The Cabinet Office minister Ed Miliband on the matter of the abolition of the 10 per cent tax rate making people worse off:When you make a big set of changes in the tax system, some people do lose out. That is a matter of regret.
This is not a big set of changes in the tax system, Ed; this is tinkering around the edges. Abolishing income tax and switching to consumption taxes: now that would be a big set of changes to the tax system, you goggle-eyed cunt.
If Ed Miliband thinks that this is a big set of changes, then I fear for his definition of big. Or rather, I fear for the women who have been misled by Ed's definition of "big" and who may now believe that "big" means "barely touching the sides".
What does the term ‘Labour Government’ mean to you? Does it mean this? Making poor people poorer? It’s like the 75 pence pension rise all over again. Gordon Brown insists that not making these people worse off would be ‘playing to the gallery’.
Apparently that term means ‘the general public, usually considered as exemplifying a lack of discrimination or sophistication‘. That’s us he’s talking about, the people at whose pleasure he serves. I’d say he’s right in the sense that we show those qualities when choosing our leaders.
Well, yes, 21.6% of us do, at any rate.
People on lower incomes would be no worse served by choosing who they vote for with a pin and taking their chances. There are some of us who still retain the ability to be surprised by this kind of thing.
I know, but you really shouldn't be. I have been pointing out for years that NuLabour has no more noble aim than the retention of power at all costs. And the best way to ensure that people vote for you is to ensure that they will lose out financially if they don't.
All of the NuLabour's measures over the last decade have been focused on one thing: creating a client populace. We have now reached a point where 51% of the populace now derive income from the state, in one way or another.
On the Daily Politics the other day, the Labour Minister's justification for the removal of the 10p rate was that "more people will take up Tax Credits." In other words, more people will be in receipt of money from the state.
Look, it's really simple, and I cannot believe that people still don't get this: NuLabour have taken increasing amounts of money from the working poor. They have mainly done this not through the 10p income tax rate (which, after all, NuLabour introduced), but by deliberately keeping the Personal Tax Allowance below the rate of wage inflation.
NuLabour have combined this measure with the National Minimum Wage, which has artificially inflated the wages of those on lower incomes, bringing more and more of them into the income tax system and ensuring that those already in the system pay more of their wages in tax.
Having thus ensured that the low paid take home even less money than they should, the government then makes these people beg for some of their money back through the tax credit system (and through other benefits too).
Not only does this create a big voter base which can be scared by the bogeyman of eeeeevil Tory benefit cuts, but it also ensures that the government now has control over all of these people. "Behave yourself," they are told, "Or you will lose all of your benefits."
Those who are in receipt of benefits are slaves of the state: ultimately, in order to have the money to live, they must kow-tow to the wishes of their paymaster.
And unlike their employer, who demands only their labour for a limited time, the state demands that they behave as the state dictates in their entire lives. Your lives, ladies and gentlemen, belong to the state.
Successive governments have operated a deliberate policy of removing your means of supporting yourselves and ensured that the only way in which you can live is by being beholden to the state. And, as history has shown, the state is not your friend or mine.
But, alas, it is going to be a long time before the British public understand all of this—a situation exacerbated by the paucity of decent education—by which time they will be near-irreversibly ensnared.
Fuck, I feel very sorry for you all. And I would reverse all of this, I really would.
There are disadvantages, of course; you would have to be almost completely responsible for your life, for your decisions both good and bad: there will be no safety net (other than the voluntary charity of others).
But, then, that's what liberty is, isn't it? Owning your own life, being free to make your own decisions...