Liberty and freedom are two proud words that have been executed from the political lexicon: they were frog marched and stood before a wall of blank minds, then forcibly blindfolded, and shot, with the whimpering staccato of ‘equality’ and ‘fairness’ resounding over and over. And not only did this atrocity go unreported by journalists in the mainstream media, they were in the firing squad.
The premise of this blog is simple: the Soviets thought they had equality, and welfare from cradle to grave, until the illusory free lunch of redistribution took its inevitable course, and cost them everything they had. First to go was their privacy, after that their freedom, then on being ground down to an equality of poverty only, for many of them their lives as they tried to escape a life behind the Iron Curtain. In the state-enforced common good, was found only slavery to the prison of each other's mind; instead of the caring state, they had imposed the surveillance state to keep them in line. So why are we accumulating a national debt to build the slave state again in the West? Where is the contrarian, uncomfortable literature to put the state experiment finally to rest?
Comments Policy: I'm not moderating comments, so keep it sane and go away with the spam. Government officials please read disclaimer at bottom of page.
Friday, August 31, 2012
The government has had to shelve Rodney Hide’s ‘old’ Spending Cap Bill because the Minister of Taking by Totalitarian Means, Peter Dunne, won’t support it.
This is a travesty.
Before continuing it’s important to state that the Bill itself was pure doublespeak, regardless. It only claimed to limit spending increases to the rate of inflation (which Government/Reserve Bank, have a surprising amount of influence over) and population increases. So it was not a spending cap at all, just an attempted, largely symbolic, brake on the rate of government spending increases, across spending that currently sits on a massive 44% of GDP.
But symbolism does have a place in the context of this Bill, and the Minister of Taking not signing up to it has an additional symbolism again, because for him it is a conflict of interest as it bears on taxpayers, who should not just be worried, but angry, about this. He is effectively saying he does not have to responsibly constrain spending, because as Minister of Taxing he can simply force entry and sack the bank accounts of private enterprise and individuals. And handing the temptation to spend, with the means to achieve it, to a crusading politician is like letting a kid immured of Generation Obesity, loose in a lolly shop.
Mr Dunne, of course, doesn’t see it like this. His spin is, quote: ‘...the spending cap was ''part of an unnecessary right-wing agenda'' and was not consistent with constitutional principles which prevented one parliament binding another.’ Oh dear.
Quite apart from the fact you joined up to a right-wing government with supposedly (though mostly laughingly) a right-wing agenda, so showing ‘coalition’ is really just about the electorate double-cross and hypocrisy, this is symbolic, yet, of something far worse, because it’s philosophical. For this demonstrates the Minister has his head so far up the politick, he’s blinded to where his feet are; trampling on the bowed and broken heads of those current, and as yet unborn, taxpayers, this irresponsible no-constraints spending binds to tax slavery, and to his department. Aren't their interests what he is representing?
Taxpayers have to get the feeling that the Fortress of Legislation, where ominously Mr Cunliffe is waiting in the wings for 2014, has become a thing unto itself for the careers and egos of the compromised crusaders holed up in there who force the theocracy of state on the lives of free men. Though that's democracy, faulty; not one of those crusaders represent me, albeit I'm one of the serfs forced to pay for them, and the disastrous consequences of their decisions. Even taking this last week, none who daily pontificate and barbarically joust in there seem to understand the mere fact that they are debating the right they arrogantly feel they have to meddle in the grown-up relationships of consenting adults who are harming no one, and soon on whether, should I get struck down, with no quality of life, and thus wanting to die with dignity, my wife holding my hand without fear of criminal prosecution, is in itself, an offence to free, civilised men. There is no debate needed on this by our Masters. Neither of those issues has anything to do with them, or anyone outside ourselves and our loved ones: they are matters solely of personal sovereignty. The fact politicians are debating such fundamental issues attaching to the individual, is further proof we do not own our lives in this kindy of a country.
And if you want my opinion to end with: this doublespeak spending cap, which is not even a cap on spending, is next to useless, even if in some future period it gets in, no thanks to Mr Dunne; government spending needs to be slashed before we join Europe and the US, as another cot case born of Keynesian socialism, and the social chaos that now entails for them. It's time to sack the Fortress from its foundations - in our minds - and reclaim our lives as sovereign states unto ourselves. And so with this crick in my neck from paying Tuesday’s provisional tax instalment, I’ll go off and do something constructive, trying not to think of Mr Dunne in his lolly shop of my wallet …
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Let's change the rhetoric a wee bit. Tax cuts aren't making the rich, richer; it just means the state is not taking so much of the money they've earned. And all income levels are keeping more of their money under the tax cuts. Don’t get all tied up in the envy stakes, take a big breath and realise not only the middle class, but even beneficiaries, have a better standard of living, now, than any generation before them, and the more unfettered capitalism has been allowed to be by men like you, the more prosperous, overall, the people have been. That’s why no boat-people are trying to get into third world countries, they're trying to get into the capitalist ones.
Let's not forget that the top 10% of NZ taxpayers, pay 50% of the total tax take.
Better be careful, David, you're scaring the horses again. Have you been reading the stats on the exodus of the wealthy from Hollande's France? With his 75% tax, and their new tobin tax, the city of London is laughing all the way to the bank.
