In Boris's article for today's Telegraph, our Man for the Mayoralty seems to get a little bit confused about just what increases in the tax allowance for certain individuals means.As a libertarian Conservative, I believe that beyond a certain amount (perhaps 15%-20% of GDP), tax is effectively legalised theft. The basic position from the secular, political point of view is that our own money, income and property is own own, not the government's.
The state is jusitified in taxing the citizens to some extent to pay for functions of the state that are legitimate and necessary. And I take the view that the legitimate and necessary functions of the state are limited - much less than what the state currently does. Beyond fulfilling a certain relatively small number of legitimate functions, all money taken from us by coercion is bascially theft: the taking with the intention permanently to deprive us of our own money. There's no way that the Government needs to take what it does.
So, I think that Boris has got things slightly the wrong way round. Bascially, he's adopted the Labour approach wholesale.
How does he view people's own private money? He talks about "the taxpayer [coughing] up for a married couple" and married couples potentially getting "£20 from the government."
Actually, what IDS in the Tories' so-called "Social Justice Commission" report is proposing is not to take so much of the married couple's money in the first place. It's not someone else coughing up for me. It's me being stolen from slightly less by the government for the benefit of the re-election of the government's ministers and backbench MPs.
It's my £20 a week that is currently being taken from me without my consent and all that is being proposed is that they no longer take this from me on condition of my being married. Well, frankly, they shouldn't take it from me in the first place, married or not.
So no, I do not accept differential treatment for married and single people. We should all be allowed to keep more, much more, of our own cash. Discriminating between marital status is not really a vote winner - it leaves certain people feeling unfairly treated, and ignores the core philosophical and moral injustice in the amount of taxation we all suffer.
11 comments:
Well I think thats a bit harsh Boris knows exactly what tax is and where Government money comes from.
I suppose the levels you aretalking aaabout would be that of the the Victorian period . I would not myseklf advocate that I think we need a slow re adjssutment to US levels.
WE cannot have aaaaaosciety where sonmeo who runs out of money cannot eat .
The UK's GDP is, I believe, slightly over £1 trillion.
20% of that is £200 billion.
Are you saying that that is an insufficent sum to redistribute to the poor and that redistribution on this scale will still leave masses of people starving, etc. If you are, I don't think you know what you're talking about.
Interesting point although as the state laws are the guarantor of private property that is equally legalised theft by your ( essentially Marxist) analysis . Is there a country where they have cut state managed expenditure from 45% to 20% where you would like to live then ?
Do tell
tumbelweed.......shhhhhhhhooooooo
I totally agree. Of course some taxation is needed, not only to provide necessary public goods such as defence, but also to ensure people in need (real need) are helped out. But tax at 40%+ of GDP is far too high. 30% max, 25% agreeable, 20% ideal.
Vindico , even if one accepts that that might be desirable , which i do not entirely , charting ones way there wpuld be a long process
Thanks for dropping by to Curious Snippets! Fancy some mutual blogrolling?
Of course my ideal of <30% GDP is fantasy at this moment and for the forseeable future. However, i can dream :-) I think it is realistic to aim for 35% though. That would satisfy me temprarily
Mutual Blog rolling ...oo thats the best offer AT is going to get in a good long while
I agree with your comments.
Efficiency is important.
The only way a society would be efficient is through letting people manage their money.
Excessive taxation would lead money spent irresponsibly. That is why UK has become a country of middle man. Every body lives on commissions. What you pay is received by the actual provider at a very low fraction.
I need to learn more about Boris. Who do I vote for...
I have no connection with any party and I want to choose one. But I am not sure which addresses my concerns most. Would you be able to help?
Crikey!
Has it ever occurred to you that a vast chunk of our spending goes to the military - and provides us with very little tangiable benefit.
Our armed forces haven't had to defend our territories for nearly 25 years - so why do we spend so much? Much more than our neighbours... Much more than other similarly sized countries...
"so why do we spend so much? Much more than our neighbours... Much more than other similarly sized countries..."
Oh my...do you need a history lesson or what. No other similarly sized nation, used to run almost half the world. As a result no other similarly sized nation has anything like the miltery commitments we have. If you need some idea of the left overs of our emiperal past, just take a look at the flags of almost every Island in the southern hemisphere
Post a Comment