I went to Ascot recently, which doesn't seem a promising start to an item about the Left. It was for the Red Bull Air Races and it was my first visit to this mecca of horse racing. Happily could be my last. What moron put such a large and prestigious venture in a town centre?
The queues to park were horrendous, they forgot to effectively relabel the car parks and the tickets for the 'Grandstand', permitted you to stand on the grass in front of the Grandstand. Must speak to Trading Standards about that.
Anyway, Ascot race course seems a grubby, badly organised place as you arrive, but is really quite fabulous. Good luck to all those lucky enough to have the wealth to really get the best out of the place. I mean that, I have no fear or loathing of rich people.
The day was fine and the racing close. We left early though, to avoid what must, has to be bedlam as everyone leaves at the same time. And this is my point, not the event or the venue but the journey.
Perhaps foolishly I went there mainly by motorway. Well, I still call them motorways and I think that is their retained official title, but they are now some kind of Marxist Utopia. Firstly, in a way of taxing that led to Magna Carta in the first place, cameras to calculate average speeds have been erected alongside, expensive and sophisticated gantries and signs, to allow our very own Stasi to manipulate road speeds.
These displays are operated like a child playing with Buckaroo; just for the users entertainment. We used to just have the idiot matrix board, always displaying a message about something that happened yesterday or offering some pointless 'advice', now they tell you that there is congestion. In real time. And they know there is congestion because a) they can see it on yet more cameras and b) they caused it.
Yes, a key reason for the variable speed limits (after fund raising, naturally) is to cause congestion, which then allows them to further lower speed limits and hopefully catch more people out who can't remember what the last set of 'instructions for driving' were.
If you have experienced this, or if you are fairly normally perceptive, you will realise that this creates dangerous situations and you would be right. But the variable speed limits are for your safety. Or for the safety of people who may at some point have been working in the road, but aren't now.
So we are treated to broad expanses of three and four lane roads, motorways, that used to be the safest of our roads, now reduced to desperate drivers watching signs as to whether they need to slow down further and trying to keep current with the last change, terrified of a possible fine, points and/or loss of licence. At no point has any hint of danger emanated from their driving, though has been introduced by constant vigilance to signs and the sudden need to brake
This braking caused by all the traffic concatenating due to all travelling at 40mph and lorries, now able to change lanes to 'overtake'. It is horrendous, stressful and dangerous, but it serves a very important purpose. For too long, drivers have been able to make decisions, repeatedly on how to drive. Firstly, speed limits were introduced, then technology meant they could be enforced more strictly but motorways still evaded the Left's need to control.
Average speed cameras and variable speed limits were the solution. All you need to do, is slow the traffic until cars, coaches and lorries are all travelling at the same speed. Cars that used to pass a given area at 70 (or so) miles per hour, now traverse it much more slowly at 50, or 40 mph. People lane change to seek some small advantage, lorries included.
So all the spaces that such fast travel allowed are now taken up by a solid mass. You know this is true, because the 'congestion' clears the moment the 'limits' are lifted. But you don't get to make decisions, you do what you are told. You are conditioned just a bit more to accept the dead, controlling hand of the State.
And you know if the subject ever comes up on the TV some idiot will, quite happily and to camera say, 'yes, but if it's keeping us safer.....'. Seeing this sort of thing must make Cultural Marxists sigh with satisfaction, that someone has accepted their prole status, knows their place.
So yes, our motorways, with variable speed gantries and average speed cameras are an example of the Marxist Utopia we are heading for. Just remember that before you grumble about your journey in future. It is for the greater good.
Showing posts with label Tax. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tax. Show all posts
Tuesday, 26 August 2014
Monday, 8 April 2013
Margaret Thatcher - RIP
With the sad news that Margaret Thatcher has died, I find myself unable to watch the BBC, knowing they will be struggling to hide their smirks amid endless whining. But Lord help us Sky News is a stream of miners strike, poll tax riots and morons like Derek Hatton given air time. Derek Hatton! The corrupting communist who is delighted he doesn't live in a communist country.
What seems to have been missed is the fact that Thatcher was elected because the country was fed up with yet another Labour government of incompetent and ignorant misfits, who had wrecked the economy and saw refuse piling up in the streets because Labour wouldn't confront their paymasters, the Unions.
Thatcher did take them on, as they would otherwise hold back her revolution and the communists such as Scargill realised they had to provoke a confrontation. So he set about winding up the poor miners who, already facing losing their jobs in a woefully broken industry supported by massive taxpayer input, he needed to riot. When any other business goes broke, its staff lose their jobs and though it is to be regretted, what should be, can be done? The Left claim, the State should pay. How is not explained.
So, under a proper, committed politician of stature the country prospered. The Left derided Yuppies, but who were Yuppies? The Left say they were selfish people, invented by Thatcher; the Me generation. But Yuppies were just people who had done well by working hard. Their ambition was not checked by taxes and rules and regulations, which is always the way of the Left. They were allowed to keep more of their money and spend it how they liked. Wealth redistribution based on effort not theft.
The Me generation had to wait for the vacuous Blair and his drive to become personally wealthy at our expense. He denied and derided ambition and insisted that if you want something you have to take it off someone else.
The Poll Tax was a bad idea in the way it was brought about, but it was a gift for the Left as it was particularly their supporters who had previously been able to dodge the tax man. Being accountable and being expected to contribute was such an outrageous idea to the Left apparently, that it became essential to riot and attack properties nearby. Attempting to murder police officers was also an acceptable political statement. This was how scared, how desperate the Left were to get rid of this clever, reliable, honest and committed politician heading a hated party. Hated by them, no one else.
It is a sign of how successful communist influences are within our institutions that today, people who know nothing about it, never experienced Thatcher's Britain, see her as someone who destroyed Britain and ruined lives. Schools and Universities ensured an endless stream of Left oriented propaganda was directed at the young to paint a picture that wasn't true, but a 'narrative' of the truth as the Left wanted it.
In short the Left were indignant that many of their supporters, traditional Labour voters had deserted them for the Conservatives, not as they saw it, because the Conservatives had made them and the country more successful, more wealthy, but because they were stupid and had been duped. Always the refuge of the Left when faced with their inevitable failure; to blame the people who were too stupid to realise the Utopia just around the corner, if only the Left could run everything with sky high taxes and very little private enterprise, if any. A Utopia like Albania.
What Thatcher believed was that, if someone worked hard they should be allowed to keep the vast majority of what they earned. Their efforts would make the country successful. As we have seen from the last bout of Labour government, what they offer is high taxes, reducing services, massive over-spending and growing national debt. People like Polly Toynbee who is rich and has several houses including one in Tuscany ranting about redistributing wealth through taxation, but not her wealth and companies acting immorally by not paying UK tax, without mentioning that her employer is one of those. With Thatcher you got opportunity, with Labour you get corruption and hypocrisy.
A great leader of this nation has died and we are a little diminished. It would be a fitting tribute to this conviction politician, if Tony Blair was convicted for the several crimes committed whilst lining his pockets as PM.
What seems to have been missed is the fact that Thatcher was elected because the country was fed up with yet another Labour government of incompetent and ignorant misfits, who had wrecked the economy and saw refuse piling up in the streets because Labour wouldn't confront their paymasters, the Unions.
