Tax is violence

Written By: - Date published: 1:24 pm, April 5th, 2018 - 56 comments
Categories: david seymour, parody, social media lolz, tax - Tags: ,

Can we please now save David Seymour from his violent oppression and relieve him of his tax-funded salary? Should probably liberate him from the evil clutches of that red couch too.

56 comments on “Tax is violence”

  1. James 1

    This guy ….. hell even I can’t defend him sometimes.

  2. lprent 2

    Bugger the sofa. I haven’t seen it, but my partner recoiled when she saw a promo for dancing with the stars in which he was wearing some kind of stripper uniform…..

    • weka 2.1

      I have seen that promo and tried to wipe it from my brain.

      • cleangreen 2.1.1

        I am one of the chosen few as I have never seen it; — I am saved – – my mind is clear with no visions of David Seymour dancing.

    • james 2.2

      Ive seen the online (still) adverts – I can only assume a video would be considerably worse.

  3. Matthew Whitehead 3

    I find it very interesting that none of his ACToid friends who are currently crowing on social media about tax being violence are saying similar things about inflation, which is what tax prevents, and has an effect much like a flat tax on basically everything you own. I shall ignore them as inconsistent idiots until such time as I hear “inflation is violence!”

    It’s also rather amusing to hear them trying to claim that some violence is justified in defense of funding the defence force.

    The thing I don’t like is that it’s leading to a bunch of equally wrong rhetoric from our side about how we need tax to pay for things, which is fundamentally backwards. New Zealand dollars are government issued, which means they must be spent by the government first, (otherwise how does anyone get any?) before they can be paid back as tax. The point of tax bills is to control inflation (by ensuring the supply of official money is appropriate to the size of the productive economy) and to create the initial demand for fiat money by demanding it back as tax. (fiat money, ie. official government-backed currency that can’t be exchanged for a commodity, like say, gold)

    The government never needs to tax to spend money, but it might find it the most advisable idea to offset its spending with equivalent tax takes if it thinks the economy is in neither boom nor bust mode, or if it thinks existing tax and spending settings are compensating for whichever of the two it’s in right now.

    • weka 3.1

      Violence is justified when it’s for the things the libertarians like 😆

      Re what tax is for, you should so do a post on that (I had no idea).

    • Draco T Bastard 3.2

      New Zealand dollars are government issued

      This is the usual misleading BS. Approximately 97% of the money in circulation has been issued by the private banks.

      High you describe it is how it should but not how it is.

      • Matthew Whitehead 3.2.1

        That’s not money, that’s credit. Unless you’re spending cash it’s most likely credit that you’re circulating- but tax deductions from your bank, for instance, will be paid in NZ dollars, or reconciled after the fact in terms of reserves vs digital transactions.

        • Draco T Bastard 3.2.1.1

          That’s not money, that’s credit.

          And is used as money thus making it, for all intents and purposes, money.

          Either way, it shouldn’t exist at all.

          • Matthew Whitehead 3.2.1.1.1

            Well, if you insist, sure, it’s money. Regardless, that just means the government takes into account what banks are doing with their lending when making their own decisions about whether to increase or decrease the net money supply.

            I think your proposal to move to full-reserve banking would have a lot of side-effects you’re not considering. For a start, it would give National much more ability to screw up the economy when it’s in government by directing the Reserve Bank not to create more money. On top of that, if we’re still letting commercial banks operate, they’ll start charging fees for everything they currently do, including the cashless economy, (which won’t be so much cashless as banks moving huge amounts of cash reserves between each other, or at least ledgers of it against what the Reserve Bank will be holding for them) deposit and withdrawal fees, etc… and the only way to avoid that would be to socialize all the costs through subsidy or having the government run the damn thing, so it’s not the simple bullet it sounds like, especially when the only thing the government can’t directly do is actually force the banks to lend to people, it can just set the incentives to do so, and pass some non-discrimination laws.

            There are some proponents of this idea, including some famous ones, but there’s a real risk that poorly managed it would drive a lot of currently open and observable financial activities underground or just make them more difficult and costly, making life difficult for ordinary people. It would give you unprecedented government control of the economy, though.

