Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Lord Tebbit: socking it to them...

It seems that I am very much going to enjoy Lord Tebbit's blogging efforts: today's post—snappily entitled Why won't the two main parties do anything about the madness of taxing the poor?—is one that I agree with whole-heartedly.

One particularly pithy line struck me as very neatly encapsulating something that I have been railing about for years.
It is madness to claim that people so poor that they need welfare payments are at the same time sufficiently well-off to pay income tax.

I like that line, and I suspect that I shall refer to quite often.

Anyway, do go and read the whole post: apart from being absolutely spot-on, it's rather well-written—direct, punchy, true and approximately 80 trillion miles from Call Me Spam's limp-wristed, touchy-feely eco-wibble.

Pater Devil speaks of Tebbit as "the best Prime Minister we never had" (often followed by a systematic cursing of the IRA); maybe the fact that Lord T has grasped this new media lark will encourage the Pater to engage with the world of the splenetic online rant...

UPDATE: some idiot commenter named London Gas (no link, so: Jan 13th, 2010 at 1:54 pm) has raised some objections at Lord T's post.
Your analysis is lacking some vigour. I earn a lot, my wife holds a noble position but earns little. We can claim no benefits. With a higher tax threshold we will gain under a scheme you are designing to help the poorest. How can that be right?

As you know, I like to be polite when guesting at other people's blogs, which is the only thing accounting for the restrained nature of my reply (Jan 13th, 2010 at 2:09 pm).
London Gas,

You do know that the Treasury takes voluntary tax donations too, don't you? You could simply send the money that you gain to: The Treasury, 1 Horse Guards Road, London SW1A 2HQ. I am sure that you will feel much better for doing so, since you will be able to help the poor.

Alternatively, and as a better option, you could give what you gain to some charities that help the poor (you could even give some time too).

You do know, don't you, that you are allowed to help your fellow man without having to ask permission of the state; nor does the state have a monopoly on helping the poor.

Indeed, that is the point of Norm's excellent article: the state is actively, deliberately and perniciously harming the poor through the deliberately low Personal Tax Allowances of income tax and NI. Lord T would like to change that—as would I.

Are you really asking us to believe, because you might gain a little (which you could, as I have said, give away to the poor), that you support taxing people who don't even earn the National Minimum Wage?

Are you really supporting the current system under which the poor have their money extorted from them by the state, and must then become supplicants to that very same state in order to beg for some of it back?

I find that a very surprising attitude.

DK

I find London Gas's argument pretty repulsive—although it's hardly without precedent. His point boils down to "you can't stop shafting the poor because I might then be better off, even though—if I actually gave a shit in the way I pretend to—I could give any gains away to those self-same poor."

What a total fucknuts.

18 comments:

Helmut Polisher said...

I inadvertently uttered the same expression as your father over at Obo's. I'm too young to remember Rab and Enoch.

The 'carrot and stick' comment reminds me of The Thick Of It and Malcolm's interpretation being that it meant sticking the carrot up the arse, followed by the stick sideways.

Quite aside from anything else, I'd take a minor hit on my 40% rate to accommodate such a measure. It could benefit me greatly should I need to flip burgers in my dotage.

Pogo said...

@"Norm": It seems to me that our masters these days are willing to use a carrot and stick approach, but they almost always use the stick on the poor old donkey’s nose and inflict a terrible indignity on the beast with the carrot at its other end.

Almost "Kitchenish" in its imagery... You're not, by any chance, doing a bit of ghostblogging are you DK?

David Davis (Libertarian Alliance) said...

If you're Screwtape, is the Pater called Toadpipe then, old fella?

(It's a hard verification-thingy today, Devil - even i can't work it out! Hope it likes me...)

David Davis (Libertarian Alliance) said...

Norman Tebbit is our friend.

That's why he didn't really get to the top in the Tory Party.

Let's hope he does not die very soon. We may need him.

James Higham said...

Why won't the two main parties do anything about the EU bleeding us dry and breaking up England?

Nick said...

my wife holds a noble position but earns little

Yes, but the theiving wankers are costing us 2,000 pounds a day, per noble.

2,000 pounds a minute (same number - coincidence) to run the lords.

Alan Douglas said...

Not to mention the undoubtedly astronomical cost of personel, office space and systems to bleed the poor with tax. I bet the costs of collecting from anyone earning under £ 10,000 are greater than the take. Certainly true if you count the poor bloody tax-payer's costs in worry, time, accountants' fees as well as the state's costs.

Alan Douglas

Nick said...

The Standard British Peasant (on min wage) pays 2,000 pounds a year in tax.

Tomrat said...

I love ol'Norm - especially this article on guns.

And he is so right - combined with an idea like transferable tax credits, which the Boiled New Potato feebly buckled on about giving to married people (though as I have bleated on about should be a potential inroad for LPUK to take into politics when presenting a libertarian solution to the electorate) we could have children being raised properly, employment balancing out welfare more effectively and aspiration being the cornerstone of our lives.

A mad, mad thought but has anyone actually extended the invitation for LPUK to Lord Tebbit?

Nick said...

The problem is it will never happen. The debts are too large.

You're going to have to abolish benefits for pensioners. Get rid of the state pension, state second pension, state employees pensions ...

first, before you can cut taxes.

It's going tits up

Letters From A Tory said...

Labour HQ will be scouring Tebbit's blog every second of every day in the hope that he critisises Cameron.

Hopefully he will behave himself over the next few months...

Tim Worstall said...

And of course in the year that I checked how many people had sent extra money to The Treasury all of five people had done so. And four of them were dead.

Max the Impaler said...

Could I just use your forum DK to vote Andy Burnham cunt of the month. Many thanks.

Roger Thornhill said...

Lord Tebbit is on fine form.

Taxing the poor is absurd. Taxing wealth creation into the departure lounge is also cutting ones nose to spite the face.


I was very pleased to see that other commenters over at Lord Tebbit's place had rapidly renamed "Fabiansolutions" to "FinalSolutions" as I had in my mind. ;-)


@TimWorstall "And four of them were dead"

From the neck up?

Northampton Saint said...

And Lord T is spot on again today with is comments about the BNP

ENGLISHMAN said...

Were any of you around the last time tebbit had any power?and his mate herr keith joseph,who advocated that any pensioner who was cold ,should knit themselves a jumper,did tebbit "get on his bike"and look for a non existent job?Did any of you experience the delight,when on one pay-day the taxman took your entire weeks wages and left us with nothing?this is the tory scum that you seem to admire so much,it is a pity that you have not lived under thier regieme,leopards do not change thier spots.

paul said...

Instead of the government taxing and borrowing the money it needs at interest from private banks, it just creates it itself and spends it into circulation. No taxes required, no borrowing required, no debts to repay. Simples.
Win, win all around apart from the one powerful group who loses out and thus prevents it from happening, the banks.

Anonymous said...

While I agree personal rates should be high enough to slim down the tax base by several million low earners this does not address the benefits issue.

Person a) is eighteen, lives with his parents, earns £15,000 per annum and gets by tolerably well.

Person b) is a single mother of two also earning £15k but has to meet rent, commuting, utilities and childcare costs. Why should she not get child benefit when she / her children clearly need some help? (Arguments about life style choices are a separate issue here - maybe she was widowed or something).

Working tax credits had the germ of a good idea but its implementation was poor.

Peter