Lorries protest fuel tax

Thousands of lorries blockaded streets around London this week, most notably parking on the A40 Westway (one of the short pieces of incomplete motorway scattered round London) reducing it to one lane. The reason? Fuel prices.

You see in the UK governments have for some years regarded the road transport sector as a light touch for taxation. Fuel taxes have been increased year on year to match inflation, and absolutely none of it is dedicated to roads. They are taxes, pure and simple. As a result UK fuel taxes are the highest in Europe. The reason for the high taxes?

1. Fuel tax is easy to collect and hard to evade (although having different coloured fuel for road and offroad use with different taxes is a problem);
2. Increasing fuel tax looks like it’s environmentally friendly, although if the fuel tax was only charging for CO2 emissions it would be far lower, and it does not reflect exposure to emissions. You pay the same whether you drive round the Highlands of Scotland or if you drive in suburban London;
3. Increasing fuel tax has a modest effect on congestion by keeping the cost of using cars up. However, given this has paralleled a paucity of road building, the UK now has the second highest levels of road congestion in Europe.

Fuel tax in the UK is 50.35p per litre for both petrol and diesel. To put that in context this is NZ$1.27 per litre in fuel tax alone, before VAT of 17.5%. In NZ petrol tax is NZ$0.42524 per litre before GST, ACC levy and a couple of minor other taxes.

One problem faced by trucking companies (road hauliers as they are called in the UK) is that trucks from continental Europe enter the UK with large fuel tanks full of diesel taxed at lower rates. So there is unfair competition.

The UK government twice looked at measures to address this, but doesn’t know how many foreign trucks enter the UK. It looked at an electronic distance based charge for all heavy vehicles and rejected it, and then looked at the vignette system, commonly used in Europe, whereby foreign vehicles buy a licence to operate for a certain number of days in the UK and are checked at the “border”.

So what SHOULD it do? First it should define why it is taxing fuel at all. If it is about paying for roads then part of the tax should be dedicated to funding roads (and there should be an independent non-political funding agency set up to manage that). The UK Treasury hates hypothecation because it fears waste, and loses control, but it has worked in New Zealand for many years. Indeed NZ is seen in some quarters as a model for how to manage road funding (shows you how bad the rest of the world is). If the tax is environmental, then have an honest debate about why, how effective it is and how fair it is at all? If it is revenue, be honest that road transport is being pillaged to fund social welfare and education, and see how the public taks that.

Sadly the UK is stuck in a bureaucratic arrogance that “nobody else in the world does it better” and wouldn’t look to NZ, or even to France and Italy which run motorways as private and government run businesses (with tolls). It taxes bluntly, it runs roads as political driven bureaucracies and decides road funding on a loose economic appraisal approach, whilst funding roads barely higher than it subsidises rail transport. The cost this underfunding of roads and blunt overtaxing of road users upon the UK is considerable, and it hides the true cost of the UK leviathan state – as it keeps income taxes down. It’s about time this was reversed and road use was charged on an economically efficient basis.

Tax on fuel is only justified as a transition to proper road pricing. It should be capped, roads should be privatised, and motorists able to contract with road providers for road use, and opt out of paying fuel tax in exchange. It is technically feasible, the problem is the political instransigence that treats roads as special. Roads are a network that needs maintenance and investment, and provide an economic good. Is it any wonder people complain about them when their management is subject to the appalling incentives of politics and bureaucracy, rather than investors, producers and consumers.

So what should National do?

So after accusing the Nats of wanting to borrow to pay for tax cuts, that’s what Dr Cullen is doing. Going into deficit to give modest tax cuts that STILL mean more tax is collected per person in real terms than was the case than when Labour was elected.

You see, if Dr Cullen had merely spent more to compensate for inflation since he held the Treasury reins, he would have increased spending by only 24.7% according to the Reserve Bank’s own inflation calculator. Now I know it’s a Labour government, you could say, well maybe he could have increased it by double that. No, government spending has increased by four times the amount necessary to make up for inflation since 1999.

Now what should National do? That’s what everyone is wondering. After all will it borrow more than Labour to give back more. Will it cut spending?

I don’t expect much from National, and it typically ensures that I have overestimated that. However , here’s an idea. Let’s say that National had remained in power in 1999. It is a fair assumption that National would have continued pretty much with the policies it had then. If we are to believe the Nats about efficiency in the public sector, then there is little need to grow spending beyond inflation is there? Yes population grows, but spending shouldn’t need to grow beyond that either.

Population growth since 1999 has been 6%, and with the inflationary factor of 25% on top of that, that means in order to maintain a steady state of spending, with no efficiency gains, government spending since 1999 should only have increased nominally by 33.2%. It has increased by 69%.

So National, if it was honestly maintaining the status quo of its policies, should be cutting spending back to where it would have been had it stayed in power.

National’s last full year in power saw total Crown expenses of $33.939 billion. It is now forecast for 2008 to be $57.364 billion. Had spending kept pace with only population and inflation, it should be $45.2 billion. National should be announcing spending cuts of around $12 billion.

What does that mean in tax cuts? Well using the Treasury handy calculations which are admittedly inexact as they don’t take into account the dynamic effect of lower rates generating increasing amount of revenue, this is what you could do:

Implement Dr Cullen’s new thresholds in full immediately ($80k for 39%, $42.5k for 33%, $20k for 21% and the new base rate of 12.5%). That’s $2 billion back in people’s pockets straight away, but that’s hardly enough.

Cut GST to 10%, providing modest relief on fuel and food prices to everyone. Another $1.7 billion

Abolish the 39% envy income tax rate introduced by Labour and cut the 33% rate to 25% along with company tax. A whopping $4.2 billion back to individuals and businesses.

Drop the 21% rate altogether down to the new lower 12.5% rate. Another $3.3 billion.

All up a tax cut of just short of $12 billion. You’d have company tax below Australia’s level at 25%, you’d have a two tier income tax structure with a rate of 12.5% up to $42,500 and 25% above that. GST would be down to a simpler 10%. Think how much more competitive that would look, think how kiwis in Australia and elsewhere may go, hmmm keeping 75% of my income instead of 60%. By the way ACT advocates might note that this goes beyond ACT tax policy from the last election , which advocated 25 and 15% as two tier rates, and no cut in GST.

That’s just if National had been prudent and spent no greater than inflation and population growth since 1999.

So do you think National will get that? Or is it addicted to pork as well? Was the government underspending in 1999 so much, or would you rather it spend like it was then and give you back the surplus? Are you getting value for money that means you'd rather pay the tax you spend now, rather than 12.5% on the first $42,500 and 25% on every dollar above (and a little less on goods and services)? Oh and don't mention roads, I haven't even touched fuel tax.

Cullen really is still taxing you more

So after accusing the Nats of wanting to borrow to pay for tax cuts, that’s what Dr Cullen is doing. Going into deficit to give modest tax cuts that STILL mean more tax is collected per person in real terms than was the case than when Labour was elected.

You see, if Dr Cullen had merely spent more to compensate for inflation since he held the Treasury reins, he would have increased spending by only 24.7% according to the Reserve Bank’s own inflation calculator. Now I know it’s a Labour government, you could say, well maybe he could have increased it by double that. No, government spending has increased by four times the amount necessary to make up for inflation since 1999.

So Dr Cullen has introduced a new bottom tax rate (for up to $14,000) of 12.5% (to please his supporters). A drop from 15% (after the low income rebate).

The raising of the 33% threshold from $38,000 to $40,000 is well under the rate of inflation since 1999. Had he inflation adjusted it, the new threshold would $48,000. The 39% threshold adjustment from $60,000 to $70,000 is also below inflation since the rate was introduced in 2000. The new threshold should be $74,000. So Dr Cullen is still taxing those people more than they were in 2000.

