There is nothing as heartwarming as a tax revolt. Yet, there are few governments in history that have to be taught the same lesson twice. Of course, the incompetence and vicious hatred that the transnational socialists who hold sway in Britain have for private wealth blinds them to the lesson that they will have to learn yet again. Tax people too much and they will stop paying, especially when they are old age pensioners on a fixed income, willing to go to prison at the age of 83, in order to publicise this injustice.
The council tax is a local tax based on property values that is used to pay for the local constabulary, the borough and the county council, or whatever local governance is in place in England. It funds a small part of their budget, the majority of which is funded by central government through a block grant. The Blair administration has passed responsibilities on to the local authorities without increasing their block grant. As a consequence, the increase in local authority budgets has a multiplier effect on the increase in council tax, leading to rises of ten to twenty percent, especially in the south of the country. The group most vulnerable to these increases are old age pensioners, who own their homes, and whose pensions rise in line with the retail price index rather than earnings. This has resulted in a grassroots campaign to boycott the council tax. Concerned groups are linked to the IsIt Fair campaign, supported by the Royal British Legion:
The average rise for 2003/2004 was 12.9 per cent and was a direct result of central Government action. It is set to continue. Government is using the council tax system as a stealth tax. Grants have been redistributed away from many areas. At the same time, Government has dictated that spending in these same areas is significantly increased. On average, the cost of council tax has increased by up to 70% since 1997. The forecasts for next year’s rises are already being reported at 10%. Central Government blames the local county councils for all the extortionate rises. Do not believe this. Check with your own county council and you will discover the truth.
Whilst the grassroots are campaigning for a local income tax that would prove fairer to groups on a fixed income, it nevertheless spreads the view that tax is too high and that government is untrustworthy on this issue. There are 25 local groups linked to the IsItFair campaign, including the unfortunately named Craven Ratepayers Action Group. I am sure they are anything but.
This is far more impressive than the Taxpayers Alliance which doesn’t even link to its more populist counterpart. A tax revolt can be defined as the withholding of tax from a state that would force you to sell your home in order to pay what you owe, no matter what your age or position. It is not, as the TPA sincerely believes, a polite note of concern to the government.
The non-partisan TPA is being launched to co-ordinate the growing tax revolt and fight for tax cuts. Members of the public can register their support at www.taxpayersalliance.com. The TPA expects to recruit 100,000 supporters by the general election.
Hopefully, this most dangerous and deceitful of governments, outstanding for diving under the very low expectations one has of politics, will be further undermined.
Uh, say what? I mean, let’s keep some sense of proportion here. You’re competing with everyone from Fidel Castro to Jacques Chirac, after all.
Unfortunately this is not really a tax revolt. All the woman is saying is that it is unfair on her not that it is legal extortion with less than adequate exchange for the rest of us. On “Question Time” a couple of nights ago the general consensus of the studio audience was that it was being implemented unfairly and a popular solution was to get the money from “Big Business”. The underlying general mindless agreement was on the sacred principle that we should all pay “according to our ability”. It’s the only fair way!
I agree with the quote. M Chirac’s corruption is personal. In Britain, the entire government is institutionally corrupt, from falsifying NHS and other statistics, cheapening exam results so everyone gets a pass, indoctrinating children in the Marxist way, taking large amounts of money for the party for favours – viz Lakshmi Mittal, whose steel company competes against the British steel industry and Blair making a phone call to the prime minister of Lithuania and put in a good word for him to buy the Lithuanian steel company – in return for £150,000 (he’s never explained that one away.) And the Hinduja brothers – passports in return for favours – and a couple of free saris for Cherie. And Bernie Ecclestone gave a million pounds to the party to save Formula One’s cigarette advertising – and all the ones we don’t know about. And all the free vacations the Blairs accept at the cost of foreign taxpayers. And Cherie dabbling in the property market with the help of an Aussie conman who had served time on three continents. And Jack Straw’s son (foreign secretary – Straw Snr, that is) selling drugs.
