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.