There is no doubt that once an appetite is created for the private possessions of others in a society, it is an insatiable craving that politicians will still work to satiate – because it boosts their own power in the attempt.
It is insatiable because once the moral hazard of envy is eliminated, as long as there is one person who has less than you, a government will intervene to “equalize” that inequity by taking from you to give to them – and that is Marxism. Herr Marx said:
“The theory of Communism may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.”
When someone breaks into your house and takes your things, we call that a “crime” and the perpetrator a “criminal”.
Now in our Orwellian times, when a government does exactly the same thing by creating a law to take your things, we call that act “equality”, “social justice” or “your fair share” and the perpetrator a “politician” or even worse, a “statesman”.
Folks, this is the breaking point of Western Civilization, the development and prosperity of which is based on the Lockeian philosophy of the ownership of private property. When a population can decide that they want to take what you have simply because they want it, we are done and tyrannical rule is just around the corner.
Tim Farron, the Lib Dem president, said his party should be “flexible” about what sort of tax could be introduced. George Osborne, the Chancellor, last year derailed Lib Dem plans for a Mansion Tax on properties worth more than £2million .
“George Osborne is an intelligent man who will understand that the public want the wealthy to pay more tax and that this is a policy that could attract support,” he said.
“We as Liberal Democrats need to spend the time leading up to the Budget being clear about what sort of tax this should be. It’s not just about the Mansion Tax – we should have other options.”
Mr Farron, tipped by some to one day succeed Nick Clegg as the party’s leader, suggested his party could look at a general anti-avoidance law where no-one pays tax of less than 25 per cent of their earnings.
Many people currently manage to do so by using sophisticated financial structures and offshore accounts.
These are the same people who set up laws and when companies use these very laws to avoid taxation, they send up a cry of “immorality”:
Foreign companies like Starbucks and Amazon which have avoided paying large corporation tax bills in Britain lack “moral scruples”, David Cameron has said.
The Prime Minister said he was going to make “damn sure” that foreign companies like Starbucks and Amazon which have been found to avoid legally paying a large corporation tax in the UK paid their fair share.
There’s that word again – “fair”…and what it “fair”? In this case it is what is required by law because the state has taken upon itself to define what a company should pay. “Fair” in this case has a legal description, yet these statolitrists want to shift the moral burden from themselves in the eyes of the public.
Notice the last statement – that companies “…have been found to avoid legally paying…”
If they are paying what they are legally required to pay, then what is the issue? If the legal amount isn’t the number, then what is?
Companies like the evil Starbucks and Amazon contribute millions to charity and to different causes all over the world. The problem is that the money doesn’t go into government’s hands to be redistributed as they see fit…and the Morlocks are hungry.
“Progressive” governments are no better than organized crime – they just use different tools.