…tax it. And if it doesn’t, tax that, too. If you want evidence that the Lib Dems are certainly not liberal then their desire to tax anything and everything in order to keep the political classes in the comfort to which they have become accustomed, in the form of this latest smash and grab idea should shatter any remaining illusions.
Plans to tax assets such as jewellery are also being considered, reports say.
Yup, not just your houses, but if you have a second one, that too – and while you are at it, these modern day Turpins want that necklace dangling across your heaving white bosom just to finish the job. Oh, and we’ll have that nice watch, bracelet and cufflinks from you, too, sir – you money or your life, donchaknow.
Tax is evil. It always was evil and always will be evil. There are certain circumstances when it is a necessary evil, but make no mistake, it remains evil. When in crisis mode due to having no money, you stop spending – at least that is what sensible people do. Not so with these malignant creatures, they just look to us and see what else we have that they can rob. There is no difference between the state and organised crime.
The state is not your friend.
Are we talking intrinsic or artistic value here? I can foresee endless wrangling with bureaucratic jobsworths over the value of Auntie Gertie’s diamond brooch or Granny’s welsh dresser – although they could, I suppose, televise the valuations on a Sunday evening for the delectation of the masses…
No, it’s got to be a red herring, surely! I wonder what they are really planning…
Oxygen. Every breath you take, every move you make, I’ll be taxing you…
Tax is evil. It always was evil and always will be evil. There are certain circumstances when it is a necessary evil, but make no mistake, it remains evil
Tax is not a necessary “evil”, it is simply necessary. The only societies that don’t have tax are hunter gatherer societies.
When in crisis mode due to having no money
This country has plenty of money. It is still one of the largest economies in the world.
The state is not your friend
Never thought it was. I did think however that paying tax for 30 years might entitle me to some respect were I to lose my job and need to claim benefits. Thanks to “small state” liberalism the only thing I’ll be called is a “scrounging parasite receiving free money”.
I used the term necessary evil, recognising that there are some things we have to fund jointly. It is still demanding money with menaces, though, however you dress it up.
Incidentally, having recently been on the receiving end of the system, I can assure you that respect is thin on the ground. Some of the individuals I encountered were decent and sympathetic. The system, though, is the usual faceless bureaucratic nightmare.
It is still demanding money with menaces, though, however you dress it up
Well no more so that expecting payment for services rendered in any other context.
Incidentally, having recently been on the receiving end of the system, I can assure you that respect is thin on the ground
Yes, I know. I might be experiencing it for the first time a bit later this year. My point was that excessive hostility over paying tax is one of the main reasons why claiming benefits is now such a nightmare. The argument being, “why should taxpayers pay for ‘free money’, blah, blah, blah …”, if we can dignify such cockwaffle as an argument,
Well, I hope you manage to avoid it, I really do. I wouldn’t wish the experience on anyone.
The hostility towards tax is entirely justified. We pay far too much of it for “services” that we neither need nor desire. Just to pick an example out of the hat, I fail to see why I should pay for someone else to enjoy the opera, for example.
The hostility towards tax is entirely justified
But you surely must recognise that that hostility drives the benefit regimes that we now have in place, which you acknowledge are appalling?
While we are systematically relived of over half our income in various taxes and that money is spent on vanity projects, foreign aid, fake charities and frippery such as the arts, that hostility is entirely justified. If the state spent only that which is necessary that hostility is likely to decrease somewhat.
And, yes, I resent every penny of my money that is spent on the above. And, yes I am justly hostile to it.
Then you approve of the boot that is kicking you.
No, I do, however, accept that some things have to be funded jointly. It’s where I differ from many – but not all – of my fellow travellers.
I would approve if it was confined to only what is necessary and no more.
“Tax is not a necessary “evil”, it is simply necessary.”
Tax is an evil but it is certainly not necessary.
It’s nothing more than theft instigated by a gang rather than an individual.
And theft is always evil and never necessary. Which is why the gang needs to call it “tax” rather than what it actually is, and why they need a continual stream of propaganda to convince you of their legitimacy.
Tax is an evil but it is certainly not necessary
Kindly name any modern functioning state that does not gather tax revenues.
“Kindly name any modern functioning state that does not gather tax revenues.”
Not relevant.
