Direction of travel

[Malc]

2 hours ago, Derant said:

would your tax also apply to under 16 year olds who cycle?

no idea tbh  ......  bit like having an unused car that needs to be taxed ......... maybe just tax the bicycle then at point of sale, like a car ....  and an annual road tax where appropriate ........  I'm sure someone will come along with an effective and sensible way to tax these road users that are getting  away with not paying anything for the privilege 

Malc

[Moleman]

So folks can I remind you of this recent post on another forum:

‘tribalism.’

I’m not sure exactly when this happened, but so many people seem to want to identify with a particular group and defend the views and actions of that group sometimes without reason. I was always taught that, in any debate, the real solution was often somewhere in the middle of the two opposing views. These days, I fear too many people simply believe their view is ‘right’ and every other view is ‘wrong.’ Thus, almost everything becomes tribal.

Why take every comment as if it is a personal attack!

It is not that unreasonable to consider that all road users pay a fair allocation of the costs for providing that facility, why should that not include cyclists? I would not suggest that cyclists should pay £500 a year (I feel sure Malcolm was slightly tongue in cheek) but are some of you suggesting that an increasing larger group of road users who are being provided with ever increasing facilities should never be expected to pay for the use of those facilities?

That seems to me unreasonable, of course it is only my point of view, but surely we should be able to openly discuss the possibility? 

[Linas.P]

28 minutes ago, Moleman said:

‘tribalism.’

That is most convenient thing ever for government which wants to manipulate the public. Let two tribes fight whilst taxing both - support both views and then put some fuel in the fire for it to blow over from time to time. Just look at "vaxers" vs. "anti-vaxers" fight - both goes to extremes whilst goverment slowly introduces more and more totalitarian rules and control over-reach.

As well I would not consider the roads use to be a privilege, not for drivers, not for cyclists.. and who are the users? Is passenger on the bus a user or just bus driver? Patient in the back of the ambulance? Person who called police or fire-fighters? Somebody buying potatoes in Lidl which were delivered by truck using the roads? I think we all benefit from roads even if we neither cycle, nor drive. So it is just a public infrastructure and public as a whole should contribute to it. I just remind here that for last 30 years goverment have never used more than 30% of VED collected on the roads. So just VED alone cover the cost of all the road infrastructure 3 times over and there is still money to spare. 

[Bluemarlin]

1 hour ago, Malc said:

no idea tbh  ......  bit like having an unused car that needs to be taxed ......... maybe just tax the bicycle then at point of sale, like a car ....  and an annual road tax where appropriate ........  I'm sure someone will come along with an effective and sensible way to tax these road users that are getting  away with not paying anything for the privilege 

Malc

The Highway Code quotes the road traffic act definition of a road as being "‘any highway and any other road to which the public has access and includes bridges over which a road passes".

As such, pedestrains are road users too. Would you tax them as well, so that they're not getting away with not paying anything for the privilege? Maybe tax shoes at the point of purchase? You could even charge for an annual inspection, to ensure they had the required tread depth in order to be safe on the pavement. An additional tax on baked beans perhaps, so that those with higher emissions were taxed accordingly. The opportunities are endless.

As for bicycle tax, that would only result in an increase in taxes for many/most car drivers as, if road tax was simply based on using a road, then all cars would have to pay the same, regardless of emissions.

Roads are infrastructure which, as has been previously pointed out, everyone benefits from and pay taxes towards. The fact that motorists may be unfairly taxed is simply because governments can, and is no justification to levy unfair taxes elsewhere.

[Phil xxkr]

45 minutes ago, Bluemarlin said:

The Highway Code quotes the road traffic act definition of a road as being "‘any highway and any other road to which the public has access and includes bridges over which a road passes".

As such, pedestrains are road users too. Would you tax them as well, so that they're not getting away with not paying anything for the privilege? Maybe tax shoes at the point of purchase? You could even charge for an annual inspection, to ensure they had the required tread depth in order to be safe on the pavement. An additional tax on baked beans perhaps, so that those with higher emissions were taxed accordingly. The opportunities are endless.

As for bicycle tax, that would only result in an increase in taxes for many/most car drivers as, if road tax was simply based on using a road, then all cars would have to pay the same, regardless of emissions.

Roads are infrastructure which, as has been previously pointed out, everyone benefits from and pay taxes towards. The fact that motorists may be unfairly taxed is simply because governments can, and is no justification to levy unfair taxes elsewhere.

Why this obsession with constantly brow beating people through taxation Bill? It's insane! Hard working people are already at 62%, working more than half a year before they can keep their own money it can't go on. 

[Bluemarlin]

1 minute ago, Phil xxkr said:

Why this obsession with constantly brow beating people through taxation Bill? It's insane! Hard working people are already at 62%, working more than half a year before they can keep their own money it can't go on. 

I agree Phil. There are many things I think that might be appropriate to apply to cyclists, such as third party insurance, speed limits and having to stick to cycle lanes, but taxation isn't one of them. It's no more appropriate than taxing pedestrians for the increasing number of pedestrianised zones.

Besides, a cycle tax would be a double taxation, as cyclists are first and foremost citizens, and already pay for roads through council and income tax, and often road tax too, as many are car owners. It would be  like additionally taxing people for other things they've already paid for, like schools, parks, libraries, hospitals etc.

Enough with the taxes already!

[Phil xxkr]

11 minutes ago, Bluemarlin said:

I agree Phil. There are many things I think that might be appropriate to apply to cyclists, such as third party insurance, speed limits and having to stick to cycle lanes, but taxation isn't one of them. It's no more appropriate than taxing pedestrians for the increasing number of pedestrianised zones.

Besides, a cycle tax would be a double taxation, as cyclists are first and foremost citizens, and already pay for roads through council and income tax, and often road tax too, as many are car owners. It would be  like additionally taxing people for other things they've already paid for, like schools, parks, libraries, hospitals etc.

Enough with the taxes already!

Hurrah for Bill 🥳🥳🥳

 

[Moleman]

18 minutes ago, Bluemarlin said:

Besides, a cycle tax would be a double taxation, as cyclists are first and foremost citizens, and already pay for roads through council and income tax, and often road tax too, as many are car owners. It would be  like additionally taxing people for other things they've already paid for, like schools, parks, libraries, hospitals etc.

Enough with the taxes already!

Just change a few words.

Besides, VED would be a double taxation, as motorists are first and foremost citizens, and already pay for roads through council and income tax. It would be  like additionally taxing people for other things they've already paid for, like schools, parks, libraries, hospitals etc.

Enough with the taxes already! 🤣

 

[Bluemarlin]

I 100% agree Maurice. But two wrongs don't make a right, and so just because motorists are unfairly/double taxed, doesn't mean I think it's fair or appropriate to start spreading the unfairness around.

Linas makes a good point about tribalism, and how governments use it to split the majority and play them off against each other.

While motorists and cyclists squabble over who should pax tax, and how much, the country loses around £35bn a year in tax avoidance and fraud. Almost as much as they collect in road tax. So, the average citizens bicker amongst themselves over a few hundred quid here and there, while the likes of Google, amazon, Facebook, and their multi billionaire owners, dodge billions in taxes.

Personally, I'd be open to the idea of additional taxes, if really necessary, but only once we've collected what we should be already entitled to.

[Linas.P]

As well I would note that we (as a society) as a whole overpay for the roads, even if we disregard position of motorist or cyclist etc. 

I haven't checked in last few years, but for 2018, 2019 and 2020 - VED alone was £36bn, £37bn and £37bn respectively. Expenditure on transport was ~£10bn for each year. But that for example includes £2bn subsidies to bus operators who made profit as well (it is basically giving tax money to private companies) and there were other expenses which has nothing to do with actually improving the roads. So is just motorists and just from VED already pays 3.5 times the what it cost to upkeep the roads, then realistically anyone who isn't VED paying motorists actually doesn't contribute anything to the roads, but benefits of ~£20bn+ from VED... it probably should be called vehicle "excessive" duty.

As I have alluded before, and other people said - nobody is against fair taxation, or that people in need get's their care... but we are so far from that is hard to even comprehend. It just hurts to watch when say 30% of taxes we pay never benefits the society because they are just consumed by corruption and maybe another 30% are not used efficiently. You may disagree with my guestimate of %, but point is - imagine how perfect the life would be if all the taxes would be efficiently used for their intended purpose.

[Phil xxkr]

1 hour ago, Bluemarlin said:

I 100% agree Maurice. But two wrongs don't make a right, and so just because motorists are unfairly/double taxed, doesn't mean I think it's fair or appropriate to start spreading the unfairness around.

