It's been argued on the blog this morning that:
Taking an individual's property infringes their human rights, and so any form of tax is depriving a person of their rights and can be seen as an abuse.
This was my response (edited slightly):
Property rights are created by law.
Tax is also created by the same process of law.
Tax is as a result a property right belonging to a government.
It is widely agreed that corporations can have property rights, and indeed human rights. It follows that governments can do so too.
That resulting right to tax has the consequence that an individual's right to hold property is stated net of the tax due on that property's acquisition.
The right to continue to hold the property is therefore conditional on paying that tax or the right to own it is forfeited.
It is therefore the non-payment of tax that is an infringement of property rights and an abuse of the human rights of government ands those that it represents.
I may do some more on this later but let it be said now that this argument that tax is an abuse of rights is one with which I will have no truck.
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:
Your position is a absolute one and therefore is an infringement of human rights.
Your view is that property rights are only conditional upon payment of tax, at first glance a reasonable position………..but you also demand the right to level taxation levels at any amount the government decides!
Combine these and the property rights are only in place when tax is paid and that tax could be 100% of the value which effectively cancels the property right.
It is no good arguing that it is unlikely to be 100%, this is an issue of law versus rights and the fact remains you refuse to limit taxation.
Your argument boils down to an individual that you have the cast iron guaranteed right to your property unless I decide you don’t………if which case I have the final say.
The State also has the legal right to kill its citizens, by court order, police action or in a state of emergency…..would you use that right to kill people who don’t pay their tax?………If not then there are limits and who are you to say that they don’t extend to property rights?
OK, I could have referred to democracy
I don’t normally state every possible assumption; I presume most people know the sun will rise tomorrow, but it is only an assumption
And in a reasonable democracy (there is no such thing as a perfect one) yes, the right to property is always, and inevitably, conditional. It just happens it’s worse than that in any other system.
What system of government do you want?
And why not make some reasonable assumptions instead of playing the extremist on all occasions?
“but let it be said now that this argument that tax is an abuse of rights is one with which I will have no truck”
And I agree.
However, under who’s defintion, under which legitimate jurisdiction of free people, can non-payment of tax from an indivudual to a state be classifed ‘an abuse of human rights’?
A civil offence; certainly. A crime; quite possibly. An ‘abuse of human rights’; is this Newspeak?
Human rights abuses are perpetrated by individuals against the State under the laws of the Courageous State are they?
What about all those who suffer from cuts as a result?
Maybe you should think about that?
Isn’t there an issue of consent?
So if I take your property without your consent then I have abused your rights – That is theft.
Tax on the other hand is consensual on the part of the payer. They may not like paying tax but by choosing to live in their country of choice then they have chosen to also abide by that country’s laws and that of course includes its tax laws. So the logical conclusion is that tax is consensual. Hence paying tax cannot in anyway be compared to theft.
Verth: “Tax on the other hand is consensual on the part of the payer. They may not like paying tax but by choosing to live in their country of choice then they have chosen to also abide by that country’s laws and that of course includes its tax laws. So the logical conclusion is that tax is consensual. Hence paying tax cannot in anyway be compared to theft.”
So an abuse of human rights only takes place if people can’t leave the country? If the State decides (for exampple) that it can randomly arrest and detain anyone it so pleases, and occasionally does, those so detained have not had their human rights abused, as long as they could have emigrated, and by not doing so they consented to their treatment?
Of course states can abuse
That’s why many of us on the left are so passionate about things like the Human Rights Act and European back stops
We’re talking tax here
Please do not create extraneous arguments of no relevance
Ok, so States can abuse human rights, even if (pace Verth) people can leave to avoid such abuses. So can a State ever abuse its taxation powers, and if so would that be an abuse of human rights? If Parliament voted to tax Mr Richard Murphy of Downham Market at 100% of his income would that be an abuse of human rights? Or would that be the democratically arrived at price for Mr Murphy to live in the UK?
