As I was happily preparing for the publication of another ebook tomorrow I see that I have received a volley of twitter abuse from a good man, but a deluded lefty of the highest order, @Mickkipper. In response to my suggestion that the crackpot Lib Dems wished to tax your jewellery and paintings as well as your house if you were rich, Mick replies ”Why not, most of them have been robbed pillaged during the common wealth days. Bring back slaves ehhhhh Tom.”
Saints preserve us. Is this really the high level debate that the left offers up? I object to being taxed on wealth accumulated as a result of me buying assets with taxed income ( a double tax) and that means that I want to bring back slaves?
But it got better. In stating the fact that at least twice a day some young person from Southern Europe wanders into my restaurant with a word perfect CV begging to work at the minimum wage but in a City were 100,000 young Britons are without work and living off welfare , not one home grown applicant turns up, I am lambasted. Mick sent of a series of tweets of which the best were:
“Caitt Reilly…. out of touch Winnifrith. Bring back the workhouse, chimmney boys and mine boys. Employ a eastern European”
“Thatchers ‘LATCH DOOR KEY KIDS’ a time when greed and affluence was promoted.”
I knew that our greatest ever Prime Minister would be blamed somewhere along the line. For the avoidance of doubt I have never suggested bringing back the workhouse or mine boys ( the latter would be a sexist suggestion anyway and I would not wish to rile the ladies). But some basic economics for Mick:
The Government does not create money. It spends it. What it spends is taken from those who earn either via taxes now or via taxes later (deficit spending). The debt of our Government is in fact the people’s debt.
Since WW2 UK workers have awarded themselves ever higher wages without delivering a corresponding increase in productivity. Thus in those industries where competition is global (i.e. manufacturing) British firms have gone bust. Those who have lost their jobs have either found work in the service sector or live on welfare.
The net result is that notwithstanding the massive contribution made by those wicked folk in the City who the left so loathe, we as a country continue to spend more than we can afford and our service sector only avoids collapse because the Government and the population goes ever further into debt.
You have two options here. Carry on as we are in which case the UK goes bankrupt as pathetic creatures like Caitt Reilly opt to live on welfare until they find a job they fancy ( which in many cases is never). Or
Reform the welfare state and scrap the minimum wage ( but also raise the tax threshold big time) so that the Government spends far less on welfare ( as folks are forced into work) and UK PLC is also able to be competitive again. Prices that the service sector charges have to fall but if wages fall too then firms will stay in business, the purchasing power of those who opt to work is unaffected ( actually increased as they pay lower taxes) but Britain will again attract overseas custom in the way that it once did.
It is basic economics. But what is the point of rational debate with someone who thinks that objecting to welfare parasites like Caitt Reilly is the same as campaigning to bring back Victorian workhouses?comments powered by Disqus