The excellent Evan Coyne Mallony

Two posts from the excellent conservative rival to the vile Michael Moore (and I mean that) have caught my attention.
The first is on a subject newly dear to my heart, which is taxation. Now I agree with the ideal of progressive taxation – a flat tax to me is both inefficient, though I am happy to presented with arguments otherwise, and retrogressive – that is unfair. This would be to my mind that a tax rate high enough to gather enough from the wealthy for government to function beyond the barest level would intrinsically be too high on the poorest who can least spare extra income.
So, when I read that the IRS data shows that of those who pay income tax, the top 1% pay more than 40% of the total income tax revenue and the the top 50% contribute 97% of all income tax revenue as opposed to the bottom 50% contributing 3%, then this leads me to some profound conclusions. During the debate in Britain about the abolition of the 10 pence tax band for income tax, the Adam Smith Institute – a conservative economic think tax – came up with the suggestion that not only was the abolition unfair, it was also inefficient. The poor in society would benefit more from the raising of the income tax threshold to above £10,000 or thereabouts and government would scarcely miss the income since the bottom of the tax bracket contributed suprisingly little.
Therefore on tax, I am still amazed that John McCain has not advocated scrapping taxes on the bottom 50% of income tax earners, since these do contribute a tiny percentage of income tax revenues. This would do far more for social mobility and social justice than any amount of tax credit with all such problems of disincentivisation associated with such policies. And the scary pointat the bottom of this debate – Bush was right…
Bloody hell, taxing the rich less actually does raise more revenue in the long run. That and relieving government inflicted economic hardship on the poorer would do a lot more towards creating a more just and fair society. So there, Polly Toynbee.

The second post is about one of ECM’s favourite subjects – the marginalization of the mainstream. “Whites” and especially working men are excluded in the multi-culturalist politically correct world in which live the academian liberals such as Barack Obama. There is no cultural space for them, especially heterosexual men. Why is this? Why are the largest group of people in countries that are demographically “white” excluded from this world? Because, one suspects, they are seen as the cause and origin of oppression on all those marginal groups – women, homosexuals, people with different skin colour or creed. Yet white heterosexual men were great movers in the liberation of mankind in the West from the oppression of these petty hatreds, but are still dressed up as the villains.
Part of me suspects that this is part of a Gramscian dialogue whose aim is to exclude the mainstream, to alienate and marginalise and untimately atomise societies until they are ignorant, scared and willing to do what the new feudal masters of the trustafarian classes demand. Yet, we must be careful of suspecting conspiracies. Where we find definate traits we will likely find only a handful of agitators or those who spread the faith but legions of those who have gone along with it like sheep and faithfully repeat that which they have been told. But the endgame does appear to be to the advantage of those telling us to do what we are told, to be peasants, to give up the gains and advantages and promises of modern life as it is delivered to us, and increasingly many others, by globalized capitalism.

Capitalism has been one of the greatest agents and creators of human happiness but it has also progressively deprived the traditional rulers of our societies of positions of power. They have not gone – look at the Old Etonians or their trustafarian “socialist” equivalents such as that preening peacock, George Monbiot. At every stage when a utopian (dark or otherwise) solution to the troubles of society have been proposed since the French Revolution, these have been led by those who served the former masters and wished above all to smash the social and economic forces that brought such change and freedom to societies. It is the ideal which is both dangerous and liberating; in a certain sense, the ideal in the human mind is like the “free radical” element in biology. It can do immense good and liberate untold energies. Or it can release intense destruction as the ideologies of Communism, Nazism and now Islamism are, and have, proved in the last 100 years.


4 Responses to The excellent Evan Coyne Mallony

  1. JOS says:

    A very interesting and engrossing post.

    I’m one of those who believe that an income tax is basically unconstitutional and consider it a matter of property rights (which the framers of the Constitution considered natural law as opposed to and superior to political law). But that’s probably a debate for another day. I do believe that the more disposable income a citizen retains, the stronger the nation’s economy. I agree that eliminating the tax burden from the lowest earners is much more efficient that a tax rebate (which most get anyway). The problem is our government has grown so big and has inserted itself into so many aspects of our daily lives that it can’t sustain itself without every little penny. Heaven forbid Congress actually follow some fiscal restraint and cut spending!

