I appreciate all the comments received yesterday on the post on the need for equality of provision. I think it is fair to say that this has been well received. However, as I noted, this was never going to be the last word on this issue. I spent more time yesterday reflecting on this idea and what it might mean.
It occurred to me, as a consequence, that when discussing the subject of equality and human rights, there is a further and necessary issue to take into account, which is the reciprocity of obligation. That this subject was on my agenda was indicated by the posting of the piece on Robert Nozick, summarising his view that ownership confers absolute rights about which questions should not be asked or demands made. The precise reason for considering his view was that I do not, of course, agree with him.
The indication that he provides that a theory of property rights can underpin a political agenda with some considerable significance is, however, important. Ultimately, the interaction between property, politics and economics is existential. None exists without the other. They cannot, as a consequence, be considered in isolation. Despite that, such issues are rarely discussed on the left of politics, excluding the far left, where debate has usually departed from the realms of association with reality.
The initial conclusion of my thinking was that we do need to be open about this issue and address it directly, and that I have, in fact, already done so in some of the thinking I have undertaken around taxation, accounting, and the claims reflected within them.
Robert Nozick might, to summarise his thinking, have claimed that all taxation is theft, excepting that which is necessary to reinforce property rights (in the process confirming that he did not understand the true nature of taxation in the modern economy, largely because he published his major work in 1974 when current thinking on this issue had not evolved) but he was, very straightforwardly, wrong. If, as he argued, government exists to create and defend property rights, and government is considered to have a legitimate right to do so, then it is impossible to argue that government does not have the right to attach conditions to property ownership.
One condition that a government might attach to the right to acquire property is that tax be paid when doing so. So, for example, if when acquiring an asset value added tax is payable, and that charge is either avoided or evaded, then the title to the asset that is acquired is at best compromised, or might be invalid. Similarly, if income is earned, and tax is due as a consequence, and that obligation is avoided or evaded, the resulting benefit in terms of increased spending power may be illegitimate, or at least illicit, and therefore open to challenge. As I have long argued, the implication is clear. Title to property is dependent upon all taxes associated with it having been paid.
I have taken the idea further in developing my thinking on what I call sustainable cost accounting, a method for preparing the accounts of larger companies that would demonstrate their financial capacity to manage the consequences of climate change and to adapt to deliver net-zero carbon outputs from their activities. Embedded in this accounting framework is the idea of reciprocity. It suggets that an organisation, whether it be a company or anything else, can make use of resources within its activities, but ultimately the right to do so is constrained by the obligation that they should, as a consequence, be able to do so with a net zero impact on the scope one, two and three emissions arising as a result of their doing so. My suggestion is that if they are unable to achieve that goal, they are, as I describe it, “carbon insolvent”, meaning that they need to actively plan for the closure of their current activities because they cannot meet the reciprocal responsibility to society of using assets under their control in the way that they do at present.
We are, of course, also familiar with this idea in day-to-day life. If we own a car, we have a legal obligation to insure it to protect others against the risk arising from our use of that asset. We also have a legal obligation, when using it, to comply with the law, and to demonstrate our competence to do so by passing a driving test. The entitlement to use a car is, therefore, decidedly conditional and can be withdrawn by society from those who cannot, or choose not to, demonstrate their ability to comply with those conditions. We all accept this as both reasonable and necessary, a fact that shows just how distant society as a whole is from the concept Robert Nozick promoted.
What does all this have to do with my discussion on the equality of provision? I would suggest that the answer is quite a lot. The unusual nature of the proposal that I have made is that it is unconditional. In other words, I have suggested that there should be an absolute and inviolable right to a range of basic necessities in life, including food, housing, education, healthcare, and protection from environmental harm. The list could, of course, be refined. The issue that arises as a consequence is what is the reciprocal of this entitlement, and, in particular, how might a reciprocal arrangement be created that might ensure that this obligation is fulfilled? That is the issue to which I turned my attention in my thinking during the course of yesterday and so far today.
