As was discussed in the introduction to this section on Tax and Society within the Tax After Coronavirus (TACs) project, the relationship between tax and a society is complex. Tax is not just about funding a government's spending. Indeed, as has been shown, even that relationship requires very careful interpretation. What is clear is that tax has a fundamental role in shaping a society. In that case the relationship between tax and human rights is very important. This section explores that issue.
Tax and human rights
A tax system is based upon mutual trust. An electorate has to believe that its government will impose appropriate taxes and then administer them not just legally but in accordance with the principles of social justice. A government has to trust that its electorate (and those, like companies, who owe tax even though they rightly have no vote) will pay in accordance with the spirit as well as the letter of the law of the country.
This relationship of mutual trust requires that a tax system be based on sound principles that are clearly stated so that all can understand them. Scotland has a long tradition in this area. In 1776 pioneering Scottish economist Adam Smith argued that tax systems need to be equitable, certain, convenient and efficient. Whilst these may have been a sufficient basis on which to establish a tax system at the time that he wrote our understanding of rights and obligations in society has advanced considerably since then and the principles on which a Scottish tax system must be based have to reflect the world we now live in. The result is that Adam Smith's suggestions are no longer a sufficient basis on which to build a Scottish tax system.
Despite this obvious fact remarkably little has been written about tax and human rights. Indeed, despite the importance of taxation most declarations on human rights, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, makes no reference to the subject, even if 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. That said, a careful reading of that Declaration suggests that the following principles on which a tax system can be based 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 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).
Note that these are principles; nothing in them suggests the form a tax system should take. However, since it is clear from point 3 onwards that the provision of services to an individual exists whatever their capacity to pay, and given that it is always the case that some people will always be unable to pay any or much tax, then by necessity this derivation of rights with regard to taxation must require the use of progressive taxation or the obligations on the state that must arise from the Declaration could not be fulfilled.
It is suggested that these principles derived from human rights should form the basis for Tax After Coronavirus (TACs).
NB: adpated from work originally published here.
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 could also add that a state should have an obligation to prevent a Weimar/Zimbabean type hyper-inflation by setting appropriate tax increases to counter this happening.
That’s not a human rights issue
Agree but if people are not able to buy bread, it effects their human right to life.
Prof in case you nit aware the ONS numbers to w/e 10/4 are out – grim but could be worse.
(You may not want to print this comment here and move it to a relevant post. My instant thoughts.)
Am glad to see that the deaths registered* for w/e 10th April in England and Wales (so not thw whole UK) did NOT go up by another 5,000 as they did the previous week, they went up by 2,500 to a total of 18,000 for the week. If they had been 5k or more on the previous week it would have clearly shown there was no effect from the social distancing and shut down.
The fact that there are ONLY 8,000 EXTRA registered * deaths for the week, compared to 6,000 extra for the week before – compared to their 5 year averages, is a sure sign that ‘excess deaths are being brought under control – the following weeks numbers to weekending 17th will be in by now too and if they were also in the 8k range then we would be up to 22k excess deaths in 3 weeks.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsregisteredweeklyinenglandandwalesprovisional/weekending10april2020#deaths-registered-by-week
Please can some poster load the ‘hockey stick total deaths graph here – i don’t know how.
* the registered deaths is still unsatisfactory and the ONS should sort that out. It is the date if registration not the date of death. I have registered a dissatisfaction with them. Hrumph.
Done….
It’s a bloody nightmare
What is social justice? I am serious.
During Blair’s time I was working in a reasonably well paid job and living in accomodation, worse than my taxes paid for acquaintances on benefits to live in.
For me that does not seem at all just. However for the Labour party it was just (I assume it was).
“pay in accordance with the spirit as well as the letter of the law of the country.”
Who gets to decide what the ‘spirit of the law” is? You? Me?
If the spirit of the law is obvious, why isn’t it enshrined in the actual law?
“The right of a State to determine its will shall not be constrained by the actions of another State”
So a state has the right to be a tax haven if it’s democratically elected government so choses?
If you don’t understand equitable construction of law you’re in trouble in this country
And of course a state can have low taxes
The problem is when it does so to threaten the tax system of another state
That’s called economic warfare
Of course I understand equitable construction. That is performed by the courts though and not by you.
I have read you on here criticising actions taken by others as not being in the ‘spirit of the law’ when the courts have upheld their right to take such actions.
“The problem is when it does so to threaten the tax system of another state
That’s called economic warfare”
So if one state doesn’t like another another state’s tax system, you’re saying that the first state CAN constrain the other state’s right to determine its will? A country that so manages its affairs that it doesn’t need high taxes can be set upon by a country that doesn’t manage its affairs so well under the defence of ‘economic warfare’?
Absolutely I say states can constrain states
Wow, don’t you know that around the world that is what happens all the time?
And don’t you also know that I am not sitting in court, but that does not mean that a professional person cannot have an opinion on an issue?
I really do think that you are here to troll and that means you will not last long
Candidly, your comments are from the box marked ‘stupid’
I came across by accident this after noon. It is on corruption and so wider than tax.
It is 2013 so may be too out of date.
Charmain Gooch A remarkable lady even so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nhx1_yXMwCg
A founder of Global Witness