Very well written, The collectivist system is built on a foundation of theft and coercion, where the productive members of society are forced to subsidize the whims of the ruling class. They claim the right to confiscate the fruits of our labour, to redistribute wealth according to their own twisted vision of “fairness.” But the individualist knows that the product of our labour belongs to us alone, and that any attempt to take it by force is an act of theft.
As Hayek says, “There is always in the eyes of the collectivist a greater goal which these acts serve and which to him justifies them because the pursuit of the common end of society can know no limits in any rights or values of any individual.”
In parallel, there is a move for innovative investment vehicles and private equity to own portfolios of private homes to rent out (to people who own nothing and are, hopefully, content with salaried slavery). Housing represents this massive reservoir of wealth that must begin to look finger-licking good to elites who already own practically everything else. What more do you want from me? What else you got?
Well, the other logical thing, the other thing being mooted, is pensions. We’re entering the death spiral phase then, because after those resources have been tapped the population will be more or less tapped out. That this will deliver growth is, needless to say, complete delusion.
Applause for this excellent analysis of the mindset of those now 'governing' us. The thing is though that those drooling over the possibility of 'windfall' taxing home owners would and will do everything to make themselves exempt. Glaring example from history: the existence of the Nomenklatura in soviet Russia, or as pointed out in Animal Farm: 'some are more equal than others' ...
In the Middle Ages the Church was the Shepherd to the Flock, and the members of the Flock paid a tithe for the privilege of being managed.
The ferme générale ("general farm") was, in ancien régime France, essentially an outsourced customs, excise and indirect tax operation. The general population was 'farmed' for tax.
Other modern political jurisdictions 'farm' their populations to raise revenue that they then choose how to spend.
Now you can argue that The State must be able to fund the functions that it delivers - but the 'state functions', and the bureaucracy, always grow (unless there is a rebellion). Once you are 'farmed' there is little allowed for you to avoid being reaped, and the Farmer likes it that way. And the 'farmer' and the 'farmed' mindset dominates. 'Fields' must be tidy and productive and wild produce brought under control.
Nice little house you've got there - it would be a shame if anything happened to it.
Spot on! That's a really helpful metaphor. Thank you!
I've come to see money as having been invented largely to make taxation and this "farming" possible, to enslave a population and make them work for the tyrants without them understanding what's going on. We think we're earning wages and it can keep us happy enough not to try to change the system, but really all we're doing is acting as minions for TPTB. Brett Scott writes a great Substack on this. I may have been slow coming to this realisation but that's because I couldn't see it from the outside!
I would be more than happy paying a tithe, that is 10%. Similarly tax farmers in Medieval and early modern Europe, who struggled to get above 15% without serious unrest. David’s exegesis of Machiavelli explains why. Marginal rates of taxation at 70% or even approaching 100% are a thoroughly modern phenomenon of the Princely ‘liberal-democratic’ state, beyond the wildest dreams of any pre-modern tyrant.
About a year ago I watched Mcternan aghast on GBNews arguing for a 'bedroom tax' for those who happened to have more bedrooms than he and his ilk thought one should have. When pointed out that he had a spare bedroom he immediately and unashamedly countered with.... "I need that for my nephew" Two things come from this.... the State should have all encompassing powers to dictate what you can have and what you can't (basically you work for the State not the other way around). Secondly, the brazen hypocrisy of the illiberal elites who want to remain untouched by the very things they advocate. The next 5 - 10yrs are going to be very uncomfortable not just for Libertarians and Conservatives but when it hits the great swathes middle class Lefties who are currently enjoying the benefits of the very things they profess to detest, they will have a massive shock.
