Paying tax should be seen as virtuous

The idea that 'tax is legalised theft' is moulding us into uncompassionate, egoistic citizens, with no sense of community whatsoever (apparently hyperbolic sub-headings are an essential feature of all blog posts... was that any good?).

There is no actual difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion. A simple piece of linguistic categorisation; this is merely a strategy by the tax-dodgers and their friends to deflect away from any alleged wrongdoing.

OK stop screaming lefty-hating profanities at your screen. I’m educated enough to understand that technically there is of course a difference between avoidance and evasion; the former considered ‘legal’, the latter prohibited by law.

But the very instance of the word technically illustrates the weakness of this line of argument. Once again, we see a use of the legalistic fallacy to warn away scrutiny of certain individuals’/companies’ behaviour.

President Obama admitted this week in the wake of leaked data from the Panama law firm Mosack Foncesca that many of these arrangements are indeed legal… or to use the language of accountants and lawyers: “strictly in compliance with the institutional and legal framework…” (I’m yawning already).

The President goes on to say that this is precisely, as he refreshingly puts it ‘the problem’. Our legal system is not the benchmark we use for right and wrong. Our legal system itself derives from a moral discourse about what rules a just society should legislate.

No one likes paying tax and it would be disingenuous for me, a student who’s “never had a proper job” and “doesn’t know the real world” to start lecturing the wider public on why they should feel guilty about any misgivings they have over £££ leaving their bank accounts.

However, most of us would agree, centre-left or centre-right, that you need to pay tax in order to maintain at least a basic level of public services… or if you’re a Tory cheerleader then you need tax revenue in order to bring down “Labour’s deficit” because you know, deficits are obviously more important than tackling poverty, low-pay and a beleaguered NHS (just as an aside… imagine stretching doctors and nurses to breaking point and then complaining that they are being ‘inefficient’ and imposing a new contract on them without their consent… I just think it’s funny to be honest).

So it seems bizarre and frustrating, that despite this government’s “best” efforts to close some of these tax loopholes (while it blocks legislation in the European Parliament to blacklist some of these secretive off-shore law firms), that there remain holes in our legal system that enable it to take place.

So I reiterate… there is no difference between evasion and avoidance. They both entail dodging tax. And dodging tax is morally wrong.

One line of rebuttal I often hear from my more neoliberally inclined friends is that I would avoid tax too if I had the means of doing so; that ultimately, we are all rational, self-interested, egoistic, money-motivated at heart and it is sanctimonious for me or anyone else to suggest otherwise.

I have two responses to this proposition. First, note the language of this particular line of attack: “if I had the means of doing so”. The fact of the matter is, I don’t have these means. Not because I don’t earn enough to pay tax, but because even if I get a decent grad job, I won’t be earning anything like the amounts you’d need to make such an exercise worthwhile. 

More importantly, I wouldn’t have access to the networks of lawyers and accountants at some of these big law firms that make a living out of giving their clients a helping hand with their “tax efficiency”.

By and large, the clients of these off-shore law firms are the super-rich – the 1%... the 0.1%. And the sentiment on everyone’s lips is a much more profound one - if the super-rich can do this legally then I should be able to.

This has its origins in our basic understanding of justice; in particular the principle of reciprocity. My blog title is misleading because it glorifies tax in a manner that I don’t actually advocate, because of course no one wants to pay more tax than they need to. But the majority of us comply because we accept implicitly that tax is like a subscription fee for civil society, and on the understanding that if everyone pays their full fee, then society will be all the richer for it.

We pay it so that we may enjoy the fruits of universal healthcare, education, welfare, pensions and so forth. If you really do share with Lady Thatcher that ‘there is no such thing as society’ then you are entitled to that view. Though I expect you to never enter a hospital, drive on our roads, support our sports teams, educate yourself or your child, or really do anything in the public sphere which involves interaction with other citizens.

Okay so not all of those examples are paid for by the taxpayer. But the point still stands. What makes life worth living isn’t the egoistic goals of the atomised individual, but the interactions we have with our families, friends, colleagues, shop assistants, cab drivers, hairdressers and waiters that we go engage with every day. ‘Society’ is a dynamic concept which we are all a part of whether we admit it or not.

But we will only wish to pay our fee if all the other members agree to do the same. Like I said, it’s about reciprocity. So if you really do believe that you should be paying less tax, at least have the balls to let the rest of us know that you’re doing it. And that is pressure that must surely come from our elected politicians.

But I’m not holding my breath.