The TUC is running Fair Pay Fortnight.
Based on my recent experience of using the word 'fair' I am sure they will be inundated by pedants (or logical positivists, if we want to be more philosophically precise) demanding a definition of the word 'fair' or that they desist from their campaign.
My answer to the demand is twofold. First, fair is what the user makes clear they intend it to be in the context in which they use it. Second, that believe on the user's part is appropriate if they make clear what their intention is.
Of course that means the definition of what is fair is contextual and subjective. That has always been the case: that is why we disagree on whatbfairness is, so often. Disagreement on context and its subjective interpretation then becomes a fair basis for debate. But to deny this subjectivity and to so seek to suppress debate on issues of social justice - which is what any debate on fairness is ultimately about - is actuallly a disguised but quite deliberate act to perpetuate injustice. The decision to pursue such an act of oppression is, of course, itself subjective - and so in turn, self referentially, a definition of unfairness. But is it is an unfairness that some are willing to use, far too often.
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:
But if we come to this as activists, not philosophers (the point being to change the world), all these are key issues. What do we mean by fair in the context of wage or wealth inequality? Is the Living Wage fairer than the Minimum Wage? If so, do we just raise the latter.
Do we consider things like purchasing power (like the costs of housing), the impact of taxes, and so on.
If we simply say all definitions have equal value as long as the user makes clear their intention where does that take us in terms of agreeing aims? We can have the discussion but it must be framed so that we can actually get somewhere.
Some will think these things important
Some won’t
Fair has no one definition
There are likely to be large areas of agreement between many
But no universal consent
That is why we need judgement
And politics – because life is not easy
I do not think I agree with your proposition. I think I have heard it before:
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.’
‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master – that’s all.'”
Big hurrah words are indeed always tricky. And it is certainly important to ask Humpty what he actually means. But you won’t get an answer you can work with. I think the reason is that such words are based on premises which are seldom made explicit. That leads to a dialogue where people imagine they are talking about the same thing but are in fact talking past each other. Your solution is not without merit if by “stating your intention” you mean saying what you are trying to achieve, and that perhaps squares the circle which arose between you and Iain
I think we would be better off abandoning the big words: but if we must have them then try replacing “fair” with “kind” from time to time. “Kind” is also a hurrah word:or rather it should be. Somehow it has come to carry a negative connotation, and I think that is because it cannot be used to justify cruelty in its “tough love” manifestation. Certainly it has also a whiff of condescension, but that reflects a reality because of the great inequality in our society. We have to start from where we are and a return to some form of noblesse obliges or paternalism would at least represent a step forward from the naked greed and selfishness currently in vogue. Maybe we should try to reclaim it?
That would be true if I did not say what I meant fair meant
I do
You might however confuse fewer people if, when you mean “transparent”, you used “transparent” or “clear” rather than “fair”.
Especially as the “fair” in Fair Trade mark means something different from the “fair” in Fair Tax mark – and is more in line with what the man in the street might expect.
Oddly no one but a few tax professionals seem to be suffering any confusion
I suspect that’s because no-one but a few tax professionals has actually looked at what you mean by “fair”. Everyone else (that I’ve spoken to about it) assumes that it means fair as in Fair Trade.
When I then explain that a company can avoid tax but still be classed as “fair”, because “fair” actually means “transparent”, they then start to suffer from confusion.
Of course they’re confused
But that’s because you’re not telling them the truth
If you want to create confusion that’s what you do
You’re making some pretty large assumptions about what I tell them!
To remind you of what you’ve evidently overheard: I normally start by asking what they’d expect “fair” tax to mean, and they normally respond by talking about the amount of tax paid. Then I tell them there’s a fair tax mark, and they say that’s a good idea. Then I tell them that “fair” in “fair tax mark” means that the amount paid is clear but whether it’s high or low isn’t so important, and at that point they get confused, because they can’t see how anything else could be more important than the amount paid.
