I have written a lot about this general election campaign, and this is a blog that is on tax.
But then tax, voting and democracy are inextricably linked in my opinion. Indeed, one of the five reasons for tax that I argue exist is to raise representation in a democracy. The fact is that when people know they pay tax - and in this respect it really is income tax that matters - the chance that they will vote increases, considerably. And I think that is a good thing.
I have made no recommendation as to who to vote for although I have been asked to do so. That's not my job, and as I have admitted, who I might vote for might depend on where I am and who is standing. That's because voting is about making choices and there may not be a single universal answer to the choice that is to be made, especially within the electoral system that the UK currently has.
What I will ask is that you vote about tax.
Many people will for purely personal, and even selfish reasons. In my opinion that misses the whole point of voting and of tax. Voting and paying tax is (or at least should be) an exercise in showing that you love your neighbour as yourself.
Tax and voting are exercises in showing that you care. In showing that you will not walk on the other side from those in need.
Voting for tax is about voting for a vision of the society that we want.
A society that cares.
Where care is a verb, and not a noun, which means that caring is about action.
Where we provide healthcare for all who need it from cradle to grave.
Where we build a society where each person, whatever their background and with whatever ability they have can achieve their potential and afford to live and provide for those who depend upon them.
Where we ensure each person can have the home they need and live in it with security.
Where we build prosperity on the basis of both individual and communal effort and ensure that both are recognised and rewarded.
Where we value the freedoms markets bring, but stop their excesses and correct their imperfections, including in the allocation of wealth and rewards.
Where we protect the vulnerable from all forms of abuse, including the often forgotten economic abuse that is too commonplace.
Where we want to hand on to future generations the hope that they can live as well, or better, than we did, that means preserving what is good, protecting what is irreplaceable and investing in the ability to do better.
Most of all, it is about building compassion on the basis of empathy, and working out how that is best expressed.
That is what tax should empower.
That is what I think we should vote for.
That is the basis on which tax can transform lives in ways that nothing else can.
That's why I believe in tax.
That's why I campaign on it.
That's what I would ask you to think about when you vote today.
Please do vote.
And thank you.
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:
Good post.
I’m not putting you under any pressure but I am looking forward to your book on this subject matter and then taking those messages out into the world to see if I can make a difference with you insights.
I’m looking forward to it too
Two chapters to write
Is it going to follow the layout of the other “Joy of” books? Just asking…
🙂
I shall be voting today. Over the last 3-4 months this blog has become the first item I read every day as it has provided the most insightful analyses and arguments, which have helped to inform my thinking
So thank you Richard – and to other regular contributors to the blog
Thank you
Appreciated
Really good article Richard. Sums up beautifully why we need to keep educating everyone on the importance of not just voting, but on understanding what and whom they are voting for.
On a related note, this single piece pretty much sums up one the biggest reasons I and everyone I know who voted Yes in the Indyref did so. It was to create a society that cares and a Yes vote was the fast track method to it.
So onwards an upwards, let us hope that today is the day that WENI (Wales, England & Northern Ireland) awakens, let us hope that today with the expected SNP Tsuanmi and the shockwave it should generate across the UK, that this is the first step towards the realisation across WENI that the hegemony of the 2 party system is broken forever and that democracy starts to be revitalised across the whole of the UK the same way the IndyRef did for Scotland, because under the current system, too many fail to recognise the importance of the moral question you ask in your piece.
Will my vote help create a better society for AllOfUs?
Will this election tip us towards real change?
I hope so…
Great post, you should be a politician. And you’re right that tax can transform lives. Through tax, Gordon Brown created welfare dependency for tens of thousands in this country and destined them for a fall from which they could not easily recover. Although to say that it can transform lives “in ways that nothing else can” is hideously narrow minded and rather insulting to, say, charitable endeavour, enterprise and aspiration, etc, which have significantly more impact than tax can.
Absolute rubbish
Brown reduced poverty. It was a great achievement
Charity is patronising
Enterprise continually exploits, regrettably
Stop lying, I suggest
“Charity is patronising”
So there is no place in your philosophy for the good Samaritan? You would pass by on the other side of the road and allow the Pharisee to die?
You claim to be a Quaker? A movement that does much charitable work, which recevies charitable donations because it itself does work via a regsitered charity? Do you tell fellow Quakers that their actions and good works are patronising?
No Quaker would utter that phrase but a selfish greedy man would. Or one that wanted to abrogate his responsibility to his fellow man and say it was all the responsibility of ‘the state’.
And if some pencil pusher in some office of ‘the state’ decided some cause was not ‘worthy’ that would be that in your world?
I hope the kind of world you want never comes to pass.
I am pretty confident that I understand where Quakers are on this issue
And that Quakers understand what I am saying
You said charity was a better way of helping than tax
I do not think very many Quakers would agree
I am not saying charity is wrong – but to say people must rely on hand outs at the whim of the wealthy is deeply so, and profoundly socially disempowering when we know we can do so much better through the state
So charity has its uses – but replacing the welfare state is emphatically not one of them
It may seek to extend the welfare state – but I am quite confident no Quaker would say charity is better. It is not
“You said charity was a better way of helping than tax”
I said no such thing. Read what I said not what you wish I had said so you could attack it.
You said charity was patronising. It is not. It shows that a person does not think he can wash his hands of his responsibilities to his fellow man just by paying his taxes.
I ask again – have you told your fellow Quakers that you think charity is patronising as you have said on here clearly and unequivically?
“I am not saying charity is wrong — but to say people must rely on hand outs at the whim of the wealthy is deeply so”
Again, where did I say people must rely on hand outs at the whim of the wealthy? Again, stop making up what I said. I do at least quote what you say before commenting on it.
David
I thought you were the author of the original comment – I cannot see the thread when I reply
But I stand by what I said
Charity in the context in which I wrote is patronising and no answer to the needs of society. The best it can do is signal where the welfare state has failed
Read what I wrote in context and I completely stand by it
Your comments are just seeking to be scurrilous.
I work with a number of charities large and small. Great though their work is, it is tiny in proportion to the scale of welfare that government is able to offer. At best it can fill in some gaps
It is also a well established fact from many studies over many years, that the proportion of income that wealthy people give to charity is smaller than that of poorer people. Despite the tax breaks they get so it costs them proportionally less to give. And their preferred charities are the arts and other personal interests – not the poor and underclasses. With a few very honourable exceptions
They did not get very rich by sharing their wealth. And the idea that, rather than taxation, one can rely on them to make better investments in public services is just plain laughable
Thank you
Brilliant, Robert Webb’s blog on his Twitter was brilliant too.
Thanks
Hello Richard
Thanks for being inspirational.
At our local ward hustings for local authority councillors I asked this question –
If elected, what will candidates do to ensure that local authority contracts do not go to businesses which evade or avoid paying tax.
To do this they merely have to ask businesses if they have offshore bank accounts or companies, as these are usually set up to facilitate tax evasion or avoidance, or some other illegal activity.
Further, will candidates please state publicly whether or not they or close family members have offshore bank accounts.
The packed hall immediately erupted into cheers.
I would be interested to hear if their are any technical points that could improve this question, and also is it technically correct?
Also, I wonder if we should be putting a similar question to our new MPs.
I realise that there are sometimes questions that a non expert like me can ask, but an expert like you could not ask because of impeding regulations to do with procurement/disclosure etc.
Will be interested to hear your views.
David
We have looked at this issue with the Fair Tax Mark
There are real problems in doing as you suggest because EU rules require that sourcing discrimination must relate to the tax aspects of the product being sourced, not the company
That said, around Europe people are trying to find ways to tackle this
And maybe will succeed
For now the question works well although action could not follow, I am afraid
Brilliant question. Wish I’d asked it.
