Tuesday, 8 June 2010

Be careful who you screw, George

Blue Eyes is pleased that Dave & George plan to cut the deficit, but is naturally worried that he's the one in the firing line rather than those that benefited from Labour’s fiscal disaster. He wants the quangistos, the regulators, the interfering busybodies and the non-job wasters out first, before his taxes go up.

In his words:
I have never claimed a benefit or a handout. I have repaid my student loan. I am not in debt. I pay my own way. I do not depend on anyone. I save a good chunk of my salary. I create wealth and export services. I pay my taxes. I expect and receive little from the state in return. So basically, George, I am asking: why I should pay more?
Well said, Blue. There's only one part of the post that confuses me, that that's where you say:
That may sound selfish to some
No, it sounds perfectly fair to me - to suggest that those whose jobs are a pointless waste of money should be sacked so that they can go and do something useful instead. Indeed, it opens up the potential for a bright future for us all; if all those who are able to do useful work actually do so, then we will have the basis for a sustainable recovery with both low tax rates and high tax yields that enable us to care for those that genuinely cannot.

Such a future would be fair. It would provide for all of us. It would, one might say, be a future fair for all. Now, where have I heard that before?


  1. During one of the recessions under the Conservatives, I remember a comedian pretending to be the Chancellor giving a serious political broadcast.

    "How should the Government get the country out of recession?" he asked. "Send you answers on a postcard to..."

    It was a joke then, but not now. Surely the country is more or less agreed on the answer: cut and/or tax other people.

  2. See my tweet from last night, Albert.

    But Blue Eyes has a good point. He has not profited from Labour's profligacy. He has been prudent. He has supported himself. He sees others around him (a) continuing to profit from the public sector's largesse and (b) demanding that he should be penalised so that they can continue to have things bought for them that, even now, he cannot buy for himself.

    And to think, Labour promised to continue that under the banner of fairness.

  3. Anyway many of them will benefit from redundancy payments at our expense and they also have good pensions tucked away. They have also looked after each other's'* non-jobs for far too long.

    If the Government tax us too much, the Laffer curve dictates that we add to our pensions tax free...maybe they will spot that bolthole. Your job is your biggest asset you know but sadly there are not enough to go round. Trouble is, however much they tax us, the UK is still a good place to live even when living standards decline, unless you have a 60ft yacht and they know it.

    *when in doubt, add loads of apostrophes to keep P happy. ;-)

  4. Thanks for the link, P. The key in that sentence was the word "some". "Some" people will say that because I still have enough to live on comfortably that I am not taxed enough. I don't earn an enormous amount but I am reasonably thrifty. My attitude was hated under Labour but if the Tories hammer me I will be even more angry.

  5. P, don't misunderstand me, I've got a lot of sympathy for what BE is saying. I am more vexed by the Government's rather odd idea of asking everyone how they should govern, when it is obvious what people will say.

    if the Tories hammer me I will be even more angry.

    If the Tories turn out to work on economics as they are doing on other topics, then I am afraid you will get angry BE. Our political life has been impoverished, so that every political position boils down to being liberal-left. We cannot blame the liberal left for this diminishment of democratic choice. It is the Tories who are responsible, which is why, despite everything, they didn't get a clear mandate and are having to share power with the Lib Dems - thereby exacerbating the problem.

  6. Disagree Albert. The power sharing, even if it came about by accident, is a good thing.
    Yesterday Labour said there is no crisis, there is plenty of money and the cuts are not necessary as tax rises and growth will sort out the problem.

    That is a very similar position to the one the Lib Dems adopted. Until they were in power, where they are suddenly honest and say ..we need to cut. Its now two voices agreeing instead of two opposing.

    It will all end in tears of course but hopefully the serious work will be done first.

  7. Bill, certainly, two voices agreeing is better than two opposing. However, I wonder whether the coalition will make it more or less likely that BE will be made angry by the Government. Similarly, will it have contributed to a more monochrome political spectrum (if that isn't a contradiction in terms!)?

    The Lib Dems seem more statist than Labour to me, and I am not sure whether the Conservatives have the vision or the strength to avoid such entanglements at the moment.

  8. Isn't it a strange feature of the blogosphere that this thread has more comments on it than my original one!! Harrumph!

  9. Isn't it a strange feature of the blogosphere that this thread has more comments on it than my original one!! Harrumph!

    ROFL! I bet you had more readers, though.

    Come one everyone, go and comment on Blue's site!