Since When Was Changing Tax a Crime?

The Budget is two weeks behind us, but the argument about tax will run until the next one, and the one after that. The language we use about any issue that affects us directly shapes how we feel about it, perhaps decisively, and tax is one of those issues. Often the words chosen show where a writer stands before any debate has begun.

Look at how tax rises are reported. The left-of-centre Guardian will talk about “potential tax increases”, which is factual and neutral. The right-of-centre papers, the Telegraph, the Daily Mail, the Sun, the Express and The Times, shout “tax raid” and “tax grab”.

Does the difference matter? Yes, because it frames the argument before the argument has started. It moves the debate onto ground where the premise already contains the conclusion. In philosophical terms, it begs the question. Put simply, it stifles debate before it begins.

And it works even if you deny the charge. To say “this is not a tax raid” is to step onto the same ground and accept the same frame. The premise has already decided that changing tax is wrong.

So how do we get a better debate? The question takes me back some years. I used to work in financial services and, of course, wore a suit. Going into the centre of Bristol for lunch in those days meant being seen as prey by a legion of young men with clipboards. Their line of attack was to stop anyone in a suit and ask whether they liked paying tax. That was the opening for their own brand of tax-free savings, or some other financial product à la mode.

It all became a bit of a sport. I loved throwing them by answering, “Yes, I do like paying tax,” and watching the sales pitch shrivel at first contact. The usual reply was a baffled “What?” To which I would add: “Because it pays for my pension, my healthcare, my security, both local and international, and loads of other things.” Surely the bigger question is why anybody would not like paying tax.

That is where a better debate begins. Not by denying that it is a raid, but by refusing the frame altogether and asking a different question: what is tax for? Or, more precisely, what is this tax change for?