So why? What's the pork? Well the long list is in Dr Cullen's speech here, but here's quite a bit of it:

# Middle class welfare hiked up in the form of Working for Families (looking at National pointing at it to find something to get rid of in exchange for tax cuts). Recycling tax money so thousands of families are grateful they get “given something” from the state that was taken from many of them in the first place. Truly vile stuff.

# More subsidies so people in rural areas (who Telecom is forced to charge below cost for telephone line rental) can get broadband that they would otherwise get if they lived in cities (yet somehow people in cities don’t get the cheap rent, free parking and uncongested roads in return).

# More money to reduce class sizes, but nothing to link performance of the teachers to what they are paid (you can’t you see, because the teachers’ unions support the Labour party and are hard working people who work equally as brilliantly and nobody knows what a bad teacher is like).

# More subsidies for home owners and landlords to increase their property values by installing insulation and clean heating (South Island vote presumably).

# Rail pork, Dr Cullen wants to build the Marsden Point port branchline, a line that the profitable port company wont pay for (even though it apparently is wonderful for it) and which economic appraisal says is not worth the cost. He is Think Big man for rail, wanting a multi billion dollar underground rail link, a rail link to Auckland airport (even though most airport trips don’t start or end anywhere near the city) and one to the North Shore (even though that doesn’t stack up either), admittedly over 20 years. Of course it is a bit too much to expect users to pay even half the cost of that.

# Continuing the $30 million a year Jim Anderton transport pork for Gisborne/East Cape and Northland, essentially subsidising the roads used by forestry trucks (because charging them like is done overseas is clearly out of the question). Jim Anderton promised that forestry would generate jobs galore in those regions, although the share of the vote his party gets there doesn’t show they are grateful. Gisborne/Hawke’s Bay still has the highest rate of unemployment, so that’s worked a treat clearly.

# $27.8 million to the people living the dream of TV programme making with a Screen Production Initiative Fund (wonder why they can’t just borrow or spend their own money on filmmaking, I mean it’s such a difficult and gruelling profession). I’ve mentioned before how that lot are hand in glove with Labour.

# More money for the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs, which of course does education, healthcare, immigration… oh no that’s right, it produces nothing but bureaucracy.

# $10.9 million so state radio can keep operating supporting statism . You be the judge as to whether a wide range of views on the budget and the role of the state get broadcast on it.

# $72 million to bribe the Winston vote elderly by giving them free off-peak public transport use.

But I'm not surprised. This is after all a Labour government, it believes in growing the state and in Nanny State. A tick for Labour is a tick for more government, all Dr Cullen has done is reduced how much he has increased the real tax take in future years. A tax cut? Hardly.

Libertarianz announce mammoth tax cut

Well, following on from ACT taking the Libertarianz tax policy from the last election of making the first $10,000 of income tax free, Libertarianz have announced a new tax policy with its alternative budget. All the details are here on Pacific Empire, but the key points are:

.

- First $50,000 of income tax free;

- Abolish GST;

- Public expected to buy healthcare, education, superannuation and insurance against misfortune if they so wish;

- Privatise hospitals and schools by giving away shares in them to the public;

- Privatise other state assets not essential for law and order and defence;

- Proceeds of privatisation to fund residual national superannuation, ACC and invalids benefit obligations, and a three year phase out of the DPB;

- Significantly increase defence spending to rebuild blue water navy and strike capabilities.

.

So there you go, if you want to send a message to politicians that you want your money back, vote Libertarianz. Although I'd like to know the rate of income tax about $50,000 (it was 15% in the previous policy I believe). Now I'd fiddle a bit with some of these policies, but they represent a bold message of cutting back the state to its core functions.

