Friday, February 18, 2011

The Problems With Tax

To me, there’s no question about it: taxes should be reduced, and the tax system fundamentally changed. Yet we live in an age where people listen to the likes of Richard Murphy when they talk (apparently without irony) about The Joy of Tax, and where people attempt to damage the productivity of businesses that carry out perfectly legal tax avoidance actions. So at this point it is probably worth offering a personal perspective on why I think tax is bad; or, at the very least, tax is not a de facto “good”.

Let’s start by looking at the counter-argument to any claim that an individual might not want to pay tax: we pay for any number of different goods through choice, so why not choose to pay tax which offers both the individual and others clear benefits?

Now, it is true that I choose to spend money on various things. These are both things that offer a tangible benefit to me (such as paying for my various postgraduate studies) and things I just enjoy (books, DVDs etc). I also pay for essentials even if I would rather not – like rent and food.

And I have no issue with paying for essentials through the tax system. The first problem comes, however, with the level of tax I am expected to pay for those essentials. Take rent: before moving in somewhere, I shop around to get value for money. Not so with the tax system. I am forced to contribute money to the NHS, for example, even though when I try to use those services I am required to wait for ages and am generally seen by someone who frankly mocks the title of “medical professional” through their incompetence and disinterest. There’s no shopping around with tax; you pay the rate you are told to pay by the government. In fact, unless you are self-employed, you don’t so much pay that money as have it taken from you on a monthly basis without ever really seeing it for yourself. Therefore, the first reason why I resent paying taxes is because I resent seeing my money wasted in the way the British public sector wastes it, year in, year out.

The second problem comes with what the money is spent on. Now, I might choose to walk into HMV, and once there, I might choose to buy some products. Of course, I’m only going to buy stuff I have no ethical objection to: I might buy a DVD boxed set of a TV series I want to see. I’m not, however, going to buy anything associated with The X Factor, since I believe that show is partially responsible for the nosedive in the intellectual capability of people in this country. The same is not true of tax; quite simply, I pay for things of which I simply do not approve. I have no problem with paying for police officers to investigate crimes; I do have an issue with paying for thug-like riot police who possess no concept of proportionality. Likewise, I’ve no objection with my money being spent on armed forces to give this country a defensive capability, but I do resent the money I earn being spent on wars of aggression in Afghanistan and, in particular, Iraq. In short, I can’t choose what my money is spent on, regardless of my own ethical considerations.

And the problem of choice – which underpins this whole post – is also at the centre of my final objection. I walk into HMV and there is no-one compelling me to make a purchase. I can turn around, walk out and go somewhere else or simply not spend any money at all. The same is absolutely not true of tax. I pay tax or I go to prison. There is no choice with taxation; it is extracted from the population under duress using menaces. Furthermore, there is no opt-out. Even if I choose never to use a single public service and therefore cost this nation nothing, I still have to pay tax. There is no way of choosing not to participate in the tax system, just as there is no way of choosing not to have my money spent on things with which I just cannot agree or a way of choosing not to have my money wasted on bureaucracy and ineptitude in the public sector. In short, the tax system we have in this country is illiberal and almost seems set up to provoke the genuinely intellectually engaged into resenting it.

Of course, it could be very different. Show me my taxes aren’t being wasted, and I’ll feel happier about having it taken from me. Give me an opt-out in areas which I would rather fund myself, or over tax money spent on illiberal domestic policies and aggressive foreign policies, and I’ll start to feel comfortable about the government taking so much of my income. But until that happens, I’m going to see tax as a problem and anyone who avoids tax as not immoral or wrong, but rather someone attempting to maximise their own freedom in the face of draconian legislation and inept, government led waste.

Labels: , , ,

6 Comments:

At 9:33 am , Blogger john b said...

I’m not, however, going to buy anything associated with The X Factor, since I believe that show is partially responsible for the nosedive in the intellectual capability of people in this country.

...which is where your point collapses.

As a show on ITV, the X-Factor isn't primarily funded by freely purchased merchandise, it's primarily funded by an unavoidable (by any consumer) levy on all consumer goods sold in the UK. That's no more voluntary than tax - in fact, it's less so, as it's not set by democratically elected representatives. The fact that the agency doing this isn't the government doesn't make it any less unavoidable.