Let’s put this in context
This us as likely as passing a law that all first born males shall be killed
Arguing in absurdum is a sue sign of trolling
I’m trying to establish a principle. You didn’t answer my question. Can a State abuse its right of taxation or not?
Of course it could in principle
But we have checks and balances in place that mean it doesn’t
So you are not proving a principle
You’re seeking to confirm your prejudice
But once the principle is established (you now accept that the State can abuse its right of taxation) the argument then moves to where the line between legitimate exercising of the right and abuse lies. You may think it lies at one point, I at another. It then becomes an argument of differing opinions (which for any two individuals carry equal validity) rather than one of principle.
None of that changes my argument
It is a total red herring
Why does everything have to be framed in terms of human rights?
There are other issues in the world. Yes, it’s a crime, punishable according to law, quite properly. Yes, a democratically elected goverment has a perfect right to tax.
But let’s not assume that everything in the world is about human rights. We end up like the Daily Mail where everything is either a cause of cancer or a miracle cure for cancer!
For once we disagree!
Well said Richard, very well said indeed.
You said a while ago (or was it Nick Shaxon?) about how tax pays for infrastructure and institutions to help persons and companies make profits and have legal protection, educates and keeps healthy customers and workers who enable profit making and earning, and enable others to help with one’s quality of life, and finally about how higher earners benefit proportionately more from the society/ies that enable them to earn as much as they do, so they should pay a proportionately greater amount of tax.
Something like that?
Sounds like both of us
Many people perhaps do not realise how lucky they are if they have to pay ‘a lot’ of tax; their worldview is undoubtedly distorted by the media, lobbyists etc and they do not realise that if they feel that ‘their tax money’ is wasted, they should
1) Seek the facts’
2) Campaign with evidence, e.g. with transport policy, health policy etc
On point 2, Ken Livingstone really showed courage and won many over with the Congestion Charge, a blunt Pigovian tax (I am a fan of those to a degree)
You show how accountants can and should be by your words and actions Richard
These arguments are all pretty convoluted. Property rights aren’t an absolute human right (so states have a significant degree of latitude) and the right to property is relatively limited in the first place because it is defined as:
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
It is difficult to see taxation in general as an example of arbitrarily depriving somebody of their property, although there may be some limited cases where it could be seen in that way.
Why is it that people who bleat on about tax being an attack on their rights of property never (and I do mean NEVER) point out that people with rights should also have obligations?
What about your obligations, as well as your precious rights? What about your obligation to make sure that the country keeps the lights on, that our people are fed and our sick are cared for, that people have a roof over their head and are kept warm in winter, that there are opportunities for all to develop and grow through learning and work?
Don’t you think it’d be a good idea to think about what you can do for your community rather than crying and complaining about the evil government stealing your hard earned money?
We live in a democracy, which means that the majority of the people (ideally) elect a body to look after that side of things for us. You might not like the government of the day, you may not have voted for them, but in a democracy you go with the majority.
In order for the government to take care of all these things we as a society need to survive, we the people need to cough up a bit of wedge to pay the bill.
“Ah, but it’d be better if I didn’t pay any tax and gave my hard earned to charities of my choice… that way, the public good would be served in a way I think best” – NO. The rather obvious flaw in that thinking is that this is a democracy. You (individually) don’t get to decide what’s best for the country, the majority do. The majority’s views are represented by the government, which needs tax from all of us to breath life into the plans and visions of the people.
The people. Not just me. Not just you. This is a jaw-droppingly simple concept.
So, the next time you feel like complaining about your rights being infringed and how it’s not fair that you should pay tax that pays for things you personally wouldn’t spend it on, just take a deep breath and remember that you are part of a community. It’s bigger than you are. It’s important and, crucially, it’s not free.
Join in, play your part and pay your way.