Dr Cullen thinks it's inflationary if you spend your money but not him

According to the NZ Herald Dr Cullen continues to trot out the bizarre belief that a tax cut could be inflationary and reckless, but HIM spending YOUR money can't be. Sorry?

.

So buying a railway business at a price well beyond its market price isn't inflationary? Oh no, of course not - given the money goes to an Australian company.

.

Dr Cullen, the money you spend wasn't earnt by you, wasn't created by your effort. A majority of New Zealanders want some of it back, that is why it is highly likely you wont be Finance Minister at the end of the year. The big question is by how much will the Nats help voters out.

How to help stop the outflow to Australia

Not PC has said much of what I want to say about the first Rudd government Budget in Australia.

.

Difficult to argue with tax cuts that are matched by spending cuts and a budget surplus. This is the sort of language that the National Party can't understand, and this is a Labour government using it. Just shows how far to the left mainstream politics in New Zealand has been dragged by Helen Clark and Michael Cullen, and how meekly John Key and Bill English have followed them there. The fact the Australian Greens are moaning that defence spending is 40x that on climate change shows the budget is still sensible.

.

Of course a fortune of middle class welfare and industrial pork is being spent too, as Australia squanders the good times, and the spending cuts are relatively modest, but nevertheless there is a lesson for National. How DO you close the gap in GDP per capita between Australia and NZ and how do you encourage NZers to stay?

.

Australia has a A$16,000 tax free income threshold. Adopting the Libertarianz (and now ACT) policy of a NZ$10,000 tax free threshold would be a start. However, what else does the Australian income tax regime show?

.

I used the Australian tax office and NZ IRD tax calculators to find out, using the 2007-08 year as my base.

.

A present it is as follows:

.

A person on A$180,000 (NZ$221,000) pay A$61,350 (NZ$75,258) in tax. In NZ the same amount (NZ$221,000) would see income tax of NZ$77,412. In other words you pay NZ$1,884 a year more in income tax in NZ compared with Australia.

.

The second tax rate is 40%, it cuts in at a threshold of A$80,001 (NZ$98,147) from this year.

A person on A$80,001 would pay A$19,850 (NZ$24,352). In New Zealand someone on NZ$98,147 would pay NZ$29,547 in income tax. You pay NZ$5,195 more in income tax in New Zealand compared to Australia.

.

If you earn A$40,000 (NZ$49,058), in Australia you pay A$7,350 (NZ$9,015). In NZ you pay NZ$11,059 in income tax. That's NZ$2,014 more than in Australia.

.

For A$20,000 (NZ$24,532) in Australia you pay A$2,100 (NZ$2,576). In NZ you pay NZ$4,784, NZ$2,208 more than in Australia.

.

You get the picture. That's BEFORE the current budget. That budget cuts the second highest tax rate from 40% to 37% in stages by 2010, and the raises the threshold for the 15% rate. Dr Cullen cannot even start to pretend that income tax in New Zealand is competitive with Australia. The left can go on about wages, but if wages increase in New Zealand so do the taxes - you are better off - dollar for dollar - earning the same wage in Australia compared to New Zealand.

.

So how DO the rates compare.

In Australia the first A$6000 is tax free, New Zealand has no tax free threshold.

After A$6000, Australians pay 15% until you get to A$34,000.

In New Zealand you pay 19.5% on every dollar up to NZ$38,000.

After A$34,000, Australians pay 30% until you get to A$80,000.

In New Zealand you pay 33% for every dollar after NZ$38,000 until you get to NZ$60,000.

After A$80,000, Australians pay 40% until you get to A$180,000, after which you pay 45%.

In New Zealand you pay 39% for every dollar after NZ$60,000.

Of course, the tax free threshold does mean that you have to earn more than A$180,000 before you pay more than you do in New Zealand. So you might wonder why tax policy in New Zealand is to penalise around 99% of the population, relative to Australia.

.

So while political parties wonder what might help stop the brain drain, they may look plainly at tax rates.