Interesting that even on the BBC’s robustly unbiased Have Your Say, under the item,Where Does Your Money Go? a large percentage of people said: On income tax, sales tax, stealth tax, council tax. So taxes are begining to bite hard. Maybe phony Tony and Gordon Lardbutt think no one’s noticed, but they have.
I beg to differ:
If we are to be taxed at all, better that is done locally rather than centrally. Any money spent by local councils should be generated within rather than stolen from other areas. This also provides an incentive for local councils to modeate their spending instead of the free luch they currently enjoy. The net effect of a successful tax “revolt” will not be a reduction in tax revenue at all, merely further redistribution.
One way of looking at tax reform is to break up the Inland revenue and have no central income tax, only local tax. Competing regions could set their own tax regimes and see which is the more successful. Flat taxes would probably win over progressive taxes in this “market”. I’d even wager that the removal of the massive subsidy from London and the S-E to the rest of the UK would be beneficial to all regions.
I wouldn’t settle for it but would consider it a great improvement to rid the country of the “ability to pay” as the model for any kind of tax implementation. This is the core idea at the root of much statism that I consider most needs to be corrected.
I have long argued for the abolition of income tax on earnings of up to, say, £25,000 and have them replaced with a user tax. So the wage earner would go home with £2083 per month and spend/save it at his discretion. Fresh food, children’s clothing, heating, water (and whatever I’ve forgotten) would attract no tax at all. Everything else would be taxed very heavily.
For example, a bottle of whisky may cost £25 or more. It is the decision of the consumer whether paying this much tax is worth it in order to get the whisky. But we know that user tax does work, no matter how unlikely, by the sale of cigarettes and petrol. If people want something, they will pay.
OTOH, if someone is strapped financially one month, he can take himself out of the tax system by not buying anying that attracts a tax.
Taxes should be clearly market on all price tickets. As in for whisky, say: Product: £3.26. Tax: £22.00.
If people failed to buy a heavily taxed product, the government would know that it had taxed itself out of the market and be compelled to lower the tax in order to get sales. This would have the effect of forcing the government to respond to the market.
From £25,000 to £45,000, let’s say, earners could pay a modest tax on their incomes, but the fact that they contribute taxes in this way would enable them to pay less user tax (with a swipe card that proves they’re already a taxpayer). It shouldn’t take any longer to compute at the cash register than simply running the swipe card through and letting the register compute the reduced user tax.
User tax is fairer to everyone (given that we have to have tax at all, and I cannot imagine any government contemplating giving it up) in that people would be paying tax by choice not compulsion.
If anyone knows of a place something similar has been tried, I’d be interested in hearing the conclusions.
I recently sold my flat in E. Sussex. Part of the reason was that, even though it was taxed as a holiday flat at half the statutory rate (BEFORE the recent tax rise), the amount was equal to the full rate I have to pay on a comparable flat in the U.S.
My only regret is that I repatriated the Sterling too soon.
Verity,
I lived for 32 years in Bermuda where there is no income tax and government revenues arise from import duties, payroll tax and propery tax. My only criticism of import duties (or consumption taxes) is that they are not progressive – people on lower incomes pay the same as those better off.
The arguments as to how governments should raise the revenues necessary to pay for the running of a country are varied. My own observation is that governments tend to decide what they want to spend and then frame the tax structure to raise those funds. My view is that governments should set a fair tax regime and then do what they can with those funds.
Other posters have pointed out how many and varied are the government departments (quangos, etc) that could be done away with.
Bermuda is a tiny “country” but it could well give a lesson on how a community can manage very well without massive government interference!
They’re squeaking all right – but what they’re squeaking is “someone else should pay!”
Henry – Thank you. You say “people on lower incomes pay the same as those better off”. So? You’re surely not saying, “To each according to his need”?
Also, what I proposed is graduated. People paying actual income tax – at the higher end of earning – would have a swipe card that automatically deducted part of the user tax paid by people who don’t pay income tax.
The point is, it’s not knife-to-the-throat. Paying tax at the lower end becomes optional, and one can take oneself out of the tax system for as long as one likes by not buying taxable goods.
