Monday, November 03, 2014

Is it really a 'moral duty' to cut taxes?

According to my copy of the Times last week, David Cameron has proposed some pretty hefty tax cuts on the basis that it is a moral duty to cut taxes. Personally, I always worry when I hear the words 'moral' and 'tax' in close proximity, as what happens next may very well not sit comfortably with my personal morals.

The problem is, cutting taxes is, in itself, not necessarily desirable. Yes, if the State is doing too much, perhaps, or if it is doing it inefficiently, there may be scope to cut taxes, but if by cutting taxes, you increase the numbers of vulnerable people, or cause the withdrawal of key services, your behaviour might be immoral, not moral.

It is far from easy to argue what the purpose of taxation is in philosophical terms. Much depends upon your view as to the size of the State, or its obligations towards individuals and communities but also whether or not the State is an effective and efficient provider of services. It is not unreasonable to assume that relatively high tax rates, combined with efficient services valued by the community are more likely to achieve sustained support than relatively low tax rates combined with hopeless services. But the 'satisfaction tipping point' will vary over time, and with local culture. In 1997, voters concluded that more spending on public services was required, and elected a government committed to doing that. And yet, by 2010, the mood had changed. Had extra spending really improved outcomes, and was that improvement sustainable?

I would argue that the moral duty of any government is to ensure the freedom of its people, to protect the vulnerable and strengthen them against threats. That might mean increasing taxes in the short term, it may not. And, given the small, and rather inconvenient, fact that the Government will be spending £53 billion on debt interest, closing the deficit might well be seen by some as being rather more of a moral imperative.

I'm a fiscal conservative, so I would be on the side of deficit reduction, so that we can build a sustainable State, capable of protecting those in need of protection, efficiently run and responsive to the wishes and needs of the population as a whole. So, when the time comes for further tax cuts, my questions will be, what are your proposals aimed at achieving, and what impact do you expect them to have?

Politics has to about a bit more than pure ideology, it has to be about the human impact of your decisions...

2 comments:

Frank Little said...

> In 1997, voters concluded that more
>spending on public services was
>required, and elected a government
>committed to doing that
Moreover, in giving Liberal Democrats our biggest increase in representation, these voters were not afraid of an extra penny on the standard rate of tax to pay for those better services.

Anonymous said...

In 1997, voters concluded that more spending on public services was required, and elected a government committed to doing that

No, they didn't. In 1997 they elected a government which had pledged specifically not to increase public spending above the previous government's plans for the first three years of its term.