Loss of income is not a cost

They are making one of their regular fusses about smuggling again.

"Fuel laundering, tobacco smuggling costing €1bn annually" screams the dramatic headline.

Now on the face of it, that is quite alarming, except for one little factor that they have conveniently overlooked – fuel laundering and tobacco smuggling don't cost us anything.  We have not paid a single cent except for the salaries of those who go chasing the smugglers.

This is the old sleight of hand they love to use.  They reckon they are owed tax, VAT and excise duty on the diesel and fags, and because they are not getting it they are calling it a cost, which it isn't.  It's a loss of potential revenue.  Granted tobacco retailers will be hit as they will lose custom, but that is their loss and not ours.  Again – they will lose an expectation of income but not any income itself.

I don't have much sympathy for the diesel smugglers for the simple reason that they stuff they produce is shit and will fuck up your car within a few miles, so I suppose there is a cost to the unfortunate motorist who has to fork out for a new engine, but hardly to the tune of €1bn.

Smuggling cigarettes on the other hand harms no one except the greedy tentacles of the gubmint money grabbing machine.

I know there are those who will scream about smuggling benefiting organised crime and in particular the IRA but that is a side issue.  If the gubmint wants to stop these people making a fortune, there is a blindingly simple solution – cut the tax on fuel and fags.  That way smuggling ceases to be so profitable and will not be such an attractive proposition for the smugglers.

The gubmint should get it into its think fucking head that loss of revenue is NOT a cost.  If my employer refuses to give me overtime, that is not a cost to me – it is a loss of potential revenue.  I am not out of pocket at all.  It is a very simple principle.  The gubmint though seems to think it is entitled to all these tax streams, and when that stream gets diverted they start hollering.

Now if you want to see a real cost to the state – and I mean something that we will actually have to pay for in real hard cash, I suggest you look here.

That is not just an imaginary loss of income.

That is a cost.

 

It's only fair to share...Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInPin on PinterestShare on RedditShare on StumbleUponShare on Tumblr

Comments

Loss of income is not a cost — 9 Comments

  1. its all about the perceptions innit…

    with the globe trotting parasites why do you lot them back in…can't some sould revoke their passports or some such?

    • I have often thought it would be a great idea to revoke their passports on Paddy's Day and refuse to let 'em all back in.  In fact it would be a great time for a revolution? 

  2. Tax dodging seems to be hot ticket item ,what I don't understand is people seem to think if the money was being collected that it would actually be spent on something worthwhile when current evidence and past experience suggests the opposite!

    If all drugs were no longer ilegal and the taxes no longer levied then in a single stroke organised crime and terrorism would be destroyed far more effectively than any "war on drugs" or "global war on terror".

    This won't happen because that would take away the need for the largest and most effective criminal organization " The State"

    • I recognise that some taxation is inevitable as there are some services that only the state can really provide, but when I see them pissing away the billions, especially to the EU then my philosophy becomes one of avoiding every tax that I possibly can.  The State has become a monster and it is my duty to starve it!

      • "some services that only the state can really provide"

        Short of providing for the common defense and regulating interstate business what else is a federal government to do?

        Nothing I say!!!

         

        • There are still services and facilities that the state [or local gubmint] have to provide such as health, education and a raft of others.  The ideal would be that everyone would pay for their own requirements but that would lead to disaster.  There has to be some kind of central fund, but not one that lashes out fortunes on quangos, legal advisors, consultancy fees, junkets abroad and – of course – billions to a debt that isn't of our making..

          • When you bring local gubmint into the question it changes everything.  Education is a local matter not to be decided by the state.  Health insurance works pretty darn well with the free market system.  Our health system didn't get fouled up until gubmint stuck it's nose in it and regulated it death.  Local gubmint can levi taxation in exchange for services it's just when the state gets involved that things go to hell.

             

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *