Tax

I wonder how many tax inspectors went on strike on 30th November and, if they did, I wonder too whether the loss of revenue as a result of their withdrawal of labour was factored in to the half a billion quid that Dave and Giddy reckon the strike will have cost the British economy.

The trouble with this sort of idle speculation is that the people from the Office for National Statistics that are responsible for counting the number of tax inspectors doing their jobs at any one time were probably on strike too. So we'll never know and therefore we'll never really know either whether the PM and the Chancellor were correct, inaccurate or (as I suspect) just taking a wild punt at attempting to put some kind of opportunity cost calculation alongside the strike for political posturing purposes (surely not...?)

Clarkson preparing to execute strikers

Not that any of that actually matters any more. The story - if that's what it is - of the biggest public sector revolt/whinge (delete as suits your current political view) was eclipsed by big Jezza. Yes, the Clarksonator was wheeled out in front of someone else's cameras to spout crap to the population; not all of them, of course, just the sad farts who have little better to do at 7pm on a Wednesday evening than sit on a sofa and watch some other people sitting on a different sofa in London/Manchester (delete whichever if you can be  in the least bit bothered about Mark Thomson's DQF at the BBC). 

It would be just so wrong of me suggest that the PM's office might have been behind the wheeze. Some policy wonk at Number Ten thinks..."I know! Dave thinks the strike is 'irresponsible'. Let's get a big celeb who thinks the same thing and put him on the telly on the day of the action and get him to back the PM's view..." So far, so good, thinks the wonk. Stand by for shit storm - was what he should have thought. To be fair to Clarkson, he really does think he's still funny, based almost entirely upon his book sales, his continuing, lucrative contract with the BBC and his hugely inflated ego. He used to be quite amusing but, unlike the really clever and funny comic types, he hasn't changed his act for...well...he has never changed his act. A bit like Ricky Gervaise, he's a one trick pony. 

Marx Brother

Part of the problem that led to the public sector actions last Wednesday (or maybe next Wednesday, for any neutrinos reading this) is taxation. There's too much of it for the less well off and too little for the better off...perhaps.  "Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen!". Could we really consider going down the Marxist line of taking from each according to their ability and giving to each according their need? No, not now. Not in 2012. We've gone so far beyond that untopian ideal to get anywhere close.

One answer - or a set of micro-answers - is to invent some new taxes. You know, the sort of taxes that we occasionally dream up after too much booze; agree that they're the ones that will sort out the economy and then, in the cold light of a hungover morning, agree that we were just speculating and maybe it would be best to let the politicians sort it out. Well...maybe we should just stay pissed and lobby for the following ten new taxation ideas...

1) Stupidity Tax: Taxing the stupid is piss-easy, because they're stupid. Stupid people won't understand why they're being taxed. This is a low-level earner, however, due to stupid people not having very much money in the first place because...well, because they're stupid. However, there are a small number of very stupid rich people. Tax will be levied according to IQ at one per cent for every IQ point below 100. So, a real thickie with an IQ of 60, will pay 40% of income in Stupidity Taxation. There are bound to be some inbred toffs with alarmingly low IQs but inversely high incomes to make up for the paltry sums raised from the stupid poor. Estimated annual revenue to the exchecquer: £1bn.

Expandable Idea?

2) Profanity Tax: For many years the 'Swear Box' has been a staple of British workplaces, usually introduced for either raising money for a worthy cause or simply by some po-faced boss or employee who doesn't like fucking swearing. There is no reason I can see why this principle couldn't be expanded to raise money for the country (arguably a worthy cause in itself). Collection might be tricky but, once that's solved, this could be a significant contribution to the Treasury's coffers. On the basis that seventy five per cent of the population swear on at least five occasions every day (source: totallymadeupdata.com) then a levy of a measly 5p per profanity will raise around £11m a day! Crippling taxation for the really sweary people can be mitigated by a self-assesment scheme. One hundred profanities a day would result in an annual tax bill of £1825. You can self-assess on this basis and pay up front, on each 6th April discounted at only 4p per profanity - a saving in personal tax of almost twice the Winter Fuel Allowance! Either way: Estimated annual revenue to the exchequer: £4bn.