        • alwyn 3.2.1.2

          That really doesn’t make any sense.
          When you pay your tax the money will go out of your account at your bank and goes into a Government account at their bank.
          If you happen to bank with Westpac it is the same bank.
          It doesn’t get converted into anything along the way. There really isn’t anything special about those Government accounts.

          • Matthew Whitehead 3.2.1.2.1

            That’s sort of like saying that there’s nothing special about Lorde in terms of access to her songs, Alwyn, lol.

            The government accounts are absolutely different in nature, because unlike you or me, the government can absolutely pass laws, give directives to the reserve bank, etc… to top up the numbers in their accounts whenever they’re willing to accept the consequences of doing so.

            The banks can do so only to the degree that they think they’ll:
            a) make more money or credit in repayments on average by lending to a certain type of applicant than they’ll lose.
            b) not risk having too little reserve cash to pay out to people drawing on their credit with the bank in terms of their accounts, etc… Their nightmare is always risking a run on the bank.

            The government has its own version of (a), where they have to worry about the productive benefit to the country of their spending vs the consequences in either increased taxation, increased debt, or increased inflation. You’ll notice though that unlike with banks, it’s not an easily quantified equation: political parties will disagree vehemently about what does and does not belong in a well-crafted BCR, and will frequently approve spending with fractional BCRs for political reasons anyway. You’d never catch a bank giving a loan with an expected fractional or even return. Government spending is qualitatively different in terms of how it’s conceived than credit, because it will be granted under completely different criteria.

            A country has to be in a really difficult situation to get into its equivalent of (b) when it can still issue its own currency, (so for countries in the Eurozone, for instance, they largely DO operate like people typically think they do, and have to balance budgets regarding tax vs spending and deficits vs surpluses like a household, because currency is only issued or recalled for the interests of Europe as a whole, not individual member countries) but it can’t meaningfully declare any useful new fiat reserves, which is usually because it’s mismanaged things so badly that it’s caused hyperinflation, or people have otherwise lost faith in the value of their fiat currency despite having it soft-backed by the labour of an entire country.

        • mikesh 3.2.1.3

          The banks create money and then lend it out.

    • Andre 3.3

      “New Zealand dollars are government issued, which means they must be spent by the government first, (otherwise how does anyone get any?) before they can be paid back as tax.”

      There’s some sort of disconnect between that idea and the idea that most money is created out of thin air by banks when creating loans (as espoused by Bryan Gould).

      I’d be interested in your thoughts on how to reconcile the two ideas, or why Gould is wrong.

      • Matthew Whitehead 3.3.1

        Gould is talking about credit, not money. Technically money is only cash or other officially authorised government currency in economic terms.

        Credit complicates setting the right amount for government spending or tax a bit, because you have to take account of what banks are doing with regards to lending in terms of deciding whether the total currency supply (money + credit) is the right size for the productive economy, so the government may need to run a surplus (ie. reduce the amount of money in the economy) even though the economy is technically in a minor recession because it feels banks are lending too much. If we ignore credit, a recession would generally mean deficit spending is advisable, and a bubble would mean surpluses are advisable.

        • alwyn 3.3.1.1

          “Technically money is only cash or other officially authorised government currency in economic terms.:”
          I would like to see a reference from any Economist who would describe money in those terms. Do you have a reference to anyone who does?

          Even the narrowest of definitions of money, M1, used by Economics, includes a great deal more than the cash you are talking about. You might like your definition but it isn’t the one in normal use. If you try and use your version you are not talking about money as the term is used in the world.
          Have a look at this. It is a very simple explanation of money
          https://open.lib.umn.edu/principleseconomics/chapter/24-1-what-is-money/

          • Incognito 3.3.1.1.1

            What is ‘Money’
            Money is an officially-issued legal tender typically consisting of notes and coins. Money is the circulating medium of exchange as defined by a government. Money is often synonymous with cash and includes various instruments such as checks. Each country has its own money that is used for exchange within that country.

            https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/money.asp

            I have zero economics expertise so feel free to dispel but please keep it seemly 😉

          • Matthew Whitehead 3.3.1.1.2

            It really depends who you’re asking how the term is used. I’m talking MMT so I’m using the terms they typically do- where money is used only to refer to government-backed currency of any type, and credit is used to refer to notional guarantees of payments in money on request.

            There are varying degrees of liquidity and even the US Federal reserve terms of M1 and M2 aren’t the only other way of defining them, so it’s useful to define them as you go in my experience. I think I was relatively clear on query that I was talking about government-issued currency primarily, not that the addition of credit (or anything of intermediate liquidity) fundamentally changes the theory, it just makes the government’s job of judging the state of the economy more complex.

        • mikesh 3.3.1.2

          As I understand it the government finances its expenditure by selling government bonds to the Reserve Bank. It is then up to the RB to decide what to do with those bonds – whether to hold on to them or sell them to the banks or into the money markets. If it hangs on to them it effectively increases the money supply. If it sells them it avoids increasing the money supply. The Reserve Bank’s decision will depend on how it views inflationary pressures within the community.

          • Matthew Whitehead 3.3.1.2.1

            I was talking chicken-and-egg terms, not precise legal facts of how money is issued now we’ve set up a taxation and spending cycle- my point is more that we actually know what came first between government spending and tax, and the answer is spending, at least in terms of fiat currency. Some governments will have taxed before that in non-sovereign currencies such as precious metals, when they would have had to tax (or mine!) them before they could spend.

            In terms of the precise details of how it works now, yes, the reserve bank does it, as a delegated agent of the NZ government under the Reserve Bank Act, but again, that is still fundamentally a government decision on how money is created and spent, it’s just that the government has delegated its authority under the law. The government can at any time it likes repeal the act and issue currency directly if it wishes, or set other directives for it through order in council. The reserve bank has some independence in how it reaches its mandates, but they are still fundamentally set by government. The real point here is that the government cannot run out of money. It can only be unwilling to accept possible inflationary pressures of additional spending. The idea that we have to tax before we can spend creates the idea of the government running out of money- this only happens in legislatures that have become dysfunctional, like in the USA.

            • mikesh 3.3.1.2.1.1

              The trading banks also create money. Such creation is their own decision, not the government’s, though the Reserve Bank endeavours to set upper limits on how much they can create, by imposing capital requirements or a reserve ratio, or by setting interest rates.

    • alwyn 3.4

      “similar things about inflation, which is what tax prevents”.
      Would you care to provide a justification for this claim and an explanation of the mechanism involved?
      I’m sure it would be very interesting, if only it worked.

      • Matthew Whitehead 3.4.1

        So, let’s say you have yourself a fiat money system, where there are no taxes, instead people pay money to the government only for services rendered, fines, etc… and they’re not significantly larger than ours are today in New Zealand. (We’ll ignore how this was pulled off without taxes in the first place, maybe they had them but lifted them all as a radical social experiment, or maybe it’s just a hypothetical to illustrate a point 😉 ) You would experience massive inflation if the government printed money to continue spending as much as it does right now, as people realize that there’s simply more money around than there was last year and therefore in relative terms it’s worth less, and that inflation will hit the poor worst, because their costs will go up, they have no wealth to cushion them, and their income is likely to stay the same, because it’s not like their employers can afford more, and any attempt from the government to subsidize them will just make the problem worse.

        Rich people also suffer the same problem where their savings will be worth less, but it matters a bit less because their pre-existing wealth still has the same productive value it always did. However, if the inflation continues year on year, their willingness to sell for fiat money will likely go away, because they can never trust that its value won’t continue to inflate away over time, and will instead revert to barter. (and that’s even worse, because barter has a lot of disadvantages compared to currency, and people make a lot less efficient business decisions under it) In this regard, inflation is a lot like a very regressive tax in its overall effects, except it functions by increasing prices (which effectively means it’s also taxing any savings as well as income, but not investment- another reason why it has a very regressive effect when compared to just taxing people instead) rather than as a gross decrease in the money supply.

        The whole point of having the reserve bank is to have experts who look at the economy very closely and say “ah, we need about this amount of money, or that amount of credit, and here are the policies we think will get it right,” so that we’re not putting too much currency into the economy like in our hypothetical, or too little because we’re insisting on seeing a government budget like a household one. (like what happened in the Great Depression)

      • Tricledrown 3.4.2

        Alwhinger go back in preparation democratic times you and hologram would be peasants without a voice but your anti tax system would be in place.
        Taking money out of the economy lowers inflation. Spending that money on building more houses will lower housing demand.
        Spending that tax on improving productivity and efficiency reduces inflation.
        Alwhinger you know nothing about economics other than to follow your Dogma of being an uneducated cult minion.

