Friday, 20 March 2009

Bad Thinking

"David Cameron signalled that the rich would have to pay “their fair share” to rescue the economy from the mounting crisis in the public finances.
It was made clear that hundreds of thousands of top earners would face paying the new rate — which Labour will also introduce after the election if they hang on to power — if Mr Cameron enters Number 10."

Idiocy has won.
We live in a nation in which our government is not accountable to anyone and makes endless decisions concerning its own welfare which it cloaks in the language of 'transparency' and 'public interest'.
Now the nation is being told that it is the duty - a term which subsided into the bloody maw of political correctness along with the concepts of fairness and nationhood - to rescue the economy.
If those who have putatively been elected to public office are unable to safeguard the economy in the first place, why should the unelected general public be forced to pay for their mistakes?
It is clear that there is a pressing need  in the absence of governmental culpability to find a scapegoat. The next candidate is dangled in front of the mob for their delectation: the richest, who already pay the highest taxes, generate the most income for the economy and represent the finest entrepreneurial, intellectual and financial minds we possess, are somehow to blame and must make amends for their talents by giving away yet more of their money. They are being hanged on the scaffold of an ignorant public's censure, a 'general' public which is always casting around for others to condemn because it has not, itself, achieved their successes; and those who carry the hallmarks of success are inevitably the ones to suffer.
This is not to say that no-one has any 'duty' to society. It is saying that one's duty, being an innate will to good, is best enacted independently rather than being precipitated by a socialist-motivated state which demands money with menaces ('taxes') in order to carry out said good. (And those who would ask the delightfully naive questions 'who pays for the roads, if no-one pays taxes?' should rather look at our national debt: that is where most of the money goes.) In other words, one's duty is to society, not to the State: bracketing State and society together is a very dangerous thing, because it paves the way for totalitarianism - one way of approved thinking. The compulsion inherent in forcing people to do good for others also removes the equally innate will to be responsible for the other: the 'there but for the grace of God go I' gene, if you will.
Asserting a universal right to, say, abortion means that I will have to pay for abortion, whether I believe in a sacred right to life before birth or not; ditto war, ditto IVF for lesbian couples, ditto ID cards, ditto failed educational and health schemes; ditto free speech or its abolition, for the taxpayer pays for the mechanism that denies them the right to articulate their beliefs: Parliament. All of this is a hallmark of Labour's Big State. All of this has been paid for by the taxpayer despite their personal convictions: such is the hallmark of democracy, that it frustrates individuality through ensuring everyone is obliged to pay, literally and figuratively, for the outcome of others' beliefs and opinions to the detriment of their own.
And, because Labour has expanded the public sector to such an extent that it has been the only direct competitor of the private sector, growth has been stifled in other areas. Potential quashed. Now, the 'general' public is being asked to believe that it has a duty - a moral imperative in a state that would deny morals or imperatives - to make right the errors that have characterised the past twelve years. Cameron wishes to perpetuate the rot by targeting the few individuals who may potentially rejuvenate the country and encourage foreign investment. What is 'fair' about this scenario?

5 comments:

  1. I'm afraid media headlines have failed to get the message across. Tax increases will be necessary but can subsequently fall under a decent regime. Only time can tell us that. Meanwhile it should be all hands to the pumps and zero snouts in the trough.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think we could lower taxes if our government weren't - well - who they are. I think scrapping the National 'Entitlement' (ID) Card would be a great start (20+ billion); cutting back on government advertising (£1 billion); withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan, and not putting our soldiers in the intolerable position of fighting in an illegal war so that they are as culpable as those who orchestrated it in the first place (umpteen millions); cutting overseas aid by 2/3rds; severing the majority of ties with the EU, particularly the daily levies paid thereof. There would be no need to increase taxes if these simple procedures were put in place.
    I think if someone is appalling at their job and has helped to engineer the current situation through extreme recklessness, of course they should be given the boot; but if others are genuinely good at their jobs and are helping to shore up the economy, not to mention creating new growth, why should they be penalized? After all, they're doing jobs that only a very, very few are qualified to do.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm furious too. It's just going to mean the very rich leave as we know.

    The government have been raking it in and wasting billions, why on earth should the taxpayer pay for this governments mistake.

    What should happen, is that every member of this government involved (including Tony Blair) and every single banker and person who benefited during the last 11 years and was directly or knowingly involved with the credit crisis be made to sell all their assets including their houses, pensions, boats and whatever else they have amassed and use that period and we use that as a starting point!

    ReplyDelete
  4. The rich to pay more tax? Don't you believe that crap for one minute. This is about courting voters and neither Cameron nor Brown have any intention of making rich folks pay more. No - it'll be the disappearing middle classes that will bare the burden of paying for Brown's folly.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Good point, Scunnert... very Philosopher-Kings, isn't it? The rich, the military, and everyone else? Feels as though we're returning to a pre-Industrial Revolution society. What so few seem to realise is that the extension of the voting franchise did little or nothing for any of us; we're still voiceless, but labouring under the illusion that we have some kind of importance.

    ReplyDelete

Life is to be lived, not controlled, and humanity is won by continuing to play in face of certain defeat -Ralph Ellison