19 2 mins 10 yrs

Party conference season must be around the corner. With the LibDems diving in the polls, Nick Clegg has popped up to announce that an “emergency tax” on the rich is necessary as “an extra contribution towards  the national effort” and in order to “ensure that British society remains cohesive”.

Some statists of course believe such drivel, that “a contribution” to society isn’t being polite and friendly to others, investing your wealth and working hard to provide what others want. Instead, it’s being looted by Leviathon. Anarchy dawns if bureaucrats don’t take and spend most of our income.

If only Clegg’s motivations were so pure. He spills the beans on what’g going on when he says: “We took a calculated collective gamble as a party when we went into coalition and clearly it has turned out to be a lot harder and a lot tougher than any of us could have anticipated at the time. We have lost a significant amount of support in the opinion polls, I have lost a significant amount of support.”

That’s what it’s all about. He’s trying to save his own skin and he’ll demand that the State violently loots the productive to make it happen. Like all natural politicians, Nick Clegg is a disgusting, wicked man.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]


  1. Pete,
    It’s a bit like you with your new bike.
    Nick realises time is running out and he’s found a “sexy little number” which might just keep him relevant and interesting…. 😉

  2. Except that I advance under my own steam on a bike, I can go where I decide, at the speed I like, and my rewards are the consequence of my effort.

    Thinking about it, cycling is a libertarian thing and the antithesis of politics.

  3. Pete,
    It was meant as a joke.
    I wouldn’t even DREAM of asking how much the bike cost you!
    You ARE getting older..

    How much DID it cost?? 🙂

  4. Oh, no it isn’t. It is the using of an infrastructure facility, paid for by others, i.e. motorists, and most other road users, via the exorbitant RFL. – a tax by another name.

    As you so often point out, free loaders and scroungers are anything but ‘libertarian’.

  5. When Clegg talks about ‘the rich’ he means people on over £40,000 a year which really, given the prices of everything, is not a lot. But he won’t get after the 0.01% who own the politicians. These people, the oligarchs, have £trillions untaxed. Clegg should be getting after them, but he won’t.

  6. Clegg is becoming increasingly irrelavent. Camerons socialists will have to deal with Farage before long.

  7. WHile I don’t apporve of any additional taxes, I do think taxing wealth (such as through a land value tax) is much better than taxing income or consumption.

  8. Of course the Lob Dems are framing it as a “soak the rich” tax which that it bound to be rejected and is probably intended as a dog whistle for the Lib Dems’ beardie base.

  9. These people, the oligarchs, have £trillions untaxed. Clegg should be getting after them, but he won’t.

    According to Clegg, those are exactly who he wants to hit with a wealth tax. This is Don Quixote politics and of course he knows it. These guys have most of their wealth safely stashed in “offshore tax havens”, i.e. corrupt cesspits like Jersey.

  10. Wars through the centuries can change the landscape and borders and countries flourish and fade and emerge and dissapear like tides in a storm, but those tint little tax haven entities always remain barely touched don’t they ? I wonder why ?

  11. Nick Clegg: you either like him with marmite, or you hate him with marmite. Either way, he’s toast.

  12. How do we know that this particular mansion tax will not go up and its threshold come down?

  13. Indeed, Peter T, there’s an elementary difficulty with taxing peoples’ “wealth”: Most wealthy people’s assets are held in the form of property, investments, artifacts, etc. Their value in sterling will fluctuate from year to year. One year, HMRC might value a person’s total assets at say £1m sterling (and the tax will be a percentage of that valuation), but the next year, their market values in sterling might decrease – would they then get a “wealth tax rebate”? The whole idea strikes me as unworkable.
    Plus, there is already a “wealth tax”, it’s called Capital Gains Tax, and it is (quite rightly) only applied when an asset is disposed of, at a value which can be quantified, at a certain date, in currency.

  14. “When Clegg talks about ‘the rich’ he means people on over £40,000 a year”

    Says who?

  15. Who knows what category of people Nick Clegg is talking about? I love (read: detest) the way the phrase “The Rich” is bandied about by left wing politicians, as if there’s this group oof people called “the rich”, who are just mysteriously…”rich”. Their richfulness has nothing at all to do with them working hard to earn their money, they are just “the rich”, and as such, are intrinsically evil human beings, just because they are “the rich”. Note, there are no “inbetweeners” in this Toynbee version of reality, there are no people who are “almost rich but not quite”, no, there are just “the poor” (awwwww, violins, please) and “the rich” (boo, hiss, buy your rotten tomatoes here to throw at them, folks).

  16. “When Clegg talks about ‘the rich’ he means people on over £40,000 a year”

    Says who?

    Says me. Whenever politicians get on about taxing the rich, they mean those who are paying higher rates of income tax which kicks in just over £40k. Surely Frank, you don’t think that Clegg will be taxing the £XXtrillions stashed away from the eyes of HMRC, do you? These people go to enormous lengths to hide their riches.


    page 10 – From a slight distance, all these players share the same basic needs: (1) anonymity for them, their families, and their business and political dealings; (2) the ability to minimize the net present value of future taxes, net of tax avoidance costs; (3) investment management, for those who still believe in it; (4) ability to easily access and manage their wealth from anywhere on the planet; (5) secure places to hang out, hide out and enjoy life; and (6) iron-clad financial security for their huge stocks of anonymouslyowned, largely-untaxed private assets, against the continuing threats posed not only by tax men and prosecutors, but also by kidnappers, extortionists, spies, hit men, con men, hackers, paparazzi, political opponents, disgruntled family members, ex-wives, exlovers, and each other. –

    No Frank, Clegg wants to hang out on Nat’s yacht like Mandelson and George. He won’t be getting after his owners, but he hopes to make me poorer.

Comments are closed.