Thatcher did take them on, as they would otherwise hold back her revolution and the communists such as Scargill realised they had to provoke a confrontation. So he set about winding up the poor miners who, already facing losing their jobs in a woefully broken industry supported by massive taxpayer input, he needed to riot. When any other business goes broke, its staff lose their jobs and though it is to be regretted, what should be, can be done? The Left claim, the State should pay. How is not explained.
So, under a proper, committed politician of stature the country prospered. The Left derided Yuppies, but who were Yuppies? The Left say they were selfish people, invented by Thatcher; the Me generation. But Yuppies were just people who had done well by working hard. Their ambition was not checked by taxes and rules and regulations, which is always the way of the Left. They were allowed to keep more of their money and spend it how they liked. Wealth redistribution based on effort not theft.
The Me generation had to wait for the vacuous Blair and his drive to become personally wealthy at our expense. He denied and derided ambition and insisted that if you want something you have to take it off someone else.
The Poll Tax was a bad idea in the way it was brought about, but it was a gift for the Left as it was particularly their supporters who had previously been able to dodge the tax man. Being accountable and being expected to contribute was such an outrageous idea to the Left apparently, that it became essential to riot and attack properties nearby. Attempting to murder police officers was also an acceptable political statement. This was how scared, how desperate the Left were to get rid of this clever, reliable, honest and committed politician heading a hated party. Hated by them, no one else.
It is a sign of how successful communist influences are within our institutions that today, people who know nothing about it, never experienced Thatcher's Britain, see her as someone who destroyed Britain and ruined lives. Schools and Universities ensured an endless stream of Left oriented propaganda was directed at the young to paint a picture that wasn't true, but a 'narrative' of the truth as the Left wanted it.
In short the Left were indignant that many of their supporters, traditional Labour voters had deserted them for the Conservatives, not as they saw it, because the Conservatives had made them and the country more successful, more wealthy, but because they were stupid and had been duped. Always the refuge of the Left when faced with their inevitable failure; to blame the people who were too stupid to realise the Utopia just around the corner, if only the Left could run everything with sky high taxes and very little private enterprise, if any. A Utopia like Albania.
What Thatcher believed was that, if someone worked hard they should be allowed to keep the vast majority of what they earned. Their efforts would make the country successful. As we have seen from the last bout of Labour government, what they offer is high taxes, reducing services, massive over-spending and growing national debt. People like Polly Toynbee who is rich and has several houses including one in Tuscany ranting about redistributing wealth through taxation, but not her wealth and companies acting immorally by not paying UK tax, without mentioning that her employer is one of those. With Thatcher you got opportunity, with Labour you get corruption and hypocrisy.
A great leader of this nation has died and we are a little diminished. It would be a fitting tribute to this conviction politician, if Tony Blair was convicted for the several crimes committed whilst lining his pockets as PM.
Friday, 4 January 2013
Ed Balls
Ed Balls, architect of our current financial destruction, today says that people fiddling their benefits claims should be dealt with harshly and we can but agree. He does however have a very different view of Mr. Ed Balls and his wife fiddling their tax and expenses.
He quite happily switches the claim as to which of his two homes is the primary one, to suit his advantage in each case. It's against the law but he is a politician and so it is never pursued. And that raises an interesting question. Whilst we are not surprised by the hypocrisy of this man, nor his intention to deceive on a number of issues, not least where he gains financially, but who lets him get away with it? Who knows and is in a position to act but doesn't and why?
You see, Balls cheats because he can and thus gains, but why would someone cover for him? Where is their gain? It is clear that the Establishment have some unwritten rules to protect themselves to our detriment and that is shameful. It is just the same as the BBC providing the opportunity and cover for Jimmy Savile and others to behave as they did. Provide the environment and corruption will flourish. A back-scratching elite.
Heads of state and Prime Ministers are keen advocates that killing other heads of state is wrong. No assassinations This is not a noble principle but one based on self preservation. If you break the rule, then consider yourself a target. Strange how incentive works isn't it? Or not.
Going back to Balls though. It is a good idea to never listen to a word he says and certainly don't trust any of it. He may be right sometimes but that will be him seeking advantage and doubtless someone reliable will also be saying it. He and his gormless wife are both irrelevant when it comes to ideas.
He quite happily switches the claim as to which of his two homes is the primary one, to suit his advantage in each case. It's against the law but he is a politician and so it is never pursued. And that raises an interesting question. Whilst we are not surprised by the hypocrisy of this man, nor his intention to deceive on a number of issues, not least where he gains financially, but who lets him get away with it? Who knows and is in a position to act but doesn't and why?
You see, Balls cheats because he can and thus gains, but why would someone cover for him? Where is their gain? It is clear that the Establishment have some unwritten rules to protect themselves to our detriment and that is shameful. It is just the same as the BBC providing the opportunity and cover for Jimmy Savile and others to behave as they did. Provide the environment and corruption will flourish. A back-scratching elite.
Heads of state and Prime Ministers are keen advocates that killing other heads of state is wrong. No assassinations This is not a noble principle but one based on self preservation. If you break the rule, then consider yourself a target. Strange how incentive works isn't it? Or not.
Going back to Balls though. It is a good idea to never listen to a word he says and certainly don't trust any of it. He may be right sometimes but that will be him seeking advantage and doubtless someone reliable will also be saying it. He and his gormless wife are both irrelevant when it comes to ideas.
Thursday, 21 June 2012
Jimmy Carr Crash
I like Jimmy Carr. Or do I? I'm not sure. He is quick-witted, which I admire. He can be funny, but isn't always. 'Sketch' shows are not his thing - he does them really badly.
But anyway, here we have a Leftie comedian who has actually done a sketch lampooning Barclays for only paying 1 percent tax. This is a tax arrangement he has made use of himself. Now if it exists, why not I say, but of course if you have always spouted that it is morally wrong, how can you then decide, morally wrong for anyone but me?
So now Jimmy has said it was an 'error of judgement' as indeed it was. He has apologised but he shouldn't have (unless it was for his sketch shows) as he only did what anyone should do in his position. If tax is to be a level playing field with all paying their dues, then the tax office needs sorting out and the law changed. That is where the problem is. That and a tax regime that goes out of its way to facilitate companies like Vodafone, to ensure they pay little or no tax here.
Bloody funny about Carr though, but I guess he isn't feeling it.
But anyway, here we have a Leftie comedian who has actually done a sketch lampooning Barclays for only paying 1 percent tax. This is a tax arrangement he has made use of himself. Now if it exists, why not I say, but of course if you have always spouted that it is morally wrong, how can you then decide, morally wrong for anyone but me?
So now Jimmy has said it was an 'error of judgement' as indeed it was. He has apologised but he shouldn't have (unless it was for his sketch shows) as he only did what anyone should do in his position. If tax is to be a level playing field with all paying their dues, then the tax office needs sorting out and the law changed. That is where the problem is. That and a tax regime that goes out of its way to facilitate companies like Vodafone, to ensure they pay little or no tax here.
Bloody funny about Carr though, but I guess he isn't feeling it.
Tuesday, 22 May 2012
Doom And Gloom
Marks and Spencer report a profit fall and the retail sector generally seems to be in trouble. This is due to a number of reasons. The smallest and least significant is people losing their jobs. Those still in work have no reason not to 'carry on'. The major reasons are lack of disposable income and newspaper stories. On the latter, I'm surprised the media haven't accessed everyone's Facebook page and Twitter account in order to tell everyone personally and individually just how bad their life is going to be.