The vast majority of us own (in whole or in part) only one property. For us, housing is simply a cost. I own a three bedroom terraced house, a nice one admittedly, but it's stilll only a house with certain facilities. If the price of such houses trebles, I do not become wealthier, as I still only own that three bedroom house. Borrowers have to pay greater interest and purchasers have to pay higher fees, so in fact it's all inflationary and costs homeowners more in the long run. Even if I were to downsize and gift some of the slack to my son for a deposit on his own place, he only needed that help because of the price inflation. If property prices increased no greater than wage inflation he'd have a better chance of saving his own deposit. High prices make us worse off as I have to sacrifice a chunk of my house so my son can buy his first. Net result, we are actually worse off than if the prices had been stable.
My guess is that the vultures will be looking at either a wealth tax or taxing capital gains on one's main or only property. To tax homeowners on the increased price (not value, it's still just a three bedroom house) of a house from which they have gained no benefit, and which they need as a place to live seems to me to be deeply immoral.
This especially true as the inflationary pressures have been largely due to actions or inaction by both pink and blue governments since 1997, e.g.
Central bank money-printing and governmemt borrowing
Poorly regulated commercial bank mortgage lending
Influx of foreign capital into the domestic property market
Increase in population due to net immigration
Decrease in property avaiable for rent , in part due to rental market regulation changes. (several hundred thousand empty propeties at the moment).
But those things are hard to deal with, require long-term strategies, and would be a hard sell.
Much easier just to virtue signal and tax the soft targets, with 'unearned wealth' as they can't run away and hide.
Yes, I think the initial plan is CGT on principal residences, which has always been a sacred cow in British politics. You hit the nail on the head really: this is all successive governments' fault, and now they expect us to pay for it. You couldn't summarise modern government better if you tried.
I basically agree, but we should remember that housing "wealth" is mostly enjoyed by the dead.
That is to say, if the house you are living in has doubled in value, it doesn't help you unless you sell it. And if you sell it, you will probably need to buy somewhere else, which will also have doubled in price. Therefore your mortgage for the new house will be doubled as well.
Generally, the people who finally benefit from rising prices are the dead, or their heirs, who receive the increased "wealth".
House price INFLATION is just that. It is a type of inflation, not a type of increased wealth.
I started contracting in aerospace in 2011. Before that I had been a permanent employee. Even then IR35 was kicking around but in recent years the rules changed forcing “liabilities” onto the end client. This caused blanket changes putting many contractors inside.
What that means is you cannot get revenue and retain earnings in your small company. It all goes out as salary. You cannot bootstrap. You cannot sell your services whilst building a capability in your own company.
Many permanent employees celebrated that those contractors were now paying their “fair share” without thinking through what they don’t see (a la Bastiat) and what it implies for the ability to develop your own thing.
Now rates Inside IR35 have doubled so that the net take home pay for a contractor is larger than the gross revenue for his company if IR35 wasn’t there. The other deduction goes to the taxman which means companies are willingly paying the cost of two people but paying one as if it were a tithe to HMRC. So all those employees who celebrate now get to see a contractor earn more than them and see their excess money pot for bonuses and such dwindle.
Dostoyevsky also nailed the flaw in socialism/communism in Notes from the Underground, observing that should the McTernans of this world ever achieve their utopia, people would burn it to the ground out of sheer boredom.
Morgoth recently made strong point about Boomers and housing. He mentioned how his mining community practically vanished when people bought their council houses. Now, houses are seen as investments for profit rather than homes.
Dominic Frisby argues that taxing land instead of income could address this issue.
Also, today's housing caters to nuclear families but doesn’t fit everyone. Without property developers dominating, there could be so many living arrangements (eg a small living quarter connected to a big workshop or lodgings).
The issue there is I’m not sure how you can separate out the variable of ‘right to buy’ from all the other variables at play (family breakdown, secularisation, loss of jobs, welfarism, etc.).
I am aware that we really ought not to call for politicians to come to a sharp and painful end. It's hateful rhetoric and leads to misguided individuals deciding to assassinate them.
