Tax his land,
Tax his bed,
Tax the table
At which he’s fed.
Tax his work,
Tax his pay,
He works for peanuts
Anyway!
Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat.
Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he
Tries to think.
Tax his car,
Tax his gas,
Find other ways
To tax his ass.
Tax all he has
Then let him know
That you won’t be done
Till he has no dough.
When he screams and hollers;
Then tax him some more,
Tax him till
He’s good and sore.
Then tax his coffin,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in
Which he’s laid.
When he’s gone,
Do not relax,
It’s time to apply
The inheritance tax.
Accounts Receivable Tax
Airline surcharge tax
Airline Fuel Tax
Airport Maintenance Tax
Building Permit Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Goods and Services Tax (GST)
Death Tax
Driving Permit Tax
Environmental Tax (Fee)
Excise Taxes
Income Tax
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Petrol Tax (too much per litre)
Gross Receipts Tax
Health Tax
Inheritance Tax
Interest Tax
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Mortgage Tax
Personal Income Tax
Property Tax
Poverty Tax
Prescription Drug Tax
Real Estate Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Retail Sales Tax
Service Charge Tax
School Tax
Telephone Tax
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Water Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
And Now they want a bloody Carbon Tax !
STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?
Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, & our nation was one of the
most prosperous in the world.. We had absolutely no national debt, had a
large middle class, and Mum stayed home to raise the kids.
What in the “Hell” happened? Can you spell ’ lying parasite politicians wasting our money’ ?
And then, there are the bank charges !
This comes from USA, but it applies here as well.
Boadicea's Chariot 
Thanks for inserting ‘more’, I forgot!
They have not yet got round to an “Air you breathe” tax, but I am sure it is only a matter of time. Time to reject all of the Lib/Lab/Con politicians wherever they be.
Zenrules, Was the UK really ‘prosperous’ in 1911?
Two well-established indicators of well-being are life expectancy and infant mortality.
Here’s the comparison:
1911 2011
Life Expectancy at birth: males: 50 females 54 80
Infant Mortality/1000 live births: 110 4
Too true – lying swine!
I tried to do a table and it didn’t work.
Here are the stats again:
In 1911 UK life expectancy at birth was 50 for females and 54 for males.
In 2011 UK life expectancy at birth is 80.
In 1911 UK infant mortality per 1000 live births was 110.
In 2011 UK infant mortality per 1000 live births is 4.
At least we had an Empire in 1911!!!
I wonder what a comparison of GDP would reveal.
Tax – high taxes should equate to the State providing more to the people it taxes in my simple logic. Certainly doesn’t seem to apply now, did it ever? I know the Labour 13 years set about getting more and more of us employed by the state to try and get our vote. Again, a simple view, but basically true.
I am happy to pay tax of course, but why is it so complicated? The history of taxation would be interesting…..I wonder who I can ask to tell me about that??!!
Julie,
I recently did a bit of census delving into the 1900s. And there were a gud Andrew Marr prog on it last night.
Yes mortality rates were higher, but so were the birth rates.
The average 1900 family 9-10 children, today 1 or 2.
That’s very interesting Julie – I thought we’re now being told that our economic problems are all down to “The Ageing Population” – which is breaking the bank…
Not that I plan to help the pollies out with that particular problem – after all they’ve known for a very long time that we’re all here…
🙂
Hear hear Boadicea!
Greed is the problem. Greed of the polititian wanting to feed in the pigs trough of power. Twas ever thus I suspect.
Aside from that – Zen, very funny little poem!
I recently did a bit of census delving into the 1900s. And there were a gud Andrew Marr prog on it last night.
Glad you saw it too Ferret – that was the prog I referred to in the earlier blog on filling out one’s census forms
Yes Cuprum,
Did you see all them li’l snotgobblers lined up outside their terraced 2 up 2 downs? How the hell did they all fit in?
Apparently they were 5 or six to a room back then. Now they reckon every Brit has 2-3 rooms of their own.
Brilliant poem. It comes just as I am about to open..the yearly council tax bill, the TV licence bill and the bank statement which will inform me of my annual fee to the soon to be defunct General Teaching Council. I have just paid the car tax bill, just as well the MOT has been and gone.
Oh and I did the census form last night. Now I suppose I should just consider mysself lucky that there is not general tax for existence on the planet, to be frank.
Claire,
32 words, that will be £2.76 bloggers added value tax please.
