Are we owned by the state?
Julia apparently thinks so.
“If, from the more wretched parts of the old world, we look at those which are in an advanced stage of improvement, we still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised, to furnish new pretenses for revenues and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without tribute.” – Thomas Paine
In today’s Australian there is a short article on the tendency of the government to label tax increases as savings:
Here are some examples of what Gillard includes in her list of so-called savings. A one-off dividend of $150 million the government demanded from Australia Post, $555m from luxury-car tax rises, $402m from higher visa application charges and, in the most recent budget, $275m from more fuel taxes as a result of amending ethanol arrangements.
Added to that are billions of dollars from alcopops and tobacco tax rises. Even the yet-to-be-collected mining tax is included in the $80bn in so-called savings.
While the author correctly regards this action as misleading which is a nice way of saying blatantly deceitful, there is a growing tendency both here and overseas to see tax collections as other than impositions on the public. In fact they are almost seen by the state as a benevolence they bestow on us, but lets look at the term savings.
Savings are that part of income that is put away for the future benefit of the saver. Essentially it involves keeping back from expenditure some of the fruits of your labor in order to meet future expenses, invest in an asset, or whatever other reason is out there. The reason is however irrelevant, the term means putting away a proportion of income.
This is clearly not what the government is doing, in fact since it came to office it has blown most of the savings of the previous government and has embarked in a debt fuelled extravaganza. For the government to make savings it would have to cut back on expenditures, something it is loath to do.
Clearly, Gillard’s ‘savings’ are not savings at all by any standard use of the term. So is she being dishonest, or has she got herself a new progressive definition of the word?
Recently in the US a debate raged over the incredible proposal by the Democrats to increase taxes by allowing the ‘Bush’ tax scales expire, and go back to Clinton’s higher rates. It was never a debate about tax cuts but the Administration promoted tax increases as denying tax cuts to the rich. Was this spin, or was it a genuine belief? Perhaps we should examine the possibility that the state and the creatures of it have a different belief system to the rest of us.
A landlord, who increases his rents by, say 5%, has not made a saving. He may have boosted his take on assets that he places at the disposal of his tenants, who then have the right if they feel they are not getting value for money, to look for something more reasonably priced. This is the free market at work. This is in no way consistent with the government increasing taxes or creating new ones.
For Gillard to refer to increased taxes, as savings seems to assume that she genuinely has a sense of entitlement to the fruits of our labor to whatever degree she chooses to apply it. To argue that taking more of what is ours is a saving, she obviously believes that the whole economy is hers for the taking. To save by taking more, means that in her opinion, what is ours is in reality hers, and it is only by her benevolence that we are allowed to retain any of it.
This means that the attitude of the Australian government is that we and all we have is at their disposal and we are effectively vassals of the state.
Savings are that part of income that is put away for the future benefit of the saver. Essentially it involves keeping back from expenditure some of the fruits of your labor in order to meet future expenses, invest in an asset, or whatever other reason is out there. The reason is however irrelevant, the term means putting away a proportion of income.
This is clearly not what the government is doing, in fact since it came to office it has blown most of the savings of the previous government and has embarked in a debt fuelled extravaganza. For the government to make savings it would have to cut back on expenditures, something it is loath to do.
Clearly, Gillard’s ‘savings’ are not savings at all by any standard use of the term. So is she being dishonest, or has she got herself a new progressive definition of the word?
Recently in the US a debate raged over the incredible proposal by the Democrats to increase taxes by allowing the ‘Bush’ tax scales expire, and go back to Clinton’s higher rates. It was never a debate about tax cuts but the Administration promoted tax increases as denying tax cuts to the rich. Was this spin, or was it a genuine belief? Perhaps we should examine the possibility that the state and the creatures of it have a different belief system to the rest of us.
A landlord, who increases his rents by, say 5%, has not made a saving. He may have boosted his take on assets that he places at the disposal of his tenants, who then have the right if they feel they are not getting value for money, to look for something more reasonably priced. This is the free market at work. This is in no way consistent with the government increasing taxes or creating new ones.
For Gillard to refer to increased taxes, as savings seems to assume that she genuinely has a sense of entitlement to the fruits of our labor to whatever degree she chooses to apply it. To argue that taking more of what is ours is a saving, she obviously believes that the whole economy is hers for the taking. To save by taking more, means that in her opinion, what is ours is in reality hers, and it is only by her benevolence that we are allowed to retain any of it.
This means that the attitude of the Australian government is that we and all we have is at their disposal and we are effectively vassals of the state.
'Twas ever thus, Jim.
ReplyDeleteLook:
A quote, famously attributed to Rothschild agent Col. Edward House, but rarely understood except by "one man in a million" envisages people as collateral on the national debt:
"[Very] soon, every American will be required to register their biological property in a National system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging.
By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will affect our security as a chargeback for our fiat paper currency. Every American will be forced to register or suffer not being able to work and earn a living.
They will be our chattel, and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions. Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, forever to remain economic slaves through taxation, secured by their pledges.
They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be none the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two would figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability.
After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debt to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges. This will inevitably reap to us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor or to this fraud which we will call "Social Insurance."
Without realizing it, every American will insure us for any loss we may incur and in this manner; every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and, we will employ the high office of the President of our dummy corporation to foment this plot against America."
Same goes for the Brits, same goes for the Strines.
CR.
Wow. Wasn't it lucky you had all that flooding and the cyclone up there so Jules could save even more money?
ReplyDeleteHey Cap'n, fancy bumping into you here.
It's a small world AE!
ReplyDeleteNice to see you over here Captain. I think these pricks would get there without the help of the Colonel. Still he makes an interesting read.
ReplyDeleteUntil we pull politicians into line we are simply going to follow the slippery slope down to serfdom.
Thats about it AE, but at least we haven't had economists telling us what a great improvement it will make to economic activity to have all that rebuilding going on like they did in the NZ earthquakes.
Bad news there, Jim. I blogged on that particular broken window after I read this by Michael Pascoe in The Age on Jan 13th. Almost at the end he writes:
ReplyDelete"That won't have changed about Brisbane and all the other towns and regional centres that have been hit. However high the river peaks, we help each other and recover. But we should not again forget lessons learned so hard.
As for the economics of it, yes, there are terrible numbers being bandied around, but while there's damage and destruction and loss, there's also massive stimulus in the rebuilding."
Okay, not an economist but his blurb on Yahoo7 said something about being a respected finance commentator, which I take to mean long time money journo. Still, the fallacy has indeed been made.
Yes, well it is normally a finance commentator, there are more of them than economists and some of the economists are able to see through that load of crap. It always comes up though.
ReplyDelete