They say tax need not be taxing. This is of course a load of old poo. Whilst in years gone by, you paid your tax for the benefit of less fortunate citizens and then got on with your life, that is no longer enough. Oh No. Zealots of all sorts of persuasions now populate government departments and since there is not a lot for them to do, they have meetings and brainstorms. As a result we will soon have a tax for most human foibles. So now tax is about changing your behaviour. Do you remember voting for this fundamental change of emphasis? I don’t. Take for example congestion charge. As the name implies it is a charge on congestion, a sort of it does what it says on the tin. Too many people want something, which is finite, therefore one could argue that it can be regulated by some free market mechanic. Fair enough, lets have a go. But the congestion charge is not really that. It is a tax aiming to alter behaviour. To do this, you need to offer alternatives so that you can wean people off. But that is also a load of poo, because tax is actually institutionalised theft by government. Marx or Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, I forget who it was, said that all property was theft, well if that is the case governments around the world are all profiting from ill gotten gains. That battle, Marx and all that, was won in the eighties, which is arguably one of the reasons, why we are now in a headless chicken mess and everyone is trying to save the world. It is a classic case of lack of focus. Nothing like a few hundred olive green pointy thingies with CCCP on their side pointing at some tender western backsides. There was a time when paying tax made sense. Like defence and possibly education. In 1798 Prime minister, William Pitt the Younger, announced income tax to fund the Napoleonic wars. This was despite his belief that income tax was repugnant to the customs and manners of the nation. A temporary measure apparently... Anyway, I personally like this definition that Tax is a pecuniary burden laid upon individuals or property to support the government. The reason for this attraction is that I find the very rarely used word PECUNIARY fascinating and elegant. It means, requiring payment of money (Lt pecuniarius). It has a certain demanding quality about it with a hint of menace. The sort of menace you may experience when a letter from the Inland Revenue with YOUR name on it, casually drops through the letter box. I personally think that all bills should be renamed Pecuniars and the term bill given back to William. A bit like changing Bombay to Mumbai or Pecking to Beijing. By the way, next time you go for a Chinese meal do dare to ask for Beijing Duck or ask your supermarket category manager for Mumbai Mix... it comes with Kate Adie accent lessons as instructed by the BBC. Which brings me back to tax in a random sort of way. Did you know that some tax actually costs more to collect than it is actually worth. Much of this stuff is just vindictive, a window dressing of equality camouflaging the great altar of tax waste. If you work in any sizable organisation, you would be familiar with the barrage of emails asking you to make your contribution towards the latest company target to reducing waste fiscal as well as paper. As always, every little helps, to make the board look good and trigger copious amounts of bonuses. So why not do the same with the revenue. A sort of, try something new today approach, to every day politics. Every year a modest 5% target should be set, to reduce wasted resource and only after that has been achieved, governments get the opportunity to put forward a budget with tax raising ramifications. If a chancellor fails to deliver three years running they are off to do some community service a sort of an inhouse ASBO and the next chap has to do it in what is left in the term. That will focus the mind of all concerned. Collective responsibility with booby trap attached to vital organs. I can’t remember who once said. ‘If you get them by the balls their hearts and mind will follow’. It may have been John Edgar Hoover of FBI fame or President Lyndon Baines Johnson's ? My memory fails me again. Either way, tax will be far less taxing if that was how we expected our politicians to perform.
And I leave you with this thought. Tax has been around for a while but here is an idea of what Sarah Brown could re-enact to ensure that her husband is truly listening.
In the 11th century Lady Godiva rode naked through the streets of Coventry in a plea for her husband to reduce taxes. Maybe Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath has at last something to look forward to.
Warning: Do not use this text to argue with you Tax office