Treat this post as a work in progress.
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!
This was my draft of a preamble for a Scottish constitution which I contributed to one of the consultative projects to develop such a constitution:
(1) THE STATE AND THE PEOPLE
The Scottish state and the democratically elected government shall have the overriding purpose of upholding the rights set out in this Constitution and shall exercise its powers so that all citizens are enabled to realise their right to achieve their full potential and make as full a contribution as they are able to the common good.
(2) THE PEOPLE AND THE STATE
All citizens shall have obligations to the state and the government, including the obligation to pay tax and undertake public service as required, as well as the rights which are set out in this constitution
(3) THE PEOPLE
Every citizen shall also have obligations to all others and shall respect the rights of all their fellow citizens.
The rights referred to included a range of fundamental socio-economic and human rights e.g. to food, housing, energy, clean air and water, health, education, work, etc
Noted
I certainly would encourage further development of this idea, this ‘social contract’ between citizen and government. The concept is an anathema to anti-statists and hyper-individualists, but they just want freedom to exploit at will.
I think that it needs underpinning through/with democratic institutions and processes, maybe Tort law (modern capitalism seems to have evaded Tort) principles need to be applied.
The sovereignty from the state we are looking for here is taking that responsibility for all its citizens. I advocate state sovereignty when it comes to MMT along the lines of Stephanie Kelton.
But I have to say that it is contingent upon my knowing that the state keeps its part of the bargain. For the State – to be purchased by capital and ignore the rest of us, to be abused by capital only, for state sovereignty to be the sole right of capital is not on, unfair and acceptable.
State sovereignty without those caveats – ‘universality’, ‘inclusion’ means nothing to me, MMT or no MMT. In fact, when you look at the size of the CBRA, you could argue that the State does MMT for private sector banking anyway, whilst keeping everyone else short.
I think we need to start off by understanding the distinction between the “state” and “civil society”. They constitute a “unity of opposites” – a dialectical relationship. The state shapes relations in civil society and reflects the distribution of power in civil society – which means those power relations are reflected in the institutions of the state and how the state acts. The state is not and never can be “neutral”. If we want a state to shape a “well being economy” and embrace the “politics of care” then the fight for that has to take place in civil society. It is not going to happen by pleading for a “caring state”. Political action taking place in civil society is essential in order to reshape and repurpose the institutions of the state and it requires confronting the existing distribution of power and the popularisation of new ideas. This blog is a big contributor to the new thinking which will fuel this process of change.
Mr Osborne
1. I’m not ‘pleading’ for anything. I’m demanding it.
2. I am profoundly sceptical of civil society to be honest. It’s just another layer of society waiting to be taken over by vested interests and other human weaknesses.
3. The economic question must be answered first. You will not have a decently functioning civil society if that society is all about competing for scarce resources. That just sets you off on the path to identity politics to be honest and other rancour.
Since coming to Tax Research many moons ago, I have felt for some time that the economics issue – the allocation of resources in society – is fundamental to everything pertaining to a stable society. I could be wrong, but that is how I feel about it.
Currently, we are where we are because of the faulty allocation of resources that has still yet to be resolved.
You suggest, and I very much agree, “there should be an absolute and inviolable right to a range of basic necessities in life, including food, housing, education, healthcare, and protection from environmental harm”. In the UK these should be provided by the government for citizens, permanent residents,and some others.
IMO this obligation should be met, in part (more is definitely required), by providing a universal basic income. Some argue that a UBI is unaffordable. However, if it is possible to provide these rights, and I believe it is, then we can afford it. I would prefer such a system because it leaves control of personal decisions with individuals. A UBI avoids means testing and avoids a condescending, paternalistic approach to care.
UBI is insufficient. It does not cover affordability, nor variation in need.
There is a reason why the tech bros like it.
It is not care. It will become subsistence. Rather like the minimum wage. That is why provisioning is essential. The issue is not about cash – it is about guaranteeing provision and if UBI became the basis for wider rent extraction (and that is easy to imagine) it could make things very much worse.
