The government does too much - it doesn't need to do most of it, we can't afford it and don't want to pay for it.
When was the last time the government got involved with something, with a resulting reduction in cost? Has there ever been such an occasion?
Government Intervention must stop - Gordon Brown has been described as not finding a single thing so insignificant that he doesn't believe it won't benefit from his intervention.
Unfortunately for the taxpayer, every intervention costs us money. Money to examine the current situation, money to change the set up, money to run the new set up, money to monitor the new set up. Money, money, money - ours, ours, ours.
What we need is 'Extravention' a new programme (yes that will cost a bit), but with a remit to unwind all existing state interventions, and return the savings to the taxpayer - with the final aim of extravening itself into oblivion.
If something is genuinely seen as beneficial, the taxpayer will have the money to pay for it directly through choice.
The government do have a role ensuring that information is available to allow people to make free, informed choices and to ensure that contracts (freely entered into) are honoured. But they do not have a role in providing the services or controlling the contracts or directly monitoring them.
Get the government off our backs and out of our faces - use extravention to extricate the states mucky paws from where they dont belong.
A public sector worker is a wealth consumer - wealth created by others (in the private sector) is taken by the state and just given away to the public sector to be consumed.
Each public sector worker who can be freed up from these unnecessary tasks will then be able to enter the private sector and set about creating wealth.
This country needs as many wealth creators as possible - we cannot afford to waste so many people by tying them up in the public sector, they must be liberated by extravention and allowed to contribute towards the wealth creation of this country.
Friday, 13 March 2009
And Boris is little better.
- People argue that illegal immigrants accept low wages so are good for the economy.
- People argue that illegal immigrants aren't a drain on the taxpayer, because they can't claim benefits.
- People argue that illegal immigrants do jobs that citizens wont do.
These arguments are used to support the call for an amnesty for illegal immigrants.
There is an obvious flaw in this -- if illegal immigrants are given citizenship, then they are no longer illegal immigrants, and the 'benefits' listed above cease to apply !
Anyone who cites 'benefits' flowing from the presence of illegal immigrants, is actually arguing for them to remain as 'illegal immigrants'.
And, of course, what is the cost of a citizen not being able to find a job because they are currently filled by illegal imigrants?
It is easy to argue that illegal immigrants are good for the economy, but (as I have explained) this is only while they remain illegal. However I have a deeper objection, the use of illegal immigrants is immoral - companies that only exist by exploiting illegal imigrants (at the expense of jobs for citizens) are disgusting, exploitative adn need to be shut down - and their owners locked up.
Posted by Paul Perrin at 00:49
Thursday, 12 March 2009
TaxationTaxation forcibly deprives an individual of their property. If the right to property is recognised, then taxation can only be considered a breach of an individuals rights.
Simply, taxation forces people to pay for things that they would otherwise not choose to pay for. If a person was willing, then they would freely pay with out the duress associated with taxation.
FreeloadingThe argument for taxation runs that there are a number of things that people would be prepared to pay for, but only if everyone else pays too. Accordingly these items are funded through taxation, the only people being 'inconvenienced' by this being those who would have been prepared to 'freeload' (get a benefit from the spending, without, themselves, contributing).
FairnessWhile taxations main benefit may be to prevent freeloading, there arguments can be made as to the level of payment each individual should make towards a spending-in-common.
The obviously equitable answer is payment according to benefit received.
However in the interest of a societies identity, it generally seems accepted that tax funded benefits should generally be available to everyone in that society. This raises the question of how to handle the situation where someone cannot afford to pay for the level of benefit that they are receiving.
The main option here would appear to be between lowering the level of benefit received by an individual according to the contribution they made vs subsidising the provision of the benefit/service to that individual.
Abuse of TaxationOnce a society have agreed what 'spending in common' they are happy to support, the equitable distribution of the tax bills to cover that spending needs to be decided - with a blank canvas an obvious approach might be proportional to the benefit received and the ability to pay. However it has proved popular to distribute the tax-bills on other basis too including:-
- Taxing of 'bad' things
- Taxing of luxuries
- Taxing of 'bad' behaviour
- Taxing of excess wealth
Over time the 'moral' justification has led to an apparent separation of taxation and spending - and people have sometimes come to support taxation of things they don't like as a punitive measure against those who do like/consume those things, with no regard as to what the additional money raised is for.
This sad, immoral state of affairs needs to be recognised and addressed.
To be free, people need to understand what is happening to them.
Posted by Paul Perrin at 08:50