🙂
Really, time is money, Ferret. That will be a fiver please 😉
Ferret
And the rest – well for the poor. How did they fit in? Top and tail – and that was in the best accommodation for the poor… The Peabody Trust.
I doubt that many are aware that the overcrowding laws in the UK have been amended in recent years. Whereas some 30/40 years ago it was not acceptable for children of different genders above (I think) the age of twelve to share a room – that is no longer the case… Far too much pressure on housing these days to continue the ‘best practice’ of earlier times.
No can do Claire,
I blog via an offshore IP chanelled through Mauritius then Guernsey, on this post alone I calculate that Osbourne owes me 70p. 🙂
🙂
Cuprum
You might be interested to know that in the middle ages people paid to be relieved of the obligation to be members of Parliament.
Good ferreting Ferret. People had lots of children because it was their security in old age. Also because there was a fair chance of them dying before their parents were old.
But the high infant mortality was mainly due to poor sanitation, poor nutrition, poor housing, poor education of the mother, and no affordable health care.
J’tee, I have no doubt that in the dim distant past of which you write they had their own complaints. I am interested, at the moment, in those of today. Incidentally, the piece was written by an American about USA.
Zenrules, you’re the one that brought up the comparison with 1911!
Boadicea, …we’re now being told that our economic problems are all down to “The Ageing Population” – which is breaking the bank..
I don’t think so. The aging population is costly, but the bank is broken because of the bankers’ balls-up.
Oh Dear Julie! I always seem to be disagreeing with you!
People had lots of children – mainly because they had very limited forms of birth control – both of which relied on male participation. Certainly most people wanted to continue their family line. But, I’ve researched quite a few families back to the 1840 census and it was, generally, only women who were cared for by their children – men were rarely found as dependants of their relatives unless they were really ancient! Early gender discrimination 🙂 ?
I think you will find that infant mortality started to decline after the 17th C, with better housing and that Protestant dictum that “Cleanliness is next to Godliness”.
Your comments regarding poor sanitation and nutrition certainly apply in the larger towns, which for many centuries could not maintain their populations without migration from the country – but that is not true for rural areas – where there was not such a high density of population (enabling the spread of disease) and people were able to grow or access food more easily. Even in WWII rural dwellers had better access to food than those in urban areas. In rural areas families had a large number of children who survived. Overall survival mortality rates do not take account of the families in urban areas who lost 10 out of their 12 children in places like London while those in rural Lincolnshire saw 10 of their 12 children become adults. The population of Britain increased faster than at any time after 1800.
One should, perhaps, also remember that Britain was primarily a rural country until the mid-1800s and that there wasn’t too much ‘good’ health care for anyone to access before that!
J’tee, note the last line of the piece. I don’t want to argue over details.
Zen
I could, indeed, talk about taxation in England in the Middle Ages – and I have often remarked that the Commons today have such power that King John (not so bad) could only dream of.
For centuries the Commons were a ‘brake’ on the absolutist ambitions of the monarchy – but once they had absolute power they became no less corrupt than any other tyrant.
I would that I could think of a way to control Governments – but apart from bloody revolution I do not see that there is – for they will never agree to allow anyone or anything to limit the power that they now enjoy.
I have much sympathy for John – Magna Carta gave power to the nobility, not to the common man!
Subequent rebellions up until the Civil War and my hero,Oliver C., achieved little. Parliament came into its own with the arrival Will 111. Now we are due another big shake up, whence I know not.
OK, Boadicea, you seem to know what you are talking about.
…I would that I could think of a way to control Governments…
Look to the Swiss. Their country really is run by the people. Citizens can raise referendums on anything, and do. They vote continually. And a new president is elected every year.
Tax. People forget what taxes are. Taxes are the money citizens agree to provide to the government they elect to provide services to the nation that are not better provided by the citizens themselves. Note, agree. Politicians have conveniently forgotten that little rider. Moreover, they have largely handed the business of imposing, not agreeing, taxes over to non-elected and non-accountable bureaucrats. (Who, natch, as a matter of priority, make the first charge on the revenue their own salary, benefits and pensions – check your local council budgets.) Time for a change.
A tax is a fine for doing well and a fine is a tax for doing wrong. Seemples. 😀
Boadicea, “The population of Britain increased faster than at any time after 1800.”
