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.

Richard Murphy on Neoliberalism

Via Bobski, I see that Richard Murphy is being utterly hypocritical again, this time on the subject of neoliberalism:

Neoliberals to the core, all of them, and utterly indifferent to a) reasoning b) rationality c) the reality of the economy d) the needs of real people e) the reality of democratic politics.

As Bobski points out, the descriptions in that sentence might remind one of someone other than "neoliberals":

I thought that a-e were a bit rich considering the source, I'd consider them most apt descriptions of Mr. Murphy.

Which is spot on, frankly.

But it is worth pausing for a further moment on Murphy's words. First up, there is something slightly bigoted in what Richard Murphy is saying. Somehow - and don't ask me how - he knows every neoliberal and also knows what they think and how they act. Short of divine omniscience - which I am pretty damned sure Murphy does not possess - I'm guessing that he is using the bigot methodology of using personal prejudices to make sweeping generalisations. Hardly the sort of thing a progressive should be doing, surely?

Still, I think you can argue the claim that there some neoliberals who warrant some of Murphy's insults. But they are the dogmatic neoliberals, who have turned neoliberalism into some sort of blueprint for all people at all times. Those who treat neoliberalism almost as a secular religion, or as a form of absolute truth that will broach no criticism and that those who do not adhere to this credo are in some way stupid, and perhaps even need to be silenced.

Of course, the problem with Murphy making this point is he behaves in exactly the same way about his own political beliefs. He is just as dogmatic as many neoliberals, just about different ideas.

And here's the nub of the matter - Murphy hasn't just revealed himself as a hypocrite, but as a dogmatic bigot. Good going, for just one sentence in one blogpost...

More Murphy

Richard Murphy on some spending cuts:

But there’s more to it than that. The people who run these services – lowly paid by and large – want to work with the young, the old, in caring for fellow human beings. The private sector is not going to provide these people with those jobs – because the state is not going to pay them to provide them – and nor is The Big Society – let’s be realistic.

Where to begin? There are just so many problems in this hysterical bilge that I really do struggle to find a starting point. I guess we're just going to have to do this the old-fashioned way, and start at the beginning.

Firstly, those who work for the various services Murphy is chuntering about are often not paid well. But that really is the choice of those who employ these individuals. That's right - local and central government decide how much these people should be paid. Therefore, it is their fault if these people aren't paid particularly well.

Murphy would be on stronger ground if the pay in the public sector was roughly the same across that sector. Of course, it isn't. Those delivering frontline services may be paid poorly, but those in management positions or in office based work are often paid relatively well - a quick flick through The Guardian's job adverts shows this. And those who run councils - the Chief Executives etc - are often paid hundreds of thousands for the work they do. Of course, pay comes down to the particular worth an organisation places on its employees and you can argue that the pay scales in the public sector are counter-intuitive and warped. But that's an internal problem to the public sector - that sector that Murphy virtually worships.

It is also impossible to say what the motives are of such employees. Some will actively want to work with the vulnerable; others might do it because they have no choice. Murphy here is trying to do a crude trick - he's tugging on your heartstrings by talking about poorly paid caring people. The reality is that some carers will match that description - others really won't.

And where's his evidence that the private sector won't give these people jobs? The private sector may well give them jobs if there is a demand for their services and a chance that those services will turn in a profit for the employers. Employers aren't reliant on the state and state funding to employ people who are useful to them - in fact, a lot of employers would far rather that the government buggered off out of their hiring choices.

He's right that the Big Society won't pay for these people - but then again, given the Big Society is a largely empty concept rather than an actual institution, that's hardly surprising. Social Democracy won't pay to provide jobs for them either - again, it's a ideology, not an institution or individual with funds. However, society and its component communities may well pay for these people to have relevant jobs - particularly if the tax burden in this country is substantially reduced and people get to choose how they spend their money to a much, much greater extent. Which, of course, is something that Murphy passionately opposes.

At its heart, there is something very depressing about Murphy's view of human nature. He doesn't see people as basically willing to care about other people without the coercion of the state. In his worldview, people have to be forced to be nice to each other, and to care about the welfare of others. And in doing so, he fabricates an ersatz sense of caring. Many of us who don't share his unthinking reverence for the state believe that if we are given increased freedom, many of us will quite naturally use that freedom to make sure others are Ok. And I'd argue that this is far more optimistic that anything in the statist outlook of Murphy and his ilk.

Tuition Fees, Hard Choices and Richard Murphy

I'm guessing that the whole tuition fee thing is going to flare up into a row. Ho-hum - that's life, I guess. And I don't have a whole lot more to add. Except when I see this from Richard Murphy:

I guess I should declare lots of interests: I have a degree, largely paid for by the state; I have young sons who may one day go to university (but who knows?). I want to live in a civilised society, where learning is valued for learning’s sake. And where all have equal access to it.