The papers endlessly report the end of the world and then ignore it not happening. They have no idea what is going on, so they make most of it up and guess that scaring people makes for better copy. So people hold back on spending because the papers tell them everyone else is doing the same. Not buying that dress today will, of course mean that you can pay the mortgage next month, as you are about to lose your job in the next day or so, according to the papers.
A major, real problem is rising prices. These are caused in a very small part, by producers needing to keep up with inflation. The biggest cause is either subsidies we must pay for on energy production, to allow wind turbines to be built, that will help eradicate fairies at the bottom of David Cameron's garden, or something. This is a cost without benefit. Then there is the opportunity spotted by these companies (and some others) to just increase prices, because they have realised just how stupid politicians and their bureaucrats are.
If the people who 'control' your prices believe in dragons, you should be able to charge pretty much what you like. Look at water. When we had a (government, again) generated crisis in supply, the water companies said that they were willing to meet their existing legal obligation to fix leaks, if they were allowed to put their prices up. And no-one, it seems, thought that outrageous.
Then there is increased taxation to take into account and so we have a situation where people are scared and penniless, not for any real or tangible reason, but because the government interferes and over taxes you, me and business due to their own inabilities and so the economy doesn't grow. As ever, a key indicator of a successful, or failing economy is the state of the retail trade. I wonder if Cameron can find time in his busy (games) schedule to listen to anyone other than a communist inspired pressure group, be it homosexual or environmental.
The papers endlessly report the end of the world and then ignore it not happening. They have no idea what is going on, so they make most of it up and guess that scaring people makes for better copy. So people hold back on spending because the papers tell them everyone else is doing the same. Not buying that dress today will, of course mean that you can pay the mortgage next month, as you are about to lose your job in the next day or so, according to the papers.
A major, real problem is rising prices. These are caused in a very small part, by producers needing to keep up with inflation. The biggest cause is either subsidies we must pay for on energy production, to allow wind turbines to be built, that will help eradicate fairies at the bottom of David Cameron's garden, or something. This is a cost without benefit. Then there is the opportunity spotted by these companies (and some others) to just increase prices, because they have realised just how stupid politicians and their bureaucrats are.
If the people who 'control' your prices believe in dragons, you should be able to charge pretty much what you like. Look at water. When we had a (government, again) generated crisis in supply, the water companies said that they were willing to meet their existing legal obligation to fix leaks, if they were allowed to put their prices up. And no-one, it seems, thought that outrageous.
Then there is increased taxation to take into account and so we have a situation where people are scared and penniless, not for any real or tangible reason, but because the government interferes and over taxes you, me and business due to their own inabilities and so the economy doesn't grow. As ever, a key indicator of a successful, or failing economy is the state of the retail trade. I wonder if Cameron can find time in his busy (games) schedule to listen to anyone other than a communist inspired pressure group, be it homosexual or environmental.
Friday, 30 March 2012
Taxing The Rich
Labour have tried to use the Tory reduction of the top rate of tax as a class war stick to beat them with. But this attack relies on a lack of understanding amongst the general population. Really, at the end of the day, the economy wants rich people to be setting up businesses that then employ people. The rich should be spending their money and redistributing it that way.
High levels of tax on the rich is political, punitive and usually pointless, as they can afford to find ways to avoid it. But it is an excellent class war battle cry. Though I do wonder how long it would last, if these die hard, unthinking Labour supporters were told that half of their £10 million lottery win was going in tax. £5 million pounds is a lot of money, but not when you 'won' £10 million. And the government wouldn't have even bought a ticket for their 'guaranteed' win!
No, the way we look at tax today is entirely wrong. We should not be clamouring for the rich to pay more (often based on the feeling that we are already paying more than our 'fair share'), but instead clamouring for the reverse. If you earn £20,000 then fuel prices will be a big concern to you and seem oppressive. If you earn £100,000 they won't.
So even at a very basic level, the poorest are paying too much for everything. And it is almost always the government's fault. They get too cosy with the energy companies and fail to regulate properly. They do too many things, all demanding funding which means high taxes.The common Man is the easiest and most numerous source.
Today, all of us I'm sure would love to 'avoid tax', to reduce its burden. I think some hard working families would probably even consider 'illegal' avoidance, so desperate are things becoming. So it is no wonder these people clamour for Porsche drivers to lose some of their wealth. This socialist view has become ingrained. The desire not to do well, but to inhibit others, to seize wealth where it exists, to 'rub their noses in it'. Not to achieve but to deny.
Yet consider the popularity of the lottery and the overwhelming number of players who come from poor environments. Clearly they would have no problem with wealth, should they themselves come into it. Envy is not a quality we should regard with any ease in our politics and yet it is the sole purpose of the Labour Party, to stoke up envy amongst their supporters.
Ed Balls is no believer in the politics he espouses. As much as any he seeks benefit from his position as a politician and uses device, artifice and not a little mendacity to avoid tax and increase his take from the taxpayer. Like any conman, he relies on gullibility to line his pockets.
The answer is to re-educate the taxpayers, so they can then demand that the government becomes what it is intended to be; small, but of consequence, honourable and undemanding. In the Telegraph today David Cameron says he will not rest until people have control of the choices and chances in their life. This will come as a surprise to most people, who will be totally unaware he is working in this direction.
Indeed, on this front, it would have long ago been believed that Cameron was reclined luxuriantly on a chaise longue in a pleasant home called Mon Repose. Had it been something of the utmost national importance it could not have been more secret, more unknown. Most people, if they could discern any direction, felt vaguely that he is committed to the destruction of the UK by slavishly following the diktats of his EU masters.
His supposed policies are androgynous and evoke the same passion. He quietly signs EU documents and loudly pursues unhelpful policies to please small, usually noisy homosexual activists. He has time he finds, to take up the moral fabric and endlessly pick away at it. The Greatness of Britain is a stain, in his mind and must be done away with forever. It is no wonder David Cameron is negative about things in general; he lives in a reverse of the real world.
Where is his restless plan to shrink government and hand back this country to its people? He promised it, he still does when reminded, but he has not lifted a finger to bring it about. How could he, when he so fervently believes in the central control of an EU superstate. The antithesis of local government (let alone good government!)
Must we rise up David Cameron before you heed us? Must the British people once again cast off tyranny and 'save the world'? We have Galloway on the rise so time is short perhaps. He offers political focus for those who would do violence in our midst.
High levels of tax on the rich is political, punitive and usually pointless, as they can afford to find ways to avoid it. But it is an excellent class war battle cry. Though I do wonder how long it would last, if these die hard, unthinking Labour supporters were told that half of their £10 million lottery win was going in tax. £5 million pounds is a lot of money, but not when you 'won' £10 million. And the government wouldn't have even bought a ticket for their 'guaranteed' win!
No, the way we look at tax today is entirely wrong. We should not be clamouring for the rich to pay more (often based on the feeling that we are already paying more than our 'fair share'), but instead clamouring for the reverse. If you earn £20,000 then fuel prices will be a big concern to you and seem oppressive. If you earn £100,000 they won't.
So even at a very basic level, the poorest are paying too much for everything. And it is almost always the government's fault. They get too cosy with the energy companies and fail to regulate properly. They do too many things, all demanding funding which means high taxes.The common Man is the easiest and most numerous source.
Today, all of us I'm sure would love to 'avoid tax', to reduce its burden. I think some hard working families would probably even consider 'illegal' avoidance, so desperate are things becoming. So it is no wonder these people clamour for Porsche drivers to lose some of their wealth. This socialist view has become ingrained. The desire not to do well, but to inhibit others, to seize wealth where it exists, to 'rub their noses in it'. Not to achieve but to deny.
