As the first of a series of new videos on tax and related issues I offer the following, on the five reasons to tax. Feedback would be welcome.
Financial support for this work from the Task Force on Financial Integrity and Economic Development and Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust is gratefully acknowledged.
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:
Not bad! Mercifully free of your normal left-wing dogma.
A couple of niggles:
1. The sole evidence you give for re-pricing goods downwards is the removal of VAT from healthcare and education. You also conflate this with correcting market failures. However, VAT as you are aware is tax, given that VAT was never levied on these items, the continued zero-rating does not lower the under-lying price of the goods to make them more affordable. It simply stops the Government from making them less affordable.
2. Your representation point missed a vital element. Are those unable to pay tax effectively under-represented in the democratic process? There is balance against the argument for redistribution of wealth. If you dwell too long on representation you end up with the Poll Tax.
Richard
How about removing VAT on music. Shakespeare is VAT free yet Beethoven is VATable. I always felt that the attitude of the tax system to music was positively puritan.
There are several things there that virtually all would agree with. However, the raising representation argument is weak.
You say there is “no representation without taxation”. Does this means that the right to vote is contingent on having paid tax in the first place? So people on benefits shouldn’t be represented, or people who pay millions in tax should get more votes?
“If insufficient tax is paid then people do not relate to the government process”
Does that mean the more tax you pay, the more you relate to the government process? Can an unemployed person ever realte to the government process?
As James says, it looks like you’re advocating a poll tax.
I think you should either scrap this “R” or drastically refine it.
@Nick Kitchin
In ten minutes you can’t cover everything!
And of course the unemployed in our community relate to government – their benefits are, in effect, a negative tax
The key relationship exists
I really don’t get your argument or the logic that I’m proposing a poll tax
The relationship of accountability is key – and this, as I noted, is of special importance in developing countries
A few responses to the niggles:
Nick/James: unemployed/poor people *do* pay tax- they still buy goods that have VAT on them, still drink/smoke/drive. As a proportion of their income many unemployed people might pay more tax than employed people as they’ll be buying heavily-taxed essentials. This continual financial relationship with the state is one that forces engagement with politics and thus helps democracy- Kant has a great argument about it in “Perpetual Peace”. The statement was factual rather than ethical so I don’t see how equal payment of tax/the right to vote need come into it: any financial relationship increases involvement with the state.
James: you’re coming from a totally different direction to the video. Presumably a tax on all services/goods is legitimate. By not making a legitimate demand on healthcare/education the government *is* lowering the price in the same way that a school that didn’t pass on the cost of textbooks in its fees would be.
I hope that makes sense, and great video!
@Geraint Biggs
It does make sense
Excellent – but I’d like to make what I intend to be a constructive criticism.
While I agree completely with your response to Nick and James, their comments illustrate clearly how the right will jump on any and every opportunity to attack what you are setting out to achieve. It’s near impossible to identify every issue where this sort of thing is going to happen, but I would respectfully suggest that, aggravating as it is bound to be, you will add even more to the value of what you have to say if you review your output even more carefully than I’m sure you do already to identify and address where your message might be vulnerable.
Is it feasible to edit this video to include your own comment that “the unemployed in our community relate to government – their benefits are, in effect, a negative tax”?
@nick james
It looks like I might have to!
The trouble is – reasonable people don’t make such links – and then wonder why they’re there
They don’t deal daily with the nit-picking pedantry of the right – and their absurd assumptions about life
But I do appreciate your comments!