Devillish silly plan

The Devil does good ranting, but really does know fuck all about economics or people.

He smacks down an article pointing out that introducing flat tax would do nobody any real good, through the convincing counter-argument that under UKIP, flat tax would cut everyone\’s tax bills, and we can all live in a magical fairy castle in the sky with no smelly foreigners.

Of course, what UKIP actually plan to do is massively cut taxes (hence why everyone would pay less tax under their scheme) without a corresponding hit in public services, paid for by a) reducing public sector inefficiency, from which nobody has actually ever managed to make significant savings b) pulling out of the EU, which costs us fuck all anyway [*] and c) magical new money that tax cuts will generate by massively stimulating economic growth, which they never have [**].

On the people side, presumably because he\’s a self-employed IT contractor, he assumes people want to be self-employed and want to fill in tax returns. They do not. Generally, they don\’t give a shit about taxes, beyond the occasional pub moan – just like they don\’t give a shit about the EU apart from enjoying the convenience of the Euro when they go abroad and tutting when their tabloid of choice makes up a new lie about Eurocrats Gone Wild.

Fortunately, because UKIP are a mad bunch of cranks who care passionately about tax systems and bent bananas and other tedious things, they stand no chance of being let anywhere near anything vaguely resembling power any time soon, or indeed ever.

[*] assuming EU membership brings us no benefits, which is a stupid assumption, it costs us a couple of billion a year in transfer payments out of £500 billion government spending. The only studies that claim the EU carries greater costs are hopelessly rigged; they need to pretend that all business regulation carries no benefits (possibly true) and only or primarily happens because of the EU (certainly untrue) to get beyond a £1-2 billion figure. UKIP\’s scheme would require the government to save £34 billion.

[**] when you have marginal tax rates at 1970s levels, it can be a different story. However, the recent US example, where the tax cuts have only had a positive effect on the economy because they\’ve been combined with crazily unstable spiralling in government borrowing – is typical of their impact in medium-tax economies. Especially when, as in UKIP\’s plan, the majority of benefit goes to the rich, who don\’t spend as high a proportion of new income as the poor.

How racism happens

It\’s a common stupid meme among the right-wing press and their acolytes that race riots tend to happen because of unintegrated fundamentalist darkies failing to assimilate into society like good boys. The current events in Windsor are a good reminder that actually, the main cause is that stupid ignorant white chavs enjoy Paki-bashing.

Fairness demands that we discriminate against the old

Following the introduction of the UK\’s new anti-ageism laws, a recruitment agency has sent me an unusually sanctimonious and annoying brochure. \”Remember, spotty little scrotes and doddering codgers have a valuable contribution to make at the workplace, so following the new law will actually help your business,\” it more or less says.

It drives this do-gooding \”you\’re too dim to understand, so the government had better do it for you\” message home with an extraordinarily stupid quote from American writer Norman Vincent Peale:

Ageism is as odious as racism and sexism.

No, it isn\’t. Racism and sexism are considered particularly odious in society because they\’re not fair. A white racist will never find himself denied a job because of the colour of his skin (while white racists tend to decry half-hearted attempts to redress their massive advantage in life as anti-white discrimination, this doesn\’t make it so). A sexist man will never find himself denied a job because of his unwise choice of chromosones.

In short, some people are privileged and remain so forever; some people are disadvantaged and remain so forever. Even though individual white men might fuck up and ruin their lives, and even though individual black women might succeed admirably, the former will always have done so while facing fewer race- and gender-derived obstacles than the latter (obviously, a black female born into a loving family with enough money to get by will face fewer non-race and non-gender-derived obstacles than a white male born to a homeless alcoholic, but this isn\’t relevant here).

Ageism doesn\’t have the same effect: we are all every age at some point (except for people who die young, which is worse than being the victim of ageism anyway). If everyone who is 30 treats everyone who is 70 like shit, then this isn\’t unfair at all: everyone in the first group will either be dead or be treated like shit in 40 years\’ time, and net discrimination against individuals will be zero.

So ageism isn\’t a fairness problem, and Mr Peale was an idiot. But worse than that, the introduction of anti-ageism laws will actually make things less fair. 

The current crop of near-retirees looking for protection from this law are the baby-boom generation, who avoided WWII, profited massively from asset price rises throughout their adult lives, and left their descendants enormous financial and environmental liabilities to clear up. They also treated their parents\’ generation like crap: abusive, horrible retirement homes flourished under the boomers\’ rule, since they couldn\’t be bothered to look after their parents themselves, and they also severed the state pension / earnings link because they didn\’t want to pay taxes to support anyone else\’s either.

Suddenly, now they\’re approaching the receiving end of this treatment, the fear is kicking in – so now, as a final act before retirement, the spoilt bastards have successfully lobbied for a law prohibiting their children from treating them the same way (as well as making their children pay through the nose to bail out their bankrupt pension schemes).

If that\’s fairness, then I\’m the Pope dressed in a Mohammed costume and clutching a novelty fake bomb vest at the annual Vatican fancy dress party.

What would the Jew York Times say?

In traditional antisemitic discourse, one popular tactic is \’humorously\’ changing the names of institutions, organisations or regions that one believes to be excessively Jewish or Jew-controlled. Jew York, Hymietown, Yidsbury, and so on.

While some of these names may live on among borderline ultranationalist loonies and old men\’s pub conversations, any mainstream commentator found using them in a piece intended for national publication would instantly be ejected from polite society. Most likely, they\’d never get commissioned again outside of fringe publications; at the very least, their article would be spiked and the editor would have a Serious Word with them.

But as Andrew Bartlett points out, people who say \”al-Beeb\” or \”Londonistan\” are welcomed into mainstream publications with open arms – Stephen Pollard and Melanie Phillips are names that come to mind without even having to look; a bit of Googling will turn up many others.

Yet another case of Islamophobia as the acceptable antisemitism equivalent for the 21st century (other traditional antisemitic slurs include they\’re plotting to destroy us, they control the government, and they rape and prostitute Christian girls. Other recent Islamophobic slurs include they\’re plotting to destroy us, they control the government, and they rape and prostitute Christian girls…) can fuck off and die

How dare they? 

Dear [PDF],

We\’ve noticed that customers with your order profile have also ordered The Gospel According to Chris Moyles: The Story of a Man and His Mouth by Chris Moyles.  For this reason, you might like to know that this book will be released on 5 October 2006.  You can pre-order your copy for just £8.49 (50% off the RRP) by following the link below.

Link excised for obvious reasons.


It\’s not often that my attitude towards white chavs goes beyond \”bring back the gas chambers\”. However, I very much enjoyed their behaviour in this video.

Mild outbreak of sanity

Enron CFO Andy Fastow has \”only\” been sent down for five years for providing an opportunity for large numbers of greedy thick fucks to lose money. Better than expected, given the lunacy with which America frequently treats such enablers – clearly turning ubersnitch is a Good Plan should you ever find yourself in such a position.

I disapprove of the principle, though. The more people like Fastow there are out there, the more money will be lost by idiots who never deserved to have it in the first place, and therefore a more equitable distribution of income will ensue.

Fucking red and white cunts

I\’m not impressed at the way a game against some half-arsed spics about whom nobody gives a fuck still incited enough mouth-breathing Neanderthals onto the streets of North London to add 15 minutes to my journey home.

Can\’t we pack them into cattle trucks and gas them or something? Or, if we\’re going to give into the demands of the human rights lobby and let them live, can\’t we serve a demolition notice on their fancy new stadium unless they immediately begin the Tube-station-rebuilding works they promised to do when they were given permission to build the thing?