I have in the past been a strong advocate for UBI, and I still believe it has a role to play, but I’m coming to realise that Universal Basic Services are a better way to deliver the Politics of Care agenda in many cases. As is rightly pointed out, UBI without safeguards will just encourage more rentier greed.
In the immediate post-WW2 period we came close to providing Universal Basic Services. We proved that UBSs were affordable for health, education and to some extent housing too. Sadly, Thatcherism reversed that trend, but we still have the blueprint. Let’s update and reimplement UBSs.
@Kim SJ
I agree with both you and Richard I agree that UBI is insufficient (and I said so). UBS is needed. A minimum wage is needed. Without these, as Richard pointed out, there is too much scope for exploitation and rent seeking. But having said that UBI is insufficient on it’s own it is also part of the mix that is needed.
My main point was to say that some UBI is affordable contrary to many opinions. If it is there to support aspects of care that are not provided by UBS then those have to be provided anyway. And if we will provide them anyway then we can afford it.
Private ownership of land (and by definition depriving others of the right to use it) is, of course, only possible by having a state grant that right. The state has to be created and paid for, therefore, it is only just that a tax is levied on that property and there is no way this could reasonably labelled theft. In fact, land ownership should be the primary source of taxation. It’s the one thing taxable that is a zero sum game. Merely owning land does not add any value to the economy. After land, we have rent extraction, interest, profits derived from monopolies etc. Those practices should be the secondary source of taxation. The last and, least taxed of all should be activities that actually add value- labour and entrepreneurship. Nozick could reasonably argue that the tertiary source should escape taxation but definitely not the first two.
Your argument ignores all other rents and effectively denies the possibility of progressiev taxation. Please do not waste my time with LVT. It should never have a major role in taxation.
Since most land in the UK is privately owned, and particularly farmland, how should we ensure essential productivity short of compulsory purchase? I’m thinking of holdings like Dyson in Lincolnshire, where refusal to grow or sell in the country’s interest could be used as a price or government grant lever. If we are to have rationing, which is likely if Iran continues, then we must maximise supply by diktat?
Why would they refuse to produce?
Consider “Equality” and, say, disability benefits.
For the fully human person claiming, the following are crucially relevant, sometimes at a life or death level of importance.
Are they eligible? (Eligibility is being reduced by gov)
Does the amount meet their actual essential needs and extra disability costs?
Are they able to make the claim? (transport availability, cost, physical access, digital exclusion, cost of phone/internet, mental stress of claiming from a toxic hostile bureaucracy, need for advocacy, interpreters – foreign languages, sign language, closure of local DWP or advice offices).
Do they KNOW about their eligibility?
Social pressure against claiming (whipped up by sociopathic politicians)
Administrative DWP failures limiting availability of the payment and causing critical delays and errors, under & overpayments
Discrimination elsewhere in society against those who claim, limiting access to other services such as private rented housing
Sanctions – is there equality of sanction between someone claiming a disability payment and falling foul of the rules (or a DWP error) and someone deliberately repeatedly bending corporate taxation rules, or an MP’s disclosure obligations?
Are the services they need (in addition to cash) available where and when they need them?
Unless a disability policy deals with ALL of those issues above, the disabled person is not experiencing equality of treatment by society and the state. We might even say that those of us who “own” the asset of good health, and being “able-bodied”, have an obligation not to “hog the highway” by denying opportunities to those who are disabled – but I don’t see LINO or STP going for that one. “Am I my brother’s keeper?” has been a popular excuse for a long time!
IMHO it’s also been a long time since we had a gov’t either interested in or capable of addressing these issues – they don’t, they won’t, they can’t (but they could if they wanted to).
It’s that last paragraph that interests me most. How to get a government that does “care” and is interested in equality for US rather than power for itself.
