July 7, 2021 - 2:22pm
According to a new report from the Institute for Economic Affairs, 67% of young Britons (16-to-34-year-olds) “would like to live in a socialist economic system.”
Being a free market think tank, the IEA presents this as cause for alarm. Certainly, it helps to explain why younger voters now lean so heavily towards Labour and the other Left-wing parties.
But how do we reconcile these facts with a Redfield and Wilton poll, also out this week, which shows that younger people are much more in favour of cutting taxes than those aged 35 plus? Remarkably, support for lower taxation is twice as high among 18-to-24-year-olds than it is among Conservative voters.
Moreover, when asked to choose between tax increases and spending cuts to balance the country’s finances, most younger voters opt for the latter.
This is not what one would expect from a bunch of socialists.
So do these findings contradict the IEA report? No — because the IEA polling also finds some perplexing views on taxation. While there was support among younger people for paying more tax in order to better fund public services and benefits, an even higher proportion of the same age group agreed with the statement: “I would prefer to pay less tax, because I don’t trust the government to spend my taxes wisely.”
So how does one resolve the paradox of the anti-tax young socialists? A facile explanation is that young people don’t know what they’re talking about. In particular, one might suspect they don’t understand that ‘free stuff’ always has to be paid for by someone.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI don’t think most of the youth have a cooking clue what socialism entails. It is just fashionable and woke.
I always remember the simple, and best, definition:
The means of Production = Land Labour Capital.
1) Communism = State Ownership of the Means of Production.
2) Socialism = State Control of the Means of Production
3) Capitalism = Private Ownership of the Means of Production.
As the Labour is You, it is the big one. Land is something most of us aspire to eventually own, as is Capital.
And by the way, Fas* ism is Corporate AND Government Joint Partnership in the Control/Ownership of the Means of Production. (Italy, Germany, Japan, 1930s)
And increasingly China today?
Incorrect. Socialism means State Ownership of the Means of Production. In a communist society, the State has withered away, meaning there is no State to either own or control the Means of Production. Of course, no Socialist will ever allow the State to wither away because their power, wealth and privilege will evaporate with the State.
But the withering away of the state is just the most absurd part of Marxist dogma, making almost no sense in its own terms, and which has never been or could be realised in reality. A Stalin or Mao deciding to abjure their own power?
And what are their parents doing to correct this view? Nothing because they have been living a life supported by welfare. Socialism has been taking over the west for many years.
In UK, many years ago I remember an exceedingly cynical bit of socialism – Child Tax Credit was expanded to Middle class. The money taken with one hand, and then given back with the other. This is to condition all to be part of the great Benefit State.
For Socialism to work you cannot have the top half just funding the lower half, that leads to resentment. No, All Must Receive Money, all must be caught up in the web. That is Socialism.
Has it? The great majority of the time we’ve had Conservative governments.
This post seems to miss the obvious – if they are answering that taxes ought to be lower “in general” and also wanting socialism, that would imply they want much higher taxes on the rich, which is perfectly compatible with saying that taxes ought to be low “in general”. On spending cuts, the answer could easily imply that they want spending cut on things that this voting block might not consider essential services, like maintaining a nuclear deterrent. (I have no polling data to back that example up, but the point is that “spending cuts” does not necessarily entail “spending cuts on things that modern socialists typically desire high state spending on”)
These opinions may not be particularly wise, so maybe I am being patronising and facile for suggesting it, but the positions are logically consistent up to a point and isn’t quite as simple as “they don’t understand that ‘free stuff’ always has to be paid for by someone.”
I watched the interview with the guy who did the poll, and they forced Yes, or No answers, when they asked the questions with a ‘Don’t Know’ answer possible the youth almost always chose that.
The youth are just mindless sheep so they just bleated out answers without any reasoning, just what sounded good…..probabally wile looking at their phones reading texts and watching a tick-toc..
