I have a feeling this Landeur chap on YouTube is rather capturing the UK zeitgeist right now. Here he is pointing out the dangers of ever increasing taxes.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
Economics |
LandeurOctober 16th, 2025 |
 11 comments to LandeurLeave a Reply |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
Curious: Is this Landeur guy someone who people here recommend following? I did enjoy this video.
https://youtu.be/cbLl7g5zqgw?si=ayR-xy7A1e-jR48U
His views on Englishness in the last third of this video similarly capture today’s zeitgeist. The title is “This cannot be stopped”. I hope he’s right.
Thankfully at least someone talking about spending also. I hate the Tory populism of lowering taxes and raising the national debt.
Bloody hell Rachel Reeves has an annoying voice. Is there anyone in the Cabinet who doesn’t sound worse than nails on a blackboard?
It has been known for a very long time that high taxes on the rich produce LESS revenue over time – not more.
For example, way back in the 18th century Grand Duke Leopold of Tuscany (later Holy Roman Emperor) cut the high top rates of tax – and revenue, over time, increased (just as he predicted it would – so it was already a known principle).
Presidents Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge did the same (cut the higher rates of tax) with the same result (more revenue over time) – whereas President Hoover signed into law an increase in the top rate of income tax from 25% to over 60% (one of the many tax increases and other interventions, most importantly pushing large scale employers to keep real wage rates UP – in the face of the Credit Money bust of 1929 – this action by President Herbert “The Forgotten Progressive” Hoover led to years of mass UNEMPLOYMENT) – and things did not go well.
Presidents Kennedy and Reagan cut the top rate of income tax – and revenue went UP over time.
So did Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher – who cut the top rate of income tax from (I think) 83% to 40% – again revenue went UP.
Tax cuts lower-down may not produce more revenue – but tax cuts at the higher rates do. And, conversely, increasing taxation of “the rich” – (as Rachel Reeves proposes) leads to LESS revenue.
None of the above is a secret – it is all well known to people interested in economics (regardless of their politics).
So, if Rachel Reeves does increase taxes on “the rich” her motive is NOT to get more revenue – as she knows that such a policy will, over time, lead to LESS revenue.
The later Medici Dukes of Florence introduced high rate income taxes (and, I believe, wealth taxes) on the rich – the motive was not to get more revenue, the motive was to crush rival families (to turn Florence from, in the terms of Aristotle, an “aristocracy”, rule by independent families, an “oligarchy” being where the families act as one unit – as opposed to an aristocracy where the families are independent, into a monarchy – rule by one person).
This policy of high taxation, over time, turned Florence from an economic powerhouse, to a poverty stricken place – with visitors being astonished by the number of beggars and the terrible condition the beggars were in.
Pope Gregory (of the Gregorian calendar) went further – demanding that everyone prove their right to their property, prove that their families had justly acquired their land or other wealth – even if the family had held this wealth for centuries. Such a task is impossible – as Pope Gregory knew very well. So he then took-by-force the land and other wealth in the Papal States – supposedly to “help the poor” (I have a feeling that Pope Francis and Leo XIV might have some sympathy for this tyranny – but I could be being uncharitable).
This Pope Gregory XIII (he of the calendar) was, in Aristotelian terms, was transformed from a Monarch (a one person ruler – but one who respects the laws, must importantly does not plunder the property their subjects) to a Tyrant – and the Papal States became known for terrible poverty and for banditry.
People either dependent on the state and begging – or turning to crime (highway robbery in rural areas – mugging and other such crimes in the towns).
Mayor Curley of Boston in the early 20th century also followed tax and regulation policies designed to INCREASE (by destroying productive business) – his policies were designed to increase the number of desperately poor people dependent on government, so these desperate people would vote for him – which they did,
In local government this is called the “Curley Effect” (using taxes and regulations to increase poverty – in the hopes the they now government dependent population will vote for the people offering the most “help”) – and it is now common to many Democrat run cities in the United States.
The policies do not increase poverty by accident – they are designed to increase poverty.
In the 1960s various Federal Government programs were created that the same objective – to increase the number of people dependent on government, the designers of these programs, the Marxist couple “Cloward and Piven”, and others, were quite open about this objective.
Increase, over time, the number of people dependent on benefits and public services – in order to, in the end, destroy “capitalist” society.
Lorenzo Milani, who died in 1967, was a Marxist “the poor should fight the rich” who called anti Communist Popes “shit” – he also had pedophile tendencies, writing about how nice it would be to shove his penis up the backside of boys.
It is not good for modern Popes (specifically Pope Francis and Pope Leo XIII) to praise this person – let us hope they are not well informed about him, have been badly advised.
People who want the poor to “fight the rich” do NOT reduce poverty – they increase poverty, and sodomizing boys is NOT an act of “love”.
By the way – enforcing emigration law against illegal immigrants is not “inhuman treatment of immigrants” and anyone (whoever they may be) who says it is, no matter how high the office they hold, is a liar.
As for government services and benefits for immigrants – that is indeed clearly an insane policy, one that would lead to the destruction of nations that adopted such a policy – as Britain has done.
Bobbyb: I agree with some of what he says. I’d say the same about the “people here”. Landeur is eloquent and interesting and he’s up to date with the latest. Definitely worth at least an occasional look.
Good old Paul!
I think a huge part of the problem with “tax the rich” is almost nobody believes themselves to be rich because there is almost always someone richer. That’s why the idea superficially appeals to folks. Until it’s you or your boss and you lose your job.
NickM
As you know Corporations (who, contrary to Milton Friedman, are NOT owned or controlled by Aunt Agatha style share holders) have massive tax advantages over individuals and families (lower rates of tax – and no Death Tax) – and this may, in part, explain their establishment politics – it is not all leftist ideology picked up at university, the Corporate managers can support XYZ knowing they will not be paying for it.
The “mainline” churches are worse – they constantly demand more government spending (it is the substitute for the religion they USED to hold to – but now have unofficially thrown away) – they pay almost no taxes at all, so have no problem in constantly demanding higher taxes.
The charities are the same – hello totally corrupt Clinton Foundation which the media carefully look the other way about (what are piles of dead human beings in Haiti compared to the Clintons and all their “liberal” friends having their own personal piggy bank).
As for the “Trust Fund Kids” who support Mr Mamdani and other leftists in the United States…..
A “trust” is one of the oldest (and perfectly legal) tax dodges in English law.
So “trust fund kid” says it all – it is not just the leftist indoctrination in school and university, they have no real reason NOT to be leftists, they are NOT going to be paying the higher taxes.
Also note that these types always want a tax to be deductible from taxable income, before it is subject to another tax.
For example, Corporations being able to treat Property Tax as a “business expense” for the purposes of Corporation Tax.
Or State and Local income tax (hello New York City) to be deductible from a person’s income before it is subject to Federal Income Tax.
Many of these leftists are not sincere – not when it comes to their own comfort, they have their own (legal) tax dodges (see above). So they can have endless government spending – without really paying for it (or so they think).
But when the system comes crashing down, which it will, they will come down with it.