4 ms·

Yep. The City is in every way entirely subject to parliament, and the laws of the country apply within the square mile in every particular the way they do outs

by Lazare 12y ago

Yep. The City is in every way entirely subject to parliament, and the laws of the country apply within the square mile in every particular the way they do outside it. The biggest oddity is that since so many people commute into the City, they don't just let residents vote in council elections, but also businesses in proportion to the number of workers they have; an odd but not altogether crazy way of making sure that all stakeholders are represented. ...what any of this has to do with offshore tax havens is a mystery to me. There's only one FSA in Britain, and they don't care where you're headquartered. Edit: From the article: "the corporation is an offshore island inside Britain, a tax haven in its own right. The term "tax haven" is a bit of a misnomer, because such places aren't just about tax." Actually, it's not that it's not just about tax; it's that it's not about tax at all. Tax rates are the same in and outside the City. A "tax haven" that's not a haven and doesn't have different tax rates? This is Orwellian stuff.

Retric 12y ago
Local governments normally collect more taxes so there are tax advantages. Just not the same scale as offshore tax havens.
jackgavigan 12y ago
FYI, a recent "shake-up" of financial regulation saw the FSA (Financial Services Authority) change its name to the FCA (Financial Conduct Authority), and certain parts/responsibilities of the old FSA were (nominally) hived off to a new Prudential Regulatory Authority (PRA), which falls under the remit of the Bank of England. Otherwise, I agree 100% with what you wrote.
UweSchmidt 12y ago
Sorry but businesses getting to vote based on the number of workers they have sounds insane and totally undemocratic. There is a tendency on the internet to downplay the significance of democratic principles and to consider them as quaint, liberal or at odds with libertarianism. Worrying imo.
- colechristensen 12y ago
  It is literally a single square mile. Nobody's sense of democratic principals should extend so far as to say a single square mile cannot choose to govern itself a little differently. There are 7,000 actual residents in the City of London and more than 300,000 people work there. To give the huge imbalance of people who work but don't live there a voice in government a mere 16000 non-resident votes are also allowed and divied up to businesses with respect to their size. For the boring local government services provided, this is more than fair. Also, in general the people who live (especially) and the people who work in the City of London are fabulously wealthy. My heart doesn't bleed for their lost electoral rights (not that I actually believe that the system is unfair) and they all seem pretty okay with it anyway.
  - UweSchmidt 12y ago
    If the people who work there "got a voice in government" that would be quite a bit better. According to the article that's not the case: Corporate management of "Goldman Sachs and the People's Bank of China" would be calling the shots. Not sure if I understand where you are coming from. How can you not see a fundamental problem with the situation (even if "people are rich" and "just a square mile" would make this particular situation less severe)? Would you be ok with an expansion of this system to other areas? How do you feel about democratic ideas in general?
    - bokonist 12y ago
      Do you think that the board of trustees for a university should be elected by those students and others living on university owned property? Many universities own far more than 1 square mile, they are essentially mini-cities with their own police, courts, etc. Is it a fundamental problem that universities are not run as democracies?
      - UweSchmidt 12y ago
        I'll leave this question unanswered as I don't have knowledge about the type of university you are talking about (mine had no own police). If you are truly curious about this topic, your question has probably been thorougly dealt with in literature in the last 100 or 200 years. If you just put that there to weaken my argument, I'd say let's stay with the topic at hand. We were discussing a local government that's nominally run as a democracy but where corporations have the votes, potentially part of a trend to less democracy if we are not careful (see protesting in the USA, blogging in Russia etc.).

by Lazare 12y ago

Retric 12y ago

Local governments normally collect more taxes so there are tax advantages. Just not the same scale as offshore tax havens.

jackgavigan 12y ago

FYI, a recent "shake-up" of financial regulation saw the FSA (Financial Services Authority) change its name to the FCA (Financial Conduct Authority), and certain parts/responsibilities of the old FSA were (nominally) hived off to a new Prudential Regulatory Authority (PRA), which falls under the remit of the Bank of England. Otherwise, I agree 100% with what you wrote.

UweSchmidt 12y ago

Sorry but businesses getting to vote based on the number of workers they have sounds insane and totally undemocratic. There is a tendency on the internet to downplay the significance of democratic principles and to consider them as quaint, liberal or at odds with libertarianism. Worrying imo.

colechristensen 12y ago
It is literally a single square mile. Nobody's sense of democratic principals should extend so far as to say a single square mile cannot choose to govern itself a little differently. There are 7,000 actual residents in the City of London and more than 300,000 people work there. To give the huge imbalance of people who work but don't live there a voice in government a mere 16000 non-resident votes are also allowed and divied up to businesses with respect to their size. For the boring local government services provided, this is more than fair. Also, in general the people who live (especially) and the people who work in the City of London are fabulously wealthy. My heart doesn't bleed for their lost electoral rights (not that I actually believe that the system is unfair) and they all seem pretty okay with it anyway.
- UweSchmidt 12y ago
  If the people who work there "got a voice in government" that would be quite a bit better. According to the article that's not the case: Corporate management of "Goldman Sachs and the People's Bank of China" would be calling the shots. Not sure if I understand where you are coming from. How can you not see a fundamental problem with the situation (even if "people are rich" and "just a square mile" would make this particular situation less severe)? Would you be ok with an expansion of this system to other areas? How do you feel about democratic ideas in general?
  - bokonist 12y ago
    Do you think that the board of trustees for a university should be elected by those students and others living on university owned property? Many universities own far more than 1 square mile, they are essentially mini-cities with their own police, courts, etc. Is it a fundamental problem that universities are not run as democracies?
    - UweSchmidt 12y ago
      I'll leave this question unanswered as I don't have knowledge about the type of university you are talking about (mine had no own police). If you are truly curious about this topic, your question has probably been thorougly dealt with in literature in the last 100 or 200 years. If you just put that there to weaken my argument, I'd say let's stay with the topic at hand. We were discussing a local government that's nominally run as a democracy but where corporations have the votes, potentially part of a trend to less democracy if we are not careful (see protesting in the USA, blogging in Russia etc.).