Monday, 13 December 2010

A 1p tax on Text messages.

This was an idea dreamt up by Bob Crowe, and this post started life as a comment on Hagley Road to Ladywood, where the usually sensible Claude indicated he thought it might be a good idea. But it isn't, it's such a profoundly stupid idea, that I descended into a sweary rant about the stupidity which lies at the heart of socialism, which got censored mainly because I called Claude a fucking silly idiot who's embarrassed himself with a stupid post. For which I apologise. I wonder it the bastard offspring of that stillborn comment which I left there, will survive. If not, the gist of it is recorded here...

1) Text is, for most people not on the cheapest pay as you go tariffs, offered free. Therefore raising tax on this will be regressive, because the cheapest pay as you go tariffs are the preserve of the benefit-classes who will be forced to pay more. It will also affect the parents of teenage girls disproportionately.

2) Therefore this isn't "free money" for the government because either it will

a) change behaviour as people text less or
b) spend less elsewhere which will have the knock on effect on

i) VAT and corporate profits and therefore
ii) income taxes on workers, who then spend less elsewhere.

True the effects listed under b) will not be measurable at the level of the individual company but will be noticeable across the entire economy, as a myriad of other taxes will go down a tiny bit as the effect of the text tax bites. It will not therefore overall raise anything like the billions that Bob Crowe thinks it will. Economics is not a simple matter of multiplying two numbers together, even though this may seem like white man's magic to an illiterate fuckwit like the insanely militant leader of the RMT.

So the tax cut will affect the poorest worst (the kind of people who have cheap pay-as-you-go mobiles) and won't overall raise anything like the amount you think it will, because of the knock on effects. Which is true of ANY tax which interferes in the cost of a service. In this case it raises the cost of a cheap, popular service way above the cost of delivering it and any externalities.

The point is that this idea demonstrates the profound and lumpen idiocy at the heart of socialism which sees success and thinks TAX THAT!

It doesn't work, and the belief that there's pots of free money to be looted by government demonstrates the stupidity in socialist willfully or even religiously refuse to accept concepts like tax incidence, the Laffer curve or incentives in the welfare state, to justify the policy he'd already decided upon which is to tax "Business" or "the Rich" of which they disapprove and spend the money on people or services of which they approve, like diversity outreach coordinators. The fact of business fleeing, or not investing. This is either welcomed or condoned by the socialist. The result is, at best the fiscal nightmare left by the Labour party and at worst soviet death camps as recalcitrant capitalists are re-educated into the socialist's vicious creed.

The other point is the Government is already spending half of GDP and taxing 40%. THERE IS NO MORE MONEY FOR GOVERNMENT. NONE. NADA. ZILCH. ZIP. GONE. SPENT. Governments do better when they Leave people alone to spend the fruits of their labours as THEY wish. Stop taxing them.

Still not convinced? Socialism was tried in perfect experiments over the 20th Century and was demonstrated to be such a profoundly rubbish system that it took the most productive people in the world, Germans, and made them poor. Likewise that mercantile and inventive culture, China was destroyed by your vicious creed. Compare the PRC, a vast populous and potentially rich country to Hong Kong or Taiwan, both of which were not much richer than the mainland after WWII. In both cases which way were the refugees flowing? More examples: Spain and Cuba both had similar GDP per capita at the time of the socialist takeover of the former. Socialism not only makes people poor, it also makes people miserable. People vote with their feet in a way they didn't flee the likes of Franco and Pinochet. THEY kept their murderousness to a small class of political oppoinents. Socialists turned their violence on the population with the result that the AVERAGE result of socialism in the 20th century was a 10% depopulation of the unfortunate country in question.

Socialism is merely communism without (as they might put it) the latter's beautiful clarity of purpose. It's just a matter of degree.

A 1p text-tax matters little to me, or anyone who isn't a teenage girl. It's not a big deal, but ultimately, Socialism doesn't work because of a myriad of stupid ideas like this. Taken together, they add up to massive and catastrophic human misery.



7 comments:

SimonF said...

And when they've spent that money what next will they find to tax.

That's why it always fails, there ability to spend others' money knows no bounds.

claude said...

I won't get into a futile discussion over this. But I will say I appreciate your apology, it shows you're a decent bloke.

Just to clarify though. You can cry "censorship" as much as you like (even though there are dozens and dozens of YOUR comments -most extremely critical- there intact at Hagley Road to Ladywood, not to mention all the delirious stuff from that "patriot" bloke, so much for "censorship"), but I'm not having swearing and abusing language on my blog.

You should respect the fact that it's my (online) "home" and I may want to keep it abuse-free. Sacred private property, right?

Anonymous said...

I don't understand the logic of the insurance premium tax either.

The insured were already paying a 'tax' to cover losses caused by the un-insured. Now they still do that but pay a tax to government just for doing the 'right' thing.

Jackart said...

Claude, thanks for the comment. I get frustrated by the speed with which the left picks up these ideas (like vodafone is paing its taxes etc) and runs with them without thinking, and I think it showed.

Ben said...

The Left's Belief System: If it moves, tax it. If it continues to move, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it.
- The Gipper (whatever that is)

Anonymous said...

I find lots of your ideas on politics and in particular socialism are very ill informed. You give no sources so how are your views credible?

Jackart said...

And anonymong, just why should I give references to well-known historical events? Or do you get your history from "Marxism Today"?

There was an error in this gadget