Just because something doesn’t exist, doesn’t mean it couldn’t or shouldn’t.
Plus, it doesn’t change the argument that tax is theft, and theft is bad, no matter how much you propagandise it (it’s not “gather tax revenues” it’s “steal”).
And from a practical point of view, things funded by theft are always considerably worse than anything funded voluntarily.
Not relevant.
Just because something doesn’t exist, doesn’t mean it couldn’t or shouldn’t
Of course it is relevant. The reason why non-tax raising societies do not exist is because they cannot exist. It is utopian nonsense. The only societies that do not have tax are hunter-gatherer societies.
Plus, it doesn’t change the argument that tax is theft, and theft is bad, no matter how much you propagandise it (it’s not “gather tax revenues” it’s “steal”)
It is no more “theft” than expecting someone to pay for services rendered.
“It is utopian nonsense.”
No one’s suggesting getting it would be perfect, just better than what we have today.
Utopian nonsense is believing a small group of elites with a monopoly on violence is the only way to run society.
Especially when time after time these people are shown to be the absolute worst scum on the planet.
There’s no difference believing in this nonsense than there is in believing in religion.
“It is no more “theft” than expecting someone to pay for services rendered.”
Except for that bit where it’s not voluntary.
Making it theft.
No one’s suggesting getting it would be perfect, just better than what we have today
I am saying that it is impossible. You can’t have government, the law, an agency to enforce that law and all the other things that even libertarians would consider to the the minimum required of a state, without taxation.
Except for that bit where it’s not voluntary
It is not voluntary to decline to pay your fare when you travel on the train
Ah, but you can choose not to travel by train. I cannot choose to withhold funding for the arts, foreign aid or fake charities, for example. None of these are services and none of them are of any benefit to me and I do not want to be coerced into paying for them.
Ah, but you can choose not to travel by train. I cannot choose to withhold funding for the arts, foreign aid or fake charities, for example
But just as you can choose not to travel by train, so you can choose not to live in this country. Moreover, unlike the train, you have a vote by which, albeit imperfectly, you can influence what tax is spent where. You have no control over how big a bonus is paid to the boss of the train company.
Yes, I tried that. it worked briefly and managing to work in one country while being tax resident in another did reduce my tax liability – even living in a high tax country. Unfortunately, losing my job put paid to that one, so my “choices” were limited in practice.
Bwaaaahaaahaaa! Seriously? I mean, you cannot be serious? Voting has no effect on where money is pissed up the wall. Haven’t you heard, a manifesto promise is not binding. Politicians do as they damned well please. No vote ever affected where tax money is spent. So, no, I have no choice and no influence. Consequently, money extracted from me is coercive and spent on stuff I don’t want and don’t need and I have no say on the matter.
“Moreover, unlike the train, you have a vote by which, albeit imperfectly, you can influence what tax is spent where. You have no control over how big a bonus is paid to the boss of the train company.”
I’m pretty sure the train network is entirely government owned. And it gets nearly £4bn of taxpayers cash a year to run. It’s not even approaching being a normal business.
Ignoring that, the idea that your vote has influence but your wallet doesn’t is utterly absurd.
The only way a business can survive is by persuading you to open your wallet and give them your hard-earned cash. Whether you do or not, and how much you give them, directly affects them.
That doesn’t apply to the government because they take your money by force, and can borrow and print even more. So your opinion doesn’t matter. All a vote gives you is the opportunity to change one figurehead for another.
It’s voluntary transactions that represent the ultimate democracy, not the sham of voting.
“You can’t have government, the law, an agency to enforce that law and all the other things that even libertarians would consider to the the minimum required of a state, without taxation.”
Excellent, getting rid of government is the goal.
“It is not voluntary to decline to pay your fare when you travel on the train.”
Applying it to a country is just circular logic, you’re starting with the assumption that what you’re trying to prove is true.
Excellent, getting rid of government is the goal
So when someone steals your property, or attacks you, who do you complain to? The police? There will be no police. In fact, without the rule of law, who is to say that it is your property? Property will belong to whoever has the strength to take and keep it. It would be a lawless nightmare, where a few ruthless predator warlords would hold the rest to ransom.
