..makes interesting reading. I'm always torn in my reaction to Polly's articles between the realist's response imploring her to 'get real' and the soppy idealist in me asking 'what if she's right?' I consider myself on the moderate right but I agree that Labour should have better articulated the moral basis for taxation and challenged the selfish Daily Mail-esque narrative that labels all taxation a burden - it's not."Intellectually Labour has capitulated, for a decade using the language of "tax burdens", boasting of income tax cuts while letting the wealthy pay less than low earners. A generation of voters has never heard the basic reasons why they pay tax, and why it is the most necessary and honourable part of citizenship. Why avoiding, let alone evading, it is dishonourable. Why the rich who have gained astronomically in the last decade owe a duty of social responsibility."
This has always been about 'framing' - using words and phrases that subtly enforce a particular world view or imply a particular solution. The American's right does this very successfully with the phrase 'tax relief' and 'tax burden' is no different - 'relief' and 'burden' imply some sort of affliction, something that the big bad state imposes on the poor individual. The politician who addresses this is a good guy and anyone who supports or extends it is a bad guy. In truth of course this is a gross over-simplification - tax is complex issue and as Polly points out there's an almost irrefutable case that evading it is irresponsible at best, immoral at worst (not sure on her conflation of 'avoidance' with 'evasion' - has she never bought duty free, opened an ISA? - another post perhaps).
Actually I think if more people heeded Polly's plea we could have a more sensible debate on taxation because the follies on both sides would be easier to challenge. The Daily Mail constituency cheered on by right-wing bloggers etc. need reminding that we have one of the lowest tax burdens (see, there I go) in Western Europe, CGT which is getting all the heat at the moment was 40% when Labour took office and it's now 18%. The left need to understand that public spending isn't an unalloyed good and not all taxation can be defended by that moral / 'paying your share' line, the state can be notoriously inefficient (witness poor returns on NHS investment) and IHT is an outdated throwback to feudal times. As with most issues neither the traditional right nor traditional left have a monopoly on good sense when it comes to taxation and Polly's plea for a rebalancing is a welcome one.
Labels: Politics
3 Comments:
Zat so , we have overtaken Germany and just about every stupid idea I can think of has been justified by saying they do it in Europe.
Either Polly had written a lot of stuff the same, well she has of course, or I read this ages ago.
I do not hold her in the same high regard you do Cas , although she is a good contrarian on social matters where she has some insight . She knows nothing about money of course, which for her is something your family have or “Poor People” lack . The one she is ,the other she read about when ,despite her abysmal academic performance, she slunk into Oxbridge a top job and a life of telling us how much more moral she is than the rest. Love that woman.
Labour have shrunk from making the case for collectivism for one reason , they would lose it . This is not a country that has even wanted to be that regulated unlike her heros the Swedes , myths about who I recently blogged . Simplifying tax is the political route towards reducing it and if she for one minute believed her rubbish she would endorse plans to get tax out of hiding so we can all see it . Fat chance !
Overall . the tax burden has increased to the point where Income tax could be stopped if spending was at 1997 levels . State managed expenditure is 45% as compared to 38% when Labour came to power and while I admit the capital gains tax move was a good idea prompted perhaps by the vast donations from Private equity ...? Now they have ballsed that up as well
The notion of fax as a burden somewhat predates recent Neo Cons try reading Robin hood or oo, the Bible..... . The suggestion that giving all you earn away in the hope you will get some back is not less attractive due to the sneaky argufying of the underhand media . It just is for perfectly obvious reasons .
Polly is saying that by lying Labour have given up the intellectual war. I agree they are lying .I am indifferent to their intellectual contribution which at this point in history is non existent .
Can you believe this woman was head of social affairs at the state funded BBC. I paid for her to popularise this rubbish . Can you credit it ?
PS I am a centre right person . You are a Liberal. I accept taxes and state roles pragmatically but to actually think they are an intrinsic good is not Conservative .
Once again you are ideologically unsound brother Cassilis and this simply cannot go on
Where to start NM’?
I’m not justifying anything ‘because it’s done in Europe’ - simply pointing out that our tax burden is far lower than most of Western Europe so the characterisation of Brown as some stealthy tax & spend monster is just factually nonsense. You & others might want to see more US levels of tax as % of GDP (c.30%) which is fair enough but articulate what you’d like to see scrapped to meet that target - doesn’t the US have c.40m people without health insurance? Not a price I’m happy with…
The UK’s never had a ‘my tax dollars’ mentality and there’s no evidence of a public clamour for it. The Conservatives promised tax cuts at the last two elections and were routed so the public generally buy the concept of collective provision for some things and there’s no reason to think that’ll change dramatically anytime soon.
