Pyramid Comment

This journal takes an alternative view on current affairs and other subjects. The approach is likely to be contentious and is arguably speculative. The content of any article is also a reminder of the status of those affairs at that date. All comments have been disabled. Any and all unsolicited or unauthorised links are absolutely disavowed.

Friday, June 20, 2008

Stealth Strategy

The population continues to increase out-of-control without any attempt to reduce it. A larger population is a larger consumer base. Globally. And there lies the dilemma for governments (ouch! It must be painful to sit upon the needle of greed - DA). All the rhetoric being pontificated by melding the concepts of global warming, climate change and the dependence on fossil fuel and yet totally ignoring the population growth. Indeed, still 'reminding' people about the estimated global population as the future becomes the present. Anything between 9bn -12bn (or even more) by 2050. And it is exponential.

Always has been as no attempts at control have ever been made. The Chinese are criticised for making attempts to limit the population at both ends of the span of life. But control of early life (birth) is not the same as taking controls to end it. The global population cannot be sustained even now as food resources become more depleted and the diversion of potential food to feed cars. The aim must be the devastation of the (global) human race or at the very least its terminal reduction by billions. This leaves other resources for the taking as nobody remains alive to defend them.

Interestingly, the oil-rich (under the ground) nations are mostly sand (above ground). Decimate the nation by the denial of food, since you cannot eat sand and the oil becomes available for the taking. It also leaves more food for a grossly depleted human race. This is tantamount to eugenics. That 'messed up', 'trendy' (creepy - DA) handshake between Brown and Bush is typical of an identification code. Even down to the detail of Brown's right index finger (probably) rubbing the top of Bush's right hand.

The psychology of the usual placement for photographs demands that the 'top dog' stands on the right and the (innocent) right-handed handshake puts the one standing on the left in an awkward position of 'lower-standing'. The Brown-Bush handshake has no such power play. It also allow a private deal to be played out in public and misdirects from the 'official' newspaper-reported stories. Like airline taxation being pushed onto the people and the wringing hand drivel about climate change. It's all about deals being done, money made and subjugation of the people so they pay their taxes. The tax on life. And nobody recognises the 'creepy' handshake for anything other than a 'trendy' handshake. 'Brown' linked with 'trendy' makes for a dreadful oxymoron.

  • Incidentally, note the Robert Mugabe domination handshake: hand on top with palm facing downwards forcing the other into a submissive posture and stands on left of the picture (ie to the right of Morgan Tsvangirai) to demonstrate power. It's psychological, but very telling, even if Mugabe doesn't appreciate this fact (eh! - DA). Politicians play this game all the time. It's very informative.
The EU parliament also has a clear aim to steal power and collectively control Europe. It has stalled, but only in the short-term. WWII nearly managed it, but this wouldn't do as power would have passed to only a few individuals (Adolf Hitler in Germany and the cohort Benito Mussolini in Italy). The denial of referenda almost managed it. Notably, one of the early moves was the officially sanctioned referendum by the UQ (aka UK) Ltd for continuing membership of the (EEC). It becomes obvious that entry into the European Community was wanted (1975) and the danger of effective removal in the future has (so far successfully) been denied.

Ted Heath was the prime minister (Conservative) at the time and now Brown (Labour) continues the plan of more than 30 years. This suggests the unproven conspiracy between parties and the ethos of labels being supported. All speculation, of course. Progress is linked to 'growth'. The one cannot possibly exist without the other. Economic Theory is a 20th century concept and greed was born. Dr. Tax has attempted to hide 'stealth' taxation behind concerns for the environment. Even the term 'stealth' has long been rumbled for what it is. A directly enforced removal of taxpayers' wealth into government coffers, known colloquially as HM Treasury. The place into which money flows.

Theoretically, a surcharge as an extra payment for fuel should limit use. But when government is involved this can never work since an enormous amount of revenue is collected by its sale (fuel duty and VAT). By definition it will never be discouraged in any other way than the absolutely cynical way of taxing it out of reach. But since society is geared up to fuel, the majority of people will just reach that bit higher. It's a situation similar to being instructed to jump. The response is not to question the instruction, but simply ask 'how high?'.

