Westminster is on the wrong track

I hear Nick Clegg wishes to raise taxes. It makes me wonder whether Britain is a socialist state? Despite being led by a conservative coalition government it would appear so.  The City of London is massively wealth creating and enormously beneficial to the country at large – but is this aberration tolerated in the same way that smoking is tolerated – for the taxed income it produces? Smoking could be banned outright if the political will was in favour of such a thing. No, the political will is to tax the country out of existence.

Wealth is necessary to fund not only an international health service but a housing benefit bill of some £20 billion annually. The UK needs the City to be successful. Yet in many other respects wealth creation pays lip service to wealth distribution as the aforementioned housing benefit bill clearly demonstrates and is by no means the full extent of dependency. State generosity is all very well until one realizes that it is largely a system based upon taking from Tracy to pay Lily. Britain is taxed to the hilt. There are taxes on what you spend, taxes on what you watch, taxes on what you want to heal, taxes on your income, taxes on your driving, taxes on your speeding, taxes on your rubbish, taxes on what you give to others throughout the world on the taxes you pay. Let’s not forget the taxes; military spending in Afghanistan is officially said to amount to about £40,000,000,000. Not forgetting the human cost in lives and injuries and a financial cost paid for by the taxpayer for old soldiers who were told to fight a politicians’ war. And there are many other taxes. For example, there are even taxes on pensions which has reduced the amount claimed by the heroes of two world wars to about half of those claimed by German pensioners in Germany. Or so I hear.

Why are politicians so generous? Is it because they are morally superior to others? Are they better people? The Expenses scandal of about four years ago revealed that many politicians willingly took advantage of taxpayers’ money for their own financial advantage. Some were taken to court and at least one was sent to prison. So I think we can discount the morally superior position. Being generous with taxpayers’ money enables a politician the chance to feel good about himself since the money often supports schemes for the man who would not necessarily be able to reach a standard of living he has grown accustomed to. Hence the apparent need for an annual payment of £20 billion worth of Housing Benefit. However, there is such a great extent of fraud at work in the payment of benefits to those who could otherwise find work that even this aspect of generosity is exploited for ulterior reasons. What are these ulterior reasons?

Could it be that politicians have decided that the greater the dependency the greater the votes they can gain? If the government is the biggest employer what price democracy for a nation intent of spending the money of those who earn it on those who are willing to take it? Inevitably in such a system there will be an increasing number of those who would rather take than earn. I do not judge since I understand that it is human nature to want to exploit the system for personal gain but this does not make it right. For all intents and purposes Britain has become a socialist state not because anyone has voted for socialism but because modern politicians have played the system for their own benefit, which is to want to appear more generous and humane than the next man. The moral high ground in an atheistic materialist Godless society is through works rather than faith. Socialists excel in spending other people’s money in order to claim a morality they would otherwise find unavailable.

For centuries British people have led the way in creating a humane social system to support those who cannot support themselves. More often than not this was because of a concern for those who were victims of temporary or unforeseen circumstances. The state had a duty to look after those who had fought for their country or paid something into the system. Britain is well over £1 Trillion in debt. Yet politicians continue to spend taxpayers’ money on schemes that endorse their claim to so-called moral high ground status. Nick Clegg is one high profile example of Westminster’s arrogant self-regarding attitude.

IMG_2402

A Victorian Railway Viaduct: when Britain was on the right track.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s