Yet consider the popularity of the lottery and the overwhelming number of players who come from poor environments. Clearly they would have no problem with wealth, should they themselves come into it. Envy is not a quality we should regard with any ease in our politics and yet it is the sole purpose of the Labour Party, to stoke up envy amongst their supporters.
Ed Balls is no believer in the politics he espouses. As much as any he seeks benefit from his position as a politician and uses device, artifice and not a little mendacity to avoid tax and increase his take from the taxpayer. Like any conman, he relies on gullibility to line his pockets.
The answer is to re-educate the taxpayers, so they can then demand that the government becomes what it is intended to be; small, but of consequence, honourable and undemanding. In the Telegraph today David Cameron says he will not rest until people have control of the choices and chances in their life. This will come as a surprise to most people, who will be totally unaware he is working in this direction.
Indeed, on this front, it would have long ago been believed that Cameron was reclined luxuriantly on a chaise longue in a pleasant home called Mon Repose. Had it been something of the utmost national importance it could not have been more secret, more unknown. Most people, if they could discern any direction, felt vaguely that he is committed to the destruction of the UK by slavishly following the diktats of his EU masters.
His supposed policies are androgynous and evoke the same passion. He quietly signs EU documents and loudly pursues unhelpful policies to please small, usually noisy homosexual activists. He has time he finds, to take up the moral fabric and endlessly pick away at it. The Greatness of Britain is a stain, in his mind and must be done away with forever. It is no wonder David Cameron is negative about things in general; he lives in a reverse of the real world.
Where is his restless plan to shrink government and hand back this country to its people? He promised it, he still does when reminded, but he has not lifted a finger to bring it about. How could he, when he so fervently believes in the central control of an EU superstate. The antithesis of local government (let alone good government!)
Must we rise up David Cameron before you heed us? Must the British people once again cast off tyranny and 'save the world'? We have Galloway on the rise so time is short perhaps. He offers political focus for those who would do violence in our midst.
Wednesday, 28 March 2012
Pasty Update
The Battle of Greggs hots up! Not only did Ed Balls and Ed Minivan go into a Greggs and buy 8 sausage rolls (Balls reluctantly let his 'leader' have one), but now we hear that David Cameron is a fan of the pasty too. I can't really stand them myself; I don't find the filling appetising. Now a good, puff pastry oozing fat sausage roll in the other hand.....
A mention was made by our man of the people PM of a Pasty shop at Leeds station and the sleuths were on to it with vigour. Ha! They said, the last pasty shop at Leeds station closed a month ago. And the one he actually named, in 2007. Impressive is it not how these people can find such information but can't read very well. The article in the Telegraph says that Cameron likes pasties and last had one 'some time' ago in Leeds station 'I think'.
Clearly, he doesn't partake that often of boutiques such as Greggs, but then nor do I. It is irrelevant and beside the point, the tax demands should be going down not up. Government should be cutting spending by not having the Quango's nor anything but a small percentage of the staff the public sector currently employs. It could and should do much less. And we should leave the EU to hasten our recovery immediately. If only to annoy David Aaronovitch, the diametric opposite of James Delingpole. JD is right about everything and DA about nothing.
A mention was made by our man of the people PM of a Pasty shop at Leeds station and the sleuths were on to it with vigour. Ha! They said, the last pasty shop at Leeds station closed a month ago. And the one he actually named, in 2007. Impressive is it not how these people can find such information but can't read very well. The article in the Telegraph says that Cameron likes pasties and last had one 'some time' ago in Leeds station 'I think'.
Clearly, he doesn't partake that often of boutiques such as Greggs, but then nor do I. It is irrelevant and beside the point, the tax demands should be going down not up. Government should be cutting spending by not having the Quango's nor anything but a small percentage of the staff the public sector currently employs. It could and should do much less. And we should leave the EU to hasten our recovery immediately. If only to annoy David Aaronovitch, the diametric opposite of James Delingpole. JD is right about everything and DA about nothing.
Hot Food
Trying to raise some more tax and fall in line with EC Directives, George Osborne slapped a tax on hot food. Strangely he wanted to do this more than he wanted to stop spending our money, so he wouldn't need so much tax.
So Greggs have gone nuts as they sell hot sausage rolls and pasties. How are you supposed to run a business in this country when you have no idea when drastic new rules will be introduced that undermine you (usually from the EU)?
Here's the thing Greggs. I come in the shop and ask for a VAT free cold sausage roll, recently reduced in price by 4p. Thank you very much. I see you also offer a warming service for 5p including VAT at 20%. Thanks very much I'll go with that and George Osborne can have his 1p pound of flesh.
Why do the Tories think they are in a competition to be more stupid than Tony Blair/Gordon Brown?
So Greggs have gone nuts as they sell hot sausage rolls and pasties. How are you supposed to run a business in this country when you have no idea when drastic new rules will be introduced that undermine you (usually from the EU)?
Here's the thing Greggs. I come in the shop and ask for a VAT free cold sausage roll, recently reduced in price by 4p. Thank you very much. I see you also offer a warming service for 5p including VAT at 20%. Thanks very much I'll go with that and George Osborne can have his 1p pound of flesh.
Why do the Tories think they are in a competition to be more stupid than Tony Blair/Gordon Brown?
Friday, 23 March 2012
Government Influence
Just to ram home that Cameron is a Big government PM at the head of a social liberal (liberal with state control that is) party, he is implementing measures to display his power to influence. Government, of course was invented to handle a few matters of national importance on behalf of the people, who elected them to this office. This has been corrupted by modern politicians into a fervent belief that they control the country and elections are a throwback, an inconvenience they have to suffer.
Cameron wants to attack the price of alcohol, so that the poorest people will find it just that little bit harder to enjoy something multi-millionaires, with hefty salaries from the public purse will be unaffected by. This, he assures us, will stop binge drinking in its tracks. Binge drinking you see, is something only poor people do and it is a considerable annoyance to socialites.
Naturally, small children asked for their opinion on the subject will point out that the price issue is only loosely connected and that it is more a social problem, maybe more influenced by things such as corruption in high places eroding the moral fabric. But it can't be that, because overall, Cameron is quite happy for MP's to keep dipping their hands into our pockets for a little extra cash. That they should corruptly hold private positions that relate to their public role. No, it can't be a moral issue.
Of course if we had laws to prevent bars and clubs from serving people who are clearly 'too far gone' and maybe we could have 'courts' who dealt with those being 'bloodthirsty in the streets', who could then imprison them, it might be helpful. This would show that the behaviour is not acceptable. It would be a drastic change from what we currently do, but I don't know, maybe we should try it.
Then there is Cameron's attempt to destroy my local Chinese and Greggs. He has added 20% to the price of the food they sell, in an attempt to further enrich the government, which has been spectacularly mismanaged and is in something of a mess. again, these measures should mainly affect those least able to pay so of no concern to wealthy, taxpayer funded social liberals.
What a government should do is make an environment that allows businesses to be successful and otherwise, stay away. Not be a monkey on the backs of those businesses. It should not make wealthy people richer through subsidies to idiot projects like wind farms, to address a non-existent creature of their nightmares. Government should not influence commerce, let alone corrupt its course.
