I noted the enthusiasm of some for my suggestions on tax and human rights the other day, so I thought I would return to the theme.
In 2007 I wrote on the need for code of conduct for taxation and looked for principles on which to base that code. Having noted Adam Smith's four maxims for a tax system, and that they were now inappropriate to modern circumstances because they assumed a role for government that is now unacceptable I also noted that they failed to recognise the obligation of the state to the citizen.
For codification of that obligation I looked to the UN backed Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which unfortunately makes no reference to taxation, though Article 29 implies that there is a universal duty of the citizen to the community of which they are a part, which could be interpreted to include an obligation to pay democratically agreed taxes levied upon them.
However, the following principles on taxation can be derived from the relevant articles (shown in brackets) of that Declaration:
- A State has a duty to protect its citizens; (3)
- A State has a duty to provide public goods for its citizens; (22, 23, 25, 26, 27)
- A State may not discriminate in the provision of protection or provision for its citizens; (1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 10, 21)
- The extent of the provision to be supplied by a State shall (subject to achievement of those rights inherent in the Universal Declaration) be determined by democratically elected governments; (21)
- The right of a State to determine its will shall not be constrained by the actions of another State; (28, 29)
- A State has the right to levy taxation; (implicit in the obligations imposed in Articles 3, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27 and 28 which could not be achieved if this were not true)
- Any charge to tax must respect the right to hold private property; (17)
- The charge to tax must not be arbitrary; (17)
- Taxation must be imposed by law; (12)
- All citizens of a State shall be subject to the same taxation laws; (1, 2, 7)
- Each citizen has the duty to pay the tax due by them; (the corollary of 21 and implicit in 29)
- The citizen shall have the right to appeal against any charge to tax; (8, 10)
- The State may only oblige a citizen to disclose that data required by law when requesting information for the purposes of assessing their liability to tax; (12)
- A citizen shall have the right to leave the State and its protection and shall as such deny themselves the right to its provision but be relieved of the obligation to contribute to its upkeep. (13, 28, 29).
Together they make a good starting point for the suggestion that tax and human rights are issues that are inextricably linked.
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:
You’ve totally jumped the shark here.
I was at lunch with a few senior advocates and a judge a couple of days ago (with my advocate girlfriend) and showed them your “non-payment of tax is an abuse of human rights” meme.
The judge simply burst out laughing.
You are mistaken that human rights and property rights are dependent on taxation. Human rights are wholly independent in the eyes of the law. Property rights also work in a different way – non-payment of taxes due is a crime but does not over-ride your individual property rights.
In short, taxation is independent in law, and failure to pay tax has no impact on your fundamental human rights.
A judge laughed at the idea of human rights?
Now there’s something novel
No, you have willfully misread what I wrote.
A judge laughed at the idea that human rights law and tax law were in any way linked. He certainly didn’t laugh at human rights law.
Taxes are jurisdictional and subjective, and are binding only through parliament. Human rights laws are universal, and independent of parliament, though they might also be enacted locally through parliament. In any event, they are seperate and treated as such in law, as set down by parliament.
As I said, he assured me that human rights law and tax law are wholly independent. Not paying tax in no way impinges on your fundamental human rights, nor does it impinge on your rights to own property.
Failing to pay tax might when due might lead to a civil conviction, but that conviction is for failing to pay tax, and is not dependent of your right to own property.
The only time property rights becme subject is through acts like “the proceeds of crime” and that is as a result of criminal activity, and again has no bearing on tax law (or indeed fundamental human rights law).
Beofre continuing with your argument about human rights being linked to taxation and vice versa, I strongly suggest you consult with a lawyer (like I did) on how this stuff actually works, rather than making rather bold assertions which you are simply not qualified to do.
Ah, but as we all know, lawyers have more opinions than economists
And many would agree with me
And money non-lawyers would agree that lawyers are not the only people to arbitrate on rights and I would agree with them
As a human being I have that right, for a start
But I note you are seeking to deny it to me
Interesting, in itself
Except in this case it’s fairly clean cut – in the law, as it stands, human rights and property rights are seperate from tax law. Lawyers do indeed have a variety of opinions, but ultimately statute and case law determine how the law in interpreted – not individual opinions.
It’s one thing to argue how you think the law *should* be, but another entirely to cast your untrained eye over the law and make some very bold, and wholly incorrect assertions.
I’m also not sure what right I am denying you. You have made your opinion clear, and I am within my human rights to tell you that it is incorrect as the law stands.
As for arbitrating on rights – you are not a judge or lawmaker, which in our democracy we abrogate these powers of decision to, so you have no role in this “arbitration” as you call it. Yours is soley an opinion.
As an aside, the only place where tax law meets human rights law directly is article 6 – and only so far as any criminal proceedings brought by HMRC have to comply with it. This means in practice they have to otherwise comply with the criminal code of the land, nothing more.