That was also true of Ireland. I know Ireland was technically British, but it was predominantly Catholic and possibly/probably subject to quite different influences with regards to population increases. In the 60 years leading up to the great famine, Ireland’s population doubled from 4 million to 8 million. I certainly do not know for sure, but I would imagine a large part of that was down to the fact that Ireland had adopted the potato as a staple. A plentiful supply of food would have made a huge impact on the population. I wonder if Catholic Ireland took so readily to the Protestant ethic of cleanliness.
Population growth in parts of Southern Africa exploded following the introduction of maize by the Portuguese. The dependence of the indigenous people on that crop led to a spike which was followed by a massive famine, known colloquially as the Mfecane, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mfecane which occurred from about 1820-1840. It was not dissimilar to the Irish famine and like the Irish famine many scapegoats have been found to take the blame, including, almost inevitably, though by no means exclusively, the British. The Mfecane ultimately led to the subjugation of the Xhosa tribes who util then had refused to work in formal employment. Desperation led them seek help from the whites who employed them on their farms and as servants. (Don’t rely exclusively on Wikipedia for information on Mfecane. The event is something of an historical hot potato in these PC obsessed times.)
Need not be bloody. A velvet revolution would suffice. It has been done before.
Whatever, let’s get started!
One of the main reasons in the 20th C of increased survival rates was the introduction of antibiotics.
Previous to 1940 it was more than easy to die of the common cold turning to pneumonia.
Change in death rates in the 1900s cannot be used to justify statements about the wealth of the country, not valid statistics, no comparison basis.
The post amply identifies why you should make every effort to fiddle your taxes. They only waste it anyway. If they paid decent pensions and bought a better class of bombs one would not feel quite so aggrieved.
Of course the whole thing could be changed, its called a revolution, but that does necessitate actually getting up off your arse.
Short of that leave and go somewhere where the tax base is much lower.
Christina, Your comments are so preposterous, Isometimes wonder if you are having us all on.
Yes, wealth and health are not the same thing, but I was taking a step back to look at a bigger picture: the quality of life. All the money in the world is no good to you if you are incurably sick.
As I said, life expectancy and infant mortality rates are well-established indicators of life-quality.
You are right about antibiotics – but how does progress, such as the advent of antibiotics come about? Through public funding.
Speaking of preposterous comments, google Fleming, Chain and Florey and Domagk. Public funding had nothing to do with the ‘advent’ of antibiotics, nor does it have anything to do with most advances in science. And try reading ‘Longitude’ by Dava Sobel. There is no such thing as ‘public funding.’ You are talking about tax revenue and you should not forget it.
When governments get involved in science all you get is absolute nonsense like Carbon taxes.
A Fleming, a Scotsman, researching at London University medical hospital in the 20s.
When such hospitals were not the privilege of the NHS, not too much public funding either!
Philanthropists put their hands in their pockets in those days. His Nobel prize came out of the pocket of a munitions manufacturer, as it still does.
There was a period, especially during WWII when many new things were invented at the Govt expense, but these days more and more are on time provided by private funds and are in fact pecuniary speculation in putative commercial applications.
I think it particularly futile attempting to compare differing historical periods, quality of life is ephemeral at best, there are still many incurably sick, they generally just take more time to die these days than of yesteryear! Not too much quality of life there I assure you.
Bravo, snap!
🙂
Bravo, very occasionally you say something which seems to make sense, but this last comment of yours is such total crap I can’t be bothered arguing with you.
Christina, science is very largely funded from public money, taking everything into account, including science education. When private concerns fund scientific projects,the cover is haphazard and uncertain. The objectives of private funders are multitudinous but often conflict with the best interests of the population.
CO, funnily enough I was thinking only yesterday that one is frequently placed in a moral dilemma with regards to the payment of taxes. In this country and indeed in most of Africa, governments misspend tax revenues to such an extent that they do more damage than good. I have no problem at all, morally speaking, not paying tax. In fact one has a duty not to pay it. The problem is that I am dead scared of being caught, so pay it I do. Prison here in not very pleasant. To a lesser extent I think the same applies in first world countries like the UK and USA.
Translation. I can’t dispute what you say. Enlighten us then, what public money funded the discovery of antibiotics?
jt, you are wrongly informed. Most university departments seek outside industrial funding to support their PhD research. Doctorate students and post doctoral research positions are virtually all funded from outside. Most of my family are in this business so I do actually know of what I speak. The Govt have cut back again and again in this area to fund the do gooding social programmes.
sipu, the USA is bad news on the tax dodgers. Poor old Madoff, 150 years! OK OK that was fraud BUT….
but the UK is a pushover! You just have to line up the ducks properly.
I can imagine Africa would not be a pleasant place to be in jail!!!
The government invests some £3 billion pounds per annum in research. BAE, on it’s own, invests about half of that. That’s just one company.
Christina, and junk science.
Christina, …Most university departments seek outside industrial funding….
This is true because nowadays they have no choice. Searching for funding has become the main part of a scientist’s job. It makes science very inefficient and very insecure as a career. Most scientists agree that it would be much better if science was funded from public money.
I presume you can back that statement with some actual fact?
jt perhaps you would care to retract your 35?
You seem to have rather backed yourself into a corner.
May I suggest your rather idealistic view of the world is not actually grounded in reality?
More facts, less thoughts and definitely less wild accusations of crap.
The only person round here to look preposterous is yourself.
Now then I have wasted far too much time on you already this morning and shall withdraw to do something productive, namely plant my seed potatoes.
Good morning all.
PS I’d rather stand in shit than read it!
Bravo,the initial discovery of antibiotics was a piece of serendipity that didn’t need much funding. Of course, industry cashed in on this very obvious money-maker. Yet wasn’t the vast army of scientists who developed them educated largely by public money, and wasn’t their British market very largely the NHS? Without the NHS not many people would have been able to afford antibiotics.
Boadicea, point of clarity. The population explosion around 1850 was caused by the mass migration to cities, in which health massively improved due to the building of sanition systems at that time.
I see, so the discovery of antibiotics, was not, in fact, funded by taxes. Glad we cleared that up. And industry cashed in on this money maker, did they? By producing the medicines that saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of servicemen in WW2, then hundreds of thousands more after the war.
Was the science of waste disposal funded by taxes, as opposed to the civil engineering works?
Julie – you have the cart before the horse! The increased population in cities and towns was due to the increases in overall population – not the other way around.
The population of England and Wales was about 6.75 million in 1760 – it started rising from then. No one has come up with a one simple reason. Certainly Sipu’s theory of better food supplies is part of the picture, increased reliance on potatoes in Ireland, enclosures in England and other farming ‘reforms’ which incidentally threw people off the land and into the cities. Other factors proposed include people marrying younger, access to cotton (easier to keep clean) cheaper soap, and better medical understanding in the form of vaccinations and the like.
It was just under 18 million in 1851 – and precious little had been done to improve sanitation in the cities by then. As an example read about the Cholera epidemic in London in the 1850s… and it was a private doctor who discovered how Cholera was spread.
Julie – it would seem that you are making the mistake of underestimating the qualifications of your fellow Charioteers. Unwise, for we are an erudite bunch.
You, on the other hand, seem to be very light on fact but heavy on political spin and prejudice, a combination often found in the intellectually challenged.
You may encounter resistance, dear. 😕
You see, I know when I am out of my depth. Pretty easy really it happens with 99.9% of stuff round here. 🙂
If in doubt make a quippy one liner which no-one can call you on then sit back, relax and watch some poor sod get crucified. Works every time. 😀
Bunkum! Ferret!
Everyone here has some expertise on something – the wise thing is sit back and listen. There are things I wouldn’t dream of taking issue with you about…
🙂
Hee Hee Boa,
If you can’t dazzle with diamonds, baffle with bullguano. 🙂
Ferret – our resident expert on aeronautical engineering and lauded craftsman of writing implements for the cream of society. Take a bow! 😆
Ferret: now, now. You are the only master craftsman on this site that I am aware of.
Donald is our bulldust expert, I believe? 🙄
I have a problem with the way history is taught – all ‘politically correct topics’ with little substance – and few facts.
I shall never forget someone telling me that “They knew all about English Medieval history – they’d done a six week course”. Faced with that sort of attitude, what can one say? 🙂
I aren’t gud wiff words and latin and history like you toffs.
I know what you mean though B&B. Its one of the things I love about this place. CO is a total wiz at geology and gardening, Jay Em and Jay Dubya the leagle beagles, OZ has forgotten more about cook outs than I will ever know, you two with the languages and the history. Rick has a wealth of gen on banking, Val… erm I’ll come back to that:) Nym is a health care officianado, I don’t think there is an eastern country Bravo hasn’t lived in, Toc shares my love of things militaire and has some great travel stories, CWJ and Jazz help me with the actual pilot side of flying, L Dubya seems to live an idyllic lakeside existance (I still think he should call the boat Dignity). Christopher is so well travelled and read it beggars belief, and many more. Great innit?
Boadicea: though my primary field is East Asian history, I have done a fair amount of research in the subject of imperialism as well. The nature of the debate on that topic is often risible. Their amount of research into the subject is limited to a few documentaries and a high school history class, but they deem themselves experts of unquestionable merit. In one book which I am using for a research paper for a course this term, the author in the introduction stated that the Taiwanese tend to hold the Japanese in high regard — even after they were colonised by the Japanese for 50 years. He didn’t mention that the Japanese built infrastructure, introduced compulsory education, provided competent governance, and established order over a previously lawless island. While certainly no egalitarians, the Japanese on Taiwan were far better than they were elsewhere and the Taiwanese were better off under Japan than China.
I should clarify that the Japanese record elsewhere prior the the beginning of WWII was not quite as positive and during the war of unspeakable depravity.
Ferret: you’ve never seen my handiwork, have you? It’s so ugly I should be shot for crimes against aesthetics.
That’s right – Ferret. As far as I’m concerned that is the joy about this place.
Julietee, when you say that the discovery of antibiotics was “serendipity”, I presume you are thinking of the false story that Fleming left his sandwiches in the lab over the weekend and came back to find mouldy bread and with a loud cry of “Eureka” discovered penicillin? In fact Fleming was working in the field of microbiology and left a culture of bacteria (staphylococci). On his return from holiday he found that one of the cultures had been contaminated by a mould which had destroyed the bacteria closest to it. It took another 6 months of work to isolate and grow that “mould”.
Government, that is taxpayers’, money given for scientific research is usually given for a specific project. It can’t just be handed out to fund vague “scientific research”.
Well – there you go! Live and Learn!
Thanks Sheona – I also thought that the discovery of penicillin was serendipity!
I will say this, however, according to my mother I’m still around courtesy of penicillin – and that was before the NHS – so the notion that only the rich had access to this life saver is quite wrong.
The use of mouldy bread to treat wounds was also fairly common in many cultures.
Of course Bravo,
So was trepanning someones skull to let the demons out. 😀
Thank you nearly all. I never expected that post to take off like that. It was only a pot-boiler.
Ah, Ferret, so were leeches. Mind, Leeches worked 🙂
I read somewhere about a S American tribe that used trepanning for headaches. Seems they would pack the victim’s ears with the local equivalent of stinging nettles to help him ignore the pain…
You never know where these innocent posts will lead, Zen 🙂
Should I open up my financial reserves and release some funds to the World Bank? 😦
Send them via me!
🙂
It is said that the honey made from the flowers of the tea-tree is a very effective anti-bacterial agent, even seeing off MRSA.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8445764/Tea-tree-honey-could-fight-MRSA.html
I always thought increasing university places was at best ‘misguided’.
This confirms my opinion. I don’t know about y’all old duffers but ‘in my day’ such would have been let in only to make the beds and scrub the floors!
More like shovel the shit, not spray it!
I must report a favourable and successful potato planting of Russian Fir and La Ratte.
Pruning of the Fig tree, weeding of the strawberry bed and potting of crinums!
All far more satisfactory and reinstating of a wicked little grin on the mug.
I think that might be the positive last word, CO – apart from this one of course, which doesn’t really count because it’s just pointing out that yours is the last word, even if this one appears to be, but really isn’t… I know, I’ll shut up now, shall I?
Taxi for Bravo! 😀
CO is bang on the money again. Going to university is not a birthright. You get a bunch of ne’er do wells who don’t like the idea of working for a living bunging up the academic system for those who can actually spell, or comprehend basic language. Funding half the school-leaving workforce into further edukashun was simply a means of massaging the jobless figures.
An ‘ology in socio economic meeja whatsisnuts can be obtained via junk mail FFS leave academia to those who can actually contribute through real and valid research. Not a bunch of beach bums who feel they can justify years of tax funding to come up with shite like “Where can you buy the best bacon”.
Good grief, Ferret, don’t beat about the bush, man, just come right out ans say what you think.
😀