I saw a Pizza takeaway shop take delivery of some new kit yesterday, which will have meant some money going to the delivery company and to the firm they bought it from etc etc. But should he have made that investment? Can he afford it, now that his business is likely to see a downturn in custom, due to his prices going up by 20%? Not 20% by his choosing and not 20% extra for him, but because a group of greedy, incompetent, but richly rewarded and very self-impressed idiots have the power to impose their will on him and destroy his business if they so wish. I suppose multi-millionaires don't use such tacky establishments anyway, so where is the harm?
I really don't believe in hatred for any reason, but Labour's constant attempts to whip up violence by promoting class hatred and class war, is particularly disgusting. But it seems Cameron is a fulsome supporter of a group of people who think they are 'a class apart'.
Cameron wants to attack the price of alcohol, so that the poorest people will find it just that little bit harder to enjoy something multi-millionaires, with hefty salaries from the public purse will be unaffected by. This, he assures us, will stop binge drinking in its tracks. Binge drinking you see, is something only poor people do and it is a considerable annoyance to socialites.
Naturally, small children asked for their opinion on the subject will point out that the price issue is only loosely connected and that it is more a social problem, maybe more influenced by things such as corruption in high places eroding the moral fabric. But it can't be that, because overall, Cameron is quite happy for MP's to keep dipping their hands into our pockets for a little extra cash. That they should corruptly hold private positions that relate to their public role. No, it can't be a moral issue.
Of course if we had laws to prevent bars and clubs from serving people who are clearly 'too far gone' and maybe we could have 'courts' who dealt with those being 'bloodthirsty in the streets', who could then imprison them, it might be helpful. This would show that the behaviour is not acceptable. It would be a drastic change from what we currently do, but I don't know, maybe we should try it.
Then there is Cameron's attempt to destroy my local Chinese and Greggs. He has added 20% to the price of the food they sell, in an attempt to further enrich the government, which has been spectacularly mismanaged and is in something of a mess. again, these measures should mainly affect those least able to pay so of no concern to wealthy, taxpayer funded social liberals.
What a government should do is make an environment that allows businesses to be successful and otherwise, stay away. Not be a monkey on the backs of those businesses. It should not make wealthy people richer through subsidies to idiot projects like wind farms, to address a non-existent creature of their nightmares. Government should not influence commerce, let alone corrupt its course.
I saw a Pizza takeaway shop take delivery of some new kit yesterday, which will have meant some money going to the delivery company and to the firm they bought it from etc etc. But should he have made that investment? Can he afford it, now that his business is likely to see a downturn in custom, due to his prices going up by 20%? Not 20% by his choosing and not 20% extra for him, but because a group of greedy, incompetent, but richly rewarded and very self-impressed idiots have the power to impose their will on him and destroy his business if they so wish. I suppose multi-millionaires don't use such tacky establishments anyway, so where is the harm?
I really don't believe in hatred for any reason, but Labour's constant attempts to whip up violence by promoting class hatred and class war, is particularly disgusting. But it seems Cameron is a fulsome supporter of a group of people who think they are 'a class apart'.
Thursday, 22 March 2012
More Budgie Than Budget
When all the arguments about robbing pensioners (no they will lose an allowance, possibly pay more tax), reduced red tape (to the degree anyone will notice?) and reducing the burden on business (yeah, but for your mates the big companies, eh George), there is something simple and wrong about the Budget.
There is a glaring omission from its actions and aims. Firstly, the basic tax allowance will go up a decent amount, which will be paid for by not giving an increase in handouts to pensioners. The top tax rate, that hasn't worked as a method of bringing in revenue has been reduced and companies are to see Corporation tax reduced.
So, on the one hand Osborne is giving to 'stimulate business' and so the economy and on the other he is taking away from the masses to pay for it. The bit that is missing is government. Tax is raised for government to spend and whilst G Brown Esq. is principally responsible for the debt that Britain is saddled with, Osborne is doing very, very little to abate it.
Think about it. Those tax increases on all of us could easily be funded by not giving subsidies to rich landowners and businesses doing little beyond holding their hand out for cash, though ostensibly in the business of renewable energy.We could stop having support groups funded by us for every fashionable cause a Leftie can think up.
In short, if the government stopped doing a whole raft of things we never asked and certainly do not want them doing, the tax burden would diminish drastically. And that is before they try to run government as if it were a business and make a) the money and b) the 'staff' accountable. Reducing fraud and waste within government would be another big boost for us as a nation and as wealthier individuals.
But it won't happen because politics is about power and the last thing you do as a politician (and particularly in these days of insular politics, unconnected with purpose) is give away power. And money is power. So no, give a little here, take a little there but strangely, don't let it impact on politicians. Heck, if they actually had to work at their parliamentary job, there would be no time for all the other things they do, usually corruptly to increase their personal well being.
There is a glaring omission from its actions and aims. Firstly, the basic tax allowance will go up a decent amount, which will be paid for by not giving an increase in handouts to pensioners. The top tax rate, that hasn't worked as a method of bringing in revenue has been reduced and companies are to see Corporation tax reduced.
So, on the one hand Osborne is giving to 'stimulate business' and so the economy and on the other he is taking away from the masses to pay for it. The bit that is missing is government. Tax is raised for government to spend and whilst G Brown Esq. is principally responsible for the debt that Britain is saddled with, Osborne is doing very, very little to abate it.
Think about it. Those tax increases on all of us could easily be funded by not giving subsidies to rich landowners and businesses doing little beyond holding their hand out for cash, though ostensibly in the business of renewable energy.We could stop having support groups funded by us for every fashionable cause a Leftie can think up.
In short, if the government stopped doing a whole raft of things we never asked and certainly do not want them doing, the tax burden would diminish drastically. And that is before they try to run government as if it were a business and make a) the money and b) the 'staff' accountable. Reducing fraud and waste within government would be another big boost for us as a nation and as wealthier individuals.
But it won't happen because politics is about power and the last thing you do as a politician (and particularly in these days of insular politics, unconnected with purpose) is give away power. And money is power. So no, give a little here, take a little there but strangely, don't let it impact on politicians. Heck, if they actually had to work at their parliamentary job, there would be no time for all the other things they do, usually corruptly to increase their personal well being.
Tuesday, 20 March 2012
Roads 'Privatisation'
The debate over proposals to charge for road use has me amused. Comments seem to be all over the place, from it being a 'privatisation' of roads, it will 'get roads moving' to 'it will only affect new-build roads'.
Of course, the view is that taxation on motorists would need to be reduced, to act as a balance. This is the most laughable of all. What is the likelihood that a politician, faced with the opportunity to charge and tax, would consider any other option? The biggest fear over toll roads is that a) they will just be an additional cost and b) they will slow every journey you make as you have to continually join queues to pay.
Oh, I bet they will bring in remote payment, sensing your car passing a gantry and billing your 'card'. Ooh and while they are at it, they could put a box in your car that could rate your tax based on miles covered. And 'report' you for exceeding speed limits. Isn't technology wonderful? It is almost matched in inventiveness by politicians ability to find ways to impose tax.
And nowhere near meeting the greed of politicians (who will soon be identifiable by their cars having blue lights to gain priority on the roads and also signifying a car with no electronic tags).
In a successful economy, the people retain most of the wealth they earn or generate and redistribute that wealth by buying things. In our society we cannot be trusted with, well anything, but certainly not money, so ever more is taken off us so the state can, er, lose most of it. I wonder if our promised 'tax statement' will show 'government waste'?