    Alas, who am I? I’m a white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant man; I’m everybody’s a$$hole! 🙂
    – JOS

  2. wien1938 says:

    Well, JOS. I would disagree with you about income tax being unconstitutional, since property being the foundation of wealth and the nature of a commonwealth is that sharing resources and dangers.
    Part of the nature of the commonwealth is that we must accept some restriction of your natural rights in order to build political rights – that is the rights that regulate our social lives. It also depends to what extent one would consider income as property in the sense that we distinguish an income tax from a tax on, say, windows or land. In a strictly natural sense, I might even argue that an income tax is fairer than a property tax since then we are taxed individually and proportionately according our wealth, then no one is liable to be deprived of an unfair proportion – provided that the balance is right.
    As for the growth of the state. We must be careful to distinguish between a desire for sensible government in the form of a government that carries out that which is necessary and a government which is incapable of coming to the aid or defence of the citizen (or subject, if you happen, like me, to be British – yay!). I do believe that a welfare “safety” net is a positive good for society and the nation; it would be beyond criminal to allow an economic change (such as a firm going bankrupt) to result in the pauperization of the former employees.
    In Britain, we had since the late sixteenth century a poor rate, in which the more fortunate and wealthy in society supported those who had fallen on hard times or suffered misfortune. I firmly believe that like the idea of reducing income tax on the rich, this is an counter-intuative idea in the sense of increasing the nation’s wealth in the long run and reducing social tension. But there is a balance to be struck between removing the crippling effects of negative economic change and the danger of removing the incentive to work.
    But there are many areas in Britain and I am sure in the United States where government could withdraw. Here we have government regulation on nursery schools…pure madness. We have too much government involvement in education.
    While I believe that government must act as the provider of means for education and as the artbiter of standards, it is dangerous to allow the government to be too closely involved in the running of education on a daily basis as this leads inexorably (as has been proven here) to a civil service “stalinist” mindset ruining the purpose of education. It also lays the nation vulnerable to the fringe political groups and their mad theories – I refer here to the creationist loonies on the right and the Gramscian marxists on the left.

  3. JOS says:


    Your argument would be valid if the United States were (originally) a commonwealth. The United States is (was) a republic and the Constitution is based, not on the collective rights of the majority, but the individual rights of the minority. I believe Ayn Rand explained it best when she said that the framers belived that the right to life was the source of all rights, and the right to property the implementation of that right. She believed that without property rights, no other rights were possible. Man must sustain his life by his own effort and the man who has no right to the product of his labor has no means to sustain his life. Isn’t the man a slave who produces while others dispose of his product?

    The money that I earn by my own labor is my property to do with as I please. What right does anyone (a government, for instance) have to take the property that is mine and give it to someone else? In a sense, this make me a slave. After all, what difference is there in forcibly making me work for someone else without compensation or forcibly taking a portion of my income and giving it to someone else so he can hire someone?

    The Founding Fathers of this country actually rejected direct taxes such as income and property taxes. The basic responsibility of government is to defend the homeland and as a citizen of this country, I have a responsibility to help fund the government. This I can do through the payment of indirect taxes such as sales taxes.

    The Constitution says I have a right to the “pursuit of happiness”, it doesn’t guarantee that I will be happy. It isn’t the government’s job to provide for me; that’s my responsibility and mine alone. I don’t have a right to the fruit of another’s labor; neither does he have a right to the fruit of my labor. And my government certainly doesn’t have the right to be the arbiter.

    This is why I believe an income tax is unconstitutional.

    – JOS

  4. wien1938 says:

    It depends. Most nations rejected direct taxes, Britain had one as an emergency war measure. It is only custom in the end that dictates precendent.
    The problem with your arguement in my opinion lies in the first two sentences. A commonwealth is not actually a political state (that is a political social grouping, such as legitimated authority and the laws that bind a group of people together). Rather a commonwealth is the core basic of a state.
    A republic is yet still a commonwealth in that it is a shared pooling of individual sovreignity into a collective sovreignity but where the legitimated political authority rests on the constitution and the constitutionally valid government and the laws that extend from both.
    A monarchy is the same except that the locus of collective sovereignity is found in the person and office (that is throne) of the monarch. So in Britain, the monarch is the fount of statute law and the guardian of law, yet delegates those powers as found in the informal constitution to the parliament. At the same time, the monarch cannot supersede common law or the laws of the nation, except where justified by emergencies.
    I believe Ayn Rand is wrong in her interpretation as she interprets property rights as absolute against contextual. Property rights are the foundation of law and government, but it is unrealistic to expect these to exist in the individual as absolutely seperate from another person’s property rights. We all sacrifice some degree of those rights in order to derive the protection of our property rights in the collective form – what I may call the state and the law.
    I firmly believe that the ideal of property rights as absolute and inviolable is a concept that tends towards the anarchic and an anarchic state is one that is a contradiction in terms.
    The reason that the FF rejected such taxes was because at the time, there was no precedent in common law, with the exception of the land tax which was levied upon land owners rather than material wealth. The other problem is that Congress in 1913 DID pass the 16th Amendement which explicitly authorizes direct taxation.

    Interesting discussion. Thanks.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: