Comments on: Tax Commission Response 1: Principles

By: Quaequam Blog! » Meeting the Challenge 4/2: Fairness

Quaequam Blog! » Meeting the Challenge 4/2: Fairness — Tue, 06 Dec 2005 23:33:02 +0000

[...] This is in many ways one of the weakest sections of the paper, taking a very narrow view of fairness with none of the deliberation of different definitions that was found in the Tax Commission and I have already made my comments there. So instead, and because I’m massively behind schedule on this project, I thought I’d just run through the specific questions: 4.3.4 This is in some ways an inevitable result of focusing on the most vulnerable groups in society, and needing to target limited resources and priorities - as any political party has to do. A significant question for us, then, is whether this policy package is adequate to address the barriers to freedom and social mobility identified in Chapter 2, many of which derive from social class - poor education, poor health standards, low pay. Do we believe the balance of our antipoverty strategies, focused on pensioners and the causes of poverty, is appropriate? [...]

By: Quaequam Blog! » Meeting the Challenge 2: UK Challenges

Quaequam Blog! » Meeting the Challenge 2: UK Challenges — Wed, 16 Nov 2005 00:59:54 +0000

[...] I’ve already written about fairness a great deal in my Tax Commission response. [...]

By: James

James — Sat, 15 Oct 2005 01:40:52 +0000

I don’t really see any “liberal” difference between the state rationing supply and the state arbitrarily setting a tax rate. What I do see is that setting a democratically agreed limit and using market forces to achive it is far more dynamic and effective than setting a tax rate and hoping that it will lead to a reduction in demand at the level that is needed. An effective environmental policy is more liberal than one that fails, both from the point of view of future generations and in commanding respect for the democratic process.

By: Stephen Tall

Stephen Tall — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 08:03:44 +0000

I understand the logic and aim of personal carbon allowances, but I am inherently uncomfortable with central government introducing a rationing of supply.

Isn’t taxing commodities which produce carbon emissions a better way of redistributing resources between those who value them highly, and those (like me) who are very light
users of carbon-intensive products?

Isn’t the mechanism for introducing personal carbon allowances – a form of credit card – a pretty cumbersome system compared with the flexibility of raising/lowering tax?

‘Green taxes’ strike me as a more liberal - and effective - concept than introducing a form of command economy.

By: James

James — Wed, 12 Oct 2005 15:21:24 +0000

Andrew,

I think you’re right about intergenerational equity and sustainability being one and the same, and I absolutely agree that sustainability is about more than green issues - indeed I was trying to make that point and will look at how it can be reinforced. “Equity” on its own though is pretty much as problematic as “fairness”.

By: Andrew Duffield

Andrew Duffield — Wed, 12 Oct 2005 15:04:50 +0000

Good stuff James. Current definitions of “fairness” are highly
selective and pander to the electorally active rather than the
economically so. While “sustainable” may not be the same as
“environmentally equitable”, it is surely the same as
“intergenerationally equitable” - given that the unsustainable
use of finite resources is also theft from future generations.
On the other hand, sustainability is about more than just green
issues. Tax must be economically sustainable or it will erode
its own base and socially sustainable, like the poll tax wasn’t!
So on all counts “sustainability” should be there as a principle
and “equitable” is a better word than “fair”.
You are absolutely right about environmental tokenism. Let’s
forget “green threads” though. We need a green backbone!

By: James

James — Wed, 12 Oct 2005 13:21:07 +0000

This is all very well for winning the grey vote, but is it ‘fair’? I think not, unless clawed back by increases in inheritance tax.

Point of fact though, all the polling evidence suggests that it DIDN’T win us the grey vote!

I’ll cover inheritance tax in a later post.

By: James

James — Wed, 12 Oct 2005 13:19:21 +0000

Please, please, please, please, please can you change your style-sheet to use a proportional font for the text.

I might change it eventually, but it suits my current mood.

By: Alison Smith

Alison Smith — Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:26:16 +0000

I agree that much of current Lib Dem policy benefits asset rich pensioners (local income tax, free personal care etc). This is all very well for winning the grey vote, but is it ‘fair’? I think not, unless clawed back by increases in inheritance tax.

By: Richard Gadsden

Richard Gadsden — Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:02:21 +0000

Please, please, please, please, please can you change your style-sheet to use a proportional font for the text. That was a complete nightmare to read and I still haven’t absorbed it properly.

Thanks
Richard.