At the pre-Budget report of 2006 doubling air passenger duty raised an additional £1bn per year for Blair's government when Brown was the Chancellor of the Exchequer. No tax reductions were made to offset this massive increase. The Tax Doctor has moved from being Chancellor of the Exchequer to prime minister and in the process successfully managed to make life worse for the citizens of UQ (aka UK) Ltd instead of improving everything. Brown's concept of being environmentally green is to create a gaping hole in the public finances and to make an even bigger hole. Rob Peter to pay Paul, but give Paul less than was stolen from Peter.

Dr. James Gordon Brown, the 'best' Chancellor
Britain has ever been lumbered with

As yet another example of the Tax Doctor ethos, there is the stealth tax on the family car. Rises in vehicle excise duty will increase revenue from the 2006 figure of £1.9bn to £4.4bn by 2010. That means that the UK taxpayer will have 'contributed' £2,500,000,000 (£2.5 thousand million = £2.5 billion) over 4 years in assisting Brown to finance 'his' ineptly mismanaged country. Even Treasury figures reveal that carbon dioxide emissions from motoring will barely change, but at the financial cost of £2.5bn.

So, where does the money go?
Presumably into Brown's gaping hole,
but the real question to ask is what sort of portal is that?

The percentage increase in duty on a small 1.2-1.6L Nissan Micra is larger than the percentage increase on a 6L Hummer. As ever in the UQ (aka UK) Ltd those that can afford it (the minority) do as they please and never even give a moment's thought to appalling wastage. Money brings with it a superior quality blindfold. It's brings marvellous imagery of the rich blind man begging for the basics, like a glass of water in the desert. Or even a crumb. Pockets full of gold bring little comfort when starved of food.

King Midas

The current air-tax system:
  • Each economy-class passenger pays British air duty of £10 to fly to a European destination and £40 to fly further afield.
Government proposal:
  • Tax charge should be for each aircraft and not per passenger and the amount will depend on aircraft size and distance travelled. The world will be divided into three zones: European (least), transatlantic and long-haul. Ironically, most pollution exists at the point of take-off and comparatively very little exhaust gases are created onwards into the flight. All three types of flight must create the same level of pollution around the take-off site, so this effectively torpedoes the argument as nonsense.
  • Airlines will pass on the tax to passengers in passage fare, so the aircraft tax is actually a crudely disguised passenger tax.
The cost:

  • The government 'wishes'to raise £2,600,000,000 (£2.6bn) from this new tax, but the exact level per aircraft has not been set.
That's probably a "don't know".
They "don't know" (yet - DA)
how much they can 'get away' with

just in case it's set too low. Airlines have calculated that the long-haul flight surcharge will be about £100 per person. Why change the system?

  • The claim that this will encourage 'environmentally friendly' behaviour by flying only full planes is rubbished by the airlines since the high cost of fuel and 'other costs' are already enough of an incentive to fill planes. Scheduled commercial (non-charter) flights have the least scope to wait until fully booked, so a half-filled plane will be charged the same as a filled plane, regardless of which of the three zones applies. This makes the ticketing-price almost impossible to manage.
  • This is not (the UK) government's problem. Their only concern is to maximise the tax per flight and if it flies almost empty government will simply disavow any responsibility. Just expect payment.
Plan problem:
  • Most European airlines fly long-haul via other European cities and so will pay far lower rates of tax than those flying direct from London. Since such a technically 'long-haul' journey actually comprises several take-offs in a multi-short European 'hop' format, the total pollution will be huge compared to a single take-off.
  • Some airlines may stop using London as an international hub and bypass the airport totally. Therefore no revenue at all: don't stop, don't pay.
  • Tax does not penalise budget airlines and these are of the most concern to environmentalists.
    Another example of inadequate thought before implementation of a bad idea, but this is the Tax Doctor government, after all. Typical showing of stupidity mixed with greed.

    It's as though a tax levy demonstrates some sort of applicable value (VAT) and that everything should be taxed. The whole concept of taxation on everything is obnoxious, but it shows the limit of new ideas. There are no new ideas just a new tax. Wait for the removal of CO2 from the air (respiration adds this gas to the atmosphere) and the application of a tax for CO2-free air. an impossibility. Humans will pay (literally) to stay alive. And breathing out CO2 by breathing in O2.