A sometime commentator on this site called Richard G Brown has written about what he considers to be the "silliness intrinsic" in tax justice. I think it only fair to say that he was goaded into doing so by Duncan Wigan, who is a colleague at Sussex University where I am a visiting fellow.
Richard makes three accusations against what I write and what TJN writes. The first is that:
The primary fallacy seems to be the tendency to start from the perspective that your money is the state's - and that you should be allowed to keep what is left after the state has taken what it wants.
The second refers to the claim on the Tax Justice Network website that "tax havens cause poverty" and is that:
tax justice shows the "interesting" level of economic literacy prevalent in this field. There seems to be a belief that poverty is "caused" and that, naturally, it is somebody's fault.
The third is that:
Anybody who disagrees with the tax justice crowd is "greedy".
As someone who has read these comments said to me, they are somewhat bizarre, but let me deal with them:
Your money is the state's
I do not know one person involved with tax justice who has said this, or thinks it. The notion is so extraordinary that I am tempted to simply dismiss such thinking. But I believe Richard G Brown to be serious. So let's deal with it.
My poisition (I'm not going to speak for others) is that tax is the price we pay for living in communities. We don't know any other way of living, and as a matter of fact we are mutually co-dependent. To regulate this co-dependence humans have always accepted a need for government of some sort, legitimised in various ways. We now desire that legitimacy to come from consent expressed democratically.
I believe that governments elected in this way have a right to collect tax. More than that, they have a duty to do so to ensure that communal goals (and we'll disagree, fairly, on what they are) can be fulfilled. In the process of doing so it has five objectives. These are to:
- Provide public funds;
- Redistribute income to reduce poverty and inequality;
- 'Reprice' goods and services to ensure that all social costs of production and consumption are reflected in the market price;
- Strengthen and protect channels of political representation;
- Provide a tool for the management of an economy, usually in combination with government borrowing.
All these goals are, in my opinion, desirable. They create stable communities. That has to be of benefit. This system also corrects the very obvious failing s of the market system. That system could not ever provide a socially optimal outcome in any society in reality because so many of the pre-conditions of it doing so do not exist. Those that do not exist include:
-
Perfect knowledge of the future;
-
Perfect knowledge of all products and services available in the market now, and their prices;
-
The existence of markets in which no company has any power to influence price;
-
Equal access to resources in society.
I could add many more, all of which are required to make markets produce successful outcomes and the absence of any one of which will result in an imperfect result. The degree of imperfection cannot be predicted, but will tend towards monopoly exploitation. This is why the State must intervene to protect those whom the market would otherwise both fail and exploit.
But that right of intervention does not mean that the State has a prior claim on a person's cash. But we do say it has a legitimate claim on part of it, and we add that it is the duty of the citizen, wherever they might be, to respond as required by law to that claim and to fulfil the demand made of them. And no more.
This is far removed from Richard Brown's assertion of our belief.
Tax justice is poor economic thinking
I am baffled by this. I don't claim to be much of an economist, but I have a degree in the subject. Many of those I work with are somewhat better qualified in it. But I struggle to identify our poverty of thinking, and Richard fails to highlight it.
If we consider this issue within the model of market economics (and I think it fair to assume Richard does ) then his own position is bereft of economic logic. The reason is that, as I have noted above, market theory suggests that an economy can produce an optimal outcome for all who live in it in one particular set of circumstances which is far removed from any reality yet known to humankind. Any deviation from the conditions required to achieve that goal will result in sub-optimal behaviour.
What we argue is that tax havens facilitate that sub-optimal behaviour because for markets to work it is necessary to have perfect information. Tax havens (which we say cause poverty) contravene a required pre-condition for market theory to work optimally because they ensure that secrecy prevails and as such imperfect outcomes are bound to result. Our argument is that this situation is exploited by those who can afford to avail themselves of the services of those who work in these places to exploit those who cannot do so. A perfect example is the use of them for corruption in Kenya. This failure does cause poverty as a result. This is logical economic thinking, and not as Richard Brown suggests. And someone is to blame: action could be taken to close tax havens. Every aspect of Richard Brown's logic appears flawed.
Anyone who disagrees is greedy
There are two responses to this. The first is that the whole basis of mainstream economic thinking is that greed is both acceptable and desirable. This is what the maximisation of self interest that it promotes means, at least to many who seem to simplistically buy into this economic vision. To raise the point that greed exists in the economic system and is a motive for not paying tax is in fact to simply refer to one of the fundamental tenets of currently accepted economic theory.
But, more particularly, the comment I made which Richard Brown referred to was appropriate. It is wholly untrue to say that I had not logically argued my case from first principles before referring to greed. I had. And I was responding to this statement which was made by a commentator:
I'm not greedy I just don't see why the money my father earns throughout his lifetime, for the benefit of his family, should be subject to yet another tax when it is passed on to them.
That's irrational, and self interested. It's also wrong. As my piece showed, the sum in question had never been taxed. In that sense I felt it entirely justified to rationally say the comment indicative of greed. That was not an ad hominem argument. Ad hominem argument was the sort heard on Hecklers when without any justification from what I said I was accused of xenophobia and envy. Those making those comments have been widely remarked upon for having put forward illogical comment. But I did not present such a case.
So, in conclusion Richard Brown has to be do somewhat better to win his claim that there's intrinsic silliness in tax justice, because that's far from being true.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Hi Richard,
Thank you for a thoughtful and detailed response. I don’t intend for this to turn into a prolonged back-and-forth (and I’m not sure you’d entertain such a situation in any case!) but I will attempt to address a few of your points in the next few days.
