Sunday, 28 August 2011

The Chancellor giving moral lectures? Excuse me while I vomit

If there's one person ill-suited to give moral lectures, it's that hairless rodent George Osborne. You only have to look into his shifty, furtive eyes to know the measure of him.

But now he's ensconced in the Treasury, and presiding over the bloated, flatulent leviathan which each week splashes out £3,000,000,000 more than it bleeds from us, it's imperative that he find new sources of protein for the metastasising tumour that is the big government state. Hence he squeaks out against tax evaders (or tax avoiders as the red rag Guardian erroneously calls them), and where does he do this? Why, in that bastion of conservatism, the Observer. Maybe he reckons none of his poor deluded flock of loyal party members will notice.
"Tax evasion is morally repugnant," he writes. "It's stealing from law-abiding people, who face higher taxes to make good the lost revenue."
Morally repugnant? Well, you should know, Georgie, my flesh is crawling just from seeing the photo. Stealing from law-abiding people? Again, you're the expert there, but note the blatant lie, that tax evasion leads to us poor mugs, who can't escape the state's shake-down enforcers, paying higher taxes. The premise is that the government needs a certain fixed amount to pay its largess and if it can't get it from the tax evaders it has no choice but to put the squeeze on everyone else, but the state cannot possibly pay its outgoings with the amount they loot from us anyway. The state's expenditure doesn't bear any resemblance. There is no attempt to balance the budget.

There is no moral failing in evading tax. It may be mala prohibita, but it certainly ain't mala in se. I bear no ill will to those with secret Swiss bank accounts, rather I think the Swiss have cheapened themselves by agreeing to snitch out their clients, and considering what these scumbag politicians and mandarins do with the money when they get it, I would say it is morally imperative to hide whatever you can from their avaricious clutches.


Anonymous said...

I agree. I don't initiate force against George (or anyone else) but if I fail to pay, submit my forms on time, interepret the complexities of the tax system correctly, or transgress any number of 'victimless-crime' regulations and then don't pay, he sure as hell will initiate force against me.

So really, who amongst us is morally repugnant?

I don't take his money to fund pointless windmills which hurt British industry, nor lecture him on how to live, nor try to force his kids into state schools or state hospitals, nor pay others to drop bombs on innocents.

So again, who is truly repugnant?

I am not destroying his childrens future by a manifest inability or unwillingness to actually live within a budget of about half a trillion pounds annually and thus selling our futures out to the Chinese or hyper-inflation.

Repugnant George? One of us for sure, but not me.

Trooper Thompson said...

Well said.