Hear me out — tax is a good thing, Bill Verrall argues.
In the time of Elizabeth I, Henry VIII, and all those grand old monarchs, it is reliably said the monarch’s role consisted of three things: defence of the realm, getting enough taxes to defend the realm and taking a paternalistic interest in one’s subjects (or not: it was not an overriding matter of importance).
Things have changed. Defending the realm is hardly spoken of in New Zealand.
We assume the waves of the Pacific and our resource scarcity will protect us from most things. Our two row boats, 100 underpaid soldiers and one non-flying aircraft are proof of that.
But look at the list of "must haves". Education, health, pensions, unemployment benefits, sickness benefits, ACC, DPB, science and technology, business support, agriculture support, roads, rail ferries ... the list goes on and on.
It is sometimes said that in New Zealand only left-wing governments like to spend money. But that is not the case. Holyoake, Muldoon, Bolger and others all appointed a large number of ministers who were charged with spending money in their ministerial fiefs. And all of this money comes from tax.
People like to complain about tax. They whinge, they moan but they never say, "Look, I’ll do a deal with you. Tax me 50% less and take away my hospitals and my schools."
In fact, people generally say the opposite. We need more cancer drugs. We need more drugs in general.
We need more GPs. We need more specialists. We need more teachers. We need more classrooms. We need to earthquake-proof the schools. We need more roads.
We need to improve the roads we have. We need more ferries.
The list of things we "need" is never ending. If something goes wrong, it’s either the government’s fault or the government should fix it.
One can hardly blame the government for a hurricane or a mighty flood. But who do we call on to fix it? The government.
Governments have a choice. They can either do little or do lots.
We expect our governments to do lots. Not just lots but lots and lots: fix the road, fix the flood, fix the industrial situation, fix the cost of groceries, fix schools.
My point is that I believe taxes are good.
I will say that again. I believe taxes are good. We need taxes. We cannot do without them.
They are the very basis of our country, of our government, of our way or living. We should stop thinking of taxes as an imposition and start thinking of taxes as our future.
Without them, we are dead in the water, adrift without a paddle. When we think of taxes we should think of our grandchildren, their lives, their futures.
We want them to be well educated, we want them to be healthy, well fed and well housed.
We want them to have access to good healthcare and good education. We want to pay our taxes for them.
So when someone comes along and says, "I’m going to cut taxes and give all of you more money to spend as you see fit", I become immediately suspicious.
Why would anyone do this? The obvious answer is that it sounds just so good. In fact it sounds great.
"You know how to spend your own money better than the government. It’s yours. Take it back. Spend it. Vote for me."
And that, of course, is the key.
Let’s assume that someone gets $2000 a year more after tax cuts.
How much of that will they spend on the defence force? Will they buy a rivet for a new frigate? How much will they spend on a new classroom? How much will they spend on importing a new cancer drug? How much will they give to the unemployed? How much will they give towards housing those who are currently unhoused?
Now, you do not need a degree in rocket science to see that no-one will spend a single cent on any of these things.
So, the politician who suggests "tax cuts" is, in fact, saying, "I will take money from the essential areas of government where we really should be spending more money and I will give it to you to spend however you want; just vote for me."
Some will buy ice cream, some will buy coffee, some will buy a new car, some will buy beer, some will put it towards their deposit on a new house (and good on them), but most will just spend it.
In a year or two years’ time they will be no better off.
In the meantime, the finance our grandchildren need has been squandered: their schools increasingly under code, their teachers underpaid, their hospitals unbuilt.
Tax cuts would not be so appealing if they were more truthfully named.
But tax cuts, or more egregiously tax relief, is so short and succinct, it’s an appealing catchphrase.
It’s a great campaign slogan. If we replace it with "government reduced intake to the detriment of all our futures" or "less governmental income guaranteed to thus harm future generations" then that is a battle we will not win.
How about "fiscal grandchild slaughter"? Short, almost succinct, but not quite catchy enough.
What about "death by a thousand cuts"? Quite witty, but a bit overused these days.
After some thought, I think I will go back to my first choice "FGS — fiscal grandchild slaughter".
And taxes themselves will be called "grandchild advancement payment", or "Gap" for short.
Taxes (Gaps) are good.
If we cannot understand that we have no concept of society.
If we cannot understand that, then we have no concept of shared responsibility.
If we cannot understand that, we really are spoilt little boys or girls who were never taught to share.
We need to fight for our grandchildren.
• Bill Verrall is a Fiordland writer.