Regards,
Richard
“I believe that governments elected in this way have a right to collect tax” You state this in the response to the first acusation.
Are you prepared to accept that there are other legitimate means of funding the society you describe?
Alistair
Yes, but they must be progressive and ensure access for all.
What do you suggest?
Richard
There are of course a number of countries in the world with a different approach (or even approaches) to funding public services, and indeed to funding political parties. I did not have anything specific in mind – just the point that taxation is not a necessary condition for the society you mention.
The problem with your argument is that taxation, by its nature, does represents the state taking ownership of your money. I was simply wondering whether you accept that it is possible for such a society to exist without taxation?
Not sure I understand what you mean by “progressive” and “ensure access for all”?
Alasatair
I thought you might come up with Cayman which basically survives on tourist and company fees. But you haven’t.
There’s good reason: there is no alternative to tax to achieve the aims of a society of any size.
And it is not a matter of the state taking ownershiup of your money any more than paying someone for any other legally incurred debt is giving them control of your money: it is a matter of paying what is legally required of you.
As for progressive, tjhat means you pay proprtionately more of your income in tax as that income rises, and access for all menas that the service supplied is the same to all irrespctive of the amount of tax that they pay. Because tax is not due under a commercial contract, it is due under a social contract.
Richard
Richard, I might equally have described USA and their approach to health service funding. I think there are lots of examples of public services being funded by means other than general taxation.
Is it not logically inconsistent to refer to tax as a legally incurred debt, but then to talk about it being a social contract rather than a commercial contract?
Alastair
I presume you are joking when you talk about US health service funding! 25% of all US citizens do not have healthcare insurance. Health outcomes for them are dire. It is also true that the cost of American healthcare is absurdly high because of the gross inefficiency of their market lead system.
And no there is no inconsitency: of course debts can be incurred other than by commercial contract. Fines are one such example.
Richard
Hi Richard,
As promised, I have tried to address some of your points here: http://gendal.blogspot.com/2007/09/tax-revisited.html
Cheers,
Richard.
May I address your stated ‘five objectives’:
Provide public funds;
{Well, yes; ‘providing public funds’ and ‘raising taxes’ are precisely the same thing. The issue should be what those funds are used for.}
Redistribute income to reduce poverty and inequality;
{Only good if you’re a Marxist, utterly wrong otherwise.}
‘Reprice’ goods and services to ensure that all social costs of production and consumption are reflected in the market price;
{First you must define ‘social costs’. Second you must assume that consumers are incapable of considering those costs when making their own purchasing decisions.}
Strengthen and protect channels of political representation;
{Telling people who are net beneficiaries of the tax and benefit system that you intend to increase the burden on net contributors will pretty much assure you of their vote, at the expense of the tax-payers, who effectively become disenfranchised. In what way does this ‘protect channels of political representation’?}
Provide a tool for the management of an economy, usually in combination with government borrowing.
{The less government interferes in anything, including the economy, the better.}
[…] The logic of tax justice […]
Ian Bennett clearly lives in a fantasy world:
1) Of course the use of funds is a relevant question. But that does not mean by argument is wrong.
2) I am not a Marxist. I hold this opinion. So do many others, like the leadership of all Conservative governments since WW2 (Marxists to a man and woman I am sure)
3) The information to price these externatlities is not available to the consumer. It’s a fantasy to think they are.
4) Participation is the key to democracy – wealth is not. You may have noted that this poijt was resolved rather a long time ago.
5) There is no evidence to prove your case, but the Scandinavian countries provide clear evidence to the contrary.
Further contributions of this sort without evidence supplied will be blocked. This is a site for reasoned argument.
“Ian Bennett clearly lives in a fantasy world:”
Alas, no, just one where the state takes half of what I work for and gives most of it to people who don’t work at all; these are the people who perpetuate the system because their vote ensures that no party which committed itself to ensuring that I get what I work for would be elected.
Ah, the old, the sick, children, the disabled. Of course, one should not provide for them. I forgot, of course, Ian. Silly me. I made the mistake of caring.
And of believing in democracy.
And in debts being enforceable. Becaue the state does take what you earn. You owe it. That’s called the rule of law. It’s necessary if society is to exist.
So, let’s summarise your fantasy. It’s an anarchy with no children, old people, ill or disabled people in which all co-exist without the need for regulation.
No wonder so few share your vision.
Not an anarchy, simply a world where people take responsibility for their actions, and where they provide for themselves and their families. (Have you never heard of the excluded middle?) I also care; I care for the old and the sick. If the state would allow me to, I would be able to demonstrate how much I care. Unfortunately, after having been forced to subsidise a nation of slackers I have little left for those who need and deserve my care. You cannot make a society compassionate by making it act in a way that it would if it already were compassionate; forcing me to give money to the sick doesn’t make me care, but enabling me do so would show that I do.
Democracy sounds like such a good idea, but so many implementations of it turn out to be two wolves and a goat voting on what to have for dinner.
I also believe in debts being enforceable, provided that they have been incurred legitimately. Yes, I accept that some taxation is necessary; that does not mean that any level of taxation however high, or any usage of the resulting funds are acceptable.
As for the rest of your straw men, I’ll leave them to prop each other up. If you and your readers cannot recognise them, there’s no hope for you.