        • Richard McGrath 3.4.2.1

          By “taking money out of the system” you effectively lower people’s wages. So by raising the minimum wage but also raising taxes at the same time people are no better off. They are effectively being told to hand over their pay increase because the politicians know better than they do what it should be spent on. A better way to reduce inflation is for the government to stop printing money that has no precious metal deposits to back it up.

    • UncookedSelachimorpha 3.5

      “The point of tax bills is to control inflation (by ensuring the supply of official money is appropriate to the size of the productive economy) and to create the initial demand for fiat money by demanding it back as tax. (fiat money, ie. official government-backed currency that can’t be exchanged for a commodity, like say, gold)”

      Agree. One other important function of tax is it can be used to counter inequality, that otherwise is inevitable in a capitalist system.

  4. adam 4

    The ‘so called’ libertarian right – I say ‘so called ‘ because if you love freedom, how can you support an economic system which at it’s core is based on exploitation of labour.

    They act in a manner to raise these contradictions and piece of theater to keep themselves relevant. They are at the dog end of history, so theater is all they got left. Rational argument is lost on them, as is any discussion of economics, which they won’t discuss because they know they can’t defend capitalism and it’s excesses here at the beginning of the 21 century.

    • Richard McGrath 4.1

      Unfortunately Adam, we all have to work – or someone is forced to work on our behalf – or we starve. So we all live under the ‘tyranny of hunger’. Having to choose between working or starving is not a breach of anyone’s freedom. Entering into voluntary agreement with an employer for a wage under the division of labour (where people find employment in work they’re good at doing) is not a breach of freedom, and is a damn sight easier than isolationism and self-sufficiency.

  5. koreropono 5

    That is rich coming from a creature who participates and promotes violence on a daily basis. Seymore’s type of violence is even more destructive because of its insidious nature. It grieves me greatly that my tax dollars goes toward paying this parasite. Perhaps tax is violence if it gives that creep funded air time.

  6. Delia 6

    David Seymour could always be self employed and stop relying on the taxpayer for his salary…but being honest, he would still be relying on people who pay tax to pay his invoices. He is confuzzled. Not sure what country would suit his outlook on life.

  7. Pete 7

    I’m looking for Seymour’s contribution about the fiasco in Christchurch with the re-repairing of buildings. You know, the episode about costs of $100,000,000 or so.

    He’s quick to jump on things which involves spending of our money.

    He’s so quick to jump on every little thing to get attention for himself you’d have thought he’d be into this boots and all.

    What? It didn’t happen under Labour’s watch so he’s not interested? What? It happened when he was part of the government so he’s not interested? What? He’s more interested in being on pop tv dancing?

  8. Ad 8

    Good to see The Spinoff focussing on corporate tax. Doesn’t happen enough.

    They are as much a part of the bind between society and country and government as the millions of individual taxpayers are.

    Also the list included the highlight of SKyCIty paying over 50% in its effective tax rate. Good to see the reality of paying society back for a regulated vice.

  9. Macro 9

    Isn’t it Seymour’s crowd that want to throw everyone who commits a misdemeanour into jail? Rather ironic isn’t it, that on the one hand he wants to commit this sort of violence against people, and on the other (in order to perpetrate this physical violence) he has to fund it through taxes.

    • alwyn 9.1

      They actually have a great deal more forward looking ideas than does the current Government. Labour didn’t like the policy when it was announced but Angry Andy didn’t like anything.
      Former Labour Party President and the current Boss of the Howard League was in favour though. He, of course, knew something about the matter.
      https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/89802594/ACT-to-reward-prisoners-with-reduced-sentences-for-learning-to-read-in-prison
      Labour currently seem to want to release people from Prison but don’t seem at all interested in rehabilitation. They still seem to be going to build a new prison of course.

      • Macro 9.1.1

        BS – who was the Party that introduced the 3 strikes?