Linas makes a good point about tribalism, and how governments use it to split the majority and play them off against each other.

While motorists and cyclists squabble over who should pax tax, and how much, the country loses around £35bn a year in tax avoidance and fraud. Almost as much as they collect in road tax. So, the average citizens bicker amongst themselves over a few hundred quid here and there, while the likes of Google, Amazon, Facebook, and their multi billionaire owners, dodge billions in taxes.

Personally, I'd be open to the idea of additional taxes, if really necessary, but only once we've collected what we should be already entitled to.

For the avoidance of doubt Bill tax avoidance is perfectly legal (I assume you accept your 12,750 tax free allowance). But evasion is not, so I certainly would not alledge certain multi nationals fall into the latter category. 🤔. I would be keen to understand more about the £35bn, who made the statement, how was it arrived at, or is it yet another divisive statement. 

[royoftherovers]

1 minute ago, Phil xxkr said:

For the avoidance of doubt Bill tax avoidance is perfectly legal (I assume you accept your 12,750 tax free allowance). But evasion is not, so I certainly would not alledge certain multi nationals fall into the latter category. 🤔. I would be keen to understand more about the £35bn, who made the statement, how was it arrived at, or is it yet another divisive statement. 

As an interested bystander,but not a willing contributor, I confirm that Tax avoidance is legal whilst evasion is not !

[Moleman]

2 minutes ago, royoftherovers said:

As an interested bystander,but not a willing contributor, I confirm that Tax avoidance is legal whilst evasion is not !

Absolutely correct, however, public opinion can and does change; and by starting the conversation about such issues (i.e. should the current levels of tax avoidance remain acceptable and legal), changes may occur. Just a thought.

[Malc]

2 hours ago, Linas.P said:

imagine how perfect the life would be if all the taxes would be efficiently used for their intended purpose.

wouldn't that be nice eh ! .. even amazing ............. now then, where's the comment I posted about Donald Trump's Scottish Golf Courses getting stack loads of UK Govt handout covid money ...  no fear of that ever being repaid I s'pose  !  AND of course it was all legal and above board and some might think that impoverished Trump and his allies could have afforded the largesse to refuse making the covid financial claims ............  BUT there we are Trump and his accountants and allies clearly think they are more deserving than the NHS ....  even the Scottish NHS ............

Malc

[Linas.P]

22 minutes ago, Moleman said:

Absolutely correct, however, public opinion can and does change; and by starting the conversation about such issues (i.e. should the current levels of tax avoidance remain acceptable and legal), changes may occur. Just a thought.

I would double on that. It does not matter whenever it is legal or not, the question is - whenever it is acceptable or why it is acceptable? 

Why as society we accept being double, triple, quadruple taxed... and most of us paying effective 20-45% tax rate and then on top of that we pay another 20-30% of our net income on other taxes... So for every £1 we earn we probably pay close to £0.55 in some form of tax or another. And nobody seems to be enraged about that, maybe slightly annoyed at most.

Yet multibillion corporations pays effective taxes well under 10%... to be honest Microsoft was one of the fairest with close to 8% effective tax, amazon, Google pays closer to 1% and apple paid 0.05%! Why nobody are in arms about it? 

And all this goes back to tribalism, manipulation, narrative etc. Whilst we squabble who has to pay VED and who don't these massive corporations avoids paying billions - "LEGALLY"!

6 minutes ago, Malc said:

wouldn't that be nice eh ! .. even amazing ............. now then, where's the comment I posted about Donald Trump's Scottish Golf Courses getting stack loads of UK Govt handout covid money ...  no fear of that ever being repaid I s'pose  !  AND of course it was all legal and above board and some might think that impoverished Trump and his allies could have afforded the largesse to refuse making the covid financial claims ............  BUT there we are Trump and his accountants and allies clearly think they are more deserving than the NHS ....  even the Scottish NHS ............

Here you go! And I don't even blame trumpster - shouldn't our elected ones should be wiser? Or if not - are they deserving of public office? 