I do not trust the state to decide how much it needs, because it is a gigantic, greedy maw that can never be satisfied. I’d rather let people decide, through their purchases, how much they are prepared to spend on tax and then have the state live with it. And yes, of course, first to go would be the quangoes and other parasitic organisations that no one asked for. The mayor of London, for example. “Special advisors” to politicians who would have to depend on the traditional civil servants without an electoral agenda, etc.
Interesting to read about Bermuda, though. I didn’t know that!
The problem with taxes on products is that unless it was introduced very gradually it would change the whole dynamic of certain industries making existing business models unworkable. So, yet again the entrepreneur, the wealth creator gets shafted.
If governments sole functions were restricted to defence and maintaining a system of law we could privatise everything else. This way, if you use it, you pay the real market price for using it. Whatever it happens to be. All other tax systems stuff someone unfairly although Verity’s proposal has a lot of merits.
I just hate the idea that someone who is better off pays tax and someone who isn’t does not. The people who are better off didn’t get that way by accident. Someone had to earn the wealth. Why do enterprising people have to be penalised by those who are not?
If government spending were restricted to finite levels and for specific things only the we could have a set amount of tax paid each year by each individual between 18 and 60. Only exceptions being those unable to work through infirmity of body or mind. Nothing to do with need and everything to do with individual responsibility to society.
(It would be just as unpopular as the poll tax which had a similar principle because the moochers always think somebody else should pay)
Nick Timms
Of course if I want to buy an orange, I might decide that it is too expensive on my income and buy some canned fruit instead. I cannot, however, do this with taxes. I have to pay what the government tells me to pay, so there is no market response if the taxes are too high. I can’t just switch governments. Thus the “unfair to the poor” argument does hold at least some sway, since if you’re requiring a sacrifice, it should be a somewhat proportional sacrifice for each member of the population. If I understand what other posters have written, then they’re advocating a “Everybody pay $1000 in tax, or you go to jail” system. What if someone doesn’t have a job at all? What if someone works part time, and only makes $2000/year? Should parents pay the taxes of their unemployed children who are in college, whom they’re also supporting completely?
This seems like a totally unworkable and ridiculously unfair suggestion.
And in case anyone asks “You’re surely not saying, “To each according to his need”?[sic]”–no, I’m not saying that. I’m saying “each giveth according to his ability.” (The section of the original quote (given above) actually makes little sense in the context.) Suggesting otherwise shows a complete disconnection from reality which I usually associate with other political groups.
Lucas;
As Nick Timms pointed out the “rich” are for the most part the producers of jobs, products and wealth. Just why is it that you think they should be the most heavily penalised for doing this? These are people who create the majority of the value that the State seeks to “redistribute”. They already contribute a great deal to society just by doing their jobs. Why should they be forced to give up a greater portion of their rewards as well?
Verity, why keep the income tax at all? To my mind, it’s inherently unjust, and much money is spent both administering it and trying to minimize/avoid it. Seems to me your swipe card scheme would also cost unnecessarily — why create yet another governmental bureaucracy?
Why not a very simple system of sales tax with exemptions for necessities (non-prepared food, clothing, shelter, webhosting for blogs)?
Dare I mention that Florida, and several other States in the US have no personal income tax. There is tax on business profit and a Federal personal income tax.
The majority of State income is derived from a sales tax , which varies throughout the state on a county by county basis, each county raising it’s operating revenue from adding a percentage to the State sales tax and by levying a property tax. Thereby being held to account by the residents.
When Heath’s government introduced the Value Added Tax, the premise was that personal taxation would decrease and eventually be abolished, needless to say that was never going to happen.
Henry, – have to disagree that people on lower incomes should pay less tax than others, if the taxes were only applied to what could be considered ‘luxury’ items, such as Verity’s ‘ bottle of whiskey, then one tax fits all should apply. If there were no tax, or a zero tax rate on necessities, (as is the case now with VAT), then there would be no problem re fairness to the lower income bracket. Items such as the tax on heating fuels are totally barbaric, and do more harm to the poorest, and are about as unfair as it gets.
If you believe that taxation should not be used as a means of re-distribution of income, then another alternative is a flat tax rate system.
The use of taxation as a social engineering tool is an absolute abomination, and of course, it panders to lowest human instincts. Provision for those on fixed and minimal incomes could easily be provided under any of the suggested systems.
Lucas, – Your quote, “each giveth according to his ability.” spoken like a true communist. Why should anyone be forced, coerced or otherwise compelled to contribute to someone else’s livlihood? If I am going to be a benefactor to society, I want some say as to who is receiving the munificence of my generosity. I do not trust some bureaucrat to spend or distribute my hard earned cash in any sort of sensible fashion, that is a task that I am quite capable of doing for myself, thank you very much. I really do not see why some politician should get a pat on the back, and bask in that warm, smug glow of self-satisfaction that goes along with with his vote-buying at my expense.
The other comment re “Everybody pay $1000 in tax, or you go to jail”, is no more than a rather poor ‘straw man’, no one made that suggestion, as far as I could see. Likewise the comment re college students. There are obviously various ways to protect the poorest in our society, and I would have thought that was a given anyway, or are you suggesting that it is only under a statist socialist system that compassion can be shown to the poorest in our society?
Lucas – With respect, I think I must have failed to make my point clear. You say: “I have to pay what the government tells me to pay, so there is no market response if the taxes are too high. I can’t just switch governments.” But my point was precisely that, if people thought any particular item was taxed too highly, they wouldn’t buy it and the government would lose that tax. It could either live with that, or lower the tax on that item so it would produce at least some revenue. The government would be forced to respond to the consumer, in other words.
Tim Haas – Yes. I could vote for that. The point is to get away from tax on people’s incomes. People in the west have begun to sincerely believe that part of what they earn belongs to the state, by right. It doesn’t It belongs to the person who earned it and he should be able to spend it as he chooses. So no income tax at all, at any level, and a hefty sales tax would be fine. This way, it is up to the owner of the money how it gets deployed (by him/her) and the government is at their mercy, which is how it should be.
The sales tax would have to be fixed in concrete though, otherwise governments would simply claim that it wasn’t producing enough to “fund” the race police or 95 quangoes and a whole new tranche of bureaucrats at the NHS whose hiring was “necessary to drive the delivery of a world class health service” and blah blah blah and barf.
If we went with the sales tax idea, the producers in society and the consumers at the till would determine how much money there would be for the government to deploy in any one year.
All the legions of unemployed who somehow acquired “back injuries” from working the till at boring jobs and are now on disability would be obliged to undergo a miraculous cure or sacrifice beer and cigarettes.
If this seems a little mean-spirited, it shouldn’t. It just proves how insidious communist propaganda – as in Lucas above – is and how we’ve been bludgeoned into accepting it against every human instinct.
Verity:
If government spending remained high and revenue derived solely from a sales tax you will just see the same distorting effects of income tax transferred over to the retail sector.
Remember also that tax systems which reward “un-compliance” often generete less revenue – thus a high sales tax may not necessarily produce the effect you imagine but probably would simply expand the “black economy”.
The only fair and market-consistent tax is a service charge levied for the exact cost of providing that service.
Frank:
The calculations I’ve seen have put a revenue-neutral federal sales tax in the U.S. at 23 percent. I don’t think this level of sales taxation would axiomatically increase black marketeeting — we’re already paying these costs now, just in more hidden ways. Besides, relieved of the necessity of tracking the incomes of tens of millions of people (Inland Revenue) or hundreds of millions (IRS), the tax cops could direct their efforts toward the much smaller retail realm.
And let’s make it worthwhile for businesses to remain on the up and up — give them a small cut for acting as the government’s tax collectors. It’s a better deal than now, when they have to collect and remit state sales tax for free.
I would favour abolishing all tax for everyone for ever but in the context of this discussion I guess we are discussing what form of tax is the least damaging if tax is still going to be raised to fund a minimal state.
Philip’s example of the UK Council Tax is interesting because it is such a modest tax and yet is still prompting protest. If we want lower taxes, the question we should be asking is,”at what level of tax will this particular structure of taxation cause political protest which will restrain politicians’ willingness to increase the rate?”
None of the ideas proposed by people on this blog will get adopted because they are designed by libertarians to attempt to control government spending. However it is the government that makes the rules.
When Margaret Thatcher’s government introduced the Poll Tax, she was trying to introduce just that sort of accountability for local councils. Since every voter had to pay, everyone had an incentive to call for lower taxes and local politicians were under extreme pressure to find savings.
With the Council Tax, only householders are taxed, yet above inflation increases are causing protests which I believe do restrain local politicians’ incentive to increase tax. The trouble is that this Labour Government has been heaping extra duties on local councils which all involve spending extra money and Council tax rises are on average far higher than even the public sector inflation rate of 7-8%.
For a pensioner on a fixed income this is a real problem. The solution would be for the goverment to stop pushing up the cost of local government.
I am horrified by the idea of local income tax. It is designed to raise the maximum amount of money for government with the least amount of protest. Unless it is accompanied by an equivalent cut in national income tax it is a recipe for higher taxes and more government.
What Tim said. Alternatives to income tax would produce less revenue for the state and would therefore perform the valuable duty of concentrating minds – both of politicans and the voters. Pols would have to pare back – and the voters would want to see that they were paring back on their own favourite programmes (thought police; outreach officers; diversity training; 100,000 new bureaucrats for the NHS) not the voters’ favourite programmes (more police on the streets; more prisons; forced repatriation of a quarter of a million people in the country illegally; fewer pamphlets and press releases explaining “targets”, “initiatives”, “goals” and no action; an end to “special advisors” – whose remit is to get their boss reelected – for cabinet members and a resumption of the traditional role of the civil service, etc).
Council taxes are fundamentally a protection racket,councils are monoploy providers of services and there are no alternatives with which to make comparisons as to value for money or quality.The police for example have their own priorities,the service they provide is at total variance with what the public require.
The main case of burgeoning council taxes is index linked pensions and early retirement options.We are now in the Wonderland where a seventy year old is funding the pension of a fifty year old.
Peter Bocking, I agree with the rest of your post as well, but specifically, I would like to know how you would address this issue you also mentioned: “The police for example have their own priorities,the service they provide is at total variance with what the public require.”
Surely the attitude of any sane employer would be: OK. Sack the police.
Why can’t we? How can an employee have his own agenda that he’s advancing against the interests of his employers and still expect to be employed? Except, the police are actually employed by the government, not the taxpayer, as they are in the United States. So they advance the cause of their employers – the government.
Can anyone write in with a solution to this? Unlike the United States, even in repressive states like MA, in Britain, the police act *against* the interests of the taxpayer and *for* a government that seeks to increase its hegemony over the taxpayer with a brutal disregard for the nation’s law-abiding culture and the imposition of alien “goals” and “targets” in place of law enforcement.
Verity,The argument applies to services right across the board,the public have no real input whatsoever.Generally there are three or more power groups running a service,government,the organisation that provides the service and the employees union.There may be outside groups with vested interest who can put pressure on the others but the public have little say.Until this can be changed the same old scam will continue.People have in the past, thought that services were run for their benefit but are slowly awakening to the new paradigm,that the state is not on their side.
While I am an unabashed anarchist, if I were to design a state with minimal functions, I would charge everyone a voting age a flat fee government services. The rich don’t pay more for the same loaf of bread as the poor do, why should they pay more for minimal government services?
– Josh
Council Tax is appalling, in Scotland at least. Levels here have been continually higher than than in England, where only now are protests beginning to happen.
And the problem as mentioned above — where customers have no choice where to get the services that they pay so dearly for — is much more keenly felt when even the vague democratic bunting that surrounds the tax doesn’t apply. In the west of Scotland, many local councils are fiefdoms to the Labour party. There is no chance, not even a slim one, that they will be voted out. Consequently, they are corrupt to the hilt, and enjoy lavish spending powers.
