The run up to the budget is always frenetic. And now it's been and gone and we know how debased the Tory's thinking is.
In that case it's time to set to work on writing the alternative. I discussed the need for that alternative in the Guardian on Friday, but if you want a job done you might as well do it yourself.
I've been threatening to write 'The Joy of Tax' for some time. I think the time has arrived.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Every success with that then, Richard. And when it’s done lets hope that Ed Miliband see the virtue and value in making it Labour policy. And after what we’ve heard over the weekend – which has been evident to many of us for years – lets hope he also adopts Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s observation into policy: ‘Nothing is more dangerous than the influence of private interests on public affairs.’
I can live in hope
I hope you will go back to first principles, beginning with a discussion of how the individual incurs a debt to society which must be repaid by taxation and gives a moral basis to the who structure of tax. And then look at consequences of different kinds of tax.
I will
But the answer will not be ‘let’s have just an LVT’
Then you need to justify any other taxes you propose on moral or practical grounds. The general principle must surely be, first, to discourage harmful behaviours, and second, to cover the costs of externalities. So goods might have a tax on them to cover the cost of disposal and recycling. But one cannot, for instance, justify VAT on spectacles which are an essential. And one does not want to multiply complexity.
Which is really very easy to do
There has been a lot of comment recently about “fairness” in taxation and what that means to different people. When Ed Balls was interviewed recently the fact that the top 1% of earners currently pay 30% of all income tax received was discussed and he was asked how much should the 1% pay in percentage terms for it to be “fair”? He refused…..
What percentage do you think is sufficient for the 1% to pass the decency test and be considered fair? As you are going to put forward new economic plans……
What they owe in accordance with the will of a democratically elected parliament
Isn’t that obvious to anyone who is a democrat?
And if it isn’t to you what does that say?
Democracy is not just the tyranny of the majority, if 55% of the population vote to take all the income and wealth of the remaining 45% that is not a democracy or a just and fair system.
The interests of the minority must be safeguarded with protections that prevent excessive acts of the majority no matter how much moral right you think you have….
This total belief in the State above ANY protection for the individual is why I cannot agree with you beyond the multi national tax issues. I will not work in a system where you think the State has the right to take it all away at their discretion!
And that’s why this was your last comment
The libertarian enemies of democracy are not welcome here
Not least because you crete a fascile straw men arguments like this tro waste time
You will be trated as spam in future
So you would be happy with 1% of the population paying 1% of the total income tax revenues if that’s what Parliament decrees?
Yes
They do that already
This week’s leader piece in the Economist is jaw-dropping for its blunt advocacy of what it, and presumably most of its readership, promote as this country’s vocation in the world.
It claims that:
‘What this country is good at is financial services and luring foreign investment: in short milking globalisation. Mr Osborne has quietly acknowledged Britain’s strengths and doubled down on them.’
That is not what I, you, nor no doubt millions of others believe to be our country’s destiny. Frankly, given the level of indebtedness of the UK’s banks, the Economist’s view is laughable and would be funny if it was not serious. We can be and can do better than that.
I applaud your indomitable spirit to do the right thing and argue for the civilized alternative.
The Economist is wrong most of the time
As is the ecnomics profession
According to HMRC, the bottom 50% of earners only get 23% of the income. How is it mathematically possible for 1% to pay 1% of the total tax revenues when this is the case – the bottom 1% would pay more in tax than they actually earn! Tax receipts have to be looked at in the context of income distribution, which is why only a properly progressive tax system is fair.