But, despite that, along with all the mendacious Tories and civil servants who have never apologised for lockdown etc. and who deserve several days in the stocks, I think there is room for John McTernan beside them. And if someone were to lose the key so he couldn't get out that would be tragic for the unfortunate municipal cleaners who would have clean up the mess a week or two later
The only thing is, as understandable as your feelings regarding these people are, it's quite possible that you having them is all part of the master plan. Check out CJ Hopkins' piece from yesterday.
Sir Patrick Vallance would already be included as a civil servant. I'm happy to add the other two to make things more cross-party. In fact I'll volunteer the SNP leadership c. 2020 as well to provide some geographic balance too :)
If there were to be any windfall taxes, since the wealth of the billionaire crime syndicate exploded as a result of their actions during the 'pandemic' they created, they should be the first in line; the 'pandemic' that was called before it was known that it even was a pandemic. This is wrong, as it cannot be known until after the event, unless you conveniently redefine the meaning of the word; plus there has never been a pandemic.
We have a written English (British) constitution in Magna Carta 1215. This has a higher authority than statute law so it cannot be annulled by government statute since that would go against the constitution and so be treason. The constitution belongs to the people, the true sovereign power, and changes to it need to be approved by the people themselves, not those who claim to represent them, but do not. Parliament may say it it sovereign, but Magna Carta says otherwise.
Any statute that does not align the with constitution is illegal and should be annulled.
We should write to or email our MPs, the relevant secretary of state, the PM, the King and the Supreme Court to put them on notice that anyone who supports such attempts to introduce unconstitutional legislation will be held personally responsible if it becomes law; such a breach of the constitution would be treason.
I would suggest that you listen to how this approach is being used in the US
Very well written, The collectivist system is built on a foundation of theft and coercion, where the productive members of society are forced to subsidize the whims of the ruling class. They claim the right to confiscate the fruits of our labour, to redistribute wealth according to their own twisted vision of “fairness.” But the individualist knows that the product of our labour belongs to us alone, and that any attempt to take it by force is an act of theft.
As Hayek says, “There is always in the eyes of the collectivist a greater goal which these acts serve and which to him justifies them because the pursuit of the common end of society can know no limits in any rights or values of any individual.”
In parallel, there is a move for innovative investment vehicles and private equity to own portfolios of private homes to rent out (to people who own nothing and are, hopefully, content with salaried slavery). Housing represents this massive reservoir of wealth that must begin to look finger-licking good to elites who already own practically everything else. What more do you want from me? What else you got?
Well, the other logical thing, the other thing being mooted, is pensions. We’re entering the death spiral phase then, because after those resources have been tapped the population will be more or less tapped out. That this will deliver growth is, needless to say, complete delusion.
Applause for this excellent analysis of the mindset of those now 'governing' us. The thing is though that those drooling over the possibility of 'windfall' taxing home owners would and will do everything to make themselves exempt. Glaring example from history: the existence of the Nomenklatura in soviet Russia, or as pointed out in Animal Farm: 'some are more equal than others' ...
In the Middle Ages the Church was the Shepherd to the Flock, and the members of the Flock paid a tithe for the privilege of being managed.
The ferme générale ("general farm") was, in ancien régime France, essentially an outsourced customs, excise and indirect tax operation. The general population was 'farmed' for tax.
Other modern political jurisdictions 'farm' their populations to raise revenue that they then choose how to spend.
Now you can argue that The State must be able to fund the functions that it delivers - but the 'state functions', and the bureaucracy, always grow (unless there is a rebellion). Once you are 'farmed' there is little allowed for you to avoid being reaped, and the Farmer likes it that way. And the 'farmer' and the 'farmed' mindset dominates. 'Fields' must be tidy and productive and wild produce brought under control.
Nice little house you've got there - it would be a shame if anything happened to it.
Spot on! That's a really helpful metaphor. Thank you!