UPDATE: And the Dominion Post reports that someone on NZ$30,000 would pay 37% less in tax living in Australia compared to New Zealand following the Australian LABOUR budget. How wilfully blind can the left be that tax isn't an issue? It was also noted that with that budget, Australians have had ten years of continuous tax cuts, whereas New Zealand has had eight years of no tax cuts and one year previous of a tax increase. Nevermind, New Zealanders really don't know best how to spend their own money compared to Dr Cullen do they? That, after all, is what Labour and the Greens believe, do you?

A lousy tax cut idea

Idiot Savant at No Right Turn talks of speculation in the Sunday Star Times that Cullen's tax cut might be a "social dividend" flat payout of $1000 per "low income earner" (otherwise known as the Labour core).

He describes this as "a good idea, and certainly far better than anything offered by the "tax cuts for the rich" brigade. It targets support at the needy rather than the greedy,"

Now I'm not one to look a tax cut in the mouth, but he's seriously wrong. He isn't advocating a tax cut after all. A tax cut, you see, means your net income increases as the government takes less of what you earn. You get a steady amount each fortnight or month, can afford to save it, spend it, or do as you wish. It is permanent, sustainable and reduces the size of the state (which I acknowledge isn't important to him, as he sees it as the best way to deliver health, education and social insurance monopolies).

What will happen if people on low incomes get $1000 one off? Well, there will be a lot more big TVs being sold, some fashion trips, a few more new car stereos, some trips to Australia and the rest. In other words, it will be used to buy consumer goods. Now that, in itself, isn't a bad thing, except that this dividend wouldn't be paid to everyone, especially the majority who pay 90% of income tax. Don't forget those on the top tax rates pay the vast majority of income tax, but to argue they don't deserve a dividend is grossly unfair.
.
No, Idiot Savant wants you to keep working 2 days a week for the beloved Nanny State and be grateful that with every extra dollar you earn, you only get to keep 61c of it, even before you give up a 12.5% surcharge of what you buy to the state, be damned grateful we let you keep that you rich thieving bastard (the undertone being "you don't fucking deserve what you earn, just wish the revolution would come one day and you'll get yours you bourgeoisie scum").
.
Far more generous is the Libertarianz policy announced in the weekend of immediately creating a tax free threshold of $10,000 for everyone, which would mean those lowest earners (and students, children and others earning a bit here and there) would be free of income tax, but would also be a boost to all other income earners.

You see cutting taxes does not "disproportionately" benefit the rich, given it was their money in the first place. That is the fundamental difference between statists and libertarians. Statists think taxes are "society's money" or "government money" and getting a tax cut is "taking it from society". Libertarians believe it is your money that the government has taken, and a tax cut is giving you back your own money. No pure tax cut can be disproportionate by definition.

Of course he goes on to advocate a universal basic income, a concept some libertarians advocate as a transitional step to replacing the welfare state, using Milton Friedman's negative income tax concept with a flat tax. That idea, as a transitional measure, has some merit for debate. However he sees it as basically freeing people from work "It would substantially improve the actual, substantive freedom of people to lead their lives how they wish". Well for people who want to not work. You know those useful productive dynamic people who want to live off of the back of everyone else until they decide not to, while we all pay for them. Of course it would reduce the freedom of people for the rest of us having to pay for everyone else.

So there you have it - the left want people to get an income for doing absolutely nothing - their birthright to have everyone else pay for them to live, and not just survive but to be not uncomfortable. They want everyone else to pay for it, because - well they believe once you get above average you owe it to pay for those below - and not only that, if you ask for a tax cut when you are "rich" (above average income) you're selfish and evil.

It's quite despicable.

It's his money not yours

This is what Dr Cullen believes when he talks about what he ISN'T going to give back in tax cuts in the NZ Herald. So he wont institute a tax free threshold for income, so that NZ will remain one of the few countries where the government taxes children for having a paper round.