Two Workers for Every Social Security Recipient● As of 2012-06 the civilian labor force was 155,163,000.● As of 2012-06 there were 111,145,000 in the private workforce.● As of 2012-06 there were 56,174,538 collecting some form of SS or disability benefit.● The ratio of SS beneficiaries to private employees has thus passed the 50% mark (50.54%).Think about that a minute. There are now half as many people getting some kind of Social Security benefit as there are workers in private employment paying into Social Security. And the trend is clearly advancing. This cannot be sustained. And solving the Social Security problem is the “easy” part of the budget debate. Health care is far more difficult.We read that one in eight families is now getting food stamps and that over 50% of US families get some form of government check each month, while the percentage of workers in the private workforce is shrinking. There is a limit to how much you can take from out of the private sector and still have a growing sector to take something from.
Monday, August 27, 2012
From the Taranaki Daily News today:
A Government-commissioned report is urging dairy and sheep industry players to seize opportunities to farm overseas. [The report’s writer] acknowledged there were already New Zealanders … farming in Chile, Brazil and Uruguay, but few were operating at any scale.
Minister of Revenue, Peter Dunne, from Hansard:
I will take just a brief call at this point to acknowledge the work of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, in particular, in dealing with what I think is the second-largest tax bill to come to this Parliament, the Taxation (International Taxation, …) Bill. This is an 842-page job. It does not beat my previous effort of 3,500 pages, … I acknowledge the fact that the select committee had a monstrous job in working through some very important, complex legislation in order to get it to this stage. I note that Supplementary Order Paper 34, which I have tabled, is 50-odd pages, so it is nearly a bill in itself. All those things really go to point out how complicated our tax law is …
Oh yes, let’s all jump into the penalty system known as our, quoting the Minister, ‘monstrous’ and complex, international tax regime. Perhaps the boffins who wrote the report, which I definitely agree with, should first have a word with the boffins who’ve made our mish mash of international tax laws. When you have a contradiction like this, then the Minister, and government, needs to re-examine their premises, and in this case some fundamental ones on how our society is structured, which has led to such complex tax laws being required to fund the ‘monstrous’ size of our state, where in every budget delivered by Bill English, despite the rhetoric, the state spend continues to be bigger in dollar terms than the year before, and approaching 50% of the entire spend in our economy; a phenomenon which is currently destroying the economies of Europe and America.
And I write this with the somehow connected thought in my mind, a thought in the form of a joke, of watching the article about Australian farmers on TV 1’s current affairs show, Sunday, last night, who are partaking in the black market their government has created in selling raw milk.
Yes, I said milk. Australian regulation has created a black market in milk.
Said one such farmer who was raided by food safety officers and armed police, after an expensive multi-departmental sting operation on him daring to blatantly sell milk to hippies at a farmer’s market - ‘I kept trying to tell them,' he said, 'all these officers with guns; it’s just milk. This is a farmers’ market, and I’m just selling milk.’ His fine was A$184,000, and his last musing to the camera was whether it was perhaps heroin in his plastic bottles: but no, it was just raw milk. I guess he’s no longer thinking of taking his farming overseas: he’s probably just thinking of taking himself overseas. At least if he’s got any sense.
Now remember that 380 page food bill signed off in New Zealand last year, where Minister Wilkinson’s comment on the draconian powers being given to our food officers was, ‘well, they’ll not be used.’ If they’re not going to be used, then they shouldn’t have been given such draconian powers, at all. And yes, I know, raw milk could, in the rare case, kill you: but if an individual wants to take that choice, because such milk also has more nutrients, then that’s their choice. A society must operate on that basis, for there’s far more important principles at stake. The freedoms we should be able to take for granted in the West - freedom being the right to be left alone - sometimes involves the freedom to take risks and die stupidly, whether it be test piloting a new jet engine, or drinking raw milk, for without risk, there will be no innovation, and it’s by innovation from the entrepreneurial pursuit fostered by true capitalism, that we have the best standard of living from any generation before us in history, that has allowed us to live in the first world, where we can have the absurd problem of a black market in milk.
And don't go thinking we're alone: I said this was a Western problem - hattip Offsetting Behaviour have a look at this clip and wonder no longer why the West is falling over:
Saturday, August 25, 2012
Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher refused to view an early screening of Meryl Streep's portrayal of her in The Iron Lady after snubbing director Phyllida Lloyd's personal invitation.The Hollywood actress tackles the part of the UK's first female leader in the movie, but rumours emerged last year suggesting Thatcher's grown-up children Carol and Mark were "appalled" by the film's plot.And it seems Thatcher herself has no desire to see the film - she and her offspring rejected the chance to attend a screening of the project.Lloyd says, "They were the first people we invited to see the finished film. They didn't take up our offer."
This shouldn't put you off, however: worth watching.
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Premise: As only bureaucrats could, they’ve over-analysed the criteria of economic loss, into a loss limitation absurdity, that mistakes the nature of income and has careened, totally, off the road of commercial reality and onward down our road to serfdom …
Possible impact of deduction limitation rules (less of an issue in 99% of cases and easily worked around with a bit of thinking and pre-planning if an issue)…
The intention is to measure an individual’s ‘economic amount of risk’ over the lifetime of a business; so overall an individual will be able to claim in deductions only what they have personally funded by taking on an economic risk … I note your comments that the rules are not truly ‘loss limitation’ because in certain circumstances they can lead to taxable income for a shareholder even if the company overall … has made a tax loss … This is the intended outcome of the loss limitation rule. This is in keeping with the policy rationale discussed above, because it indicates that the company’s losses are not being ‘funded’ by that particular owner. In this example, the current rule is operating with the intended policy that their tax deductions should be restricted to their economic loss.’
Final Post on LTC's: Legislating Orwell.