Bernard, affectionately called Kim Jong on this blog
because his every policy recommendation involves more state in my life, not
less, quickly outs himself in the heading of his newly penned poison:
How much freedom should individuals or
companies have [I should just stop here, but …] to change their affairs in response to tax rules? Bernard Hickey calls
on us to join a British boycott of companies that do this.
First,
the economic issue: as with other forms of nationalistic protectionism you
would force for our exporters, Bernard, income tax is a cost: when you
advocate a boycott on firms not paying what ‘you’ think is enough tax - and we
know for you there will never be enough tax - then what you’re telling consumers to do is boycott firms until they increase
their costs, and so, necessarily the prices they charge for their goods and
services sold to consumers. You’re
asking consumers to protest against not being charged more for what they buy
from private companies, and thus you’re advocating a harsher life for low
income earners on strict budgets, not a better one. Shame on you for not seeing
beyond the copy of your next statist Granny Herald fee.
And
on the more important philosophical issue, it’s bounded freedom all over again. If you
won’t read economics, then please read the history of the twentieth century.
Already thanks to the big brute surveillance state you advocate, and the social
chaos that comes from your bounded humans, a null-minded, ugly fascism begins
to bind Europe again, and even a graveyard in Auckland. My
entire blog is about joining the dots for you from bounded liberty to societies
of fist saluting hatred as self-reliant individuals are thrown into the
merciless, gaping maw of state, pulled inexorably down, finger nails scraping
along their IRD assessments, into the barbaric pit of dependence.
Postscript:
No comments:
Post a Comment