Sign In
0 Items (
Search
Comments (0)
We resolve not to covet our neighbour’s house … nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is our neighbour’s.
Apparently this fierce looking bearded bloke suggested this as a New Year’s resolution to the OWS crowd. Baloney and other much cruder epithets they shouted back and he hasn’t been seen since.
When you think about it not coveting is baloney within the socialistic collective. Coveting and socialism are more or less synonymous. The whole socialist edifice is built upon some people coveting and confiscating the goods made by others. What else is it about? Sure you can put fancy names around it like fairness and social justice but, in the end, you’ve climbed the coconut tree with effort and at risk and others simply vote themselves some of your coconuts, as of right. If you refuse to give up the required number of your coconuts you will be incarcerated at the point of a gun. 
If you simply loudly object you will be abhorred as a greedy capitalist pig. Effigies of you will be made, pinned and burnt. Hollywood stars will denounce you; the mainstream media will disparage you; trade union leaders will jeer you.
Organisations and individuals have sprung up to put coveting on a professional basis. They encourage coveting by undermining self-reliance and sowing seeds of envy, discontent and entitlement. They covet on behalf of others. That way they can feed parasitically on the results while appearing righteous.
I was thinking this is a bit strong (maybe) when I read that the ACTU – the organisation you might recall that puts hapless attempts to control the weather above Australian workers’ jobs – thinks that it’s unfair to give higher income earners a bigger tax break for superannuation contributions than lower income earners. The ACTU is not alone in this of course. ACOSS, as you would expect, expressed similar views as did the Ken Henry tax review and as, periodically, do any number of left-leaning organisations and media commentators.
What gets them excited is that if you pay tax at a marginal rate of 45 per cent, a 15 per cent tax on superannuation contributions gives you a tax break. If you pay tax at 30 per cent it gives you less of a break. If you pay tax at 15 per cent it gives you no break at all. That is the way they look at it. Don’t think for a minute that they consider your earnings as yours because they don’t.
Under a flat tax regime as in the biblical world of tithing none of this would happen. People would be taxed at the same percentage and deductions for whatever purpose would benefit every taxpayer equally.
Now let’s move to the modern (socialist) world where those who are more productive, and therefore earn more, are taxed at progressively higher marginal rates. Suddenly those fat cats are getting a bigger tax break for those superannuation deductions than are the deserving lower-income people. The higher the marginal rate of tax they face; the bigger the break they get. That is just unfair. It follows, presumably, that reducing taxes to 15 per cent or zero on those earning relatively low incomes would be unfair too because they would no longer get a tax break.
This is a topsy-turvy whining world. The more we tax you the more you get those unfair breaks; the less we tax you the less you get those fair tax breaks.
Sinclair Davidson reported in an essay “Tax and Welfare” (The Howard Era) that 25 percent of taxpayers paid 66 per cent of income taxes in 2006-07. Remember that many voters pay no income tax at all. If the US relationship between numbers of voters and taxpayers is a guide, it would mean that about 15 per cent of Australian voters pay two-thirds of all income taxes. How is this ever construed as unfair; except to those paying the taxes? Welcome to a world where coveting is the new religion of the masses under the influence of sanctimonious parasites.
We see the results of this in Europe and in the United States and truly have been a lucky country (courtesy of China) not to see it here, yet. Taxes must be paid. Collectively, the “rich” as a matter of necessity will be required to pay a larger share. However, the burden should be more evenly spread among all taxpayers so that all understand that government programs need paying for.
The position has become too skewed. This is not a question of being sorry for the rich. They can take care of themselves. The real difficulty is faced by the majority of people who have been seduced into thinking that they deserve things they haven’t worked for and that others will go on footing the bill. It’s a self-destructive mindset and in the end result, as it insidiously grows and takes over, a delusional and despairing one.
