| Against hypothecation |
 |
 |
| Written by Tim Worstall | |
| Tuesday, 27 May 2008 | |
|
There's been a recent revival of the discussions about the hypothecation of tax revenues and as I never tire of telling people, it's a bad idea. For there is no logical connection between how much you can raise from taxing an item or activity and how much you might want to spend on that or any other problem, whether related or not. Another reason it's a bad idea pops up here: One-sixth of all the national lottery money earmarked for good causes is being spent on bureaucracy, including one quango that has more staff than the Treasury. New figures reveal that more than £200m a year is being swallowed up in administration and staffing costs at lottery distributors – up to six times the proportion spent on overheads by some leading charities. The connection is that these groups (like the Big Lottery Fund) have in effect hypothecated funds. They get a set proportion of the money raised but do not have any pressure on them from outside to increase their efficiency. Given that their finds come from that tax on stupidity (if you prefer, ignorance of odds) that is the lottery, they don't have to compete for the cash. Given their entire insulation from the market there is also no pressure from elsewhere. Now that is so far true of all bureaucracies, but with hypothecated funds it is worse. For at least if the money is being doled out of the Treasury's one big bucket then there is a certain amount of pressure from the same Treasury for accountability and economy in the administration. Not much, I agree, but at least some, even if it is only from the covetous glances of others hoping to be fed from the big bucket. With hypothecation there is a complette absence of this pressure and thus anything funded in this manner, accountable to no one and competing with no one, is bound to become increasingly inefficient. My history knowledge is woefully incomplete but I do dimly recall that we fought a fairly bloody internal war a few centuries ago and that one of the triggers was Parliament's insistence that the Monarch had to be dependent upon said Solons for money and to account to them for how it was spent. And that if it were ill spent that no more would be forthcoming. As with the Monarch, why not so with a bureaucracy?
Bookmark
Comments (2)
...
written by TomG, May 27, 2008
I don't understand the opposition to the lottery ("tax on the stupid") - it's essentially a voluntary tax that provides the payer with a chance at lifelong enrichment at a very small cost. Finding out the odds of winning is very easy to do via Google and I think most people who play it understand that they are very unlikely to win the big one but a piund a week doesn't bother them. Surely it is better for the government to raise fudns in this manner than an enforced tax, no?
Well, Yes written by Tim Worstall, May 28, 2008
Tom,
I have great sympathy with the idea that what is actually bought with a lottery ticket is the dream of future riches, and that this is what makes said purchase logical. If I thought that our current education system provided a sufficient knowledge of basic odds, I would think it a killer argument. Given my views of the value of the current education system, still somewhat unconvinced. Write comment
This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comment.
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed
About the ASI
The Adam Smith Institute is the UK's leading innovator of free-market economic and social policies. Politically independent and non-profit, the Institute promotes its ideas through reports, briefings, events, media appearances, and its website and blog. For further information, click here.Join our email list
Keep up-to-date with the latest events, reports and information from the Adam Smith Institute by joining our fortnightly email list. It's free and you can unsubscribe at any point. Just enter your email address here:
