No!

July 4, 2017 Longrider General News, General Rants, misanthropy, Political 10

Am I willing to pay more tax?

Philip Hammond has warned voters that they must be willing to pay more tax if they want to boost funding for public services.

The Chancellor delivered a stark message about the need for a ‘grown up’ approach to government finances amid intense pressure to ease austerity.

We haven’t had austerity. We have seen the government trim the rate of increase in borrowing a bit. It is still borrowing more than the Brown Gorgon. It is still stealing around half our income, it is still pissing money away on foreign aid, overseas development, sport, media, NGOs, fake charities and the public health racket. So, no, I am not prepared to pay more. We need real cuts in public spending. And if Hammond wants an adult discussion, I’m more than ready and willing to offer my services for helping to shrink the state and reducing that spending. My rates are very reasonable.

But pay more? Not one fucking penny.

In a pointed jibe at Labour’s claim that tens of billions of pounds can be raised purely from the rich, Mr Hammond told a CBI dinner: ‘The serious question to the electorate cannot be “would you like us to tax someone who isn’t you to pay for you to consume more?”, but “would you be willing to pay more tax to consume more public services?”‘

Indeed. My answer again is no – I do not want someone else to be robbed so that I can have free stuff.

10 Comments

  2. Hammond:
    “would you like us to tax someone who isn’t you to pay for you to consume more?” – NO

    but “would you be willing to pay more tax to consume more public services?”‘ – NO

    We haven’t had austerity – Gov’t spending has increased every year. Make real cuts starting with closing DFID, Equalities Commission, DMCS, DEFRA, Gift-Aid, Rates rebate for charities, All inc Green subsidies…..

    That should be at least £25Bn – half the spending deficit.

    Next:
    Entire public sector inc MPs moved to a defined contribution pension scheme same as:
    https://www.gov.uk/workplace-pensions

    With matched up to max 5% of salary employer aka taxpayer contribution.

    That may well eliminate the spending deficit.

  3. Expressed a need for a ‘grown up’ approach to government finances? Well I think we’d all like that, although by ‘grown up’ I’m thinking perhaps the government shouldn’t be spending more than it has. There are massive amounts of fat there to be trimmed from budgets, both at national and local level – not that we’ll ever see that happening.

  4. Pardon me, but it does seem a bit myopic to assume that there isn’t any group that deserves to be taxed more. Just for an absurd example, suppose all the rich people gained their wealth through corruption or other non-laudable schemes, and the wealth they have is more than enough to pay for a major improvement in the rest of the population’s lives, work opportunities, health services, and what not. Your arguments are that they shouldn’t be taxed. Are you serious?
    The source of income or wealth should be considered in deciding how much tax to collect, among other things.

    • Providing it has been obtained legally, the how is irrelevant, so no, they should not be taxed more. If they have obtained it illegally, then the criminal law comes into play – not taxation. We are already massively overtaxed. The state should be reducing its spending and giving all of us that money back. There is absolutely no need whatsoever for any tax increases from anyone. There is a dire need to slash state spending.

    • Excuse moi, but who is going to do the defining of who is ‘rich’, if I may make so bold? Who will set the goal posts of morality?

      Also, when that wealth has been urinated into the bottomless pit of special interest worthy causes you detailed, where will the next tranche of ‘rich’ people be found? The modestly well off who managed to put a bit aside for a rainy day? The local tradesmen? Anyone mildly ambitious or successful?

      Yes, and when these people walk, as they will. Who will replace the once modestly well off, or will these able to do so simply accept the new status quo and take a job in government until it all goes completely Venezuela?

      Do tell.

      • You’re rich, I’m not, gimme, gimme, gimme.

        Or I’ll have the government kill you.

        OK?

    • “…the wealth they have is more than enough to pay for a major improvement in the rest of the population’s lives, work opportunities, health services, and what not.”

      Even if you took all of it, every last penny, the government would go through it in a few days. Then, as others have already pointed out, it won’t be long before you are targeted as someone who has too much money. Excessively high taxation on people perceived as being too successful has been tried many times before in many different times and places, the results are always disastrous, always, there has never been a single exception. Why on earth would you think that if we try it just this one more time it will somehow work out differently this time?

    • “Deserve” to be taxed more? Deserve? How in the name of all that is holy does the word deserve even come into play? I think you deserve a good slap on the head for no other reason than I say so.

      Try thinking.

Comments are closed.