[Malc]

3 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

shouldn't our elected ones should be wiser? Or if not - are they deserving of public office? 

we elect 'em for sure ........  nobody to blame bar you and me ...........  well, unless you don't vote 

btw it's illegal not to vote in Australia I'm told ....... neither to enter, nor try to enter, the country with falsehoods as did Novax Jokeabitch the other week

Malc

[Bluemarlin]

11 minutes ago, Phil xxkr said:

For the avoidance of doubt Bill tax avoidance is perfectly legal (I assume you accept your 12,750 tax free allowance). But evasion is not, so I certainly would not alledge certain multi nationals fall into the latter category. 🤔. I would be keen to understand more about the £35bn, who made the statement, how was it arrived at, or is it yet another divisive statement. 

The figure was from  the commons library Phil, here's the quote:

"HM Revenue & Customs publishes annual estimates of the tax gap, the difference between tax that is collected and that which is ‘theoretically due’. In September 2021 HMRC published revised estimates, which put the tax gap at £35 billion for 2019/20, representing 5.3% of total tax liabilities."

My point wasn't to try and claim that certain multi nationals were doing anything illegal.  However, the context of the conversation was about who (eg cyclists) "should" pay more tax, and I was merely saying that if more taxation was necessary then I'd sooner see that come first from areas where it is morally/ethically considered to be due (even if legally not) before taking it off everyday folk.

There's also a subtle difference between my tax free allowance and tax avoidance. The former is something I've been explicitly told I can do, whereas the latter is taking advantage of things I haven't been told I can't do. Bit like a sign that says don't walk on the grass, and so you run instead, thus following the letter of the law, but not the spirit. 😉

I accept that the rights/wrongs, pros and cons of taxation, loopholes, avoidance etc are another story that would take forever to debate, and so am just clarifying what I meant in my post.

[Linas.P]

14 minutes ago, Bluemarlin said:

the context of the conversation was about who (eg cyclists) "should" pay more tax, and I was merely saying that if more taxation was necessary then I'd sooner see that come first from areas where it is morally/ethically considered to be due (even if legally not) before taking it off everyday folk.

Your point was spot-on in this context, because most of the tax is arbitrary in some way or another. Especially, those taxes which only applies to certain part of society - say smokers, motorists etc.

So if we can arbitrarily say that drivers somehow are "detriment to the society" (which is crazy but goverment has pushed this narrative quite successfully probably since 60's), then clearly taxing the corporates would be far easier to justify, than say taxing the old or cyclists.

The only problem - goverment owns the narrative and corporations owns the goverment (perhaps not directly, but via lobbies etc)... so don't expect much change there. If there is ever suggestion corporates have to pay even their fair share (10-19% corporate tax) there is always massive campaign to explain how they "employ the people" and how they "invest" and how basically we are prosperous just because they take 90%+ of their profits without paying any tax. 

[doog442]

Perhaps as motorists we can campaign for VED to actually be spent on roads. 

[doog442]

11 hours ago, Malc said:

it's been there for me at the  " point of need "  instantaneous.........  with my cancer radiotherapy and operation .......... the 1.5 million employees all do a tremendous job for sure .......  my nephew is a heart surgeon Consultant and works his bollocks off saving peoples lives every day ........ employ more and the peripheral waiting lists might come down for sure .........  " point of need "  is catered for well within the capacity of the NHS  ............... NHS 1.75 million employees and all will be dealt with instantaneously I'm sure ..  the waiting list will vanish  .........  let's all pay a little more to achieve that eh ! 

So VED for cyclists might help ease the NHS waiting lists then 

Most other countries the " point of need " passes and one just dies without the personal wealth to jump the Qs😵

Malc

I hope you're making a full recovery Malc. 

Your average hospital bike sheds looks like downtown Amsterdam, if they're not there they are among the literally thousands of bicycles at every commuter station, then folk walk in. My lads at Uni, medical Uni actually and their bike sheds are rammed. Yet you want to VED these poor sods who like most of us are looking at the cheapest way to get to work, school, Uni, hospitals and everywhere else.  I'd wager most cycling is people getting to work and trying to save a few bob.  Not just Universities but schools / colleges / polytechnics and you seriously want to VED them  ?   

These threads are interesting, enlightening and eventful however I think some folk seriously underestimate how many people actually commute to their jobs. It's got to be a good thing surely, not just for the environment (less cars, less emissions), peoples pockets and also their health.  

 

[Linas.P]

1 hour ago, doog442 said:

and you seriously want to VED them ?   

(less cars, less emissions)

I don't think suggestion to VED bicycles was ever said or taken seriously by anyone. However, I think it just works as example - if roads are "privilege" which I don't believe they are, then all the users should be paying for that privilege, why only the car drivers should be contributing? Or at least I thought that was a gist of it.

