Elsewhere

There’s a broader point at play here. Think through what is really being said. The poor should be taxed mightily upon the little pleasures they can afford – as George Orwell pointed out, those pleasures being little but most comforting – in order that they might die in manners that those who write The Lancet approve of. Not the way to run the world to my mind.

19 comments on “Elsewhere

  1. The poor are still not net tax payers so it is not that bad.
    (Of course if extra taxes don’t change their behaviour are they poor?)

  2. I welcome this new definition of what constitutes progressive taxes.

    We can tax the first tranche of income at 40% (punish lazy buggers) and have the top rate dropped to 20% – and all this will still be progressive. Hurrah.

  3. O/T but still on tax, I see one of Murphy’s “seminal” works (Dirty Secrets) has just been published in Portuguese.

    Our host lives in Portugal.

    Hmmm.

  4. It’s presumably seminal because Murphy wanked himself into a frenzy in his shed while writing it.

  5. Tim,
    next time you write that piece (it bears repeating every couple of years just like “Fantasia”) you could reference the ONS data that shows that tobacco taxes take a much larger slice of the income of the lowest-income deciles.

  6. @ anon
    “Poor” means that you have relatively small (or negative) net assets, not that same as having a small income. An Oxbridge maths graduate born in 1997 is poor due to student debt but may have a high income from Goldman Sachs.
    What *is* bad is that the low-income families with one or both parents addicted to nicotine fail to provide the children with good things because the tax on tobacco absorbs too much of their income.

  7. In a functioning society the media (press, in the old days) would be the means by which official nonsense like this would be challenged, aired and debunked. Unfortunately the people who work in the media have the same opinions and world view as the State; they are servants, not watchdogs.

    British society will become far more unpleasant and reason-free in the coming decades.

  8. @Rob, April 5, 2018 at 7:28 pm

    Unfortunately the people who work in the media have the same opinions and world view as the State; they are servants, not watchdogs.

    British society will become far more unpleasant and reason-free in the coming decades.

    +1

    We are not immortal, we die. As Tim points out we now die when our bodies are worn out*.

    imho it would be better if we died before dementia/alzheimer’s renders us vegetables. According to a recent survey, most GPs want to.

    .
    Never forget May’s lie when she became PM “…help the just about managing…”

    .
    * Worn out aka beyond economic repair:
    RSPCA can have pet owners jailed for doing that – humans decide when loved animals must die
    Humans must not decide when they die.
    Insurers refuse to repair

  9. I contend government has the right to tax to raise revenue to pay for their necessary operation.

    Taxing people to affect their behavior is not in government’s charter. Sin tax is tyranny.

  10. “The little pleasures they can afford”- would this include heroin, cocaine etc.
    The comments seem to thing dementia is both universal and inevitable4. This is not so. When you wear out it usually joints etc. that go first.
    Remember though that money turns out to be liquid health in the end.

  11. Every Sin Tax sucking cunt needs to be beaten until they squeal like stuck pigs and then beaten some more until they are dead.

    The FFC needs to be auctioned off for charity. Whoiever pays the most to said charity gets her handed over to do as they like–no legal comebacks.

    Good to see the FFC’s creature Saunders is down tho’. She will of course escape the raft of “conspiracy to pervert the course of Justice” charges she deserves. But still…

  12. @john 77
    I though that the government definition of poor is less than 60% of the median income?

    “What *is* bad is that the low-income families with one or both parents addicted to nicotine fail to provide the children with good things because the tax on tobacco absorbs too much of their income”
    I think that part of the problem is their priorities and that even if tobacco were free they would be bad parents.

  13. Joints wear out but many, if not most are replaceable by medical engineering either literally or functionally. Brain function, as yet, not so much.

  14. Is this the same drum being being thumped at the WHO?

    You know … the one that wanted to appoint Mugabe as a an ambassador?

  15. @ anon
    I prefer to use the true and correct meaning of words rather than Blair/Brown Newspeak. Someone who £500k in the bank earning 0.1% interest has an income below 60% of the median but is not poor.

  16. @john77
    I have no problem with you using the correct meaning of words.
    I really think we need a better definition for these words.

  17. @ anon
    OED is fine – what we need is something kicking Alaistair Campbell and his acolytes in the teeth every time they try to change the meaning of a word. They would have to stop when they could not speak after losing all their teeth.

  18. “Of course if extra taxes don’t change their behaviour are they poor?”

    The trouble is, that my behaviour is being changed regardless of if I wish it to or not.

    I don’t drink a great deal of fizzy pop, but when I do, I’d prefer it to have sugar in, rather than sweeteners. Unfortunately, despite this preference, most of the manufacturers have caved in to the taxation, and now I can’t buy most brands of fizzy pop with sugar in any more, even if I am willing to pay the extra 25p or whatever it costs.

    What I don’t understand is why should I (a light consumer of fizzy pop, who likes it to taste nice) not be allowed to drink the stuff in moderation (doubt I get through a litre a week), because other individuals can’t make wise and responsible choices, and the nanny state has got involved, and basically stopped manufactures making the stuff I like.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.