Friday, 12 August 2011

'Government' rules - OK?

"We need to understand that the more government spends, the more freedom is lost....Instead of simply debating spending levels, we ought to be debating whether the departments, agencies, and programs funded by the budget should exist at all."
Ron Paul, 3/25/2004
The state needs to extort money, through a system of taxation, from the people they govern as it is the life-blood by which means the state can exist; and through which process politicians/governments are able to exert their influence and thus their power. Is it any wonder that governments, generally, increases tax by various means; because the more tax they are able to raise the greater their power over those they are meant to serve with the provision of more and more 'services'. It is worth remembering that tax is levied year on year and money extracted from you today prevents you becoming richer in the future.

Most economists do not dispute the belief that the more governments tax an economy, the less the economy grows, the less rich everyone becomes resulting in the less money there is for governments to tax and spend. It is also a fact that the more low incomes are taxed leads to a disincentive to work as unemployment benefit pays almost as much, tax free. In return government says "Hang on, we have a system of tax credits for the poor", which is all very well but that entails a civil servant taking money from a poor person and that poor person then completing a form to claim back their own money. Then, yet another civil servant processes that form and pays the money back. A pointless exercise other than it defines the government as one of 'largesse', whilst cementing their power over the people and the people's dependence on them.

Presently governments decree people should pay tax to fund 'government', said 'government' then 'farming out' the money they receive to departments, quangos and 'fake' charities to further enslave the people into dependence on the state. Governments present no budgets, neither do quangos, fake charities, nor any other body that government use to run the country. In effect, what the people accept is a system whereby the government spend what they like, where they like - and then present the people with a bill. That such a system has been accepted by the people, for so long, beggars belief - would anyone commission work on their home, without having agreed a bill for the work promised, beforehand? Probably not, but we do at every general election. Would anyone in their right mind agree a bill with no total? Again, probably not - but we do with every manifesto presented to us at every general election.

It is extremely difficult to explain to people the most obvious of facts, facts that they have decided not to consider even though the evidence is right under their noses. How many people, looking at their wage slips, consider the amount of deductions made and question just what are they getting in return for that sum of money? Just how many people, paying 'service charges' which are not being delivered (bin collections not made on time) but dutifully continue to pay their Council Tax without question?  Just how many people continue to allow deductions to be made from their hard-earned wages, some of which is supposedly to pay for the defence of the country in which they live, whilst observing that 'defence' being drastically reduced?

Is it not time that we, the people, informed government that if they wish to extract our money for specific 'services',  then once we have agreed the budget for the sums demanded, we will then agree to pay?

Just a thought...........

Acknowledgement must be given to Stuart Fairney, author of "Single Acts of Tyranny", which prompted the content of this post - my thanks, Stuart!


Anonymous said...

The wage-slip example is a particularly nasty one because some of the tax people pay is of course hidden. Employers national insurance contribution is deliberately vastly complex, but say the figure is circa 11%.

So someone who thinks they earn £30,000 is actually causing the employer to pay £33,300 in total.

So if you assume that about one third of the notional £30K is taken in tax and the person takes home £20K a year he may assume he is paying £10K in tax, but in fact of course he is paying £13,300 because the employer has to pay this to employ him.

Really nasty and whilst I don't agree with income tax at all, anyone supporting it really ought to merge tax and all the NI into one simple table for the pruposes of honesty and clarity.

the fact they don't is revealing.

WitteringsfromWitney said...

Saot: Agree on the wage slip example, saved for later.......

On the amalgamation of tax and NI - odd you should mention that so watch this space as they say..........