Very well said; sounds like an expansion on my earlier thinking and a different way of expressing Richard M’s POV on how a courageous state should be 🙂
With your new comments policy I do not expect this to be posted but I thought the point was worth making. I note your view that abuse is someone who differs with an individual argument while a troll is someone who differs with your wider view.
The issue with property rights or any other protection of the individual is one of confidence. You wish to give the State a lot of power (in order to do good things, I know your intentions are good) but to an individual that power looks like a big club. It is no good saying that the State will not use this club to squash an individual (we heard the same promises over GCHQ and data monitoring!) or that democracy will ensure its correct use (we both know that popularism and lobbying can corrupt democracy).
You don’t need to be a huge student of history to see the clear examples when the State has abused its power (or the human face of the State has abused its position) and it is quite reasonable to question the power you wish to give the State.
You obviously think the need for tax and social justice is worth the risk but others do not agree, what is not acceptable is to claim those who have concerns about such State power are trolls, neo liberals, morally unworthy or any of the other “so what” put downs you often use!
Finally as to your trust in democracy, it verges often into Majoritarianism and you have no problem overriding it when you disagree with a polling result. In your mind why can democracy be limited by a duty of care to a foreign state (through tax haven abuse behaviour) but not by a duty of care to an individual?
Have you read the Courageous State?
Give it a try and then come back again
Try this one, the French tax administration states in its doctrine that a dismemberment of a French property into a usufruit and the nue-propriété is not a settlement. HMRC states the contrary, despite the fact that the usufruit by art 677 code civil is extinguished at its term, and cannot be transferred. The nue-propriétaire already owns the rights to income as the owner, there us no succession to the usufruit. The United Kingdom therefore treats a legitimate foreign property right as a trust, something unrecognised by its domestic law, and taxes the dismemberment as a settlement, and doubles its tax take, without credit for the gift tax paid in France on the dismemberment. How is that not expropriation and abusive? EU law only permits requalifucation of a property right under the freedom of movement of capital if there is fraud. There is none. You were on the GAAR panel, would you consider this French property mechanism to be avoidance, or fail the double reasonableness test?
I am simply not expert enough on this issue to tell you
So the UK is being courageous?
I have made clear my position
I think the key is, the right tax must be paid at the right time, where right means that the economic substance of the transactions matches the reported form. Double taxation of legitimate transactions where form equals substance is unlikely in advanced economies in my opinion. Either unitary taxation or tax credits can be used and I believe could be in the a love scenario, assuming the transaction did not take place as an artificial way to avoid tax that should have been paid.
That is my interpretation anyhow
I am not a French tax expert but I am an expert in EU law and UK/international tax.
One thing is clear: human rights concepts have almost no bearing on tax, and every attempt to raise them in the context of tax cases has to my knowledge failed (under EU law and ECHR) – and many people have tried. The ECHR has even held that procedures for the collection of tax are not generally subject to the Convention. So, if anything Richard is giving the people who raise this point too much credit.
I’m not famliar with the French rules in question, but on the basis of the caselaw I fear HMRC are right to say that for UK tax purposes this is a settlement (since we do not have a usufruct concept in English law and only in equity can that kind of splitting of rights be achieved).
These kind of difficult interactions between different tax systems are not uncommon, particularly when you have entities taxed on wholly different basis and taxes working on wholly different principles.
If one could show that ithis particular issue would tend to discourage UK persons investing in France (for example) there might be a free movement of capital claim to be made against the UK for the unavailability of credit. Alternatively there might be an argument that this result acts as a barrier to people seeking to migrate from the UK to France, or vice versa. Either would need quite a lot of thought, and likely would only be worthwhile if a fairly serious amount of money was at stake. Almost certainly easier to not be a party to such arrangements if a UK resident, if that is possible..
Just because there is unfairness, that does not of itself give a legal remedy. If we accept we are taxed on the basis of law then it is inevitable that people will sometimes be unfairly taxed too much, just as it’s inevitable some will be unfairly taxed too little. In either case the real remedy is for the law to be changed.