      • Incognito 9.1.2

        Labour currently seem to want to release people from Prison but don’t seem at all interested in rehabilitation.

        Do you have a citation for that, particularly the second part?

    • Richard McGrath 9.2

      Get your facts right. If you’re referring to the three strikes law, it refers to recidivist offenders committing serious crimes and being locked away for the benefit of the law-abiding rest of us. Libertarians believe running a justice system is a valid function of government. No-one ever said it had to be funded through taxation – there is nothing stopping funding via voluntary contribution and ‘user-pays’, i.e. fines that actually cover costs. Also by decriminalising peaceful substance use, and not arresting/jailing people for self-medicating.

  10. Violence? violence?… did Seeless /Rimmer support Operation Burnham?

    And does anybody remember this little tyke who never got the chance to grow up and live a normal life because John Key sanctioned and gave permission for a punitive SAS raid on an Afghani village full of civilians?

    https://thedailyblog.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Screen-Shot-2018-03-15-at-10.25.52-AM-1.png

    Go fuck yourselves.

    You want to talk fucking violence ?

    Then get off your sanctimonious high horses and drop John Key , Jerry Mateparae, Lieutenant General Tim Keating , Bill English and Wayne Mapp right where they belong – in the shit.

    And petition for them to be brought before the International Criminal Court on War Criminal charges.

    Wikipedia
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court

    And as for the fuckwit Rimmer- the guys an idiotic joke and a mere distraction.

    Forget the bugger. He doesn’t even rate.

    • Ed 10.1

      For a party with o.5% they get a lot more than that percentage of the media’s attention.
      Funny that, they advocate policies the corporates dream about.

      • WILD KATIPO 10.1.1

        Only because the guys a freak and has the same hype and media stardust as interviewing Kyle Chapman or any other fucked up neo Nazi fuckwit.

        Congratulations !

        We have Hollywood / Bollywood, Houston ! – Hollywood / Bollywood in New Zealand.

        And as for the real news?

        Fuck that shit ! – it dont sell papers or viewing ratings !

        And the Oligarchs cant make a dollar of of it. Too fucking honest .

        Cant have that sort of shit going on!

  11. Incognito 11

    I thought anything goes with Libertarians (or is that Libertines? I can never tell the difference) as long as it is between consenting adults (cue: Jamie Whyte). So, if tax = violence it is all o.k. because all taxpayers have consented to paying taxes as part of their social contract. People who are not happy with the contract and want to break it should accept the consequences of this; you cannot have it both ways.

    • Richard McGrath 11.1

      Seymour objected to the Orwellian ‘tax is love’ slogan. Tax is violence, it’s not voluntary, and it’s arbitrary – it can be ratcheted up to whatever level the politicians want, right up to 100% and beyond. The “social contract” is a statist myth which aims to keep workers enslaved to their political masters. Capitalism depends on social interaction and free exchange for mutual benefit, but it doesn’t lock people into unchosen obligations to strangers with whom they may share few or little values in common.

  12. Gosman 12

    What part of this is somehow illogical or inconsistent with reason?

    He is being up front about his political philosophy and how it relates to taxation and government spending.

    • McFlock 12.1

      According to his political “philosophy” he’s choosing to live off the proceeds of 4 million-odd robberies every year. What a tosser.

  13. Tricledrown 13

    Goose man you must be his altered, he was always a slave to his Cultist Dogma.
    I met him while he was at uni when he was ontinually partying and pissing up logic or Facts did not enter his mind as he knew then there is good money to be made being a mouth piece for a failed ideology which has less than 2,000 supporters.
    Fringe lunatic police science 101Gooseman.

    • Tricledrown 13.1

      My spell check has gone rogue as I am using a new phone.

    • Richard McGrath 13.2

      I note you didn’t offer any argument against Seymour’s points, just an ad hominem attack on Gosman. Surely you can do better than that.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Swiss tax agreement tightens net
    Opportunities to dodge tax are shrinking with the completion of a new tax agreement with Switzerland, Revenue Minister Stuart Nash announced today. Mr Nash and the Swiss Ambassador David Vogelsanger have today signed documents to update the double tax agreement (DTA). The previous DTA was signed in 1980. “Double tax ...
    2 weeks ago