It is Not Evil to Want Lower Taxes!
The Cancer of the Anti-Prosperity Meme
One of the reasons for starting this blog was to provide a counter to the collectivist and anti-prosperity thinking that has become so prevalent in western societies. For some reason the UK seems particularly infected with this cancer and a today's "Daily Telegraph" has an excellent opinion piece that illustrates the sort of thing I mean. The article "It is not evil to want lower taxes. Get it?" (see here) talks about how resentment about paying high taxes has been manipulated into a form of guilt, equating this natural and understandable desire with being somehow immoral and selfishly hard-hearted.
Anyone familiar with Randian ideas will be astonished that this concept ever gained any credence, but so degraded have morals become in the UK as a result of over 50 years of the welfare state that, in fact, it is the perceived wisdom. To quote from the article:
"I remember when William Hague first took on this mythology, in a brave little speech entitled something like "The Moral Case for Lower Taxation".
He was not treated as if he were opening a challenging debate, or putting forward a contentious but intriguing proposition. His proposal, which was based on assumptions that were commonplace - almost banal - before the post-war consensus rewired the brains of Britain's governing class, was regarded as lunatic.
He had said something that was so out of step with received wisdom that it seemed to defy the rules of modern thought. It was as if he had claimed that the moon was made of green cheese. The idea had to be either mad or shamelessly, unapologetically bad: an apologia for greed and blatant callousness. And, at the time, popular opinion seemed to be completely snowed."
It's astonishing to read this and yet, tragically, it's true. However, there is a ray of hope. The rest of the article goes on to talk about a poll published by the Centre for Social Justice where people were asked about what they would do if they had money to donate to a good cause. The results?
"The two most popular choices were: give it directly to a person or family in need (31 per cent chose this), and, give it to a local charity or church working for needy people (another 31 per cent). Among the list of possible beneficiaries was "a local authority to spend on fighting poverty" and "central government to spend on fighting poverty". The local authority got one per cent support, and central government got none. "
Conclusion?
"What does this tell us? That people actually do understand that the state is not the most ethical or effective medium of generosity and community responsibility. Give them a morally acceptable way of saying that out loud, and we might have an honest debate about taxation and its effects on society."
Perhaps people are beginning to wake up and see through the "con" of the welfare state.
One of the reasons for starting this blog was to provide a counter to the collectivist and anti-prosperity thinking that has become so prevalent in western societies. For some reason the UK seems particularly infected with this cancer and a today's "Daily Telegraph" has an excellent opinion piece that illustrates the sort of thing I mean. The article "It is not evil to want lower taxes. Get it?" (see here) talks about how resentment about paying high taxes has been manipulated into a form of guilt, equating this natural and understandable desire with being somehow immoral and selfishly hard-hearted.
Anyone familiar with Randian ideas will be astonished that this concept ever gained any credence, but so degraded have morals become in the UK as a result of over 50 years of the welfare state that, in fact, it is the perceived wisdom. To quote from the article:
"I remember when William Hague first took on this mythology, in a brave little speech entitled something like "The Moral Case for Lower Taxation".
He was not treated as if he were opening a challenging debate, or putting forward a contentious but intriguing proposition. His proposal, which was based on assumptions that were commonplace - almost banal - before the post-war consensus rewired the brains of Britain's governing class, was regarded as lunatic.
He had said something that was so out of step with received wisdom that it seemed to defy the rules of modern thought. It was as if he had claimed that the moon was made of green cheese. The idea had to be either mad or shamelessly, unapologetically bad: an apologia for greed and blatant callousness. And, at the time, popular opinion seemed to be completely snowed."
It's astonishing to read this and yet, tragically, it's true. However, there is a ray of hope. The rest of the article goes on to talk about a poll published by the Centre for Social Justice where people were asked about what they would do if they had money to donate to a good cause. The results?
"The two most popular choices were: give it directly to a person or family in need (31 per cent chose this), and, give it to a local charity or church working for needy people (another 31 per cent). Among the list of possible beneficiaries was "a local authority to spend on fighting poverty" and "central government to spend on fighting poverty". The local authority got one per cent support, and central government got none. "
Conclusion?
"What does this tell us? That people actually do understand that the state is not the most ethical or effective medium of generosity and community responsibility. Give them a morally acceptable way of saying that out loud, and we might have an honest debate about taxation and its effects on society."
Perhaps people are beginning to wake up and see through the "con" of the welfare state.
posted by Kevin Francis at
2:39 pm
