Rocco: Budget 2014

As the smoke clears from last week’s budget, serious analysis can begin. Who were the winners and losers? Who came out on top? Who lost out? How did you do? Will you be up a creek, or come out smelling of roses? Find out now, in my in-depth analysis of what I like to call “Budget 2014″. Let’s do this thing!

“Some people with too much money will have less now”, said the government man. “There are unfair types not giving enough back. So we’re taking it”. When asked whether this would hurt our fragile economy’s tender green shoots the government man said, “No, you silly sausage. We’ve consulted tea leaves and animal entrails and determined this amount we’re taking is exactly the right amount.”

But opposition politicians we’re quick to pooh-pooh the policy. “It’s a bad policy. It’s not exactly the right amount at all”, one jeered. When asked what was the right amount, the man replied “Dunno. A bit more probably, I reckon.” On a television programme a journalist agreed. “Take more from them. And then some more. What are they gonna spend it on anyways? Just more diamonds for their gold-plated jacuzzis filled with drugged up prostitutes most likely”.

“Some people with not enough money will think they have more now”, said the government man. “This looks like a bold decision, and is calculated to look like a step in the right direction for modern Britain”, he said. When asked whether stealing slightly less from the poor would hurt our fragile economy’s succulent green shoots, he whispered “Yes. Don’t worry though, because we’re just stealing it from them in other ways now, so everything’s fine”.

Friendly journalists writing in newspapers applauded the government man’s “bold decision”. Sources close to the government called the move “a step in the right direction for modern Britain”.

“Some people we like but you don’t will get more of your money now”, said the government man. “If you’d spend your money properly in the first place we wouldn’t have to do this, would we?” he chided. “Besides, it’s vital. Bold step. Right direction. Tender succulent green shoots”, he mumbled.

Defending the highly controversial policy, the government man told ordinary hard working people, “This is for your own good”. Opposition politicians of all parties were quick to agree. “This is for your own good”, they agreed. Sources close to the government confirmed, “This is for your own good.” Writing in newspaper columns, newspaper columnists were completely behind the bold move, reminding their readers, “This is for your own good”. And on television programmes journalists informed their viewers that this was a step in the right direction for modern Britain, saying “This is for your own good”.

  • AeronPage

    I was thinking over the weekend about how much I actually fucking hate poor people.

    • Rocco @Bogpaper

      Social Darwinist!

      • AeronPage

        Too right, but does that mean i can call you a social darwinist-ist?

        • AeronPage

          Libertarians: Evilly plotting to take over the world……. then leave you alone.

      • AeronPage

        Just had a smashing idea!
        Fancy designing a “What would Mises do?” t-shirt?

      • AeronPage

        I find it amusing how different social groups view Libertarians.
        My boss for instance, seems to think i like spending my time getting high and frequenting prostitutes and other such vices.
        My co-workers (comrades) seem to think I’m some uber-rich speculator who spends time drinking expensive cognac and urinating on poor(er) people.

  • mikebravo

    I couldn’t care less any more. Not now that I can afford to play bingo and drink beer.

    • Rocco @Bogpaper

      But how long before there’s an epidemic of binge bingo-ing, eh? That’s the question that keeps me up at night.

      • mikebravo

        It’s a worry alright but with freedom comes responsibility. If people can’t behave with their new found riches the gubmint will have to intervene. They will have to consider the under used social stick of tax rises to enforce acceptable behaviour.

        • Rocco @Bogpaper

          Carrots and sticks, sixty six.

          • mikebravo

            I have already started to benefit from the swingeing beer tax cuts. I am heaving the saved cash into a jar and when I have drunk 200 pints I will buy a lottery ticket. Ha! can’t wait to win big.

      • AeronPage

        Yeah, we should restrict bingo licences, no wonder this country’s in such a mess.

  • http://concretebunker.wordpress.com/ Concrete Bunker

    I hate the thought of being positive but liberty can come in small steps and the pension move will help many people! Guardian article by Will Hutton has a rant against the thought that pensioner’s may mis-spend their own money!
    For me therefore I approve!

    • Rocco @Bogpaper

      Re: mis-spending.
      If I say you’ve acted in an irresponsible way, this means: “I wouldn’t have done that”. If I say (of a previous action of mine) I acted irresponsibly, this means: “If I’d have known then what I know now I wouldn’t have done that”. In the first case at best my opinion is irrelevant, at worst it indicates a desire to enslave you. In the second case I am complaining about not being omniscient.
      That either, let alone both, should be taken seriously is ridiculous.

      • http://concretebunker.wordpress.com/ Concrete Bunker

        As per Lenin (I think?) decided that people couldn’t make the correct decisions so enacted the “dictatorship of the proletariat” Will Hutton et al fall into the same mind set.They of course know best!

        • AeronPage

          The claims of these organizers of humanity raise another question which I have often asked them and which, so far as I know, they have never answered: If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? The organizers maintain that society, when left undirected, rushes headlong to its inevitable destruction because the instincts of the people are so perverse. The legislators claim to stop this suicidal course and to give it a saner direction. Apparently, then, the legislators and the organizers have received from Heaven an intelligence and virtue that place them beyond and above mankind; if so, let them show their titles to this superiority.
          They would be the shepherds over us, their sheep. Certainly such an arrangement presupposes that they are naturally superior to the rest of us. And certainly we are fully justified in demanding from the legislators and organizers proof of this natural superiority.