 
At 10:38 am , Blogger Mark Wadsworth said...

It's a game of two halves: how taxes are raised and how taxes are spent.

On the spending side, I'd agree with you (heck, I'd agree with the Taxpayers' Alliance on the spending side).

On the 'raising' side we have to be more nuanced:

1. There are taxes on output, wages, profits and incomes which only have bad and distortionary effects (VAT is worse than NIC is worse than corporation tax or income tax, but corporation tax is not a 'good' tax).

2. And then there are taxes on government protected privileges (primarily land ownership) where simply levying the tax has good effects which far outweight any bad effects (and if the proceeds can be spent sensibly, i.e. a Citizen's Income rather than the corporatists/quangocrats) then so much the better.

 
At 4:06 pm , Blogger TonyF said...

The interesting thing about tax is that originally, it was raised as a temporary measure to raise funds to fight the French.
Quote from Wikipedia:

"The war with France was extremely expensive, straining Great Britain's finances. Unlike the latter stages of the Napoleonic Wars, at this point Britain had only a very small standing army, and thus contributed to the war effort mainly by sea power and by supplying funds to other coalition members facing France. In 1797, Pitt was forced to protect the kingdom's gold reserves by preventing individuals from exchanging banknotes for gold. Great Britain would continue to use paper money for over two decades. Pitt was also forced to introduce Great Britain's first ever income tax. The new tax helped offset losses in indirect tax revenue, which had been caused by a decline in trade. Despite the efforts of Pitt and the British allies, the French continued to defeat the members of the First Coalition, which collapsed in 1798. A Second Coalition, consisting of Great Britain, Austria, Russia, and the Ottoman Empire, was formed, but it, too, failed to overcome the French. The fall of the Second Coalition with the defeat of the Austrians at Marengo (14 June 1800) left Great Britain facing France alone."

As you know, anything that any government comes up with that is shite and 'temporary' stays shite, gets bigger and more permanent...

 
At 1:46 am , Blogger Kimpatsu said...

So your problem isn't actually with tax per se, but with how it's squandered? Then you're choosing the wrong battle. Get taxation to be channelled properly, such as defunding NHS chaplains at the cost of nurses, and you'll be happy. Economies of scale will also make medical services less expensive even if you don't believe in medical care as a human right. (Perhaps you'd expound on that point?)
As to surly NHS staff, that's a problem with British society today (one which I'm happy toexplain at length if you want), but is not connected to taxation or NHS funding.

 
At 9:36 am , Anonymous JonP said...

"Even if I choose never to use a single public service and therefore cost this nation nothing, I still have to pay tax."

I don't think there's anyway you could live in a country and not cost the nation something - roads & footpaths have to be maintained, you'd benefit from street lighting - OK it's there anyway but only because everyone else is paying for it. If you were in an accident the emergency services would turn up even if you had opted out. It would cost money to track the fact that you'd opted out. Perhaps long ago you could be self sufficient but not in today's society.

Saying that, i agree that taxes should be minimised and streamlined for best efficiency - giving the government big piles of cash to dole out is probably not the most efficient way of doing it.

 
At 12:06 pm , Blogger The Nameless Libertarian said...

john b,

Your comment makes little sense. How do you perceive ITV to be funded? Besides, however it is funded I still have a choice, when in HMV, not to buy The X-Factor merchandise and further enhance the wealth of the likes of Simon Cowell. No-one compels me to buy anything they offer. Furthermore, that part of the post is not the point, it is an illustration of one of the points, so even if your logic wasn't faulty (which it is), it would still do little damage to my points and overall argument and certainly wouldn't be the collapse you suggest.

Kimpatsu,

My point is not just about waste, it is also about the coercion and lack of choice inherent within taxation. You could make the NHS as efficient as possible with genuinely friendly staff who want to be there and are rewarded in the right way for their work, and I'd feel happier about tax money going on the NHS. But I would still object to the coercive practices inherent within the tax system

In a sense, JonP is right to suggest that it is damn near impossible to live in a country such as ours and cost it nothing. But if I choose to have private health insurance (that could cover emergency callouts as well) then I wouldn't want to have to pay twice; once for my private health insurance, and once for the (almost certainly inferior) government cover. Therefore, I want an opt-out in this, and other, areas.

TNL

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home