I've come to see money as having been invented largely to make taxation and this "farming" possible, to enslave a population and make them work for the tyrants without them understanding what's going on. We think we're earning wages and it can keep us happy enough not to try to change the system, but really all we're doing is acting as minions for TPTB. Brett Scott writes a great Substack on this. I may have been slow coming to this realisation but that's because I couldn't see it from the outside!
I would be more than happy paying a tithe, that is 10%. Similarly tax farmers in Medieval and early modern Europe, who struggled to get above 15% without serious unrest. David’s exegesis of Machiavelli explains why. Marginal rates of taxation at 70% or even approaching 100% are a thoroughly modern phenomenon of the Princely ‘liberal-democratic’ state, beyond the wildest dreams of any pre-modern tyrant.
About a year ago I watched Mcternan aghast on GBNews arguing for a 'bedroom tax' for those who happened to have more bedrooms than he and his ilk thought one should have. When pointed out that he had a spare bedroom he immediately and unashamedly countered with.... "I need that for my nephew" Two things come from this.... the State should have all encompassing powers to dictate what you can have and what you can't (basically you work for the State not the other way around). Secondly, the brazen hypocrisy of the illiberal elites who want to remain untouched by the very things they advocate. The next 5 - 10yrs are going to be very uncomfortable not just for Libertarians and Conservatives but when it hits the great swathes middle class Lefties who are currently enjoying the benefits of the very things they profess to detest, they will have a massive shock.
Good essay again David.
Yes - Keynesianism in a nutshell. Presumptively the population owns nothing. It gets to keep what the state is gracious enough to give it.
The vast majority of us own (in whole or in part) only one property. For us, housing is simply a cost. I own a three bedroom terraced house, a nice one admittedly, but it's stilll only a house with certain facilities. If the price of such houses trebles, I do not become wealthier, as I still only own that three bedroom house. Borrowers have to pay greater interest and purchasers have to pay higher fees, so in fact it's all inflationary and costs homeowners more in the long run. Even if I were to downsize and gift some of the slack to my son for a deposit on his own place, he only needed that help because of the price inflation. If property prices increased no greater than wage inflation he'd have a better chance of saving his own deposit. High prices make us worse off as I have to sacrifice a chunk of my house so my son can buy his first. Net result, we are actually worse off than if the prices had been stable.
My guess is that the vultures will be looking at either a wealth tax or taxing capital gains on one's main or only property. To tax homeowners on the increased price (not value, it's still just a three bedroom house) of a house from which they have gained no benefit, and which they need as a place to live seems to me to be deeply immoral.
This especially true as the inflationary pressures have been largely due to actions or inaction by both pink and blue governments since 1997, e.g.
Central bank money-printing and governmemt borrowing
Poorly regulated commercial bank mortgage lending
Influx of foreign capital into the domestic property market
Increase in population due to net immigration
Decrease in property avaiable for rent , in part due to rental market regulation changes. (several hundred thousand empty propeties at the moment).
But those things are hard to deal with, require long-term strategies, and would be a hard sell.
Much easier just to virtue signal and tax the soft targets, with 'unearned wealth' as they can't run away and hide.
Yes, I think the initial plan is CGT on principal residences, which has always been a sacred cow in British politics. You hit the nail on the head really: this is all successive governments' fault, and now they expect us to pay for it. You couldn't summarise modern government better if you tried.
I basically agree, but we should remember that housing "wealth" is mostly enjoyed by the dead.
That is to say, if the house you are living in has doubled in value, it doesn't help you unless you sell it. And if you sell it, you will probably need to buy somewhere else, which will also have doubled in price. Therefore your mortgage for the new house will be doubled as well.
Generally, the people who finally benefit from rising prices are the dead, or their heirs, who receive the increased "wealth".
House price INFLATION is just that. It is a type of inflation, not a type of increased wealth.
I started contracting in aerospace in 2011. Before that I had been a permanent employee. Even then IR35 was kicking around but in recent years the rules changed forcing “liabilities” onto the end client. This caused blanket changes putting many contractors inside.