You should have said that their answers could imply they want higher taxes on the rich….not would imply. The difference is simply that I do not believe many young people think about this too much, it is far more important to be seen agreeing with current fashionable views. Not to do so can have catastrophic career consequences later in life when some troll dredges up a comment or upvote you made 10 years before.
Bear in mind also that “taxing the rich” has been tried many times and all that happens is the rich have offshore accounts…….
I believe that the author of the article has made a valid point in their 4th to last paragraph when they say that it isn’t until the young go to work and see how much of their gross pay is deducted, that Socialist tendencies take a back seat….
The IEA paper whilst a welcome blast of disinterested thinking may also represent a degree of panic. True, the intense silliness of the “woke” and increasing oppression at their hands has its sinister side and demands a response. And it is equally true that should such a response be much longer delayed, then the sinister developments which “woke” heralds could well come about. However, resistance is hardening and finding its voice. At the same time, “woke” is reaching the point when its imposition upon reality, in order not to look foolish and fall apart, will have to embark on open terror. Mercifully, its votaries, though horribly influential, are not so far in a position to set up and run a gulag. A more subtle immediate danger is that we continue along this vaguely free market, excessively multicultural path until some other society comes along to “sort us out” – whether Islam by demographic preponderance or China by economic heft – or both. And that is to assume that Islam and China do not have internal weaknesses of their own – which they do. There is evidence, for example, that atheist and agnostic opinion – sub rosa, naturally – are rising in the middle east. Even Saudi has made some concessions to female emancipation and many Arab powers have made peace with Israel. The “woke” will look even more damnably stupid if they are bleating about horrible western oppression even as Islamic societies westernise themselves.
I wonder is it youthful naivete. For the naive, Socialism means the same thing as “don’t tax me, tax the rich”. Much as I like the idea of tech barons paying more tax, there just is not enough of them go around to pay for high-quality public services for millions of people. Those things cost money – my money, unfortunately. This is well understood in Scandinavia, where taxes on everyone are high, but public services and the social safety net are excellent. This won’t be to everyone’s liking but at least it makes it clear that “tax the rich” is necessary but not sufficient even for Social Democracy, never mind Socialism.
“Youthful naivete” extends into their 40s these days, due to extended time in education, gap year travel (of distant memory) , deferment of children, housing unaffordability etc.
“Tax the rich” actually provides most tax in most countries already. The rest of us are taxed so that at least we have a stake in deciding what tax rates should be.
Many of those respondents will not be working. That a share of other people’s stuff is popular amongst such should be no surprise.
I suspect the facile and patronising answer is correct.
‘Would you like more, and pay less for it?’ please check one box:
YES)
NO)
It seems to me that we are very confused. Over the past 50 years billions have been spent on prolonging life – drugs like steroids, antibiotics, new surgical techniques. I have no figures but, surely, 75% of health spending is on old people – even new hips and knees must cost a fortune.
So, having been successful in this it seems that older people are taking too big a share of resources. Young people need the houses of the old and better access to the NHS for things like gastric bands so that they can party longer, for medically-prescribed leisure drugs, for sex change surgery, for better treatment of knife injuries on Friday and Saturday nights, for new tattoo-removal techniques and for one-to-one psychiatric help with mental problems.
I suggest the following:
* old people must be disenfranchised at 70 years,
* old people must leave their houses at 70 so that young people can move in – camps would be provided for the old of course,
* nobody can use NHS resources after their 70th birthday.
*voluntary euthanasia must be legalised for the over-70s.
The above would of course not apply to political leaders, footballers or rock stars (or me).
I think it would have to apply to your ageing football and rock stars, without exception.
Have you been talking to my daughter ??………
Blimey! I’m glad euthanasia will be voluntary in your utopia. Otherwise I’d be kaput in a few months time!
Younger people might hardly think about the state pension but they do think about their stakeholder pensions, which every employer must offer employees. That connects them directly to the world of business and finance that we older folks barely thought about at their age.
Young people are ignorant. They think you can increase spending without raising taxation or debasing the currency. Just likely a Tory government.