However, there is an issue in this statement, to begin with VED is just triple, quadruple, nonsensical tax out of nowhere and for nothing. It is completely made-up for no other reason except that goverment could do it, so they did. VED has nothing to do with cars and as of recently even pollution, and VED will definitely be introduced (is introduced for EVs). Why... just because... goverment had this cash cow and they don't want to stop milking it. When everyone realised that road maintenance excuse does not work, then they changed it to pollution, when pollution doesn't work it will be something else. It is not fair tax or something we inherently need to could justify, it exist for the sake of it.

Could the same money be taken from somewhere else... yes, could the money be spent somewhere else... obviously. It is just general taxation, but in different name and it isn't very fair simply because it targets particular group and therefore there is no point to campaign to "ringfence" this tax for the roads - goverment knows very well this has nothing to do with the roads and they want it to be that way.

With "less cars, less emissions" point you just support the statement of taxing the cyclist... because you see... eventually "less cars" turns into "no cars" and this means new victim and new revenue stream needs to be found. And this is why this tax isn't about pollution or road use - because if it would be then it would be designed to discourage such use, but it isn't - it is designed to make money out of such use. Goverment just realised that people are attached to their cars, or simply are dependant on them because they don't have other means. Maybe existing infrastructure maybe no suitable for cycling, or person can't cycle or simply don't want to cycle... and there is no public transport either, or it is too expensive, or too slow, or too disgusting... Point is  - 85% of passenger miles and 75% of passenger journeys are made in car and this presents massive revenue stream, yet motorists are not organised or monolithic group, so they can stand-up to this. 

Taxing cyclist is just funny example, but it could be any other group of society which can be divided and can't defend itself. Maybe it is going to be elderly in large houses with inheritance tax, or bedroom tax, or excess rooms charge, or maybe they going to add tax on student loans and call-it "study excise tax"... use you imagination, it could be anything as long as they can find an excuse and form public opinion that it is somewhat justifiable. 

[First_Lexus]

7 hours ago, Linas.P said:

Taxing cyclist is just funny example, but it could be any other group of society which can be divided and can't defend itself. Maybe it is going to be elderly in large houses with inheritance tax, or bedroom tax, or excess rooms charge, or maybe they going to add tax on student loans and call-it "study excise tax"... use you imagination, it could be anything as long as they can find an excuse and form public opinion that it is somewhat justifiable. 

The issue is, and since the formation of our current system of Government always has been, that ‘the people’ demand services from Government - education, a health service, roads, sewers (the list is almost endless) - and yet too many people believe that somebody else should pay for it. Ask somebody if they’re ‘rich’ and see what answer you get.

Taxation is raised for the common good. Yes, there is inevitable ‘waste’ in such a huge and complex system but ask yourself if you have never ‘wasted’ money from your own household budget. Regardless of what people may think, or want to believe, actual ‘corruption’ in UK Government is very low. VED isn’t used purely for road maintenance - and shouldn’t be by the way - any more than National Insurance is used just to fund the Health Service. It is all in a pot for Government to allocate in the way it feels is best. It isn’t simple, either, although often media present it as so. A great example a couple of weeks ago was a newspaper ‘splash’ about the waste of money on hire cars for Civil Servants. There was outrage. It was just a pity the report failed to mention that the use of the hire cars actually saved money…

Cyclists would like budget raised from taxation spent on more bicycle lanes. Motorists want new roads or potholes filled. An oncologist wants the latest drug, an orthopaedic surgeon wants the latest MRI scanner, a teacher wants the latest computers…but I’m afraid they can’t all have exactly what they want. None of us can. People will usually argue in favour of their own priorities. Political parties argue in favour of what they think will gain them the most support.

As EVs become more popular, Government will HAVE to increase taxation on them, otherwise we’ll have a hole in the budget. Taxing cyclists, taxing cake, taxing food…something has to be taxed, and some people won’t like it. The role of Government is to find the solution that delivers the best outcomes while irritating the fewest number of people, in order that they remain in power.