Year after year they issue expensive phamplets detailing how, with great sadness, they have been forced to raise the tax by the maximum permissible amount. Sorry. They then give a handy breakdown detailing where the cash goes. “30% for education,” you think, “that’s not bad”.
Until you realise that 10% of that goes on the expensive new office for the councillor for education, and yet more expensive fact-finding junkets to see how school meals are served … in Barbados.
They are corrupt weasels, and the sooner tax-raising powers are taken out of their hands the better. Centralise the tax, and do it quick. Hell, even the devolved assemblies don’t have tax-raising powers (well, the Scottish parliament does nominally, but since the grant from Westminster would be reduced by exactly the amount raised, it’s meaningless). If well-scrutinised officials running nations can’t raise tax, why should bloated small men running tiny towns?
Wild Pegasus – D’accord. Especially as most of the richer-than-average wouldn’t touch a public service with a bargepole as long as they had a choice.
Dark Address – Yes, they are corrupt weasels. What is astounding is 59m people agree to support such corruption out of their own pockets. Don’t they get it?
Peter – I do not believe people are waking up to the fact that the state is their enemy. Most people continue to put high taxes and rotten service down to the current lot in office and believe, with touching, not to say idiotic, faith that if the other lot could just get in, things would be better. As far as I know, the only one who ever shared that faith and even tried to make things better was Thatcher.
Should Policing be paid for by Taxation? In the spirit of a Free Market Economy I suggest that those criminals who use the services of the Police Force should be required to pay in a similar manner to the revenue generation of speed cameras. If the Policing of City Centres at closing time costs £7b, then it must be up to those arrested for affray to cover this cost. Then the 83year old woman wont be paying for drunken scrotes to beat each other up.
The government has proven that the business model works with speed cameras, so we know that it works well.
PhatBob,A nice idea but wouldn’t the criminal community just increase their productivity to cover costs.Most of them are on benefit anyway.
I rather like the idea of a consumption tax along the lines of what Verity suggested. Luxury/deluxe goods like perfumes and cars would of course be taxed much more than everyday necessities like food and water.
One possible problem I find, though, is how does the government decide how much each product should be taxed? Who determines the luxury items? This was mentioned when my country was debating about raising the consumption tax, when people asked if the government could apply different tax rates to different items instead of the flat 5% rate. So in the end, it was a flat 5% on all items, with a decrease in income and corporate tax.
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw02/020504re.htm
The guvment, pragmatic as always in trying not to anger the voting population(too much), thought up a scheme in which the more disadvantaged(retired, elderly, unemployed) could receive several handout payments(something like a retirement fund) to relieve their increased GST burden.
Still, non-progressive tax policies are always hard to pass by the voting public.
Interesting to read about Bermuda. Still, it’s always easier when they don’t have to pay for their own defense…
The Wobbly Guy
To hell with income tax! Every communist, Marxist, socialist, IRS agents, and supporters of income tax should buy a copy of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto and shove it up their buttocks! The income tax must be abolished NOW! The federal government officials have used income tax to oppress fellow Americans, suppress dissent, eliminate their opponents, establish poverty, and destroy our freedoms and our property. Ever since income tax was “legalized” by 16th Amendment, Democrats and Republicans in Washington D.C. have engaged in racketeering, extortion, robbery, fraud, and grand theft against we the people.
Every Americans should boycott income taxes once and for all. We should dump income tax forms into the ocean. Also, we should never report how much money we earn to government officials; it is none of the government official’s business anyway!! And we should never sign any paper that forces us to report our earnings! Finally, every American should burn the British “Union Jack” flag, Soviet “Sickle and Hammer” flag, and portraits of King George III, Josef Stalin, Vladimir Lenin, and Karl Marx on April 15 and July 4.
Any IRS agents who want to violate our life, liberty, and property can go to Britain and kiss Charles the First’s buttocks and kiss King George III’s buttocks.