Saturday, March 26, 2011

Cut Protestors and Their Idiocy

As up to a quarter of a million people descend on London to protest against unavoidable spending cuts, I sit in Leeds shaking my head in mild despair.

These people truly are economic dullards. To bring London to a standstill on a Saturday afternoon is an immensely economically damaging plan. Businesses will face reduced custom - if not having to close - on their busiest day of the week. Which will lead to less revenue for businesses, which in turn will lead to less tax for the government. Which in turn will lead to what? More spending cuts. So in order to protest about spending cuts, the protestors could risk future spending cuts. Meaning they truly are absolute lackwits.

Fortunately, some muppet from Unite is on hand to clarify what they want to achieve:
"Our alternative is to concentrate on economic growth through tax fairness so, for example, if the government was brave enough, it would tackle the tax avoidance that robs the British taxpayer of a minimum of £25bn a year."
Where to start? Ok, let's concede that this is a marginally more sophisticated position that simply picketing businesses because they (completely legally) avoid taxes since it instead focusses on the government who, after all, allow them to avoid taxes. Of course, having the demonstration on a Saturday when most of that government have buggered off elsewhere to avoid the inconvenience seems to be a stupid position. But nevermind, eh?

I do like the conflation of bravery with agreeing with a personal opinion. There is nothing intrinsically brave about challenging banking tax avoidance, just as there is nothing intrinsically brave in people following my personal opinion that people should ignore Unite. Bravery is about a bit more than complying with the prejudices of another.

Now, it is true that I don't see a lot of bravery in David Cameron. In fact, it looks to me like he has all the backbone of wilted spinach. Which makes his refusal to truly jump on the bash-the-banker bandwagon (at least to the same extent of Labour and the anti-cut protestors, because he and his government still have their anti-banking moments) is a rare example of mild courage from our Prime Minister. It is arguably more brave, see, to stand against the current anti-banker mindset so prevalent in this country at the moment.

But even if we do agree that standing up to banking tax avoidance is brave, we should also acknowledge that bravery can also be stupidity. And we can then argue that penalising banks through the tax system may be a brave but also stupid thing to do in this day and age. Because we live in a global economy, and if banks feel they are being shat on they will upsticks and fuck off elsewhere. So the end result of tackling (perfectly legal) tax avoidance is pretty stupid. And counter-productive. And deeply naive.

Still, naive is probably the best word for those who are protesting these cuts. At least, it is the best possible non-profane word.

Labels: , , , ,

7 Comments:

At 6:05 pm , Blogger Kimpatsu said...

Because we live in a global economy, and if banks feel they are being shat on they will upsticks and fuck off elsewhere.
The answer to that is simple: tax all disinvestment at 100%.
Besides, it turns out that most of them won't leave (which in fact would be no loss); they can only move their operations en bloc, otherwise pro-banker/anti-freedom countries like Singapore won't take them. And while they like their money, they also like being able to criticise the government (which will get you arrested in Singapore).
You should read Private Eye more.

 
At 6:33 pm , Blogger The Nameless Libertarian said...

Just a few problems for you here:

- what about 99% disinvestment? Or do we tax that as well?

- If so, at what point do we allow disinvestment? 70%? 50%? And how would these illiberal, draconian policies be enforced?

- And what about individuals? Are you going to penalise me from leaving the UK if I don't like the tax laws? If not, why not?

- What, if we implement your "policy", would be the incentive to invest in Britain in the future?

You mention anti-freedom in your comment. Which is ironic, because your whole comment is anti-freedom.

But you're right, I should read Private Eye more, and would do if I had the time. But you should think critically more. Even about what you read in Private Eye.

 
At 6:49 pm , Anonymous Bellend said...

If they want to protest against the government they should protest against the EU and pandering to green cunts like this shite:

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2011/03/david-cameron-would-like-you-to-sit-in-the-dark-from-830pm-tonight-earthhour.html

As if anyone in the countries we are competing against givs a fuck about this kind of thingm they are just laughing in China as we strangle our own economy and let them get the edge on us.

But no, they are so useless that they think Shameron isn't enough of a useless, politically correct cunt, rather than being too much of one.

 
At 8:41 pm , Blogger PJH said...

"[...]if the government was brave enough, it would tackle the tax avoidance that robs the British taxpayer of a minimum of £25bn a year"

One does, however, wonder how many of these mouth-breathing muppets have, for example, ISAs.

Or pension funds.

Both of which are tax-avoidance measures. Costing the 'British tax payer a minimum of at least £25bn a year.'

Tax avoidance is entirely legal. Tax evasion is not. They basically appear to want to criminalise a legal activity - have the been talking to the likes of ASH perchance?

Twats.

 
At 4:39 pm , Anonymous Ed P said...

It's very worrying that so many people have been so easily duped by the media. The relentless broadcasting of lies by the BBC and scurrilious papers have these "Naives" actually believing they are immune to cuts, entitled to take more than their fair share, etc. And this is happening with just a reduction in the expansion in public services planned by Labour. It could get very nasty when real cuts start to bite in a few years time.

 
At 9:19 pm , Blogger James Higham said...

Now, it is true that I don't see a lot of bravery in David Cameron. In fact, it looks to me like he has all the backbone of wilted spinach.

:)

 
At 11:02 am , Anonymous Peter Whale said...

I do not want to bash the bankers but bankruptcy should apply to them as they have their name in it.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home