3) "Luvvie - Gervaise" Tax: All celebrities / luvvies must be taxed every time they do "luvvy" things, such as blubbing at an awards ceremony or being quoted in Private Eye's Pseuds Corner with some wanky comment about how the art of performing equates itself with anything remotely important, especially in a recession. £500 a quote and £1,000 a blub should cover it. Gervaise should be taxed for every breath he takes. So should Ross, and Brand, and Ant and/or Dec and Emin...the list is almost as endless as their collective lack of talent. Estimated annual revenue to the exchequer: £500m. The alternative to receiving no revenue from these people would be not seeing or hearing from them ever again in any media format. Might be worth forgoing the tax, then, when all said and done.

4) Bastard Tax: Children born out of wedlock / civil partnership - a thousand quid each. There are c.750,000 nippers born in the UK each year, of which around a third qualify as bastards. Easy-peasy; candy - or in this case, cash - from a baby. Estimated annual revenue to the exchequer: £250m.

5) Take-Away Tax: Not so much a "Fat Tax" as a "Lazy Bastard Tax". At a conservative estimate (small 'c', not an estimate from the Conservative Party), around twenty million citizens have at least one take-away every week. Bearing in mind that at least half of these will be purchased after some booze - when people really couldn't give a toss how much they pay - add 50p to take-aways before 9pm and £2 for those bought after 9pm...Estimated annual revenue to the exchequer: £1bn

Smallest Room - Biggest Tax
Revenue...

6) Toilet Tax: This is a much better version of the Lib Dems' silly Mansion Tax. Big houses tend to be owned by the wealthy and one of the ways to flaunt your wealth is through toilets. There'll be at least three or four loos around the general living areas and every bedroom will be a 'suite' with one. The Toilet Tax will just take a simple view of the loo volume - nothing to do with how many times they're used or, indeed, what for. The scale will be skewed. Maximum two loos - free. Three loos: £100 a year each. Four: £200 each. Five: £500. Six: £1,000, and then an additional £1,500 for every loo after that. Bidets: £500 each, regardless of the number.  Estimated annual revenue to the exchequer: £5.5bn

7) Taxonomy Tax: There are far too many classifications and lists of things. Lists should be taxed on the basis of their complexity. Estimated annual revenue to the exchequer: £0.01m (OK, I admit I only put this one in because it began with 'Tax'. Very complex lists of taxonomy would have to be prepared so the government would have to tax itself, anyway).

8) Horse Tax: If you own a horse and ride it on the highway, then an Equine Road tax will be applied. Not a huge amount...just enough to discourage the habit, really, or make a small contribution to the economy. So, let's say...er...oh, I don't know...£5,000 a year per nag? There are about 100,000 horses in the UK that occasionally get ridden on the roads and if half them continue, then : Estimated annual revenue to the exchequer: £250m

Charity Premier League?

9) Charity Tax: Although perhaps not the most popular of taxation ideas, this would certainly be a money-spinner. Charities tend to be quite good at raising money so why not let them do some of the hard work? About twenty-seven million (c.40% of) UK citizens give to charity and, on average, they stump up around £32 a month. That's a pot of £10bn to be part-plundered by the Treasury somehow. We should allow the charities to carry on as normal every year and then, at the end of each year, a national poll is taken to find out which the public believe are top one hundred charities. The top one hundred get to keep the money rasied, but all the rest of them have to give theirs to the Treasury. This will lead, ultimately, to charities being more intent on populism than their primary purpose but this is all short-termism to solve the deficit anyway, so who gives a shit about those that lose out temporarily? Almost £1bn is "lost" every year by charities failing to secure gift aid anyway so more fool them. The larger charities are bound to come up on the "most popular 100" list, so the lion's share - probably about eighty percent of donations - will still go to good causes. Oh, and we should levy ten percent of all donations by British citizens to charities where the money will, ultimately, be spent abroad. Charity does, after all, begin at home. Estimated annual revenue to the exchequer: £2bn.

10) "Big Farmer" Tax: George Monbiot's recent article the European CAP subsidies was a real eye-opener. Subsidies totalling over £50bn every year are going to big corporations, landed gentry and even charities just because they have a shit-load of land. So let's have a minimum of five per cent of that, shall we? Bastards. Estimated annual revenue to the exchequer: £2.5bn.

That's £17 Billion!

And I thought this lot up in an hour! What's going on at number ten? Where's Hilto? I could do his job standing on my head - which is probably his blue-sky approach to work anyway.