David
‘Off-shore’ companies can be set up for legitimate reasons. Many UK companies set up off-shore companies to help them trade and expand abroad. It is worrying that the packed hall ‘erupted into cheers’ as it shows a worrying lack of knowledge of international trade.
Even UK companies can have off-shore bank accounts to facilitate foreign trade so again, a crowd could be cheering and condemning wholly innocent businesses.
You should refine the question to ‘companies/bank accounts in tax havens’ at the very least.
For the same trade reasons an individual might have an ‘off-shore’ account. A businessman who traded in both the UK and France, for example, could have accounts in Paris (euro) and London (sterling) with the same bank.
As for ‘close family members’, I can see a now hostile and cynical crowd booing when someone honestly explains that they have no idea what bank accounts close family members have and why should they? (if you have brothers and sisters or adult children do you know where all their bank accounts are?)
Is this ignorant booing and hostility what you really want?
I can understand why you might not know enough about tax to have appreciated the above but I’m astonished that Richard thinks ‘the question works well’ in it’s current form.
David (a different one)
Paris is not offshore, and I am very well aware of what is
Either you are ignorant of the facts or have decided to come here to make comment for the sake of troublemaking
It makes no difference: you are very clearly trolling and as such will be deleted in future
And where does tax come from? Not once have you mentioned that.
Rather like Ed Miliband. Not once since he became Labour leader have I heard him say anything – anything at all – about how we can create the wealth and businesses which are necessary before anyone can pay tax.
Oh dear
You really do not understand tax, do you?
Tax comes from government spending – rather like bank deposits come from lending
Counter-intuitive, but absolutely true
“Tax comes from government spending”
You keep believing in your fantasy economics, Richard.
How long, and how many election defeats, will it take before you guys learn?
Actually, it is the right who have sold the fraud
Tax ultimately comes from wages. Only workers produce wealth – labour is the only active factor, land and capital are passive and inanimate. I’m sure that Ralph taught Ed that.
You’ve got Marx’s analysis in a nutshell. It’s the “works as if” part of it that most don’t seem to get at.
I agree with certain economists that the rentiers should be more highly taxed as their money essentially comes from betting the right way. It is money that has no productive value whatsoever.
However, none of the main parties appear to be suggesting restoring the 50% tax rate. Personally, I would raise it to 60% with a higher rate for those who earn up to £400-£500,000. It might well be worth considering a wealth tax for earnings in the several millions.
Of course, tax competition will make sure that business does not pay its fair share with increased corporation and capital gains tax.
And is there going to any real action against the tax havens? Many of them British crown dependencies? Are the next government going to redress the balance and recover at least some of the £120 billion a year lost to tax evasion and avoidance?
Politicians see tax as a vote loser, so I realistically see no realistic movement towards raising or recovering tax.
Labour is going to set 50% rate
And tackle tax gap
And tax havens
They read this blog
Well, they say they are. Of course, they well may stick to the promises they made, but politicians have a habit of saying one thing and doing another thing entirely.
Pardon me for being cynical, but Labour has run scared of the tabloids and big business before.
Accepted
If Labour are able to secure a stable term, with 5 years ahead of them I don’t think they will be much constrained by the tory press. Indeed, if Ed fulfills his promise to tackle ownership of the media they may never have to worry again. I may be naive, but I believe that the main reason why their manifesto is so very timid is that they have to constrain what they say because of the inordinate power of the media.
“Labour has run scared of the tabloids and big business before.” I think this is sadly true. I’ve just voted and feel angry and saddened that I’ve felt that I had to vote tactically – a thoroughly negative and disempowering experience my only ‘reward’ being that I might add my infinitesimal contribution towards making a slight dent in the Tory majority here-I’m sick to death of this voting ‘system’ (if it even merits the term). I wanted to vote Green and perhaps should have just to register a national statistic without local impact.
If this election shines a massive floodlight on the lack of real democracy in our country then it will have done something – other than that it’s neo-Liberalism as usual with the vague prospect of Labour filing off a few of the sharper edges.