Bloodsucking Leeches Call For Meat Tax

download (8)Australia's taxpayer funded multi-million dollar nanny state lobby has long led the world in not just its authoritarian bullying, but the sheer breadth of its proposals.

From calling for food rationing through to arguing that plain packaging for, well, everything, is "a fundamental human right", it seems that Australia's neo-wowsers will stop at nothing until we recreate Nicolae Ceaușescus Romania.

However, at times the sheer audacity of the industry surprises even me, as was the case with an article today by two taxpayer funded "sustainability" academics from calling for a $4 billion tax on meat.

Writing in the taxpayer-funded "Conversation", they argue:
Meat... is a prime candidate for taxation because of its negative impacts. By not taxing meat production and consumption appropriately, governments are in fact subsidising environmental and public health destruction – and meat tax could perhaps be one option on the table for this year’s Paris climate negotiations.


Taxing meat needs to be included on the political agenda as a means for funding climate change mitigation, addressing climate-related health consequences, and supporting agricultural innovation more appropriate for an era of climate change.

Given the positive public health and environmental benefits of taxing meat, not doing so would not only be a lost fiscal opportunity, but we would also be letting down our health and the environment.



The utter insanity of this proposal is, of course, obvious to everyone other than the most extreme leftist (or university academic, but I repeat myself). But that is not what outrages me the most about this.

What outrages me the most is the fact that it's our taxes that pay for all of this. All of it. Our taxes pay the salary for these 'academics'. Our taxes pay for the website this was published on. Everything about the lifestyle tax nanny state industry is paid for by our taxes.

Professor Marinova's salary is $177,345 a year.  And yet she feels compelled to call for further taxes on the most hard up in society.

The sheer, utter, moral bankruptcy of these people - whose entire profession is leeching tax dollars off struggling families to call for even more taxes - is mildboggling. We know lifestyle taxes hit the poorest most. We know these taxes genuinely hurt. And yet these academics are still to fund their extravagant lifestyles.

This isn't just an economic issue. This is a moral issue. What these people are doing is utterly, utterly reprehensible. Not only are they advocating policies that will hurt the poorest households the most, they are arguing almost literally that the government should rob people to prop up their privilege.

Curtin University, where these two 'academics' are based, also hosts the Public Health Advocacy Institute, which receives millions of dollars in taxpayer funding to do nothing more than train professional nanny state activists and lobbiests. It uses tax dollars on projects such as "providing tools, resources and skills to organisations and individuals to improve their ability to achieve effective advocacy" ,  running courses on how to be an activist and writing op eds, creating an advocacy toolkit on how to be a more effective activist, as well as advise how to lobby politicians for further nanny state policies.  

Can anyone with a straight face say that this is moral? That it is ethical for millions of dollars in tax dollars being used just to train a new generation of activists to then, like parasites, suck even more from the taxpayer?

So the next time you hear a politician call for more taxes, remember that THIS is what your money will be spent on. And fight it with all your might.

 

 

Help Us Share Our Message

Share our message of less taxes, regulation and
wasteful spending