Skip to content

Interesting, no?

But no prime minister has looked at the tax burden – which as a percentage of GDP has reached a 71-year high – and thought, this simply won’t do.

We are actually in that high tax, high spend, social democracy desired by so many. And they’re not satisfied, are they?

4 thoughts on “Interesting, no?”

  1. I’m thinking of evil Bjelke, New Zealand’s Revenge. His policy was to supercharge development of Queensland’s resources, and use the royalties to abolish state taxes.

    Fortunately, the noble High Court pointed out that, if other states retained their petrol taxes, abolishing Qld’s petrol tax was an action in restraint of interstate trade. Such wickedness is naturally forbidden by the constitution.

    And finally, the fiend was tossed out. We lucky Brisbanites have thus been saved from his dreadful dams which might have constricted the flow of water and perhaps prevented some of the flooding with which Holy Mother Gaia has just blessed us.

  2. Well you have to think of the likes of Murphy. In his eyes he looks at private pensions and ISAs (to start with) And thinks ‘I could do something better with that and help more people’- and to his ilk’s mindset anyone not on the breadline has too much. It needs to be confiscated and used by the state. So, for them, we are still under ‘neoliberalism’ and the tax level is far too low.

  3. So that’s what social democracy means – I have often wondered – spend money you don’t have to the point of economic ruin. Back to fields everyone.

  4. Rubbish
    Winston Churchill, (also Anthony Eden and Harold MacMillan) in 1951, Margaret Thatcher in 1979 to name two (or four depending on whether you mean PM or *serving* PM) that I have personally observed act on that.
    You may note that “71-year-high” means since Churchill won the 1951 election and it should actually read “70.4-year high”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *