California or the US, Victoria or Australia, or anywhere in the UK, it's the same story all over. We may agree with some or even many of the things our taxes are spent on but I find it hard to believe anyone agrees with all of it. The type of person who might support tax money being spent on the welfare state might oppose corporate bailouts or some of the pricier things in the defence budget, while their oppos would probably agree that the country's defenders need the latest Blast-o-matic and helping corporations through rough patches, even if of their own making, is ultimately beneficial, but those layabouts get enough money from them already. Even in government departments and agencies you'll have people who all agree with the principle of taxation but who will probably disagree quite often, and sometimes quite bitterly, about what should then be funded. There is probably nobody who agrees with every last penny a government spends, and if so then every taxpayer is to some extent paying their taxes not because they agree with how the money is spent but because they fear the reprisal of the government if they refuse.
Pay up or go to court. Do as the court says or be fined. Pay up or go to prison. And at all stages offer no resistance or men with guns will be sent to deal with you. Thank you for your cooperation, we look forward to seeing you again same time next year. Have the money ready or else.
Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs |
2 comments:
Yup, as Parkinson did in 'The Law and the Profits' go back to the roots, and it's just as you describe, Government protection money.
His assessment of a fair top rate of taxation, incidentally, was about 10%.
I'd prefer taxes that you don't have to pay, like the LPUK suggestion of abolishing income tax and using consumption taxes on non-essentials. Trouble is with the UK's level of debt I wonder if that's affordable any time soon. Depends on whether anyone comes along who really will shrink the public sector. I reckon it might implode first.
Post a Comment