n unfair and how he relates to the feelings of the townspeople. He even went so far as to state, or shall I say lie, about how much he strongly dislikes his job because he, like everyone else, has to pay taxes. I scoff at this, as it has been fortuitously proven that since he is paid by the state, he is not a true taxpayer.Consider state distribution of taxes. We can see that this must create two social categories: those who are net taxpayers, as most of the townspeople are and those who are net tax recipients, like Lord Grenville. Only the net taxpayers can be said to provide the state with tax funds. The net tax recipients are paid out of taxation, plus any payments in newly created state currency that effectively taxes those who hold money. This proves that people who are state-paid cannot be genuine taxpayers. Proof of this is that if their jobs were abolished the state would have more money to spend elsewhere, unlike those jobs in the genuinely taxpaying sector.To take a clear case, when a direct state-employee, such as a civil servant (let?s just say Lord Grenville for an example,) receives his salary check there will be an apparent deduction for the amount of tax that he pays. As a matter of fact, this is a mere bookkeeping exercise designed to keep up the pretense that he is a taxpayer along with everyone else. Abandoning this pretense of taxpaying and simply paying him less in the first place would save taxpayers' money in administration and make the political reality clearer to all, as opposed to being a blurry, vague cloud of smoke as it is now.Now, I am not arguing (here at least) that the people who live off taxation are social parasites. On the contrary, I would enjoy very much to be one of the ?lucky? ones. For the sake of argument, I am prepared to grant the (absurd) assumption of so many superior state services that the state ought to employ half the population. Anyway, my point is that it should be clear who is...
