David Quentin is a tax lawyer whose thinking I admire and whose company I enjoy. There is a point in common in the two: he is challenging. These challenges can be robust in his writing: provocative, but frequently accompanied by wit and a decided charm in person. There is a candour to David that spells integrity.
David's latest blog embraces that candour. Without in any way beating about the bush he lays out in a few paragraphs the challenges that the tax justice movement might face over the next few years. As he puts it:
Tax justice in the Brexit/Trump era finds itself in an awkward position.
We have been used to critiquing the global neoliberal technocracy but that technocracy has nonetheless become the vehicle for realising certain (albeit gradual, reformist & compromised) tax policy demands oriented towards economic justice on an international level. Consider for example the OECD's “BEPS” process for improving the fairness of corporate tax outcomes, and the EU's Anti Tax Avoidance Directive. Both are deeply flawed, particularly insofar as concerns economic justice for the Global South, but these are definitely steps in the right direction.
He is so right, and I am aware of the paradox. I am willing to work with the OECD on country-by-country reporting and the World Bank on wealth taxes (for example) whilst knowing there are clear flaws in these organisations and some of the projects and even ideologies that they promote. And yet, as was so obvious when I was in Brno recently, where the OECD were also presenting, their current tax agenda is almost the one that John Christensen and I wrote as 'Tax us if you can' in 2005. It's almost uncanny: I know we both pinch ourselves at the surrealness of it.
But as David points out:
And now the global hegemony of neoliberal ideology, which a year ago seemed fundamentally unassailable, is under much more serious threat, not from us and certainly not from the people of the world shaking off their chains, but from fascists like the President of the United States of America and his neo-Nazi hangers-on and home counties hard-Brexiteer hand-holders.
David portrays the conflict between the vision of tax justice proponents and those of the persuasion he describes above as one about alternative routes to capture the heart of the Courageous State - a term I used as the title of a book. And, as he makes clear, however apolitical tax justice wishes to represent itself (and within the context of much of UK politics there is a lot about tax justice that can rightly be called apolitical) there is an obvious conflict between the social views of most who promote tax justice and those from the right now promoting populist politics. As he put it:
It seems to me therefore that tax justice is at something of a crossroads: either we accept the overall direction of travel and adapt our tax policy asks accordingly, or we become a more obviously oppositional and politically teleological movement, offering tax justice as part of a global road map leading not just away from neoliberalism but towards (say) an unabashedly socialist and loudly intersectional vision of a better global future which has no borders, no structural oppressions of any kind, and an organised response to climate change.
But do people in tax justice agree with me that that is the dilemma we face? Or is the old enemy neoliberalism really every bit as entrenched as it always was, so that (for those of us with the privilege to remain focused on technocratic economic justice issues while others are fighting for their lives) the existing policy battles should simply continue as before, albeit on superficially changed terrain.
David's challenge is a timely and appropriate. It is also difficult. As I know all too well, charities have funded much of the tax justice movement: they require that the work be apolitical. That means any such change would challenge the funding of the whole movement.
Or would it? After all, the whole essence of tax justice is about equality and the relief of poverty. These are core objectives that are accepted as charitable. In contrast the aims of many on the populist right are to quite clearly increase division, permit the concentration of wealth and to permit government that acts in the interests of a few. Tax justice is on the side of charity itself in that case. The corollary is all too obvious.
So too are the choices. David has just chosen to point out their stark significance. I suggest they go to the very heart of what society is about and who it is for. And that tax justice promotes what should always have been the right ordering of society which the neoliberal elite willingly ignored. The question is whether that argument can be sustained or not, in my opinion.
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:
For me the issue is how effective the Tax Justice ‘movement ‘ has been.
I think that you and the movement have redefined and perfected the arguments for tax.
Although there are still issues about the penetration of these arguments into contemporary society, there is no doubt in my mind that the challenges that have been issued have caused further retrenching by those who oppose the idea of taxation.
In other words these cogent arguments for tax have caused the anti-tax brigade on the defensive and they will say almost anything to defend the indefensible.
Have a look at this from Paul Spicker’s blog about a realted topic:
http://blog.spicker.uk/why-the-bible-disapproves-of-obamacare-and-suchlike/
I’m not religious but even I have a good idea what the Bible stands for! And it isn’t the crap being espoused by ‘Conservative Review’.
I liked the last line
Wrong sort of Bible you and I have got
Remember what Desmond Tutu said: if you cut out of the Bible all the instructions top tend for the poor there’s not a lot left
Oh, I forgot: that has to be pesonal charioty, of course: that’s what they say. Or it doesn’t buy the pass to heaven. But who bought a pass to heaven? Enough…..
This is a fascinating and important piece. At the core of it is the problem faced by most bloggers. We each have a point of view that we believe in very deeply. We can develop our blog, be energetic and active and gradually increase the number of followers. In your own case I believe you hit the 2 million mark last year which is very impressive. You write books and pieces in the media and yet you are aware that you should be making more impact than you are.
By adding a more actively political dimension to your blog you risk perceptions of you work being biased and lacking the integrity you have worked so hard to establish. I believe you worked personally with Jeremy Corbyn to develop a practical anti-austerity economic programme around the time he was appointed leader. Even doing that can have a downside when the maintenance of political neutrality is important. One organisation that I think is got this balance just about right is the IFS, and Paul Johnson has done an excellent job of walking the tightrope. They have the same problems, I suspect, so it might be interesting for you to talk with him, and I’m sure you know him well.