.

This is, fundamentally, the difference between those on the left and libertarians. Dr. Cullen and the Greens (forever talking about "we" and "our" as if the state and individuals are indivisible) believe that taxes are not your money, but their money - their money to be used to pay for setting up a radio station, subsidising a business, buying a train set, paying for welfare - it's all their money. Taxes are moral to the left, they are the way by which the rich (spit) have their wealth (probably not justified) taken to be given to those who deserve it, or for a "higher purpose". The "national interest" being the reason why people are forced to pay for what Dr Cullen wants.

.

Now you wont ever see those on the left talking about force, they prefer to ignore what taxation actually is. It isn't something people give up willingly - no. It is taken under threat of more being taken, and imprisonment. Don't forget, the state only presumes you're guilty of not paying your taxes - if you murder someone, you're innocent till proven guilty.

.

You see the money taken in taxes is yours, you gained it by salary, wage, dividend, interest, sale or gift because someone chose to give it to you for whatever reason. However, most politicians think that it is their money, and moreover that you can choose between those who will take a bit more and those will take a bit less. That's going to be the parameters of the debate at the election. Dr Cullen is going to throw you a little bit back no doubt, and you'll be expected to be very grateful for that. The Greens will oppose it, because they believe the state should do whatever it thinks is right to make people behave correctly. National will offer you a little bit more than Labour, but still believes it isn't your money - it is the government's money.

.

So what i want to ask is this. Whose money do YOU think it is?

.

Many of you trust Dr. Cullen to buy you healthcare. Do you think you're getting a good deal from him? If not, why do you think John Key can do a better job?

.

Many of you trust Dr. Cullen to buy your kids' education. Do you think you're getting a good deal? If not, why do you think John Key can do a better job?

.

Many of you trust Dr Cullen to use your money to support businesses or other organisations of various kinds, including recording music videos, producing TV programmes. Would you choose for this to happen? If not, why do you think John Key would do it better?

.

Many of your trust Dr Cullen to buy you a retirement income? Do you trust you'll get a good deal? If not, why do you think John Key would do it better?

.

Got the picture?

.

This is what arguments about tax cuts are about. Are politicians and bureaucrats better placed to spend your money than you are? Would you choose to spend your money on what they want?

.

Ah yes, some of you say. What about schools and hospitals? You're happy to pay taxes for them. Are you? You get good value for money do you? What happens if you don't like the school, you can... no the money stays there. How about the hospital? Oh yes, you can't do anything about that either.

.

How about if you gave Dr Cullen some more, so he could buy your groceries, would be simpler wouldn't it? Ah, you get that, but so many don't get why he shouldn't be trusted to buy your education or health care.

.

You'll also notice that most politicians want you to pay taxes so you can pay for the education, health care and food of OTHER families. Ask them how many people you're expected to pay for - you wont get a straight answer, but the implication is that you're obliged to otherwise there is something wrong with you.

.

You see I think it IS your money. So here's a trick to play this election. Do it at candidate's meetings or whatever way you can find - ask the magic question:

.

Do you think the taxes I have to pay are my money or your money to use?

.

If they say it is their money, congratulate them on their honesty and ask why they think they have to force you to pay for things they want.

.

If they say it is your money, ask you when you can have it back because you think you can buy better healthcare, education and pensions than they can.

.

No doubt you'll get all sorts of weasel words about taxation being the price for civilisation - bullshit. So tax havens are uncivilised are they?

.

You'll hear something like "what about all the people who can't afford it"? In which case, why should you put up with substandard health care and education for the sake of those who'd rather spend their own money on something else? Why deny you choice because of others?

.

You'll hear something like "most people agree with taxes". Say that "most people" once thought homosexuality should be a crime, and that the rights of minorities shouldn't be sacrificed because the majority wants them to be.

.

