A person makes money by selling goods or services. If one works for a company you sell your 'labour' in Marxist terms but labour is another service, if you have expertise or more experience a company will pay more for your service. The company likewise either produces goods or sells a service to make money. Again if a company makes good products or sells good services it charges a higher a premium. If the company does not sell a service or product that has a demand the company goes broke. If you have no skill, labour or product, either as an individual or a company, that the market will buy you are not financialy viable. This is the harsh truth. Sell yourself better or refine your service/product if you are losing money or farewell. 

So much for 'personal' economics but how does a Government get it's money? No Government 'owns' money; all the revenue is borrowed from the people. This is why many countries have a democracy; so the people can have some say in how their money is spent. Those that tax without the vote are essentialy 'thief Governments'. If I make money and the Government demands some of what I earn am I not entitled to ask "what for?". Do I give money to anyone that demands it? Clearly unless a case is explained and I have a choice it amounts to robbery.

While the money the Government borrows from us comes from our wages, which we have some say in how they spend, once the election is over we are cut out of decisions. This may be not altogether unwise as populism is not always wisdom. The Government also needs to employ people - to collect tax for starters - but also to run services; a reasonable law enforcement, defence and health service. They are also called upon to provide for pensioners, disabled and people who cannot find a job. We have been led to expect this almost to the extent as claiming them as 'rights'.

Of course at any time a Government decide to invest more in any specific area - more nurses or teachers or soldiers; a matter of taste almost. However to do so it must either cut other areas (more teachers and less soldiers) or raise tax. Well the people who work for the Government pay tax from their wages and VAT whatever else so every penny a Government spends on employing a soldier, nurse, diplomat or whatever they get back some money - but not all. But even the money the Government gets back is 'recycled': It creates no new 'real money'.

So we have become used to the higher taxation method to pay for Government services. The money to pay for this effectively must come from the private sector. Let me explain: Suppose I work for a successful company; my wages and possibly my pension and healthcare get payed by my wages through the company. I still pay tax to the Government and so does the company. This though is not 'recycled' - the company has sold a product or service, it is 'real money'. When a Government taxes the private sector, the business sector, it detracts from their profits and their investment potential, therefore they are less likely to employ new staff. When a Government is responsible for over 50% of GDP they are depriving 'real money' growth to a minimum and a country cannot prosper. Over tax the private sector and you must print more money to keep the Government employees payed; this leads to inflation or taken to the extreme communism with protection barriers on the domestic market. You cannot afford 'real prices'. Too much taxation and you destroy the tax base in the private sector which makes 'real money'.

All 'political will' is limited within the confines of budget possibility. Sure you can go overdrawn for a while but if you stay overdrawn too long you go bankrupt. If you wish to borrow money - go overdrawn - you can do so, as an individual or a company you have the right to 'speculate to accumulate' as a Government you have no right to over speculate other peoples money on loss making Government jobs. All your policies must be geared to private sector wealth creation, only then can a Government get the 'real money' income to fund it's 'social programmes'. The Keynesian stimulus doctrine MUST be short term. All else is falacy. This year the UK reached 'freedom day' - when the average person finished paying the tax they are likely to owe the Government this year and started earning money for themselves - on the 28th May. The ASI Director said "The stark truth is that this burden costs us all 149 days of hard labour every year.That's not how long a rich person has to work - it is the time the average person must labour for the tax collectors." In the US the 'freedom day' is April the 17th. Can you see why they bounce back from a recession faster than the UK? There is more private money to invest to create new jobs maybe? To create more 'real money'.

Looking on the Brighter Side

Could we not have a Government funded 'programme' on Labour Day within Europe for all the idealist wishful dreamers to blow up balloons with helium or whatever floats for a while. Can the rest of be sponsored by the 'balooners' for our laughing gas...? See it 'work's' financialy; one half sponsors the other and vice versa. We all have a ball until the balloons go pop.

A friend of mine had a bunny wabbit that she used meet and feed at the University of Victoria in Canada. She was greatly attached to this bunny, the whole campus was fond of these rabbits and who can blame them? When they started burrowing under the foundations of the University buildings however they were rounded up and shipped off to the US - illegaly deported! Well this cannot be alowed EVER again so I propose that the next time any institution, be it a bank or a Government runs into trouble from financial undermining we close ranks buy rabbit colonies and let them undermine the banks.











 
 


Comments




Leave a Reply

    Author

    I studied Classics and Philosophy at University in England. I did a postgraduate degree in Logic and Theory of Science but read history for pleasure. Philosophicaly I reject Wittgensteins 'Private Language Arguement' but adhere to a Khun-ist view of Science. Historicaly I am pro Sparta in the Peloppenesian War but pro Cato and Brutus against Caeser, though Cato and Brutus must agree the reforms of the Gracchi.

    I am Anglo Polish and have dual nationality though I work and am mostly based around the UK. Politicaly I am a member of the Conservative Party, though a very dissapointed one. I am considering UKIP as a serious alternative. I have moderate personal investments in the stock markets and watch them as closely as time alows.

    I am a Christian and proud of it. Being Polish I am Catholic but have a great respect for our Orthodox brothers and sisters. I am, I suppose, pro Christian in general. I am not at all interested in ethics - how can one know if a moral statement is true? (apart from 'emotively') - but as a cohesive sociological force for good religion has proven its worth; we would not read now had not been for the Church.

    I reject the Athenian demand in the 'Melian Dialogue'. http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Melian.html