Some libertarians propose private police services which people freely contract with. But that doesn’t work, because all you get are rival police forces that will soon look like private armies that act in support of their customers. In order for the rule of law to work there must be a central authority, to which everyone is subservient to. That is government.
“In order for the rule of law to work there must be a central authority, to which everyone is subservient to. That is government.”
Government services are always worse than those provided by the market. Law is no exception.
According to Google, subservient means “Prepared to obey others unquestioningly” 😯
The only people who would genuinely endorse such lunacy are those in power, or those who see themselves in power.
But at least it helps confirm my idea that government and religion are two sides of the same coin.
Most people accept that taxation is necessary, but it’s out of control and largely based on asset stripping. The public sector is simply too big/expensive, particularly in the current economic climate. I think most jobs created under Nu Labour were ultimately funded by the taxpayer and any real threats to those jobs will be vigorously opposed by a major % of the electorate for self serving reasons. It’s not dissimilar to blue collar union power that damaged the economy during the 70s.
Don’t forget the vast pension liability represented by those jobs; massive redundancy payments if you get rid of them now, taxpayer-funded pensions for decades ahead if you don’t.
Meanwhile, if you’ve bought your jewellery out of taxed income and paid VAT on the purchase and it’s going to cost you money to own it, you might as well flog the lot – which is, presumably, the big idea; repeat after me, children, “Property is theft”.
The public sector is simply too big/expensive, particularly in the current economic climate
Actually much of the public sector has been outsourced to the private sector, which is the main reason why the average salary in the public sector has gone up so much, because most of the worst paid public sector workers were put into the private sector, which reduced their wages still further. Divide and rule, eh?
We’re just one step from having to hand over the shirts on our backs to these bastards, not that it *feels* like I’m already handing that over now.
Can we have a politician step forward who is prepared to actually cut Government spending so that it’s less that 49% of GDP? We’re spending too much and all Westminster can do is think of new taxes.
So when your parents die, the state accredited prodnose will arrive with a clipboard, and arbitrarily assign “values” to all of their chattels. What a splendid ploy. There is of course no way this ‘crat can be called to account for his estimates. Whatever total he conjures up will just be added to the total value of their estate, whether the items are really worth anything or not. Excellent way of applying Inheritance Tax to modest estates, via the back door.
These people are cheating lying scumbags, the whole lot of ’em.
Reply to LR
Voting has no effect on where money is pissed up the wall
Yes, it does. You have personal experience of it! The voting choices of most people have led to governments, whether Labour or Conservative, reducing out of work benefits, because voters won’t vote for parties that say that they will improve the deal for the unemployed.
You have a somewhat rose tinted view of politicans here. Voting changes nothing. Labour, Tory, Lib Dem. They will all take over half our income and spend it on stuff that is no concern of government. My vote is meaningless. It doesn’t matter a jot what you or I or millions of others vote. Responding to Daily Mail headlines, which is what you are referring to here is another matter entirely – not least because parties are voted in or out on the basis of marginal swing votes and on a variety of policies.
Another waste of space is trying to influence one’s MP. Tried that, got me nowhere. never again.
You have a somewhat rose tinted view of politicans here
Not really. I was an active member of No2ID and I have no doubt that our lobbying made a real difference to attitudes to ID Cards amongst the political elite. I am sure you will dismiss that by saying that they were concerned only by the cost of the scheme. However, the costs weren’t that high, especially compared to other high profile government projects. I have no doubt that we made a difference. And it is certainly better than sitting idly on your backside and saying that there nothing you can do.
I’m not saying that. I’m pointing out that voting doesn’t change things. The Con Dems saw an opportunity in the ID cards and used it, but the underlying attacks on liberty have continued in a different guise. We stopped the cards, but that is about all.
Politicians may well try to make policy on the back of headlines, but as Gordon Brown discovered, it isn’t particularly reliable. People vote for the most part along tribal lines, not on one policy. The outcome of elections is decided in key marginals. Most votes are wasted when in safe seats. The idea that I can vote on a tax policy and get a result is pie in the sky.
Reply to Andrew:
Yes and no. The TOCs are private businesses, paying Network Rail to operate on the network. Network Rail is to all intents and purposes the runt of what was left from BR and cannot be looked upon as a private business. So as you say, not subject to normal business pressures. The infrastructure companies are a different matter, particularly the small labour suppliers and specialists such as welders and signalling designers.
