|
As anyone who has even skimmed this blog will know, I hate Libertarians. Permanently teenage, smart-arsed little computer programmers who read Ayn Rand and reckon that their tough, Marlboro Man individualism would make them rise to the top in the completely deregulated and privatised society they crave - but who, in reality, would be crying for their mothers after two days without internet access and Diet Coke. The single most disingenuous act I've ever witnessed a human being commit occurred when one of these types - a self-proclaimed "anarcho-capitalist" no less - tried to argue that taxing consumption (via VAT) was fairer than taxing income because the fraud opportunities offered by VAT were more egalitarian. He argued that rich people with good accountants can fiddle their income tax down to pennies, while PAYE plebs like us are unable to. VAT, he reckoned, allowed everyone a go at cheating the system - as an example, he suggested "employing a cash-in-hand tradesman". Now, ignoring the fact that he attempted to disguise his fervent, ideological belief in regressive taxation by dressing it up as some kind of everyman, common-sense pragmatism, his argument is still total baw. I have, myself, paid for work done on my house cash-in-hand, but the amount HMRC lost out on was pretty small. Meanwhile, big business systematically defrauds the government on VAT by massive amounts. And what of those of us who aren't getting new kitchens fitted or new extensions built? The tradesman argument assumes we all can and do employ accommodating workies on a regular basis. As for the income tax argument, I'm so into this idea, and not just because "Scandinavians do it, so it must be good". For the record, I'm not an Income Tax fetishist - I'd far rather the taxman concentrated on unearned, rather than earned income (inheritances, interest on savings, share dividends and "Capital Gains" are all taxed at lower rates than salaries) - but I honestly think basing people's contribution to the running of the country on ability to pay is A Good Idea. What I've never got is why this "shift the tax burden almost entirely on to the poor" attitude should be so popular with people who're not particularly well off themselves. I can see why, say, Donald Trump, would be in favour of raising all tax revenue from the purchasing of "luxury goods" like clothes, shoes and heating. He, after all, wipes his arse with high-denomination banknotes, and couldn't possibly spend as fast as he earns. But why should some IT monkey who doesn't earn much more than me (I've been a computer programmer, and it doesn't pay *that* well), possessed of an almost creepy obsession with personal wealth, be a cheerleader for a system that will impoverish them? Free market fundamentalism is as bonkers as all the other types.
|