I think it goes like this in order of cost; NHS, Welfare, Foreign 'aid' and Government waste. Things you actually want the government to do consumes about 2 percent of the money they spend.
Of course, the view is that taxation on motorists would need to be reduced, to act as a balance. This is the most laughable of all. What is the likelihood that a politician, faced with the opportunity to charge and tax, would consider any other option? The biggest fear over toll roads is that a) they will just be an additional cost and b) they will slow every journey you make as you have to continually join queues to pay.
Oh, I bet they will bring in remote payment, sensing your car passing a gantry and billing your 'card'. Ooh and while they are at it, they could put a box in your car that could rate your tax based on miles covered. And 'report' you for exceeding speed limits. Isn't technology wonderful? It is almost matched in inventiveness by politicians ability to find ways to impose tax.
And nowhere near meeting the greed of politicians (who will soon be identifiable by their cars having blue lights to gain priority on the roads and also signifying a car with no electronic tags).
In a successful economy, the people retain most of the wealth they earn or generate and redistribute that wealth by buying things. In our society we cannot be trusted with, well anything, but certainly not money, so ever more is taken off us so the state can, er, lose most of it. I wonder if our promised 'tax statement' will show 'government waste'?
I think it goes like this in order of cost; NHS, Welfare, Foreign 'aid' and Government waste. Things you actually want the government to do consumes about 2 percent of the money they spend.
Thursday, 23 February 2012
Why Do We Pay Taxes?
Ok, so the question isn't really why pay taxes at all; that is obvious. What I mean is, why pay the taxes we have and certainly the level? Consider. Personal tax on income (which includes National Insurance) is routinely a third of 'earnings'. More as you get clobbered higher up the pay scale (unless you dodge). Your employer also has to pitch in an additional 13.8% of your gross pay.
When you buy something with the money you earned and were generously allowed to keep by the goverment, about 16.75% of the price of the goods will most often be tax. If the product is petrol the tax take is 80.1p (on a litre at 132.9p). That's over 60%.
As you can't take it with you when you die, the government helps itself to 40% of anything over £300,000 that you leave. Remembering that when you bought your house, at between £250,001 and £500,000 you had to pay the government 3% of the purchase price (it goes from 1-5% based on price). Then there is all the tax on companies and share dealing; it goes on and on.
Now I don't know about you, but I find, whether I like it or not, I have to buy quite a lot of things. I have to buy petrol to get to work and sometimes, mad fool that I am, I might like to drive somewhere for pleasure. So the ringing of cash till bells may not be creating angels' wings, but it is certainly creating that vast amount of money that the government sprays around.
It may be a vast amount but a) Gordon Brown made it 'not enough' so borrowed a whole mountain more and b) it doesn't seem enough for the things we thought it was for; a decent hospital service, police forces, fire service, bins emptied regularly, roads kept open in winter, armed forces and some people to watch we don't get poisoned or ripped off by the local curry house or the energy company.
What we do get is MP's expenses and Quango's to do what the MP's are paid to do. The Quango's then hire Consultants to do their job and just to make sure, the MP's hire Consultants who tell them to create more Quango's. We get MoD procurement that pays for things we don't then get, or don't work, hosiptals that pay £2400 for £16 worth of drugs and IT systems that don't work. Plus our contributions to pay for the EU and its cock-ups.
What I do understand is that the government has a massive incentive to make sure not many people hold on to their money. Imagine if you could just pass on your wealth to your children unhindered, just how many generations would it take before a significant proportion of the population had enough wealth to be largely independent of government? Enough money that you can escape their clutches if need be. Doesn't bear thinking about if your job is to tell people what to do.
There isn't an argument about 'big government'. It has to stop. No, seriously it has to stop. Government should do very little, tax accordingly and leave us to spend our money creating wealth all round, getting richer by each generation. We should keep our money rather than have it appropriated by governments who then, basically, lose it.
When you buy something with the money you earned and were generously allowed to keep by the goverment, about 16.75% of the price of the goods will most often be tax. If the product is petrol the tax take is 80.1p (on a litre at 132.9p). That's over 60%.
As you can't take it with you when you die, the government helps itself to 40% of anything over £300,000 that you leave. Remembering that when you bought your house, at between £250,001 and £500,000 you had to pay the government 3% of the purchase price (it goes from 1-5% based on price). Then there is all the tax on companies and share dealing; it goes on and on.
Now I don't know about you, but I find, whether I like it or not, I have to buy quite a lot of things. I have to buy petrol to get to work and sometimes, mad fool that I am, I might like to drive somewhere for pleasure. So the ringing of cash till bells may not be creating angels' wings, but it is certainly creating that vast amount of money that the government sprays around.
It may be a vast amount but a) Gordon Brown made it 'not enough' so borrowed a whole mountain more and b) it doesn't seem enough for the things we thought it was for; a decent hospital service, police forces, fire service, bins emptied regularly, roads kept open in winter, armed forces and some people to watch we don't get poisoned or ripped off by the local curry house or the energy company.
What we do get is MP's expenses and Quango's to do what the MP's are paid to do. The Quango's then hire Consultants to do their job and just to make sure, the MP's hire Consultants who tell them to create more Quango's. We get MoD procurement that pays for things we don't then get, or don't work, hosiptals that pay £2400 for £16 worth of drugs and IT systems that don't work. Plus our contributions to pay for the EU and its cock-ups.
What I do understand is that the government has a massive incentive to make sure not many people hold on to their money. Imagine if you could just pass on your wealth to your children unhindered, just how many generations would it take before a significant proportion of the population had enough wealth to be largely independent of government? Enough money that you can escape their clutches if need be. Doesn't bear thinking about if your job is to tell people what to do.
There isn't an argument about 'big government'. It has to stop. No, seriously it has to stop. Government should do very little, tax accordingly and leave us to spend our money creating wealth all round, getting richer by each generation. We should keep our money rather than have it appropriated by governments who then, basically, lose it.
Friday, 17 February 2012
EDF - A Brown Company
With startling predictability the energy utility company EDF has announced profits of almost £1.6 billion. The company is French owned and employs, for media relations Andrew Brown, brother of the economically illiterate Gordon. Somehow you knew someone like that would have their hand in a company making pots of money, through government complicit chicanery.
What? Are they up to no good? Well, obviously that is the outcome, but to get there they don't need to break the law, the door is opened for them by very helpful politicians, who sometimes are relations. Companies like EDF have virtual monopoly status and are pretty much left alone to get on with it. The quango set up to monitor energy and protect the consumer, feel much more comfortable getting friendly with the outfits they are paid to watch. They all do.
It is the complete absence of protection for consumers that attracts overseas companies to buy these monopolistic ultilities; they are virtually all foreign owned. Often, their own countries don't allow the kind of operation they routinely run here, because the governments there feel a need to protect consumers. For vital, national infrastructure such as energy, so should we.
I am no great believer in nationalised industries, but some things are for the overall national benefit and the utilities might just be better under a public umbrella. Obviously not run by Unions or their puppy dog, the Labour Party. We were quite happy to take over Northern Rock, casually forgetting the shareholders, so how about we take over EDF Energy with a similar lack of care. It would certainly make other companies think twice about arriving in Britain to rob us blind.
The Mail, as we have discussed before a terrible rag that has no value, helpfully points out that the profit EDF has made amounts to £427 per household. Think what percentage of your annual bill that represents. That is the extent of the duplicity with which our supine government and watchdogs operate. It smacks of too many friends in too many places. All we need now is Dave Hartnett to arrive at the most expensive restaurant local to EDF HQ and suddenly discover that £1.6 billion is such a tiny sum that they shouldn't have to pay tax at all.
