelling up and levelling down of the outrageous inequalities of inherited capital ownership in each new generation which is essential to the future of our country, and is for other countries to follow. 

The Liberal Party exists to build a Liberal Society in which every citizen shall possess liberty, property and security, and none shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity.

The creation of an opportunity society is the first step we must take in our nations post EU adjustment.

The result of last week’s EU Referendum has now delivered a vote in favour of the United Kingdom leaving the EU.
The Liberal party, which has supported a No vote, believes that activation of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty is now dependent on the creation of an effective UK negotiation team.

Talks can then begin with are European counterparts on the process of disengaging from the EU framework within a 2 year timeframe.

Such negotiations should remain throughout managed and unhurried to provide for an amicable disengagement. There is no place for discrimination against the UK for taking the lead in ending our relationship with mainland Europe.

This is a view endorsed by the Foreign Minister for Germany, acknowledging the mutual benefit’s coming from an amicable separation.

The Liberal Party now calls for a constructive and realistic debate on Britain’s way forward, outside of the mainstream European community and the development of an enlightened and re-energised economy.

The UK should respect those EU citizens living and working here and we should make clear that there continued participation in the UK economy is welcomed.

The European community may now wish to proceed towards a final destination which encompasses a federal Europe, bound to a ridge Euro currency zone and unbalanced fiscal policy without a popular mandate from the European wide electorate.

The Liberal Party would welcome discussions with other EU countries with significant concerns over the current EU framework and who wish to pursues a more flexible arrangement for all concerned.

The democratic mandate given by the British people to their elected peers to commence dis-engagement from the European community cannot be ignored or reversed on moral or practical grounds.

I read with interest your recent article high-lighting the concept of a Universal basic Income (The Economist,(June 4th -10th 2016).

The real Liberal Party has long offered an alternative in the form of a Universal Inheritance. This would be funded by reform of UK inheritance tax, to provide a lump sum for each and every qualifying young person in this country.

In order to be fair to adjacent year groups, UK Universal Inheritance at 25 would be increased annually by £1,000 over ten years or more from £1,000 in the first year up to £10,000 or more, roughly 10% of average wealth of every adult and child in the UK

This is a corner stone of our policy for creating an opportunity society, whilst making for a modest, but progressive redistribution of wealth in our country.

The NEC notes with considerable disappointment the majority decision of the Conservative controlled North Yorkshire County Councils planning committee to approve an application for fracking at a site near Kirby Misperton in Ryedale.


The Liberal party, which has two serving councillors in the district, has debated fracking twice at its annual Assembly, and believes the technology offers excessive risks for unproven benefits.

The entire process of high-pressure pumping of water and sand into the ground to collect the gas risks untold environmental and well as geological damage and only prolongs our societies addition to unsustainable sources of energy.

The fact that the application attracted over 4000 objections should be a clear indication of the public opposition to such schemes. Fracking should form no part of our nation's energy policy.

Hello all
 
I originally draw up this document some months ago, but decided it was too speculative and not suitable for circulation as a policy development.
 
It was inspired by increased media coverage on the subject of automation and AI, something which has only intensified in recent months. Recently the FT ran a week long series of stories on the subject, as has the Economist, so I have now decided to circulate it for consumption.
 
Many thanks
 
Stephen
 
*****************************************************
Over the last year or so I have seen an increasingly volumes of articles in the press heralding a major change in the workplace and employment driven by an acceleration in computer automation.

It should be noted at the same time that robotics in itself is still lagging behind computer automation, but development cycles and step changes in affordable components are moving the technology forward at an increasing pace.

The idea of automation was originally envisaged as a way to reduce the number of repetitive tasks, freeing up people to do more complicate and abstract actions. This of cause had labour cost implications for employers.

The reality is that many of these more complex functions can now be done with relative ease by suitably developed computer systems.
Increased automation, such as call centre routing and automated banking has already reduced human employment opportunities. 

Self-service check-outs suit supermarkets as they can reduce staff numbers to a couple of supervisors for till issues, even if the ordinary customer prefers more costly human interaction at a manned check-out.

The result is that job opportunities are fast being diminished, most particularly for the semi-skilled, as well as the emergence of a squeezed middle whose technological skills have been commoditised in a very short period of time.

Another area of automation is additive or 3D printing, the creation of objects using physical printers using computer generated instruction, an area which has ballooned in the last 3 years. It is the evolutionary step on from the Computer Aided Design (CAM) technology of the 1980’s.

Companies embracing this technology have benefited from quicker turn-round times for orders, higher quality and decreases unit costs as well as the inevitable need for less skilled staff.

The financial and social benefits of automation should not be restricted to a small part of society by virtue of their technical skills or enabling wealth.

Changes to the world of work have not been mitigated by increased leisure time or enjoyment for all of society as many people imagined or fantasised. This is in part because such a phenomenon is not socially or economically achievable in human society, not least due to the lack of a sharing or abundancy mentality in our western society.

Whilst we should not seek to inhibit industrial development as a repeat of the luddites rejection of automation, we must remain sensitive to the fact that an increased number of people are being excluded from the working economy by a lack of vacancies and hence a living wage and career.

Where employment does exist, it is likely to be in the very highest creative areas, and restricted to the technologically most able and connected. Work is likely to be of a short notice, high intensity nature.

Where automation and robotics can prove an improvement to humanity, say in the care of the elderly or infirm it should be encouraged. Where automation, or potentially robotics reduced human participation, there needs to be a test to see if that steps benefits the wider society, and not just business.

One suggested remedy has been the adoption of a universal minimum income to compensate those excluded from employment, but as a policy this conflicts for finance with our Universal Inheritance policy.

A poorly managed transition in the employment market will potentially lead to the dystopian societies of science fiction, with an elite benefiting from idle luxury, whilst the majority find themselves lacking meaningful, secure employment, opportunity and security, as emphasised by our party constitution.

Witness the economic and social decline of the former steel manufacturing and coal mining areas of north England and South Wales.
These scenarios will not a happen overnight, but as a gradual process of social decline and exclusion perhaps over decades.  The current consensus is that such a sea-change in employment is likely to be 15 years away. This in turn gives us the opportunity to mitigate its social effects.

The Liberal Party has observed the sad spectacle of the potential failure of BHS, an iconic but now indebted high street chain with over 11000 employees and 164 stores.


The demise of this once major retail giant has again highlighted a whole host of issues revolving around the private sale of troubled businesses, unsustainable dividend payments, underfunded pension liabilities, and the difficulties of turning round traditional bricks and mortar businesses.

It is only right that questions are belatedly being asked of those most closely involved in the long term running of the business and previous sales. These relate to its proper management, proper long-term investment in the business and the accumulation of over 1.3billion pounds of debt including a potential pension’s deficit of almost 600million pounds.

Opaque take-overs which do not sustain businesses, nor employment or economic activity are of no value to any national economy.