Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Frizzers

Interview With Tax Payers' Alliance

Recommended Posts

This is quite long at 45 minutes, but some of you may find it interesting. Stick it on your ipod and listen to it on your way to work or as you walk the dog ...

Matthew Elliott , CEO of The Tax Payers’ Alliance and author of The Bumper Book Of Government Waste, discusses government waste, Gordon Brown’s profligacy, David Cameron’s opportunity and his latest book, Fleeced, in the first ever Frisby's Bulls and Bears. ( Commodity Watch Radio formerly)

Enjoy ...

LINK:

http://commoditywatch.podbean.com/2009/09/24/matthew-elliott-of-the-tax-payers-alliance/

matthewc.jpgFleeced%20front%20cover.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thanks for posting the link,why the name change if you don't mind me asking?

My pleasure. because we talk about so much more than commodities - and the previous one was a bit of a cr@p name as well, if we;re being honest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is quite long at 45 minutes, but some of you may find it interesting. Stick it on your ipod and listen to it on your way to work or as you walk the dog ...

Matthew Elliott , CEO of The Tax Payers’ Alliance and author of The Bumper Book Of Government Waste, discusses government waste, Gordon Brown’s profligacy, David Cameron’s opportunity and his latest book, Fleeced, in the first ever Frisby's Bulls and Bears. ( Commodity Watch Radio formerly)

Enjoy ...

LINK:

http://commoditywatch.podbean.com/2009/09/24/matthew-elliott-of-the-tax-payers-alliance/

matthewc.jpgFleeced%20front%20cover.jpg

Whats an ipod?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read his "bumper book". I don't think he understands how money works. He talks about waste, the only way money can be wasted is if it's taken from circulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He talks about waste, the only way money can be wasted is if it's taken from circulation.
You're joking right? I think you've missed the purpose of money - you exchange for something. Someone has to work to do something useful for you so that you are willing to hand over your hard earned cash. If everyone is busy doing stuff for each other productivity and GDP go up. Work is exchangable for money. Money = work. Work = money.

However, if you decide to hand over 41% of your money and recipients do nothing for you, then 41% of the economy is useless, and GDP drops by 41%. That's a waste of money i.e. a waste of work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're joking right? I think you've missed the purpose of money - you exchange for something. Someone has to work to do something useful for you so that you are willing to hand over your hard earned cash. If everyone is busy doing stuff for each other productivity and GDP go up. Work is exchangable for money. Money = work. Work = money.

However, if you decide to hand over 41% of your money and recipients do nothing for you, then 41% of the economy is useless, and GDP drops by 41%. That's a waste of money i.e. a waste of work.

Yeah,

Where do you think that 41% goes, In a landfill site? That 41% is spent into the economy and you, me and everyone directly and indirectly benefits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://tpa.typepad.com/about/2007/08/matthew-elliott.html

I don't really get it, he seems to be a professional non-jobbing trougher.

Does he have plans to repay all the money he has wasted?

Or is it productive work so long as William Hague gives you a medal for it?

Change in your mind the words "Tax Payer's Alliance" to, say, "Minority Groups Social Justice Forum" and re-read it.

What sort of person is he now?

Edited by Cogs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah,

Where do you think that 41% goes, In a landfill site? That 41% is spent into the economy and you, me and everyone directly and indirectly benefits.

I can imagine it must be tempting to think that the harm government does by taking money from people against their will is balanced out by the benefits they give to other people. But sometimes the government engages in net destructive behaviour. For example they will give incentives to have perfectly good cars destroyed. ie, the destruction of wealth. They will also take us into war on a lie and drop bombs on Iraqis and Afghans and destroy their infrastructure and then rebuild it again. Whilst you will likely argue that everyone benefits because the arms manufacturing industry will flourish and their employees will spend money in the wider economy, the people who have died and lost limbs will disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A twonk?

I'd love to know what the export earnings (to the nearest billion) of people with degrees in "Governemnt" are (was David Beckham studies oversubscribed that year?).

The problem with this type is that its Everyone Else and Everyone Else's Kids.

Market discipline for you, some bag carrying/think tank sinecuring/charity "CEOing" for me. And so on.

Do as I say, not as I do. Well I guess it worked brilliantly for New Labour hasn't it.

Do you think this stereotype on legs has ever got his hands dirty at work?

Apart from cracking one off over pictures of Norman Tebbit I mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can imagine it must be tempting to think that the harm government does by taking money from people against their will is balanced out by the benefits they give to other people. But sometimes the government engages in net destructive behaviour. For example they will give incentives to have perfectly good cars destroyed. ie, the destruction of wealth. They will also take us into war on a lie and drop bombs on Iraqis and Afghans and destroy their infrastructure and then rebuild it again. Whilst you will likely argue that everyone benefits because the arms manufacturing industry will flourish and their employees will spend money in the wider economy, the people who have died and lost limbs will disagree.

Totally agree. Adam Smith nailed this one:

It is the highest impertinence and presumption, therefore, in kings and ministers, to pretend to watch over the economy of private people, and to restrain their expense... They are themselves always, and without any exception, the greatest spendthrifts in the society. Let them look well after their own expense, and they may safely trust private people with theirs. If their own extravagance does not ruin the state, that of their subjects never will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can imagine it must be tempting to think that the harm government does by taking money from people against their will is balanced out by the benefits they give to other people. But sometimes the government engages in net destructive behaviour. For example they will give incentives to have perfectly good cars destroyed. ie, the destruction of wealth. They will also take us into war on a lie and drop bombs on Iraqis and Afghans and destroy their infrastructure and then rebuild it again. Whilst you will likely argue that everyone benefits because the arms manufacturing industry will flourish and their employees will spend money in the wider economy, the people who have died and lost limbs will disagree.

You're describing the misappropriation of funds and making assumptions as to what I think.

Destroying serviceable vehicles is madness, as is the notion of GDP and perpetual growth. They are articles of faith.

The point I'm making is this. The government spends more than it receives in taxes. Those who are fortunate enough to earn good money are the first to complain about the taxes they pay. However, those same people are usually only wealthy because they live and conduct their business within a country that maintains a minimum standard of living, infrastructure, education, health, etc, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

..regarding the point about a free market of currencies which came up in the interview, we kind of do already have a free market: Every thing can be thought of as a currency and the most popular medium of exchange will emerge.

Legal tender doesn't so much force people to use Sterling, merely it acts as an incentive because if you do pay with Sterling the courts will recognise this as a valid payment even if you had previously agreed to pay something else. Since it makes sense to be prepared to pay in Sterling, it makes sense to use it above the alternatives.

Payment in any other form of currency results in no punishment; the Government only offers a subsidy to their currency of preferred choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   292 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.