We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Political parties competing to cut tax? Do my eyes deceive me or are Australia’s two main parties in effect in a race to see who can get the credit for abolishing the top rate of taxation? Now that is a vibe I would like to see spreading to other parts of the world.
I hope they decide to not stop there… if reducing the tax rate for some is good, reducing it for everyone is even better!
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
It would seem that both parties in Australia are competing to cut tax.
And Australia also has a balanced budget and lower government spending (as percentage of the economy) than Britain does. Total taxation is also already lower.
Meanwhile we in Britiain have seen taxes both greatly increased and made much more complicated – and (because of exploding government spending) a large government deficit (even bigger than the 3. something % of G.D.P. the government admits – when such things as the “P.F.I.s” are taken into account).
On the front page of this week’s “Spectator” it says that Mr Cameron thinks that taxes may have to rise.
I suppose I should read what the man says – but I no longer have the tolerance to read the words of people who have no understanding and no honour.
If someone has understanding, reading their words is of interest. If someone has no understanding but has honour, it is worth while dealing with them (they will wish to do the right thing so it is worth giving them information).
But if someone has neither then there is no point in having any contact with them.
Sadly most successful people fit into the catogary of people who have no understanding and have no honour.
They have ability (as Mr Blair, Mr Brown and Mr Cameron all do), but it is the ability to advance themselves, not to understand political economy, or political philosophy (in which they only pretend interest as such a pretence is a way of advancing their own power – they see that talking in an “educated” or “learned” way gets them some votes).
Such people will never be interested in reducing the size and scope of government. They measure their own importance, by how important government is in the lives of the population.
Even if they were convinced that promising the reduce the size of government would gain them votes, they still would resist making the promise – and if they did make it they would break it.
Such is the elite.
Mrs Thatcher (for all her faults) led a revolt against them long ago, but in the end that revolt was defeated.
The short answer is – no. With a caveat. This sort of lip service to cutting the top rates of tax is frequently hurled around the major parties’ respective think tanks and sources in the media, however it rarely makes a meaningful intrusion into policy. Take a look at our recent budget – due to the commodity boom the feds are swimming in surplus – the treasurer only managed to reduce the top marginal rate of tax from 47% to 45% (big deal), although he somewhat increased the point at which the top level cuts in. Treasurer Peter Costello has frequently defended the top rate of tax, and there’s no reason to believe it will be cut substantially from today’s level. And if we can’t do it now in these ultra-bountiful times, when will we be able to?
As for the caveat, it is true that there is far greater recognition of the benefits of cutting the taxes of the wealthy – however (like much of the bipartisan political zeal surrounding lowering taxes) this could simply be a reflection of the fact that the Labor Party’s populist, class-warfarist rhetoric has little truck with the bulk of voters these days. There’s every chance the top rate of tax will remain more or less the same (or increase), despite the current zeitgeist. When times are not so good, the prospect of reducing the burden of those perceived ablest to bear it becomes less tenable, and thus politically vulnerable, to the masses.
I also notice that the government sector’s proportion of GDP has risen steadily over recent years. Statism is not retreating here, it’s advancing. The average Australian is still a firm believer in either the real or potential benefit of government action.
I should have said “Labor Party’s traditionally populist class-warfarist rhetoric…”
I’m aware that I over-simplify by saying the the American War of Independence hinged and was won on ‘No taxation without representation’. Well, most of us have a plethora of taxes now but we haven’t yet learned how to deal with the ‘representation’ bit. We have forfeited our hard fought-for vote to hubris festooned schoolfriends of Ananias. It is, of course, our own fault & we could put it right if we weren’t so damned lazy & stupid.
Many Americans are now way over that whole ‘no taxation without representation’ thing. Now we realise (as I saw on a bumper strip a while back) that “Taxation with representation ain’t so hot, either!”