You really don’t get that I really do not cut what the law says now do you?
The law can be an ass
The law allowed slavery
And the abuse of homosexuals
And women
And sooooo much more
I am seeking to change opinion
The law follows
What is so hard to understand about that?
“You really don’t get that I really do not cut what the law says now do you?”
I assume you mean care, not cut. Most people do care what the law says – if nothing else isn’t that part of the societal compact we agree to when living within a country?
More importantly though, we care because if taxation becomes a precursor to having any other right, it directly affects those rights, and it can become leverage for a government to use and abuse. Taxation at 100% is essentially exproriation.
My right to own property is not dependent on my taxes, nor are any of my other rights. Nor should they ever be. If nothing else, what does it say about those low earners or unemployed people who don’t pay tax? Should their human rights be forfeit?
That the law once allowed something which we now don’t agree with is simply not an argument. It’s avoiding the fact that what you are suggesting is all my rights are directly dependent on me paying tax. The idea that I should lose rights for not paying tax is deeply illiberal – if I don’t pay the tax I owe I should be punished for that particular crime, but no further, as a removal of my human and property rights would be.
I do mean care
I mean I am trying to change the law to ensure it does reflect what society wants
I also readily accept I am seeking to change what society wants so that the needs of more people are met
As George Bernard Shaw said I am an unreasonable man:
” The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. “
Unfortunately in this case, what you want is a system where the taxation rights of the state supercede our other, individual, rights.
By all means put this to people, but you will find that the vast majority will, and have through history, demanded that this not be the case, and the legislature is held in check by the will of the people.
What you prove time and again is you have no concept of reasonable debate or that you accept that I work within parameters that always presume checks and ablanaces re in place
That makes debate with you impossible.
I have tried, but all you do is twist things and waste my time
I suggest you can and talk to those you are comfortable with
Please don’t waste my time again
Progress depending on the unreasonable man does not entail that being unreasonable is progress.
My cat has four legs, and all that…
Sometimes I really do wonder why I bother……
Do you not think it odd though that you say Tler is a timewaster because he is unreasonable, at the same time as saying that you are a contributor to progress because you are unreasonable?
No
Nuance is a subtle thing
“The right of a State to determine its will shall not be constrained by the actions of another State”
How does that hold with your claims on a duty of care to other States limiting the democratic choices of another State. To you Tax havens that run zero rate tax or loose tax policy (secrecy etc) should not be allowed yet this completely refutes that!
Democratic freedom must mean the right to do things other States don’t like.
This comment is precisely aimed at tax havens
They do try to undermine the tax policy of other states via their secrecy
They can of course have a low rate
They cannot export it – which is precisely what that interpretation means
“And money non-lawyers would agree that lawyers are not the only people to arbitrate on rights and I would agree with them
As a human being I have that right, for a start”
Only the courts are ultimately the arbiters of what rights we do (or do not) have, at least in any meaningful (ie enforceable) way, according to law.
So unless you’re a judge, no you don’t have the right to arbitrate on this.
You and I are entitled to our opinions on what we think should be a right. But it carries no more weight than the remaining 7 billion others of us who are also not judges.
I never claimed my opinion counted for more than anyone else’s
This blog says it’s my opinion, that’s all
But if people were not willing to challenge the law then we’d never see change
And we’d still have slavery, statutory gender and sexual orientation inequality and so many other abuses
Why in that case are you so keen to oppose my right to express my opinion?
I am not denying you the right to your opinion. I made that clear.
The thing I am questioning is your suggestion that by simple virtue of being a human being you had the right to arbitrate on such matters. Until you (or anyone else) becomes a judge, there isn’t that right.
To go back to the original question of whether the judge with whom Tler is acquainted has more right to arbitrate on whether there is or is not a right. Yes, he does have more right, by simple fact of being a judge.
Absolute nonsense
No one asked him this question in a court
He has no more weight outside them than me or you
In human rights we are all eqaul
What I didn’t tell you initally was that this Judge is a human rights specialist. My girlfriend spent last year working pro-bono for lawyers for Human Rights, and this was a catch-up lunch for her and a few of the people involved in that side of the law. A couple of the advocates there are normally corporate lawyers, dealing reglularly with tax issues, who also do the HR stuff pro-bono. I asked the question to them because I thought they might be in a position to answer it with some real insight – some of them have been doing it for 20+ years.
As such, I’m pretty sure they are in a position to give pretty good expert advice on the matter.
None of which changes my opinion for a minute
Oddly enough, I have met a lot of tax lawyers who disagreed with me and they didn’t change my opinion either
They’re now having to change their minds on things like the GAAR, automatic information exchange, country-by-country reporting and much more
I am used to supposedly being in the wrong until, rather oddly, people think I’m right
I suspect it will happen again