Thanks
I’ve been thinking that economics as it is can’t really do the job of helping us live sustainably and equitably on the Earth and we need a new discipline – one that the post financialist branch of economy might support. I call it human provisioning systems – encompassing engineering, economics, supply chain etc. The resistance from established economists might be less. I don’t see the profession developing. Seems to be how you are thinking – provisioning is the purpose, not balancing the books.
https://www.patreon.com/posts/when-economics-149005577?utm_medium=clipboard_copy&utm_source=copyLink&utm_campaign=postshare_creator&utm_content=join_link
Anyway, when I think about this subject I see several layers – the base layer, like lego bricks, is atoms. There is a finite number we have to play with, and maybe double – entry bookkeeping should be applied and the concept that atoms can never be owned, only borrowed from future generations. The ownership, the next layer, is more a lease of a combination atoms in the form of a house, or agricultural land. And the Usufruct – the product of the lease – could be removed only if (as you are suggesting) the “package” of leased atoms is left intact. This thinking goes against Swedish forest owners, who maintain that they own the forest and they can cut if down if they like, destroying habitat for ever, because “everybody needs to earn a living” and “who cares about a few insects”. Much to think about, this seems to be a rich vein to mine!
PSR, civil society is not waiting to be taken over by vested interests….it is dominated by them. It is always shaped by power relations. Plead, demand, or whatever, all you like, nothing will change until there is a political programme and a mass movement supporting it which shifts those relations of power and simultaneously reshapes and repurposes the institutions of the state.
Good Jim – you understand then that like government and any level of representation with associated structures that bad human behaviour/human frailties can undermine civil society too.
Civil society or not, it is important to understand the significance of political order in human history. Someone, something has to be in charge. And it is – it’s called government and it is shrouded in immense power. As we know on this blog, it created money out of nothing and essentially controls it. What we need is an effective re-imagining of that control and how it allocates resources. To do this, this civil society as you call it needs to agree on that, coalesce, cohere around fair allocation and not about who ‘deserves’ what, or rewriting history because already the board of this or that has been taken over by a bunch anti-woke right wingers.
If civil society is that ‘ill’ how can it reform government? Considering how loosely it itself is ‘governed’, and considering that because of austerity sections of civil society are reduced to thinking about themselves only – ‘competing’ , not co-operating (BTW, as Mattei has pointed out, this is one of the known strategic outcomes of austerity policy – reduce resources, insert hardship).
You are forgetting that “creating money out of nothing” is not creating it out of nothing ….it is created on the foundation of political authority. Where does such authority come from? From a combination of the ideological hegemony which reflects power relations, and varying degrees of coercion, which serve to maintain and reproduce those relations. The institutions of the state are designed for this purpose. A state is not going to reform itself spontaneously as the consequence of some Damascean enlightenment.
I recently watch a wildlife documentary that followed a pack of wild dogs in Africa. One of the dogs had lost a leg so could be described as being disabled. Interestingly the pack as a whole adjusted there speed of travel so their disabled friend could keep up as they travelled to find food. Although the 3 legged dog could not aid in a hunt (and effectively slowed the pack down) the others made sure they had an equal share of the food. Amazing. They acted as if the disabilty did not exist and adjusted to their needs naturally.
A linked thought on distribution. I’m in my early 40s. When I was a child, our family (3 kids and my grandma with us) was able to get by on one salary (my dad) with my mum earning a bit extra as a dinner lady. I cannot comprehend how they managed this. My partner and I are in the 40% tax bracket, both work full time and only have one child (felt like we couldn’t afford any more). I feel on paper we are very financially comfortable. And yet life feels hard. If my parents had our income, life would have been lavish by comparison.
How is it right that we’ve designed society where two parents have to work full time in stressful jobs to maintain a small family, in the meantime sacrificing time together as a family. It feels like more people are being forced into what amounts to economic servitude while large proportions of our income are demanded just to maintain an adequate standard of living.
George Carlin definitely had it right. His takes on education, corporate greed and taxes sound like prophecies now.