There are a couple of other strategies that might work. Firstly you could use your billions to fund a think tank along the lines of the IFS but with a more political bias. However that would just be another think tank among many although it would have presumably a relatively left-wing tilt. The other approach is more Machiavellian. Identify a small number of politicians with leadership potential who see the world in roughly the way you do. Then work with them to help them understand the details.
I know you don’t accept the importance of an able and charismatic leader to be an effective mechanism of change. I still think it is key. However politicians are extraordinarily innumerate. Helping individuals to understand how basic economics and Treasury budgeting actually work is important. In turn that might allow them to develop policies that reflect your political/tax justice views of the world. Selecting suitable politicians is not easy. Ideally they need the right combination of intelligence, charisma and ambition. Sadly, within the Labour Party, this combination is in short supply, though not completely absent.
The key thing I believe is effective influence at a distance. Billionaire party donors in the US have this down to a fine art. In the UK money is not as essential but developing the resources and the energy to achieve this is depressingly hard. However we must not give up. The most difficult thing is to preserve the integrity of the Tax Justice Network. That is what has been built up successfully over many years. You could lose that in a few ill-considered months. Already your anti-austerity, anti-neoliberal views are well known so already you are identified well to the left of centre. Anything more overt could tip the balance irredeemably.
One other point from your post. I do fear that the view that the neoliberal ideology is on its way out has to be looked at very cautiously. You hinted that we must be careful about right-wing moves to increase interventionism may look like neoliberalism is crumbling yet it is not. One of the most worrying aspects of any Brexit and particularly of a hard Brexit is who grabs the reins of power once that happens. There is more at: http://outsidethebubble.net/2016/12/08/brexit-opportunity-for-the-biggest-right-wing-power-grab-for-a-generation/.
More widely, I fear that neoliberalism is in much better health than you think. People like you and me and those who read your blog are largely persuaded. However, in the same way that those who only read the Guardian newspaper see signs of progress everywhere, the way that the neoliberalism of so much of the right-wing media is so deeply woven into the fabric of our world must not be underestimated. Brexit will stress the economy greatly. Those stresses on companies will keep wages low and probably declining. The little power that people in the middle and bottom of the heap have now will decline. That will simply entrench more deeply neoliberalism in its worst forms.
There is a great deal to do and a long way to travel. The great difficulty is that gradual progressive change is not what we are looking for. Things are bad and getting worse and only a step change is likely to be enough. It is very hard to have any confidence that Labour might create that in the UK. International organisations are so complex and inert and slow-moving that they will not change rapidly if at all. Only charismatic individuals have any chance of doing this now. Perhaps Mr Macron in France can do it. Tony Blair could have done it. Who should we look to in the UK?
Many thanks
Three things: 1) Corbyn adopted me, not vice versa
2) I do not represent TJN
3) I accept neoliberalism is not dead yet
“Identify a small number of politicians with leadership potential who see the world in roughly the way you do. Then work with them to help them understand the details.”
I do hope that Richard will not be inclined to that route. There surely must be some politicians who take a deep interest in political economy – although I’m always amazed that most of those I have met are so ignorant (ooh, I once said that to a Labour leader for which he at least remembered my name). I doubt if potential leaders will want to be led by Richard, or anyone else.
Craig
I share many of your worries. My main fear of a pro-Brexit vote was a bloodless totalitarian right wing coup; I’ve voiced this many times on this blog. Most would agree that neoliberalism is not working, but the right wing fanatics will argue it is because we are not neoliberal enough. NI and Scotland have get out clauses but England I fear may be locked into a permanent Tory majority – a distopian tax haven where the 1% can get even richer and the rest of us go back to some sort of Victorian hell.
There is no obvious Labour leader to take over from Corbyn and sadly the only English Politician I have total faith in is Caroline Lucas – an army of one in the Commons.
I do hope I’m wrong and we’ll find out soon enough with the reaction to the c 60Bn euro exit bill from the EU. I anticipate the right wing press and the Brexiteers will use agnotology to an unprecedented extent and May will be too weak to stand up to them. EU negotiations could break down almost before they start.
I’m still debating about getting a UK passport
He is very right about being at the crossroads. The trouble is that the signposts have been stolen and replaced by ones in Chinese.
Richard, it is fascinating and this sort of brings us full circle to the core issue of whether incremental change can ever be effective. There has always been the moving of the goalposts and the subverting/destruction of institutions. The labels don’t help, neo this and post that, none of them are saying anything new. The flaws are always the same, whether it’s feudalism, monarchy, slavery, communism, capitalism or even socialism, it’s the concentration of too much wealth/power in the hands of too few.
The only things that have ever worked have been mass movements whether in support of wholesale or incremental change. Without mass backing those changes always end up toothless. Speed matters as well, a good example being the GFC, there was a 3 month window for serious financial reform and it was missed. There is a good reason that inquiries take months and often years and it has nothing to do with professionalism.
I strongly believe in the sort of change you advocate and there could be mass support, Occupy and the 99/1 message showed this. But it may take a charismatic leader to bring it together.
But there is no such leader I can see
Which means incrementalism might have to do for now