Tax and Education. It’s the fundamentals, stupid? ..er…actually, no, not according to the Irish people it’s not… May 14, 2007
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Education, Irish Election 2007, Irish Politics, Taxation Policy.trackback
Three articles caught my eye over the last day or two.
Firstly the results of the Irish TImes/TNS mrbi poll last week which was reported in a rather thin piece by Stephen Collins on Saturday. It described how the findings demonstrated that the majority of voters were “not prepared to pay more taxes to fund public services, but they believe the Government already has enough money to fund those services, according to the Irish Times /TNS mrbi opinion poll. Stephen Collins , Political Editor, reports.”
72 percent were unwilling to pay more taxes to fund public services with a fairly derisory 23 per cent saying they would. Now, I’m no psephologist, but that 23 per cent looks fairly close to me to the core ‘left vote’ in this state. Not that if we examine self-described voters that we of the left should be too sanguine about just how great solidarity is amongst them either. According to the report: The hostility to paying more taxes was equal among supporters of all political parties, with the exception of Labour, where significantly more people said they would be prepared to pay more.
The response from Labour supporters was quite different to the rest, with 60 per cent opposed to higher taxes but 35 per cent saying they would be willing to pay more to fund public services.
Which leads to perhaps, at best, one cheer for those Labour supporters, which is considerably more than any of the other left parties deserve. Now, all polls are suspect, and perhaps this sort of poll more than most. But…all polls are also straws in the wind.
And as has been noted by others, here and here this is an unsurprising development in a political context where even the Labour Party has decided that it’s a virtuous act to cut taxation even further.
But even more fascinating is the age profile of those who are willing to see higher taxes for services. Unsurprisingly: Across age groups the youngest voters were most hostile to the notion of paying more taxes to fund services, with just 17 per cent in favour, while most support for the prospect was expressed by those in the 50-64 age group.
Seems to me there’s a lot of work to be done out there in our society to point out that there’s no such thing as a free lunch, that if people truly want better services they will cost money and that the current economic situation is unlikely to be a permanent feature of this society. It also appears that this broad opinion on taxation is not the result of any particular consideration of the matter on ideological grounds, but is instead the result of a hegemonic approach by the political establishment to this matter. In that respect neither Labour nor Sinn Féin have done the left many favours over the past couple of months where tax is concerned. But then again, nor have Fine Gael or Fianna Fáil who have pushed the line that management of expenditure is the real issue as if the good times will continue indefinitely.
The second article was perhaps a little bit more comforting. It dealt with Sinn Féin education policy, in particular their opposition to state subvention for fee paying schools. I have always found it odd that the state would allocate resources to that tranche of the private sector. I’m in complete agreement with Sean Crowe who said “parents were entitled to opt for private fee-paying schools if they wished, but the taxpayer should not be asked to provide any subsidy. He said any change in the arrangements for fee-paying schools could include special provision for a small number controlled by religious minorities.”
When one considers that €80 million is distributed to fee-paying schools in what is a fabulous example of government largesse to the middle classes the silence about this aspect of the education from the other left parties is notable. SF is also agin league tables – which again I’d be broadly agree with, and interestingly doesn’t look for the return of fees at third level. I’ve already noted previously that the removal of those fees distorted the education system by freeing up monies for middle class parents to send their children to fee paying second level schools thereby strengthening their effective opportunity. I’ve also noted previously how back in the dim dark 1950s luminaries such as Richard Crossland (hardly a man of the extreme left) recognised that only wholesale change, such as the imposition of allocated places for students from disadvantaged backgrounds would alter the nature of the private (or in the British case public) school system. I find it telling that a half century or so later the left in Ireland seems essentially uninterested in that issue. It’s a debate well worth having, just how we ensure that at the education level we can achieve the best levels of opportunity, access and – as best as is possible – outcome. It’s very possible that the answers to such a debate might not be to my liking, but that’s no reason not to engage on the topic.
Finally, a pointed little comment from John Gormley as reported in the Irish Times. He questioned Fine Gael’s decision to back away from favouring a ban on all corporate donations to political parties.
“They want to continue with the present system that goes to the very heart of planning. This goes to the root of Irish society: the relationship between developers and political parties. We are very uncomfortable with that.”
Good to see someone looking at the big picture.
It’s not so surprising about the young. At the present time they’re likely to be employed, they’re not as likely to be in need of services as, say, the elderly and as they’re less likely to have families, the provision of education (or indeed of secure housing) is not likely to bother them much either. It’s when insecurity starts to be a problem that people start appreciating public expenditure. Veering off topic, this no doubt helps to explain the plethora of libertarians on the internet, who tend to be young and in possesion of money to spend and therefore particularly attracted to the idea that we can all look after ourselves all right.
Selfish little fuckers of course but that’s kids, eh?
While the results of the survey didn’t surprise me my stomach slumped when I read them. The idea that lower taxes for their own sake are better is a fallacy, and you’re right, it is fine example of hegemony at work – that low taxes are normal, ideal, even natural.
Of course what we don’t hear about are the number of indirect taxes (bin charges, road tolls etc) or the quality of our public services (in comparision with other EU countries they are awful). Political parties don’t raise these issues because they scare off people most likely to vote: the wealthy and the well-educated. That’s whose interests are served by low taxes (the same people of course who don’t have to use public transport, hospitals or schools).
Last night Eddie Hobbs was at a school in Ballyfermot. He found that their budget doesn’t stretch to meet the needs of the students, so they raise the rest of the money through raffles.
This is a indictment of our government, and the 70% of people who support this dominant ideology, that the education of children is reliant on the generosity of the local community. Education is a basic human right, it doesn’t matter if you’re a capitalist or a communist, if you care about your fellow man you won’t deny it to them.
“Seems to me there’s a lot of work to be done out there in our society to point out that there’s no such thing as a free lunch, that if people truly want better services they will cost money and that the current economic situation is unlikely to be a permanent feature of this society.”
Most of the Opposition, and many in government, disagree with the no-free-lunch axiom, e.g. Labour promise “one year’s pre-school education free to all children” and Fine Gael promise “free health insurance for all children under 16″. The Greens want to ultimately provide “free primary healthcare for all”. Sinn Fein want healthcare “free at the point of delivery”.
You’ve assumed (without giving any justification) that young taxpayers have violated the no-free-lunch axiom, while it’s crystal clear that left-leaning political parties are the worst offenders. Do I need to ask why?
“The idea that lower taxes for their own sake are better is a fallacy”. I would argue that the idea that higher taxes for their own sake are better is also a fallacy.
What sways (most) people is whether they feel they are getting a decent return on the taxes they pay. There is certainly a level of taxes so low that it is not possible to provide decent public services. In my opinion Ireland is above that level. Health is the classic example. We spend more per capita on health than the UK (in PPP money) but get far worse outcomes. Sure there is a hangover from underinvestment in the 80s but we have been pumping large quantities of money into health for the past 10 or so years, that excuse must become less relevant.
What determines the quality of services is how such services are organised and structured. That requires significant change – for example to emphasise primary over hospital care. It also -crucially- requires reform of public sector work practices. People are not confident that this will happen and so recognise that higher taxes just throws good money after bad.
There is no clear leadership given on this issue. Because the left refuse to point out how higher taxes would make things better, people are terrifed that more taxation just means less for them. No one says lets tax the property developers or the corporations, or the super rich more; some of our great and good don’t even pay tax to this state. In this regard if anyone saw Sinn Fein’s C O Ceoilan (apologies to all Irish speakers, my English spelling is bad enough) on Hobbs and Cooper’s ego-fest last night could only be more depressed. He was clearly terrifed of being presented as in favour of high taxation. In the end he suggested patriotism would encourage people to accept higher taxes. Well it won’t; but ‘tax the rich’ might.
I think thatguy that you’re mistaking the concept of “free at point of use” as somehow being equivalent to free. I don’t believe that, although I take your point that the optics are such that one might think they were.
I think that the society will have to accept that in this respect, for better healthcare, education, and pensions there will have to be expenditure (although I take pavement trauma’s point that that can’t be an unthinking expenditure for the sake of it, although if we are serious about pensions we’ll have to move to some sort of compulsory deductions system which arguably is the same thing).
As for your point regarding Labour etc not fessing up, isn’t that the one I’m making, that there is a credible argument that if people want high quality services these are then going to have to be paid for out of taxation. That’s why I use the phrase ‘no free lunch’ and that the left has to be honest about the ramifications of what it plans, and more over has to be more proactive about promoting the benefits as well as the costs. Which is also the point that Ed Hayes makes about leadership.
Ok, I look forward to seeing you attack the parties that promise free stuff.
But you still haven’t demonstrated that people who don’t want to pay more taxes, want a free lunch. They might simply want better management of the cash flows already available to the government. If they are not of the Left, they probably think that more privatisations and tax cuts will lead to high quality services. That is a credible argument which some people agree with, and which does not expect a free lunch.
First up the function of the site isn’t to attack parties of either left or right (well bar the SWP
and then only if it really really deserves it!), so I’d be interested to see where you’ve found any signs that we attack them. Indeed one of the express reasons we started this was to get away from that sort of zero sum game. And if you look at “About us” you’ll see that we actually think there is good ideological thinking from across the political spectrum. We may not agree with it, but we’re certainly not going to dismiss it just because of it’s source.
Okay, that said, perhaps you shouldn’t hang your critique on a single colloquial phrase which was used to illustrate a point, a point surely that you would agree with which is that for better public services of the sort found in Europe it is unlikely that privatisations and further tax cuts are going to be a suitable path forward. Now, if you adhere to the private provision model (which has it’s virtues in certain instances) that’s fine, but it seems a tad churlish to expect us to unquestioningly agree with that being an avowedly left of centre site.
As to the electorate, my original point was that even left of centre parties are pushing this line of lower taxation and better provision of public services despite the fact that should the economy founder, or even slow considerably, such provision would appear to be impossible to make without tax increases. I’m not prejudging the complexion left or right of the electorate, merely that the messages that permeate the discourse are pro-tax cuts.
“they probably think that more privatisations and tax cuts will lead to high quality services. That is a credible argument”
Well, not all that credible. “Tax cuts” don’t. for instance, contribute anything to services.
“a point surely that you would agree with ”
I suspect that “thatguy” would not and that WbS may have misunderstood their argument and intention.
Well, I guess ejh I was trying to get across to thatguy that ‘no free lunch’ is the equivalent of his ‘left’ parties promising better services with cuts in taxation. I know s/he’s coming from a different perspective – one which sees it as better to maintain cuts and lower taxation while simultaneously privatising social provision. I obviously don’t. But either way someone is expected to carry the can, and that someone whether through tax or payments to commercial entities is going to be the ordinary citizen. I don’t believe that much vaunted efficiency of the private sector can do what many on the centre centre right believe. This may be because I’ve spent twelve odd years working in the private sector. Nor am in thrall to the public sector having spent a further seven years there. But…when it comes to provision of services I want the state to be strongly involved, at the very least as a regulator, and more generally as a provider in health education and welfare.
That is a point surely that thatguy would disagree with!
[...] similar submissions. I hope they have, but all the evidence points to a remarkable lack of public indifference and political fear of actually making the case for state, or indeed secular, education [...]