Well, let me in turn declare my interests: I have a degree, paid for in part by the state. I have a postgraduate degree (MA) - paid for by me. And I am embarking on a PhD - again, without state help (at least to begin with). The point here is that I want to do something, so I'm doing my level best to make it happen. And, as it stands, that involves a fuck load of hardwork. I'm not going to bellyache too much, but equally I'm not going to rely on (and wait for) a state to enable me to do what I want (particularly not a state saddled with massive debt)*.

As for the idea that there is going to be a society where "learning is valued for learning's sake" - owing to human plurality, this is an impossibility. Simply ain't going to happen. You are always going to find some who value learning for learning's sake, and some at the other extreme who believe that life experience is more important than the learning that can be gained through education. As a result, you will find some people who may be apathetic about others going to university (and even staying in education for their whole lives) but will be damned if their taxes are going to fund that desire.

Murphy, once again, seems to be missing the point. We need to start asking ourselves harsh questions about further and higher education in this country. What subjects should the state contribute towards, and which should be self-funded? Which courses are essential for our society, and which might be fun but ultimately are non-essential? Of course, this is an area where people will have very different personal opinions and some sort of consensus around this highly contentious issue. But that consensus needs to be reached. Because - ever since Nu Labour decided that as many people as possible should go to university - there has been a massive rise in degrees that achieve little more than debt both for the state and for the individual taking that degree. University is not right for everyone, and not everything needs to or indeed should be taught at university level.

In a sense, I agree with Murphy - I value learning for learning's sake. I'm just not sure that the taxpayer should have to pay for that learning.

*Anyone who does want to help, though, should feel free to use the donate button in the side-bar. Yeah, I know, I'm a shameless whore - but I reckon it is better to ask others for money than demand that the state demand it from others through tax.

Why We Shouldn't "Respect the Government"

Via the Angry Teen, a gem from our old friend Richard Murphy:

Respect the right of government. Don’t try to undermine their income streams. Pay the tax they expect. Enjoy the benefits that flow from doing so.

AT does a lot to rebut the idiocy of this statement:

Tax destroys growth, allows politicians to get us involved with wars which kill thousands—sometimes millions—of people, allows the state to decimate our civil liberties, and countless other things. It is impossible to overestimate the damage done to society by government. Its services are always inferior to the services of the private sector The NHS is a good example of this. It seems to only be able to "improve" when the price is skyrocketing.

In fact, I've got little to add beyond this observation - there is something very dangerous in the fundamental assumption that underlies this argument. It assumes that the government will always be benign, working in the best interests of the people. By accident or design, that is not always the case. Think about it: there are no shortage of governments in history that have actively damaged their people, and many more who have done so by accident or through negligence. The benefits that Murphy sees flowing forth from government are by no means guaranteed. For example, our taxes payed for the war in Iraq - something that cannot be described as a benefit by anyone other than a Nu Labourite politician.

Now, I'm a Libertarian, not an anarchist. I do believe there needs to be some sort of government in place. But I don't believe that we should "respect the right of government" - quite the contrary, the government needs to respect our rights. And they need to justify every penny and any liberty that they take from us. A healthy attitude towards government isn't blind obedience and thoughtless compliance - it is a constant suspicion of the political class and the resulting scrutiny to ensure that they act in our interests, not their own.

Murphy - and all other statists - assume that government will always be benign. Those with even the smallest knowledge of history know that this is not always going to be the case. Which is why government must always be challenged and restricted. The blindly obedient and the meekly compliant like Richard are like the devoutly religious - they hope those they have put their faith in will do good, while ignoring the damage done by the political class in our name and at our expense.

Over at the Contrarian there is a frankly wonderful post tearing apart Richard Murphy's utterly spurious and extremely ignorant opinions about Libertarians (and others who he crudely and incorrectly lumps together with Libertarians). I strongly urge you to go take a look.

I've only got one thing to add; Murphy talks a lot about how Libertarians/right-wingers/anarcho-capitalists/the Tories/the TPA etc want to destroy democracy and remove the right of people to think for themselves. Not only is this stuff and nonsense but it also misses the point that it is Murphy and his ilk who don't want democracy or people to think for themselves. Murphy wants you to unquestioningly agree with his opinions on tax, on the benefits of state expansion and on climate change. If you don't, he'll refuse to allow you to make your point and maybe call you autistic at the same time. There's nothing democratic about the way he operates, and there is no way in hell that he actually wants you or me to think for ourselves. Blind obedience is the way forward as far as statist fucks like Murphy are concerned.

Richard Murphy's Reverence for the Police

Richard Murphy, prize clown, on an example of what he calls "the joy of tax" - our police force:

Sometimes stating the obvious is necessary.

Uh-huh. Allow me to state the obvious - Richard Murphy is a total arse. Moving on:

We need police.

We need laws enforced.

Which assumes (a) that all laws are moral, and therefore should be enforced and (b) the police are capable of enforcing the law in all circumstances. Fellow participants in what I would call reality would dispute both of those assumptions.

And just as much we need their presence in communities – where I suspect they do a lot more simple offering help and direction than they do law enforcement.

