It's been interesting to see the reaction to my blog on the logic of tax justice.
Tim Worstall issued one of his usual diatribes which are great for increasing traffic on my site but will, we can be sure, be rejected as eccentric (or worse) by any reasonable person. His specialism appears to be ultra-market, anti-all government thinking, but he also appears quite unable to see the faults in the model he supports, which I highlighted. The concept of democracy clearly seems to pass him by.
As for Richard Brown, whose comments gave rise to the piece, he refers to Tim Worstall's comments with approval and appears to be on the peripheries of that camp. But at least he tried to address the points I raised. He did so by suggesting I raised a 'straw man' in my arguments. The trouble was he failed to realise was he failed to realise that the straw man I used was in fact the model of market economics itself. As a result all his rebuttals do in fact support my case since he is of course right to say that this is mathematically flawed. It does not and cannot work mathematically because economists made a simple error when creating it which is to assume that a number which is very close to zero behaves as if it is zero, and that is very far from the truth. So all his argument proves is that market theory cannot work.
In which case something has to go in its place because the result of unfettered markets is bound to be sub-optimal. Democratic government is my alternative choice. That requires tax. Those who do not like the ideas I have proposed seem to think otherwise.
The choice is at least apparent and stark. So apparent that we feel quite justified in ignoring these people most of the time.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
You say that people who want to keep their hard earned money rather than give it to government who may waste it are greedy.
There is a community of we will say 100 persons 90 do not wish to work 10 do and work very hard and make a lot of money. The community government which is elected by all citizens decrees that 70% of the money earned by the hard workers must be given to the government to distribute to those who do not wish to work. The hard working citizens decide they will leave and move to a tax haven. So there is nothing for the government to take. As I understand it you would say that the hard workers are greedy because they wish to keep what they have earned rather than have it confiscated by government to be redistributed to people who do not want to work.
Over the past 150 years taxes raised by government have risen inexorably as has the interference of government in peoples lives.. funded by taxes. From wheelie bin spies to community diversification enforcers. The natural progression of what you promulgate is that when people work their employers will pay their wages directly to the government that will then return whatever amount it deems necessary to its citzens.
The ability to better onesself and raise ones standard of living and provide the best for ones family are instincts that have been in the human being since time immemorial. You might even have them yourself!
That some taxes need to be paid to provide infrastructural fabric upon which our society depends is quite reasonable. However how can you justify the british government taxing a profit made on a property in Spain when they have done absolutely nothing whatsoever to provide any framework economic or otherwise to enable that profit to be made?
I also agree with government intervention to adress market failure and oil economic wheels provided it is done efficiently.
Low taxes generate greater wealth. I am now old I could continue to work and improve my lot and, hopefully those around me, but why should I when I know that for every £100 I make the government will take £41 leaving me with £59 and if I leave that in the Bank when I die the government will take a further £24 leaving my family with £35 from my origial £100 that someone thought I was worth. If I had used that £59 to buy say a table then the purchase of that table would have brought the government in a further £10 in VAT and when I died the table would be taxed at 40% anyway bringing in another £24 so in that case out of the £100 I earned government will have taken £79.. You say I am dead so it doesn’t matter .. I say it does matter I am an individual and I have rights and one of those rights should be to create wealth for me and my family and retain it.you no doubt would applaud the fact that government can extract so much
Sadly your view prevails at the present which I see as portending nothing but increasing misery, poverty and discontent as those who create wealth desist and those people who do not become more disatsified as government can’t deliver on its promises. (lies)
This state of affairs is encouraged by the democratic process of election which basically says we will promise to spend more and more on you if you elect us.
as for the tax system it is now so complicated even the tax authorties do not know all the rules and some rules directly contradict others. How can a normal person have a hope?
If your campaign was for tax simplification .. i.e. 20% flat tax on everything I would have some sympathy indeed support but just take take take. seems to be your theme and it is very sad.
apologies .. I have now found your paper on flat taxes which I will read
Spencer
I am proud to live in a democracy
I believe that the vast majority of people want to work. And it’s a fact that more than ever do.
Ane we’re materially better off than we ever have been.
Evidence suggests that increased material wealth for those already well off is not beenficial to their well being.
And as you note, at least some of my views prevail.
It doesn’t leave a lot of evidence for your case, does it?
Richard