Many people will regard the imposition of a tax on male homosexuals as a
controversial move; some might even see it as (on the face of it)
bordering on the illiberal. It is not my intention to stir up needless
controversy, however. I merely wish to make what might in saner times be
considered an obvious point; that it is far better, given that the
government wastes every penny of money given to it, that the incidence
of taxation fall heaviest on those members of society whose propensity
to waste their own money is highest.

Everyone knows, and a few clever souls have already managed to exploit
commercially the fact that gay men will buy almost any old crap as long
as it is marketed to them as being in some way "camp" or "ironic". This
constitutes a de facto "gay tax", levied by the private sector, and used
in the production of valueless, joyless, soulless plastic crap.

This makes no sense. In the United Kingdom, they have something called
the "National Health Service", which cures Brits when they are ill and
gives them a free dental check up when they reach the age of retirement.
In the United Kingdom they also have something called the "tedious
fucking NHS government spending bore", which is a kind of person who,
whenever the government spends money on providing mindless entertainment
for the poor proles, pipes up with a self-righteous whine of "That Money
Could Have Been Spent On The NHS!!!!". Preferably illustrated with a
picture of a poor little kiddy/granny, who has had to wait for their
nasal polyp operation for a few weeks longer because the government
dared to hand some of the public's money back to the public.

This kind of argument is, of course, indefensible. But nevertheless, it
sticks in the craw a bit to see roads go unrepaired and dead dogs rot in
the streets while the gays of this country waste their money on Hello
Kitty oven gloves. Tax it and use the money for AIDS research; even the
gays would be in support of that, probably.

This would also be a progressive tax in that statistics show that gay
men are typically better off than the national average. Lesbians, on the
other hand, typically earn less than the national average. So by this
logic, they ought to be subsidised. Can we build a "Rainbow Coalition"
behind the idea of subsidised lesbianism? I like to think so.

Radical ideas never have it easy. But I think that this proposal will
find more support than most.

Radical ideas never have it easy. But I think that this proposal will find
more support than most.