The United Kingdom has a magnificent history and has produced great leaders.
I get inspired, for instance, when I watch these Margaret Thatcher speeches about “public money” and “the poor poorer.” Sort of the same feeling I get when I watch the Gipper talking about Washington being a “company town” and the “unnecessary and excessive growth of government.”
But just as the United States has devolved by moving over time from Reagan to Obama, the United Kingdom has degenerated by going from Thatcher to David Cameron.
Cameron is supposedly a conservative, but it’s more accurate to say he’s an English version of George W. Bush. Some of the lowlights of his tenure include:
- Cameron has undermined the U.K.’s system of personal retirement accounts.
- Cameron is giving taxpayer money to statist environmental groups.
- Cameron has increased the capital gains tax.
- Cameron is increasing the burden of government spending.
- Cameron has whined that it is wrong for people to minimize their tax burdens.
And his statist mentality infects other Tory politicians.
Here is a report on the intellectually bankrupt ramblings of another enemy of freedom, as reported by the Telegraph.
David Gauke, a Treasury minister, told The Daily Telegraph that home owners who allow workmen to evade VAT or income tax were forcing others to pay more. …critics accused the Government of being “unnecessarily moralistic” about ordinary people trying to keep their household bills down. …According to a report by the Public Accounts Committee, more than two million people make cash-in-hand payments costing the Treasury an estimated £2 billion. There is no law against paying someone in cash… In a speech to the Policy Exchange think tank, he said that while using Isas and claiming gift aid on charitable donations was acceptable, buying homes through companies to avoid stamp duty and using service companies to reduce income tax was “morally repugnant”. Mr Gauke said: “These schemes damage our ability to fund public services and provide support to those who need it. They harm businesses by distorting competition. They damage public confidence. And they undermine the actions of the vast majority of taxpayers, who pay more in tax as a consequence of others enjoying a free ride.”
Can anyone imagine Margaret Thatcher saying something this offensive?
Particularly since it is Gauke’s views that are “morally repugnant,” not the actions of people who are trying to protect their property from a rapacious and greedy government.
Keep in mind that the burden of government spending in the United Kingdom consumes nearly 49 percent of economic output according to OECD data. That’s more than Greece, Portugal, Ireland, or Spain!
Sort of makes you wonder how long it will take before investors decide that it’s no longer a good idea to lend money to such a profligate government.
The good news is that the English people aren’t as bad as their politicians. As part of the story, the Telegraph is conducting an online poll, which you can see to your left.
Notwithstanding the statolatry of UK politicians, the voting so far is overwhelmingly on the side of taxpayers rather than the government.
But public opinion doesn’t really matter if government policy continues to drift in the wrong direction.
And, as you can see from this data, the long-term outlook for the United Kingdom is very grim. And we know Cameron isn’t doing anything to address this looming crisis.
Not that this makes the UK special. Thanks to reckless entitlement programs, the same data shows that the United States also is headed for Greek-style fiscal chaos.
[…] the blame belongs to supposedly right-wing politicians such as David Cameron, George Osborne, and David Gauke, all of whom have argued that people have a moral obligation to pay more to the state than is […]
[…] that her Conservative Party now is but a hollow shell, controlled by statists who actually thinkpeople should voluntarily pay extra tax to support wasteful and corrupt […]
[…] that her Conservative Party now is but a hollow shell, controlled by statists who actually think people should voluntarily pay extra tax to support wasteful and corrupt […]
[…] Gauke, by the way, is infamous for having stated that legal tax avoidance strategies “damage our ability to fund public services and provide […]
[…] Prime Minster David Cameron and one of his deputies have argued that people have a moral obligation to turn more of their income over to the […]
[…] nothing’s really changed under Tory leadership. David Cameron is a vacuous statist, undermining the Conservative Party in […]
[…] Prime Minster David Cameron and one of his deputies have argued that people have a moral obligation to turn more of their income over to the […]
[…] Prime Minster David Cameron and one of his deputies have argued that people have a moral obligation to turn more of their income over to the […]
[…] Prime Minster David Cameron and one of his deputies have argued that people have a moral obligation to turn more of their income over to the […]
As in all things political, they wouldn’t do that if the People didn’t vote for it. For example, does anyone think for a milli-second that Persident Obama would not like to impose gun control? What keeps him and his compatriots at bay is the certainty of retribution at the ballot box for such mis-adventures. It’s the consensus of the People that counts.
In Britain, as here, there is a large population of people that want a social safety net.
In Britain there are three main parties but all three occupy the same space politcally with very little wiggle room between them. The term “Conservative Party” is just a label. In fact, it and the other parties are the empty box described earlier that deceives anyone foolish enough not to look inside. And if you did look inside you’d find Chinese nested boxes or the embodiment of the famous quote by Churchill: “It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.”
[…] if you’re hungry for some negative commentary on the United Kingdom, you’ll enjoy this, this, and this. Rate this:Share […]
[…] I wrote last week about David Gauke, a simpering and unctuous statist who said it was “morally wrong” for people to pay cash for services because that made it harder for the state to seize a share of the proceeds. […]
There is no such thing as a predatory bank in a free market. When the government used the stick of regulations, lawsuits and threats, and the carrot of picking up the tab for any losses in a completely misguided effort to see that everyone had a home then of course banks are going to lend to anyone and everyone regardless of ability to pay. What other choice did they have?
Whereas in a free market if they made bad loans they would go under and be a warning to every other company not to engage in such activities. Bad practices are limited when banks are allowed to suffer the consequences of poor decisions instead of knowing the government it guaranteeing the loans they write. When the government does that you end up with the whole industry going under. The other things Bill Hood mentions were just symptoms of government policy. The only role the government has is to punish people who commit fraud, extortion etc… Here the government itself was encouraging and even requiring those activities. It didn’t take a genius to see what was going to happen… and Bush pointed it out 17 times to Congress that they had better stop meddling. That is when Barney Frank made his infamous comment about continuing to roll the dice.
I think it is sad that none of our politicians have addressed the problem of moral hazard and that people like Mr. Hood are left to try to piece together what happened without a great deal of knowledge about the economics behind it all. You will know the government understands the problem and is serious about fixing it when Fannie and Freddie no longer exist and the government is completely out of the loan guarantee business.
Anyone stupid enough to but a box without looking inside to see if it’s empty deserves to be separated from their money–caveat emptor.
Anyone selling empty parcels and packages has committed a crime. Even ice cream has to contain what it says on the label or it is a crime and has to be removed from shelves. Same with bundles of investments. Anyone committing these crimes should have their companies hounded into nonexistence and people knowingly involved should go to prison.
What is your formal definition of a “Welfare State”, I really would like to know. Could you document your definition of a “Welfare State”.
What is your opinion of Predatory Banks that have extreme interest rates and created the derivatives packages known as Credit Default Swaps and other predatory practices that actually depend on the complexity of a package to sell it to an ignorant customer. Isn’t that similar to a con man selling a package to an elderly person that has sustained damage to their home from a storm?
If you feel it is appropriate to have laws against Con men and people committing Fraud then why are against forming laws that regulate the banking industry from doing the same such as Glass – Steagall Act?