What he said

TAFKAS could not have put it better himself:

It is thus always amusing to read the tax increase lobby argue for reform of and increase in taxes because of the need to increase the economic efficiency all the while unconcerned and uninterested with the economic efficiency of government spending. Their argument is basically that efficient tax collection is needed to fund inefficient spending.

Their argument is basically that efficient tax collection is needed to fund inefficient spending.  Spot on!

And who wrote this?  Some fellow called Stephen Spartacus in the Spectator Australia.

Harrumph!

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to What he said

  1. DaveR

    Why is it that the words “reform” and “efficient” always mean ” increase”?, and as TAFKAS says, without regard for any justification and efficiency of spending? As an increasingly suffering inmate of Victoria I have seen Commissar Andrews waste perhaps $5b in the last 12 months.

    At the risk of offending Crassus, “I am Spartacus” as well.

  2. Herodotus

    We are all Spartacuses now.

  3. Bruce of Newcastle

    Colbert:

    The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to procure the largest quantity of feathers with the least possible amount of hissing.

    No one ever cares about the feelings of the goose, except to avoid actually killing it by accident. Right now that seems a distinct possibility the way the Colberts of Canberra and the States are going.

  4. Petros

    Seems like a made up name this Spartacus chap.

  5. flyingduk

    Why is it that the words “reform” and “efficient” always mean ” increase”…

    Exactly Sir!! This form of Orwellian speak has always irritated me. They are NOT arguing for ‘reforms’, they are arguing for ‘increases’. Our language has been distorted by more than one such corruption of meaning, think ‘investment’ when they mean ‘wasted government spending’ , ‘progress’ when they mean change (often retrogressive) etc etc.

  6. Sunbird

    Most people don’t care how inefficiently the money is spent if they’re getting some of the largesse.
    Either directly through a tax funded job or “free” government services like child care, aged care, healthcare and education.

  7. Anonandon

    We are all Spartacuses now.

    Ancient Rome so should that be “We are all Spartici now”?

  8. wal1957

    When we have 3 tiers of government and over 2 Million public sector employees, you have to wonder why they can’t cut some of the fat.
    It always stuns me when the local council rates always rise, every year. When/if they rise by less than the inflation rate we are informed how the council is “reigning in costs”, “providing value for money”. Bulltish!
    The public sector is a protected species, as is anybody associated with the rorts of the aboriginal industry.

  9. wozzup

    Their argument is basically that efficient tax collection is needed to fund inefficient spending. Spot on!

    It is worse even that this! It is not just inefficient spending, it is ineffective spending as it seldom achieves what it proclaims it will achieve. And moreover it is worse still even than this! It is not just ineffective spending, it is deleterious spending because it often makes the situation worse – far worse.
    We only need to look at the billions in subsidies on “green” energy to realize this.
    The same goes for any number of government programs designed to interfere in markets to produce a “socially desirable” outcome. And which instead produce undesirable outcomes that make the country poorer by distorting markets producing misallocation of resources and taking money from individuals and families to do it.

  10. John A

    Anonandon #3512377, posted on July 14, 2020 at 9:20 am

    We are all Spartacuses now.

    Ancient Rome so should that be “We are all Spartici now”?

    If this is Sparta, shouldn’t that be “Spartacae”?

    Anyway, it’s all Greek to me, and I have a Latin background via ancestral Sicily!

  11. Squirrel

    The big taxing, big spending crowd would, of course, claim that they’re on the ball when it comes to efficiency – but their idea of efficiency is paying mates disgusting amounts of money to review spending programs and come to the inevitable conclusion that the program just needs a bit of tweaking and fine-tuning and then lots of extra resources to make it work they way it was supposedly meant to.

Comments are closed.