What? Are they up to no good? Well, obviously that is the outcome, but to get there they don't need to break the law, the door is opened for them by very helpful politicians, who sometimes are relations. Companies like EDF have virtual monopoly status and are pretty much left alone to get on with it. The quango set up to monitor energy and protect the consumer, feel much more comfortable getting friendly with the outfits they are paid to watch. They all do.
It is the complete absence of protection for consumers that attracts overseas companies to buy these monopolistic ultilities; they are virtually all foreign owned. Often, their own countries don't allow the kind of operation they routinely run here, because the governments there feel a need to protect consumers. For vital, national infrastructure such as energy, so should we.
I am no great believer in nationalised industries, but some things are for the overall national benefit and the utilities might just be better under a public umbrella. Obviously not run by Unions or their puppy dog, the Labour Party. We were quite happy to take over Northern Rock, casually forgetting the shareholders, so how about we take over EDF Energy with a similar lack of care. It would certainly make other companies think twice about arriving in Britain to rob us blind.
The Mail, as we have discussed before a terrible rag that has no value, helpfully points out that the profit EDF has made amounts to £427 per household. Think what percentage of your annual bill that represents. That is the extent of the duplicity with which our supine government and watchdogs operate. It smacks of too many friends in too many places. All we need now is Dave Hartnett to arrive at the most expensive restaurant local to EDF HQ and suddenly discover that £1.6 billion is such a tiny sum that they shouldn't have to pay tax at all.
Thursday, 16 February 2012
Tax
Tax is a funny thing. No-one likes it, but most accept that it is necessary. But under that comes a subtlety; if the rate of taxation is perceived, even subconsciously, to be too high then the moral obligation fades. People start to look for ways to evade their full quota, as it were.
Of course, those with routine access to paid advice on how to minimise the bill have always exercised that ability, and the greedy, like over-paid footballers also have a history of avoidance. We know that the actual tax take declines as the rates rise, but politicians still persist in ludicrously high percentages. So who is surprised at the recent glut of stories about tax avoidance?
But our government and its tax authorities are deeply immoral at present. We have the head of HMRC taking a great interest in private meetings to assist large companies avoid massive tax bills. Not tricks or 'avoidance' you understand, they are just let off their dues. And then others are hounded. Civil servants have been set, tracking back over the records of ordinary people, in an attempt to find under payments. The (illegal) fines and interest that is now routinely added, obscene in the extreme.
All this of course, before we hear of the bonuses and tax avoidance among civil servants. Any chance this country is badly led?
Of course, those with routine access to paid advice on how to minimise the bill have always exercised that ability, and the greedy, like over-paid footballers also have a history of avoidance. We know that the actual tax take declines as the rates rise, but politicians still persist in ludicrously high percentages. So who is surprised at the recent glut of stories about tax avoidance?
But our government and its tax authorities are deeply immoral at present. We have the head of HMRC taking a great interest in private meetings to assist large companies avoid massive tax bills. Not tricks or 'avoidance' you understand, they are just let off their dues. And then others are hounded. Civil servants have been set, tracking back over the records of ordinary people, in an attempt to find under payments. The (illegal) fines and interest that is now routinely added, obscene in the extreme.
All this of course, before we hear of the bonuses and tax avoidance among civil servants. Any chance this country is badly led?
Monday, 23 January 2012
Rip Off Gov
I mentioned in an earlier post that a large part of Rip off Britain is due to the Government. Well, here is something more to chew on; in the Eighties the Thatcher government sold off a number of the utilities and other nationalised entities. Now putting aside whether this was good or bad, do you feel better for it? I mean better off?
Large amounts of money was sprayed at these 'companies' as they were rarely self funding. But now we don't own British Gas, or British Railways, where is the benefit? Where the reduced taxes? Government it seems continues to need ever larger amounts of cash (our cash) to do less and less. Or more accurately to achieve less and less. To cover the gross incompetence of his administration, Blair placed more responsibilities onto local government, without the corresponding funds and Brown borrowed more.
Where does it all go? We know that, even without corruption, government is an inefficient and wasteful entity so it would make eminent sense if the government just did less. This is just one of a long list of reasons for smaller government, but our politicians shouldn't worry about their wealth and status. Those can be confirmed by bringing back powers from Brussels, which in itself can be achieved by leaving the EU and casting them adrift. An old Soviet style trading block, with rigid rules and unelected functionaries is a recipe for disaster, politically, economically and socially. And in this age of the internet, the end can be very swift when the people finally grow tired, as the Middle East is showing us.
Large amounts of money was sprayed at these 'companies' as they were rarely self funding. But now we don't own British Gas, or British Railways, where is the benefit? Where the reduced taxes? Government it seems continues to need ever larger amounts of cash (our cash) to do less and less. Or more accurately to achieve less and less. To cover the gross incompetence of his administration, Blair placed more responsibilities onto local government, without the corresponding funds and Brown borrowed more.
Where does it all go? We know that, even without corruption, government is an inefficient and wasteful entity so it would make eminent sense if the government just did less. This is just one of a long list of reasons for smaller government, but our politicians shouldn't worry about their wealth and status. Those can be confirmed by bringing back powers from Brussels, which in itself can be achieved by leaving the EU and casting them adrift. An old Soviet style trading block, with rigid rules and unelected functionaries is a recipe for disaster, politically, economically and socially. And in this age of the internet, the end can be very swift when the people finally grow tired, as the Middle East is showing us.
Thursday, 10 November 2011
Ever Thought About Tax?
Have you ever considered what it costs to run this country? We want the government to run the Armed Forces, police, fire, health services, to empty the bins and many other tasks of collective importance. Then think how much they take off us, in income tax, NI contributions, tax on your car, petrol, on everything (pretty much) you buy. Add in the taxes companies pay (except those the boss of HMRC personally lets off their dues) and it comes to many hundreds of billions of pounds.
But then, under New Labour we found this wasn't enough and many billions more were and are being borrowed. Some of it is spent properly, some of it wasted, some of it spent on pointless projects and some fraudulently whittled away.
It is plain though, that the government does too much. It takes on costs for stupid socialist ideas that achieve nothing but keep some useless parasites in a salary. There are countless organisations, with countless employees doing nothing useful whatsoever and indeed often being a further drain on the productive part of the economy.
The Lords of Misrule have held positions of power for too long and it is time the childish politics of the last 15 years was put away. Most of the money a government raises is a direct waste, pointless. But we lack leadership that can a) see this or b) thinks there is anything wrong with it. So not only do we not have politicians of a calibre to deal with such important issues, but none who are even thinking along those lines.
But then, under New Labour we found this wasn't enough and many billions more were and are being borrowed. Some of it is spent properly, some of it wasted, some of it spent on pointless projects and some fraudulently whittled away.
It is plain though, that the government does too much. It takes on costs for stupid socialist ideas that achieve nothing but keep some useless parasites in a salary. There are countless organisations, with countless employees doing nothing useful whatsoever and indeed often being a further drain on the productive part of the economy.
The Lords of Misrule have held positions of power for too long and it is time the childish politics of the last 15 years was put away. Most of the money a government raises is a direct waste, pointless. But we lack leadership that can a) see this or b) thinks there is anything wrong with it. So not only do we not have politicians of a calibre to deal with such important issues, but none who are even thinking along those lines.