What that means is you cannot get revenue and retain earnings in your small company. It all goes out as salary. You cannot bootstrap. You cannot sell your services whilst building a capability in your own company.
Many permanent employees celebrated that those contractors were now paying their “fair share” without thinking through what they don’t see (a la Bastiat) and what it implies for the ability to develop your own thing.
Now rates Inside IR35 have doubled so that the net take home pay for a contractor is larger than the gross revenue for his company if IR35 wasn’t there. The other deduction goes to the taxman which means companies are willingly paying the cost of two people but paying one as if it were a tithe to HMRC. So all those employees who celebrate now get to see a contractor earn more than them and see their excess money pot for bonuses and such dwindle.
Labour will no doubt make IR35 regs worse.
I'm also outside IR35 and like you am expecting more Govt interference into things that are none of their business.
Dostoyevsky also nailed the flaw in socialism/communism in Notes from the Underground, observing that should the McTernans of this world ever achieve their utopia, people would burn it to the ground out of sheer boredom.
Great piece, David. I believe this conclusion hits the nail on the head:
"society was an interesting technical problem in need of solving, not a body of people with value in their own right."
The machine metaphor running amok.
I very much appreciate the humour too in this post.
Morgoth recently made strong point about Boomers and housing. He mentioned how his mining community practically vanished when people bought their council houses. Now, houses are seen as investments for profit rather than homes.
Dominic Frisby argues that taxing land instead of income could address this issue.
Also, today's housing caters to nuclear families but doesn’t fit everyone. Without property developers dominating, there could be so many living arrangements (eg a small living quarter connected to a big workshop or lodgings).
The issue there is I’m not sure how you can separate out the variable of ‘right to buy’ from all the other variables at play (family breakdown, secularisation, loss of jobs, welfarism, etc.).
Oh absolutely, I just hadn't thought of that aspect at all.
Hurrah!
I am aware that we really ought not to call for politicians to come to a sharp and painful end. It's hateful rhetoric and leads to misguided individuals deciding to assassinate them.
But, despite that, along with all the mendacious Tories and civil servants who have never apologised for lockdown etc. and who deserve several days in the stocks, I think there is room for John McTernan beside them. And if someone were to lose the key so he couldn't get out that would be tragic for the unfortunate municipal cleaners who would have clean up the mess a week or two later
The only thing is, as understandable as your feelings regarding these people are, it's quite possible that you having them is all part of the master plan. Check out CJ Hopkins' piece from yesterday.
Sir Patrick Vallance would already be included as a civil servant. I'm happy to add the other two to make things more cross-party. In fact I'll volunteer the SNP leadership c. 2020 as well to provide some geographic balance too :)
If there were to be any windfall taxes, since the wealth of the billionaire crime syndicate exploded as a result of their actions during the 'pandemic' they created, they should be the first in line; the 'pandemic' that was called before it was known that it even was a pandemic. This is wrong, as it cannot be known until after the event, unless you conveniently redefine the meaning of the word; plus there has never been a pandemic.
We have a written English (British) constitution in Magna Carta 1215. This has a higher authority than statute law so it cannot be annulled by government statute since that would go against the constitution and so be treason. The constitution belongs to the people, the true sovereign power, and changes to it need to be approved by the people themselves, not those who claim to represent them, but do not. Parliament may say it it sovereign, but Magna Carta says otherwise.
Any statute that does not align the with constitution is illegal and should be annulled.
We should write to or email our MPs, the relevant secretary of state, the PM, the King and the Supreme Court to put them on notice that anyone who supports such attempts to introduce unconstitutional legislation will be held personally responsible if it becomes law; such a breach of the constitution would be treason.
I would suggest that you listen to how this approach is being used in the US
https://reinettesenumsfoghornexpress.substack.com/p/the-peoples-pen-how-citizen-notices
and that we should take similar action in the UK; to learn how to write such citizen notices.