Imho Governments of all colours have done a pretty good job since WW2 when you consider what this country has been up against. The decline of Empire leading to massive loss of revenue, whilst trying to convince ‘the people’ that we are still a ‘great power.’ Paying back WW2 lease-lend and reducing the National Debt. Re-building and maintaining the national infrastructure which was largely Victorian built and is now crumbling. An NHS which is ever more cash hungry because of medical advances and an ageing population. This is not simple stuff. We’d like to think it is. We’d like to think we know better. This is simply about choices, right and wrong, but I’m convinced mainly made with good intention.

[Malc]

1 hour ago, First_Lexus said:

Governments of all colours have done a pretty good job since WW2 when you consider what this country has been up against.

1 hour ago, First_Lexus said:

This is not simple stuff. We’d like to think it is. We’d like to think we know better. This is simply about choices, right and wrong, but I’m convinced mainly made with good intention.

Excellent synopsis Ed ............ raising revenue will never be what anybody wishes BUT everybody wants it raised to pay for well, everything the State is responsible for ............ balancing the books has never been easy and Rishi's job to deal with the £400 bn costs incurred from the pandemic will take a stroke of genius to sort out .....  let's hope he is the guy for the job ........  don't know of anyone else in the public eye that would have a clue what to do tbh

Maybe Rishi has a headstart and can have a useful chat with his father-in-law who knows a thing or two about finances .  probably more than most people, bankers, financiers, politicians ......  and about charities too .... and the needs of those needing charity

The least likely politician ever to need to be accused of anything untoward to do with money, sleaze, corruption etc ........  doubt he would ever ever want to be the PM ..........  he has a life to live and wouldn't want, I'm sure, to be the butt of the Commons day to day crap

BUT then, of all the Conservatives( as they are IN )  maybe he really is the only one with the energy and ability to do a great job for the Nation

Malc

[Moleman]

18 hours ago, Moleman said:

So folks can I remind you of this recent post on another forum:

‘tribalism.’

I’m not sure exactly when this happened, but so many people seem to want to identify with a particular group and defend the views and actions of that group sometimes without reason. I was always taught that, in any debate, the real solution was often somewhere in the middle of the two opposing views. These days, I fear too many people simply believe their view is ‘right’ and every other view is ‘wrong.’ Thus, almost everything becomes tribal.

Why take every comment as if it is a personal attack!

It is not that unreasonable to consider that all road users pay a fair allocation of the costs for providing that facility, why should that not include cyclists? I would not suggest that cyclists should pay £500 a year (I feel sure Malcolm was slightly tongue in cheek) but are some of you suggesting that an increasing larger group of road users who are being provided with ever increasing facilities should never be expected to pay for the use of those facilities?

That seems to me unreasonable, of course it is only my point of view, but surely we should be able to openly discuss the possibility? 

Dear Doog442, thank you for the acknowledgement of my post quoted above, just out of curiosity and so I do not mistake your response as tribalism; what was sad? Having read your other posts on this forum subject, lets accept you are correct and we need to increase the use of cycles and decrease the use of ICE on the roads, this works and ICE users are taken off the road in large numbers and cyclists become the majority users of the infrastructure. Bliss it would seem. However, please enlighten us as to whom you believe, should, will, and would be willing to make up the shortfall in taxation if the majority users at that  wonderful time - Cyclists - should never be considered or expected to be asked? 

Waiting with anticipation. 🤣 

[Phil xxkr]

50 minutes ago, Malc said:

Excellent synopsis Ed ............ raising revenue will never be what anybody wishes BUT everybody wants it raised to pay for well, everything the State is responsible for ............ balancing the books has never been easy and Rishi's job to deal with the £400 bn costs incurred from the pandemic will take a stroke of genius to sort out .....  let's hope he is the guy for the job ........  don't know of anyone else in the public eye that would have a clue what to do tbh

Maybe Rishi has a headstart and can have a useful chat with his father-in-law who knows a thing or two about finances .  probably more than most people, bankers, financiers, politicians ......  and about charities too .... and the needs of those needing charity

The least likely politician ever to need to be accused of anything untoward to do with money, sleaze, corruption etc ........  doubt he would ever ever want to be the PM ..........  he has a life to live and wouldn't want, I'm sure, to be the butt of the Commons day to day crap

BUT then, of all the Conservatives( as they are IN )  maybe he really is the only one with the energy and ability to do a great job for the Nation

Malc

But these arguments are based on the premis that the size of the state in all forms does not decrease but increases over time. Why? Where are the true conservatives arguing for a reduced involvement in people's lives.?