Reply to Andrew
But at least it helps confirm my idea that government and religion are two sides of the same coin
As usual, libertarians who propose that there be no government, duck the difficult questions, as you have done. This doesn’t surprise me, as libertarianism is a cult, not a serious intellectual system of ideas. I asked you a reasonable question – how is law and order to be maintained in the government-less state. You can’t answer. I gave the reason why private police forces would not preserve law and order. You can’t answer. You are good at spouting cliches inanely. Not much good at anything else.
I wasn’t going to waste my time with someone who believes we should unquestioningly obey the government.
And everything you ask has been answered dozens of times – there’s complete books on the subject.
Believing that these questions are ducked is laughable, just because you’ve never looked into something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
My answer to your first series of questions is, as you say, voluntary law and security services.
These would be better than the existing police because of competition and the change in incentives that would minimise the problems from public choice theory and producer capture. They would be incentivised to actually prevent crime, rather than simply try to mop up once it’s happened (we can see the market having to do this anyway because of the low quality of government security).
Your second point, that this wouldn’t work because they’d develop into rival armies is refuted by the economics – by the enormous cost of what you’re suggesting. It’s not easy to equip an army when you can’t steal or print money. Plus, people are willing to pay far more to be left alone than to push others around.
And, of course, the industry can be regulated. Just as the market can supply law and order, it can supply businesses who can monitor and rate it (again, we can already see this happening in various industries to reassure customers).
If you want more check out Bruce Benson’s “Enterprise Of Law”.
They would be incentivised to actually prevent crime, rather than simply try to mop up once it’s happened (we can see the market having to do this anyway because of the low quality of government security)
Who says what is a crime? There’s no government to say what the law is. For example, your police force treats unauthorised copying of copyrighted materials as a crime. My police force, because I am paying for it, says that there is no copyright so there is no such thing as unauthorised copying and no crime. How do you resolve that?
Your second point, that this wouldn’t work because they’d develop into rival armies is refuted by the economics – by the enormous cost of what you’re suggesting. It’s not easy to equip an army when you can’t steal or print money
Don’t be so literal minded. By private army I meant that they would deploy force on behalf of their paymasters, not that they would necessarily have tanks or missiles. What is to stop the rich from creating their own police force, equipping it with the best arms and then using it to enforce their own law? If you had read any history then you would that was exactly what was done in the United States in the late 19th Century, during the “wars of incorporation”. Look it up.
And, of course, the industry can be regulated
How in sweet Jesus can it be “regulated” when there is no government to regulate it?
“How do you resolve that?”
I don’t. It isn’t my speciality. I can’t possibly answer every question, every “what if”, or solve every scenario.
You’ll trip me up sooner or later, and I’m sure you’re aware of that.
So as your answer is “a monopoly of violence”, my answer is “the free market”.
I suppose I could look it up for you, but you’re happy to tell me to look up stuff that backs up your argument, so I’m not going to waste my time.
A quick idea – only sell your stuff to people who are with a law service that respects copyright. I’m sure there’s better solutions but that’s the great thing about the free market, it doesn’t force you to accept one top down answer and they’ll always be people coming up with new ways to do things.
“What is to stop the rich from creating their own police force, equipping it with the best arms and then using it to enforce their own law?”
Well that’s what we currently have. King Louis XIV understood, he had “ultima ratio regum” (“The Last Argument of Kings”) stamped on his cannons.
What stops it, competition, economics, education, lack of compulsion, and once morally repugnant things are got rid of (e.g. slavery) people see them for what they are and have no wish for them to return. When the ruling class is gone, their will be no desire to be lorded over again.
“If you had read any history then you would that was exactly what was done in the United States in the late 19th Century, during the “wars of incorporation”. Look it up.”
So if I read any history, I’ll automatically know about the “wars of incorporation”? That’s pretty neat. Unfortunately it’s not worked for me so far 😥
I looked it up, there were only fragments about it, but I discovered an example (supposedly one of the more bloody ones) was “The Lincoln County War”, so I looked into that.
And it turns out to be about cattle-owners using the government to attack their competition through land grabs, murder and arson.
A failure of free markets it is not.
“How in sweet Jesus can it be “regulated” when there is no government to regulate it?”
Look it up.