The ‘Income Tax could be stopped if spending was at 1997 levels’ is one of those statistical tropes that’s deeply misleading and effectively meaningless. Given growth levels over the last century you could probably pull a similar stat together for many 10 year gaps - it tells you nothing. What’s more you’d have to forego all the investment in public services since 1997 and while you can make a case that the returns on that investment haven’t been as good as they should have been it’d be a shockingly uncivilised society that didn’t spend a single penny more on educating its children and healing its sick.
And I wasn’t suggesting that the idea of a ‘tax burden’ was a new notion - just pointing out the new and rather insidious methods employed by those keen to perpetuate it. Anyway, the best know quotation I’m aware of from the Bible that references taxation is ‘Render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser’s and unto God what is God’s’ - hardly a religious plea for tax evasion.
And yes I’m aware that I may be undergoing some sort of ideological drift here but I’m comfortable with it - I always was on the ‘wet wing’ and so occasional agreement with Polly Toynbee doesn’t alarm me particularly. I still think it’s compatible with a centre-right outlook…
I’m not justifying anything ‘because it’s done in Europe’ - simply pointing out that our tax burden is far lower than most of Western Europe so the characterisation of Brown as some stealthy tax & spend monster is just factually nonsense. You & others might want to see more US levels of tax as % of GDP (c.30%) which is fair enough but articulate what you’d like to see scrapped to meet that target
1 You are confusing a flabby inefficient useless large state with the provision of services. Bigger does not equal better. Outsourcing , competition d market solutions favoured embryonicly in the NHS and schools by Blair have been scrapped by Brown. Polly is wrong about what was happening here . A significant section of the Labour Party have intellectually genuinely abandoned socialism . The internal politics of that Party is what has driven it back to its errors , under Brown...well anyway her reading is simplistic ..
2 The far greater dishonesty is the endless �The Government should do something� litany with no personal sense of what it would cost the wanter.
This is because they are usually being generous with other peoples money which I will return to in the context of meaningful democracy
3 You are justifying higher taxes by comparing us to Europe. If you are not, why mention this ( as I pointed out ) dubious comparison AT ALL . It is entirely meaningless at least in the examples I have looked at carefully , like Sweden . The comparisons I make with our own country seem to a little more apposite to me. The failure of tax cutting in the last two elections was a failure to articulate the alternative to state provision. It was seen as a return to Thatcher and all the BBC had built around that name. It is a complex point but out simply, your assumption is that people will act selfishly unless their money is forcibly removed from them by majority dictatorship. This is the very opposite of what I believe. The ratio of gainers from high tax is now worryingly large and the supposition that those who vote for it are in any way morally different from those who do not is one I find frankly childish. Whether you share this view I am not certain. Many do. Low tax hard , high tax kind.That is the real false �narrative� drip fed without cease by the Liberal media ...
The UK’s never had a ‘my tax dollars’ mentality and there’s no evidence of a public clamour for it.
(The BBC hate the US ...thats one reason)
Watch the plot C ..IHT ? Tax cuts are back on the agenda and as the comony fails they will be more so ( See Irwin Selzer today). Capitalism , not Brown has removed the majority from poverty and need and this process has altered the nature of our country in the last 15 years. The questions are quite different now . Labour have tried to spread dependency up the income groups with credits and so on but this is where , in my view , , the country has draw a mental line . State provision for immediate and serious want , yes , state provision for its own sake ,. NO . I detest the Labour Party�s wish to perpetuate poverty as they have done successfully in Glasgow etc. large parts of which have a life expectancy of under 55. WE can do so much better. It is also a matter of what works . Collectivism does not whatever self congratulatory motives may be claimed by its proponents . The Labour Party , as Polly points out , have publicly , at least accepted this. She says from cowardice, I say in the face of overwhelming evidence and common -sense
The ‘Income Tax could be stopped if spending was at 1997 levels’ is one of those statistical tropes that’s deeply misleading and effectively meaningless.
Well I know what you mean(like your Europe comparison ?) but the tax burden has grown enormously with or without that startling fact.( The meaningless of which you argue by �statement �)
�
insidious methods
Serpentine though your attempts to wriggle may be I think my point made sufficiently.
The problem is C is you appear wedded to a paradigm in which beliefs about society and people that are Conservative must be apologised for. I am not for all that in practice the differences are not so large . Incidentally , I `m not sure there is a two dimensional spectrum only here .
Cheerio Brother cassilis
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home