You see a libertarian doesn't believe taxes are moral. Taxes are theft, legalised of course, but still theft. Those who do not produce taking money from those who do. Those who truly believe in less government will phase out taxes, and reduce them without a second thought. They will proudly hand back your money, but in exchange say it is up to you to buy education, health care, a pension and insure yourself against unemployment and the like.

.

Will National do that?

Abolishing income tax?

No Minister has posted about how the UK Libertarian Party has proposed abolishing income tax, by simply cutting government spending to where it was 5 years ago, given how high VAT is (17.5%).

He asked in relation to New Zealand "How much scope is there for a radical overhaul of our tax structure? Perhaps this is a task for Peter Cresswell and others to consider. How detailed are the NZ Libz with their policy prescriptions? Or is abolishing income tax 'pie in the sky' here too? Does ACT offer anything here?"

Well the Libertarianz (NZ) DOES have detailed policy on tax, on the party website here. It actually proposes the OPPOSITE tax reform, with all OTHER taxes being abolished other than income tax, which would be set at a flat rate of 15% with a $10,000 tax free threshold. This would be a transitional measure which itself would be phased down.

Why leave income tax and abolish others? Well it is a matter of two things.

Firstly, other taxes are largely invisible to the general public. GST, residents' withholding tax and various duties are paid, and the public treats these as part of the cost of goods or earning interest at the bank. It would be far preferable to notice that the cost of government is transparent and you pay that, rather than it hidden in multiple other taxes.

Secondly, abolishing all of the other taxes will lower compliance costs for businesses, end the "black economy" nonsense about paying under the counter for goods and services, and dramatically simplify tax arrangements overall.

How would this be paid for? Well by dramatically shrinking the state. Libertarianz has proposed alternative budgets for some years.

Now I remember Sir Roger Douglas proposed abolishing income tax in his book Unfinished Business, and it was originally ACT policy (he replaced income tax with compulsory health insurance, superannuation and education). ACT policy has been flat tax and more recently two step income tax. I'd be interested to see if ACT revives flat tax for 2008, but for now Libertarianz is the low flat tax party.

Bill English provides hope?

With Bill reported by RNZ as saying that large numbers of taxpayers should only pay a top rate of 20%, there may be hope yet that the 39 and 33% rates are either cut or the thresholds raised sky high. Of course I'd go one step further and say 20% should be the top rate.

^

Yes there are the usual groans from the left that either part of the "punish the successful" brigade (because people earning more than $38,000 p.a. are rich and they do so by milking the blood of children), or that it would be damaging. You see, they believe the state, which produces nothing itself (it does own producers, but it has to keep its sticky hands off them for them to be successful), is efficient and when it takes your money (takes it, remember that, it was never asked. If it stuffs up the best you can expect is a chance every three years to tick a couple of boxes in the hope that you out of over 2.5 million people can fire those responsible, but they never get to compensate you for the stuff up), it has that "right".

^

Imagine if a company required you to pay for everything it sold, by force, and the most you could do is vote at a shareholders' meeting where you and everyone else had one vote to vote in or out one person out of the 120 or so that decide how the company is run. If the company's services were inadequate, didn't meet your needs, or the company paid for goods and services you were ethically opposed to, the company spent money on telling you what to do, and absolutely none of those 120 or so directors could ever be imprisoned or fined for misspending funds, breaking fiduciary responsibilities to the shareholders (promises), or destroying the value of the company, or being negligent.

^

It's called government. Where people are voted by you to take your money and spend it on what they think is best for you. Where after taking a fair proportion of your earnings, when it doesn't provide the healthcare you want, doesn't provide the education you want for your children, is not responsive to you as a victim of crime, and spends large sums for people to breed, make music videos and tell others what to do, the response basically is "it's a democracy, it's what you pay for civilisation".

^

Only politicians, public servants and the starry eyed state worshippers of the left could defend a system that makes them as unaccountable as possible for spending other people's money and failing to provide what people expect.