News in that the UK has had another negative quarter and for once Balls is right about something. He has said that the Chancellor needs to recognise his plan isn't working and that he needs to change tack and this is right. Whilst Osborne has talked about cuts the government has continued to borrow ever more money, so the Chancellor is actually doing what Balls has always proposed; ignore the crisis and just keep spending.
This however isn't working and so Osborne must do what he said he was going to and cut back spending. He could dodge the comedy bullets of Labour and its Union controllers, by just cutting what we don't need rather than let the Leftie bureaucrats of the Blair era pick where to cut; always the important front line.
That Osborne is starting to talk of reducing subsidies to companies employing MP's (yes Tim Yeo, that means you), is a good sign but not enough. He needs to become a realist. This means asking why we are in the EU. There isn't an answer to that. Why do we believe Green lobbyists wailing about the end of the World? We didn't pay much attention when the sandwich board man said the same thing, with identical justification.
There is no Man Made Global Warming, or Climate Change, so yes, ditch all the costly crap about carbon credits, subsidy and 'renewables' and just start using shale gas. Even then we need a miracle of government to see them ensure the massive (like 50%) drop in energy costs are passed on to consumers.
Showing posts with label Balls. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Balls. Show all posts
Wednesday, 25 July 2012
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.
Monday, 6 June 2011
IMF and Tory Economics
Stephanie Flanders on BBC news got herself in a bit of a twist as she had to report the facts of the IMF's support, broadly for the policies the Tories have in place for economic recovery. The poor dear was also trying to toe the BBC line that this could not possibly be the case. So she emphasised every hint of difference and stated twice about the pain in the recovery. Then gave the last slot to Labour's Balls who said the cuts were too much too fast. Which is not only something someone with the most basic grasp of finances could not agree with, but is becoming publicly the only person to believe it. Obviously Balls, putting ideology before all else is bound to say stupid things often, but he is becoming a pantomime dame. Or the back end of a cow.
Bearing in mind the BBC run an agenda of their own political choosing, just why are we forced to pay for it?
Bearing in mind the BBC run an agenda of their own political choosing, just why are we forced to pay for it?
Thursday, 24 March 2011
Balls
Good grief. Ed Balls has just given his reply to the Budget. Whilst there are plenty of areas to attack Osborne, Balls ignored them all. He merely spouted self serving cant about how clever he was whilst in Government (careful to apologise that they didn't catch the Bankers before they wrecked the world) and that if only we did what he says now.......
If you had no idea what was going on in this country Balls may have sounded plausible. He was speaking from a nursery school (it could so easily have been the opposition Treasury) and assumed it was ignorant children he was addressing. He really is a disgraceful human being, let alone politician.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)