Tuesday, March 27, 2012

A modest proposal

The Quote of the Day comes from The Commentator (although, admittedly, it's actually from Friday), where Simon Miller echoes my long-standing contempt for most parts of the electorate.
And you know what? It is our fault. We constantly demand that the government should do something about a situation. Instead of common sense, instead of saying to our leaders “listen we’re adults, give us our money back, give us our freedoms back and we’ll sort ourselves out” we and the fast food media demand that nanny helps us.

Well nanny has spent all our money, taxed us to high heaven and is gradually removing all aspects of the rule of law through retrospective actions and interfering dogma. Instead of shrilling about this and that, we should give a simple message to these politicians, this is our country and it is our money you are spending. We are permanent; it is you that is temporary.

Quite. He actually uses another example that has pissed me off too—that of "low tax" aficionados who bitch and moan about families on fat salaries losing Child Benefit.

I consider Child Benefit to be one of the most stupid, pernicious and suicidal pay-outs ever invented—and it is not simply that I object to being robbed to pay for other people's lifestyles (although I do). It is because its very purpose is to encourage those on the margins—i.e. those who are not mature, sensible or intelligent enough to look after themselves, let alone a child—to have children.

And what is the result? Those who are vaguely successful are taxed to buggery, thus ensuring that they wait longer and have fewer children; in the meantime, the country is rife with a growing underclass of disenfranchised, ill-educated and hopeless youths who have neither the drive nor the wherewithal to ever look after themselves.

And before people start whining about this view being tantamount to eugenics (as I'm sure some will), it most certainly is not. Not paying people to do something is totally different from rounding up those you consider undesirable and systematically having them castrated or spayed.

And no—neither am I denying anyone their Human Rights: whilst having the choice to spawn might be a fundamental right of being alive, forcing other people to pay for them is not.

And, whilst we are about it, let's stop with the whole "we're leaving our children with oodles of debt" argument too: one way and another, a very great deal of that debt has been spent on them—their Child Benefit, their housing, their education, their Educational Maintenance Grants, their Child Bonds (or whatever it was called), and their parents' Working Tax credits (so they could pay for their kids).

That little lot adds up to well over £100 billion per annum—and I'm not counting every other expensive initiative that is done "for the sake of the chiiiiiiillllldren"—so I reckon that it's fair enough that the kiddie winks should be the ones to pay some of it back.

Come the rolling black-outs in 2014, I reckon that coal fires are going to become immensely popular again, as people struggle to keep warm.

So, start training your little darling now and, in a couple of years time, your little urchin can be earning a fine living up the chimneys—as well as doing their bit to pay back their debts.

12 comments:

Sipp pension said...

This is spot-on. People bang on about how they hate the government etc. etc., but at the first sign of trouble, its "where is the government, why aren't they doing anything". And don't even get me started on those opposed to government, until it comes to their pension cheques.

Roger Thornhill said...

It is a from of eugenics - inverse eugenics, nurturing a bastardised, ugly and lumpen Eloi to be preyed upon in grotesque vote-farms.

Suboptimal Planet said...

I was with you up until this point, DK:

"""
And, whilst we are about it, let's stop with the whole "we're leaving our children with oodles of debt" argument too: one way and another, a very great deal of that debt has been spent on them ... so I reckon that it's fair enough that the kiddie winks should be the ones to pay some of it back.
"""

The children didn't ask to have that money spent on them. They didn't have a chance to evaluate whether it was spent wisely. And many of the parents were themselves unwilling contributors.

Government debt is uniquely immoral. It is the only kind that passes from father to son. If your father had bankrupted himself to send you to Eton, you might miss out on some inheritance, but you wouldn't be held liable for his debts. And rightly so - they were his choices, not yours, even if you did benefit from them.

Government debt, OTOH, is like some perverse secular version of original sin. People just accept that children are born with it.

Rothbard wasn't right about everything, but he was right about this: we should repudiate the national debt.

k.r.lohse said...

The family allowance, as it was once known, was brought in in an effort to repair the damage done to the population by 2 world wars. It was deemed necessary by the great and good to encourage married couples to breed for England. It outlived any usefulness by the mid-'60's and has been used as an electoral bribe, like tax breaks for the elderly, ever since.

Anonymous said...

Eugenics happens when I refuse to shag gingers.

HeartAttackSurvivor said...

"Not paying people to do something is totally different from rounding up those you consider undesirable and systematically having them castrated or spayed.". Exactly. Just ask fabian darling George Bernard Shaw.

Chris Gilmour said...

Sir,

Perhaps a compromise could come in the form of Child Benefit being paid by councils, funded by council tax.

This way local communities would look down on those who unwisely spawn, and shame them into keeping their flies done up and legs together as it would be paid for from their own pockets rather than the magic money cannons of Whitehall.

Rgds

Chris Gilmour

Suboptimal Planet said...

"""
Perhaps a compromise could come in the form of Child Benefit being paid by councils, funded by council tax.

This way local communities would look down on those who unwisely spawn

"""

Why compromise? And do you really think that councils are the embodiment of the local community? When's the last time a local councilor worried about money being wasted on the undeserving poor?

The problem isn't which money cannons are used, it's that welfare payments are funded by force, rather than insurance and charity.

Suboptimal Planet said...

If we must have some force-funded welfare, let's ensure it benefits the children, not the parents.

See DK's post from a while back on the poor and choices, and my favoured solution of hostels and soup kitchens.

If the poor were simply housed and fed, an additional child would just mean an additional bunk and an additional dinner plate. It wouldn't mean an extra N quid for mummy and daddy to spend on whatever they like. If they want booze, ciggies, and holidays, they should bloody well go out and work for them.

I think a case can also be made for locking up people who persist in having children they can't support.

Chris Gilmour said...

Mr Planet,

"""
Why compromise? And do you really think that councils are the embodiment of the local community? When's the last time a local councilor worried about money being wasted on the undeserving poor?
"""
I'm aware that councillors won't concern themselves with the waste of money, but the residents could express their displeasure more directly, using shame and scorn.

Alternatively, its far easier to move away from an area where you disapprove of their welfare policy to one which is more frugal than it is to escape HM Revenue and Customs. And furthermore, those with numerous offspring might also escape from deprived areas to those which offer a better welfare package.

Deprived communities would evaporate in months.

Rgds

Chris Gilmour

Suboptimal Planet said...

"Alternatively, its far easier to move away from an area where you disapprove of their welfare policy to one which is more frugal than it is to escape HM Revenue and Customs"

A fair point, Mr Gilmore.

I'm not sure I can see it working in practice, but then I haven't yet read The Plan through to the end.

bewick said...

hee hee. I know a woman of 36 who has never worked - ever. Her eldest just reached 18 and her youngest is now 7. Guess what? She's trying to get pregnant, Father doesn't matter because they never paid anyway. Anyone will do.
Coal? Well my house came without a chimney. I had one built 30 years ago and it can cope with gas or coal or wood. Forward thinking.