What? Where the hell does Murphy live? In an episode of Dixon of Dock Green? I've lived in four cities and a rural village in this country, and I have never, ever seen the police do anything relating to "help and direction". Most of the time it is a bastard struggle to get them to do anything relating to law enforcement.

I am well aware that there are those on the right who think the police – and even law – can be privatised.

Not if they've seen Robocop. Yup, I know Robocop isn't real, but we're dealing with Mr Murphy here, people, making reality a movable - if not irrelevant - feast.

That’s wrong. A coherent system of law and order underpins a society. Only government can command and direct such a service.

Yeah, because left-wing governments never behave illegaly. Oh, wait... And the police. They'd never do anything illegal. Oh wait...

Only government can pay for it.

Government doesn't pay for it. The taxpayers do through money appropriated from them with menaces by the government. Whether they like it or not.

That’s the Joy of Tax.

Once again; Richard Murphy, what a total arse.

Richard Murphy's Strange Relationship With Free Speech

Our old friend Richard Murphy is upset that some people have dared to charge him with hypocrisy. And in the subsequent hissy fit on his blog he reveals once again his curious relationship with the concept of free speech. He writes:

So what’s the real issue?

First of all – as I’ve often said the issue is one of intimidation – they seek to propagate the message that if anyone stands up to their vicious form of capitalism they will seek to crush them. So much for a belief in liberty! It takes courage to stand up to such behaviour. They know that. They want to stop others entering the fray by behaving as they do. In that way they hope to crush our current democratic way of life in the UK, Europe and beyond, not least by eliminating debate.

Now, I know there are a lot of people out there who might insult the likes of Murphy gratuitously. However, there is nothing attacking or intimidating about suggesting that someone who campaigns against (the perfectly legal) tax avoidance probably shouldn’t avoid tax himself. That isn’t trying to crush people; it is suggesting that people should aspire to meet the standards they set for others.

This is not stopping others from entering the fray; it is an open and honest dialogue. The sort of dialogue that Murphy himself does not allow. Don’t believe me? Take a look at the first comment on the post in question:

This comment has been deleted. It failed the moderation policy noted here. http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/comments/. The editor’s decision on this matter is final.

That’s right, Murphy is charging others with eliminating debate at the same time as not allowing a dialogue with anyone who does not follow his draconian comments policy – one that is designed to eliminate anyone's views if they dare not to agree with him.

So let’s rank the potential sins here – on the one hand, we have people calling others on hypocrisy when they see it which may make other hypocrites less likely to engage in public debate. On the other hand we have the likes of Murphy who do not allow those with whom they do not agree to talk in the first place. You can argue that both run the risk of damaging free speech and debate, but only the likes of Murphy proactively stop that free speech and debate. So Murphy is once again showing himself to be a hypocrite; championing debate while simultaneously not allowing it himself.

Richard Murphy on the problem of taxpayers being overcharged by HRMC:

There is an answer, of course.

The answer is more tax inspectors.

No, that's not the answer to any question other than "how can we waste more of the taxpayer's money?" There is an answer, however. And it is this - simplify the tax system. In fact, go for a flat tax. But a tax accountant like Murphy could never go for that now, could he?

I rather think Richard Murphy could become a firm favourite of this blog, if only because he seems to be so crushingly ignorant. Check out this statement that he posted yesterday about the comments on a particular website:

...the libertarians and racists are out in force (why do they go together?)

Put very simply, they don't. The fact that those Murphy and his ilk would term Libertarians and racists might comment on the same website means absolutely nothing. It is a bit like claiming that Labour and the BNP go together because they have had party members serving together on a couple of local councils in the UK.

And if you stop to think about it for more than just a second, the concept of racist Libertarians actually makes very little sense. In order to implement racist policies, you need a high level of state intervention - something that Libertarians will instinctively be against. Indeed, two of the most racist states in history - Nazi Germany and South Africa under apartheid - made a veritable fetish out state control. And such states are clearly the opposite of what a Libertarian would want. Sure, you might be able to find some racists out there who dub themselves Libertarians, but the same is true of any political party/movement in the world. There will be racist Labour party members, racist socialists and racists tax lovers.

To try to lump Libertarians and racists together is frankly an ignorant thing to do, and looks for all the world like the desperate attempt to discredit an enemy that Murphy cannot argue against properly.

UPDATE

In the comments section of this post, Christie Malry points out that Murphy is now claiming that he is a Libertarian. Words fail me. I literally don't know what to say. It's a bit like Ed Balls claiming he's a Libertarian (although the way his leadership campaign is going he may yet do so) or Margaret Thatcher saying that actually she was a socialist. It is, not to put to fine a point on it, absolute bollocks.

Actually, I do know what to say now, and it's this: there is nothing Libertarian about Murphy. He worships at the altar of state control, seems to find taxation almost erotic rather than (at best) a necessary evil, and he wants to suppress free speech. The man isn't a Libertarian; if anything, he borders on facist a lot of the time.