To the ordinary man in the street “fair tax” means paying the amount you’re supposed to pay, without going out of your way to fiddle things so you pay less. No-one I’ve spoken to cares how transparent the tax is, as long as it’s the right amount.
I find this entirely duplicitous
We got criticised for making the tax rate too important – and you agreed
So we focussed on other issues too and you say we have it wrong
I think you are being (and I’ll be careful what I say) less than reasonable in your commentary
When you first launched the Fair Tax Mark I criticised you for ignoring the reasons for the effective tax rate, and thereby failing to distinguish between egregrious avoidance and deliberate tax reliefs.
You still ignore the reasons for the effective tax rate, and the only distinction you make between egregrious avoidance and deliberate tax reliefs is in the requirement to have a tax policy which abjures the former – only it’s not even a requirement, as a company can still get the mark if its policy is inappropriate.
I think I am being entirely consistent in my commentary. You have not addressed the core criticism, so it still stands.
Andrew
We have to work with what is in accounts
Let me be blunt: you are being disingenuous
Richard
Why do you have to limit yourself to what’s in the accounts?
If a company wants to engage you to do a review of its tax position, perhaps with a view to granting a Fair Tax Mark, it can quite happily supply you with as much confidential information as it cares to. And if gaining the mark requires publishing some of that information – or an abstract of it – to demonstrate transparency, then the company can perfectly well decide to publish it. If it decides not to do so, then there you, go: it is obviously not as committed to transparency as you would like.
The only time you’re restricted to public information is if you’re looking at a company’s tax affairs without its consent.
I am not being disingenuous at all: my heart is on my sleeve.
The moment we ask to start auditing a company’s internal affairs costs sky rocket – and which company do we then look at, anyway?
But we also want quite specifically to look at disclosure
Why do costs rocket, particularly? Is it simply because you’re doing a more detailed job?
For £4k I could do (and have done!) a pretty detailed purchaser due diligence report into a £10m company’s tax affairs. I’d probably want to charge more, depending on the company, but the Fair Tax Mark doesn’t need to be in so much detail as tax DD – you don’t cover PAYE and VAT, for one thing. And I could certainly repeat the exercise the next year for less than £4k.
You may wish to operate at a loss
We don’t
A slightly odd thing for a not-for-profit organisation to say to a commercial one!
We don’t make a loss: we’re doing very nicely, as it happens. £4k covers quite a bit of work – certainly enough for that sort of thing. Half an hour with the last few tax returns followed by a chat with the FD would get you a lot of the way there; most of the cost would (as ever in these matters) be writing the thing up and checking the details.
I think you underestimate
I hope your due diligence is more thorough
It’s a lot more thorough than the Fair Tax Mark! 😉
Then you’ve never tried doing a Fair Tax Mark with a real company
Interesting. When I ask people what they expect “fair” tax to mean, they normally talk about progressive tax. People in my circle do not consider that tax is “fair” if people pay what the law says they should pay: and that is because they do not think the law is itself “fair”. I don’t know anyone who considers it “fair” that some people should be paid many multiples of the median wage and should be allowed to keep the vast bulk of that money on the basis of a low top rate of tax: they tend to believe that such money cannot be “earned” and therefore cannot be “deserved”. They don’t really believe the self serving story of “going rate for the job” so beloved of the very rich: because they notice that those same people pilloried the trades unions when they made the same case.
Big hurrah words are big hurrah words. They serve to obscure not to clarify
Well, you must move in different circles from me. Most people I know don’t analyse it in that much depth.
It isn’t an in depth analysis, Andrew Jackson. It is a conception of “fairness” which happens to include a rather different set of premises than you allow. It all depends on the premises and it is the special talent of main stream economists to limit the range of debate by smuggling in questionable assumptions and building from there. The people are not fooled
I’m not saying what’s allowed at all – I’m just reporting what other people have said to me.
I’m confused by your reference to mainstream economists. I’m not an economist, Richard isn’t one, by your tone I take it you aren’t one, so…?