Monday, 5 September 2011
Green Energy
It is becoming more of a topic talked about openly; the cost of 'green' energy. So, how much tax are you prepared to pay, to get 'sustainable' energy? It seems a lot of people answer 'very little', or 'none' to that question.
But nobody is asking that question, as we already are paying greatly inflated prices for our energy, to pay for fantasy 'solutions' to a non existent problem. Wind farms receive subsidies to get them built. They are then guaranteed a purchaser and at twice the price of 'normal' electricity. Naturally, many people are keen to have windmills on their land because of the large rents paid (such as the £1000 a day Cameron's father in law gets) and the people who run the monsters have guaranteed profits for decades.
But for those who believe in AGW (and presumably any other passing fashion) paying this tax and more may be acceptable. But wind power only works when the wind is blowing at the right speed, not too fast not too slow and this is unpredictable, so a back up, non wind related power station has to be up and running the whole time, for the moment the wind stops providing. And sometimes wind generates too much and overloads the system (because of its unpredictability) as has happened in Europe.
So, wind power, mainly pointless (produces about 21% of its theoretical maximum) and costs more in CO2, not less. But, hey a lot of rich people are getting richer and as Al Gore knows, that is the reason politicians support the scam (though it is entirely possible Chris Huhne actually believes in fairies).
But nobody is asking that question, as we already are paying greatly inflated prices for our energy, to pay for fantasy 'solutions' to a non existent problem. Wind farms receive subsidies to get them built. They are then guaranteed a purchaser and at twice the price of 'normal' electricity. Naturally, many people are keen to have windmills on their land because of the large rents paid (such as the £1000 a day Cameron's father in law gets) and the people who run the monsters have guaranteed profits for decades.
But for those who believe in AGW (and presumably any other passing fashion) paying this tax and more may be acceptable. But wind power only works when the wind is blowing at the right speed, not too fast not too slow and this is unpredictable, so a back up, non wind related power station has to be up and running the whole time, for the moment the wind stops providing. And sometimes wind generates too much and overloads the system (because of its unpredictability) as has happened in Europe.
So, wind power, mainly pointless (produces about 21% of its theoretical maximum) and costs more in CO2, not less. But, hey a lot of rich people are getting richer and as Al Gore knows, that is the reason politicians support the scam (though it is entirely possible Chris Huhne actually believes in fairies).
Monday, 15 August 2011
Policing Back To Normal
A small, white, unmarked van has just driven down my street and put an 'untaxed vehicle' sticker on the windscreen of a car. Technically of course, it is an offence and as I pay mine so should others, but it just feels a bit like persecution. Were these police officers (they were just wearing unmarked yellow waistcoats as far as I could see), or some other branch of officialdom out merely to maximise the revenue take?
A bit like my 'late submission' of a tax form that I am currently struggling with. A fine has been applied needless to say and whilst I was a bit close I did send it in just in time. They say I was seven days late (not seven working days, seven real days). This I assume is either the Royal Mail not meeting the time-scales expected of first class post, or much more likely, the sloth at the tax office. Here, it has been admitted, they have been keen to throw post away rather than deal with it. But the state feels entitled to lift £100 in these circumstances; in fact extremely keen to do so.
Naturally I intend to take this to a tribunal, as the state is far too used to bullying those it thinks weak (the law abiding) and ignoring the law breakers or their own failings. I shall also ask if they can point out which law specifically allows the imposition of a fine, thus specifically replacing the 1689 Bill of Rights, a constitutional Act of Parliament.
Meanwhile my son, attempting to register for Jobseekers Allowance has waited two weeks without any contact and when chasing it up gets passed from pillar to post by people who haven't the faintest idea how to do their job, much less care. He now has an appointment to see someone at the end of the third week, so we wait to see if they attempt to keep the honest off the benefits system whilst supporting the feckless. Too many state employees are unemployed salary-takers.
A bit like my 'late submission' of a tax form that I am currently struggling with. A fine has been applied needless to say and whilst I was a bit close I did send it in just in time. They say I was seven days late (not seven working days, seven real days). This I assume is either the Royal Mail not meeting the time-scales expected of first class post, or much more likely, the sloth at the tax office. Here, it has been admitted, they have been keen to throw post away rather than deal with it. But the state feels entitled to lift £100 in these circumstances; in fact extremely keen to do so.
Naturally I intend to take this to a tribunal, as the state is far too used to bullying those it thinks weak (the law abiding) and ignoring the law breakers or their own failings. I shall also ask if they can point out which law specifically allows the imposition of a fine, thus specifically replacing the 1689 Bill of Rights, a constitutional Act of Parliament.
Meanwhile my son, attempting to register for Jobseekers Allowance has waited two weeks without any contact and when chasing it up gets passed from pillar to post by people who haven't the faintest idea how to do their job, much less care. He now has an appointment to see someone at the end of the third week, so we wait to see if they attempt to keep the honest off the benefits system whilst supporting the feckless. Too many state employees are unemployed salary-takers.
Monday, 1 August 2011
Oh Go On, You Can Afford It
In another display of government oiks reporting the bleedin' obvious (after some time and, of course, large expenditure no doubt), we learn that people retiring soon won't get much in the way of a pension. This is mainly due to Blair and Brown syphoning off money for 'pet' projects and driving down the value of the UK. Then there is the lack of government oversight of the pensions industry which, amazingly is trying to keep a large portion of the mountain of money they are handed every year, for themselves! When the markets were soaring your pension pot did 'OK' and when there was the slightest dip, the result for your fund was catastrophic. Well, the market took a downturn so you would expect it, right? And what guarantees were there after all? You guarantee them money and they don't.
So, with the relentless logic of someone who has something else he would rather be doing, the government has further said (to the sound of gleeful hand rubbing in the industry) that young people should save more for their pensions. That would be save more from the money you have left after the government have filched their wad in taxes, the local authority have lifted a load more and the unregulated (no matter what you are told) state sanctioned monopolies such as the utilities companies and railways, have raised their prices to frankly comedic levels. All helped of course by our imaginary friend, Global Warming.
So, with the relentless logic of someone who has something else he would rather be doing, the government has further said (to the sound of gleeful hand rubbing in the industry) that young people should save more for their pensions. That would be save more from the money you have left after the government have filched their wad in taxes, the local authority have lifted a load more and the unregulated (no matter what you are told) state sanctioned monopolies such as the utilities companies and railways, have raised their prices to frankly comedic levels. All helped of course by our imaginary friend, Global Warming.
Wednesday, 28 April 2010
Self Interest
If you are like me, one of the things that will have infuriated you in the MP's expenses scandal was the way they kept saying they hadn't broken the rules and then we found out they hadn't. The fury was over the rules they themselves wrote for themselves. The reasoning was always 'well, you wouldn't expect us to have to....' and they then went on to justify expenses for things you have to pay for in your life, like commuting. What was really going on of course was a dispute over how you look at things. For instance, if your employer gives you a car to help you do your work, it becomes a 'benefit' and so, taxable. If they pay your phone bill, it is taxable. Gordon Brown really does rake in the tax every time we move. However, he gets a free house and he not only has a company car, he has a driver too. None of this apparently is a benefit. MP's get money to fund a second home and this also, is not a benefit. If everyone had the same rules as MP's applied to their employment, the country could not function. It is something we need to get very angry about and it needs to change. This does not mean giving them a pay rise either. Like it or lump it, the same as the rest of us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)