Articles

Taxes: Blinded by ideology the Conservative Party do not see that they are undermining their own policy

The majority at the Conservative Party’s National Assembly decided that the Conservatives should remove the entire wealth tax, but Prime Minister Erna Solberg does not agree. – In tax policy, the right-wing blind spots are strikingly large. The reason is an exaggerated belief in what we can call “natural property rights”, writes philosopher David Vogt.
Photo: Håkon Mosvold Larsen / NTB
By David Chelsom Vogt 
Philosopher and musician

Translated by Bergensia, Originally published in Bergens Tidende


In August, the Conservative Party held a seminar on reducing social and economic disparities, in September they decide to abolish the wealth tax.

Since they hardly see the contradiction themselves, let’s get it in black and white from research teams: “A progressive tax on wealth is a necessary tool if economic inequality is to be reduced.

This is the conclusion of Thomas Piketty, the French star economist who in his new book has spent 1100 pages examining the historical development of inequality throughout the world. Required, that is. Indispensable. The Conservative Party wants to reduce, and in the long run remove, a form of taxation that history has shown is absolutely necessary to achieve a goal that the Conservatives themselves have advocated.

The graphs are also published in the book by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everyone (Penguin, 2010)

And it is not just any goal: Economic inequality is like poison in a society when it grows big. It causes increased problems with crime, health, intoxication, violence, social mobility, trust – and not least increased polarization in society, which we have unfortunately seen more and more of.

The graphs are also published in the book by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everyone (Penguin, 2010)
During the Conservative Party’s national meeting at Gardermoen in September, the majority overran the party leadership when they decided to remove the entire wealth tax without reservation. In retrospect, Prime Minister Erna Solberg scrapped the decision. The goal is to reduce the wealth tax on working capital. The Conservative Party cannot promise anything more than that for the next parliamentary term, she tells Aftenposten.
Photo: Vidar Ruud/ NTB

Recent figures from Statistics Norway show that inequality in Norway has grown significantly greater than previously assumed.

Yes, but, we stimulate growth, which benefits the poor, the Conservatives will probably answer. But this “trickle-down” theory is rejected both by the OECD and by an overwhelming majority of economics professors in Norway.

On October 2., a new report was issued by the government itself, but which has a conclusion that the government does not like: Increased wealth tax will create more, not fewer jobs.

Conservative Trond Helleland rejects the new report: “There are many reports on wealth tax”, he says lightly. Yes, it does, but the many reports say the opposite of what the Conservatives want to hear.

The French economist Thomas Piketty has spent 1,100 pages examining the historical development of inequality throughout the world. “A progressive tax on wealth is a necessary tool if economic inequality is to be reduced,” he concludes. Photo: Jon Olav Nesvold / NTB

How can we explain that a self-proclaimed “knowledge party” has this well-developed ability to ignore the knowledge that is contrary to their adopted tax policy? The answer is ideology. As one vise guy has said, “Ideology is the erroneous notion that one’s perceptions are neither perceptions nor erroneous.” We think we know something, and we do not know that what we think we know is just something we believe.

Everyone has such ideological blind spots; perceptions that overshadow facts. This definitely does not only apply to the Conservatives. But in tax policy, the Conservatives’ blind spots are strikingly large. The reason is an exaggerated belief in what we can call “natural property rights“.

Natural property has its defender in the philosopher John Locke and the idea that one becomes the owner of a thing through making it. If you plow the soil or plant an apple tree, you get a natural right to the fruits of your labor. The theory fits well with Isak Sellanraa from Knut Hamsun’s Growth of the Soil, but poorly with a modern business owner. Modern ownership is made possible not only by individual efforts but by social and legal structures. Property rights are conventional, not natural, was Immanuel Kant’s answer to Locke.

When Olav Thon is asked for investment advice, he answers: “Location, location, location“.

Thus, he acknowledges that he has not created his fortune on his own. Thon has not created the public transport and the cultural and school facilities that make the location valuable.

Nor has he made the contract law or the copyright protection or the rent dispute committee and other legal structures that are absolutely necessary for the Thon group to make money. And it is not Thon who has paid for the education of those who work for him.

When Olav Thon is asked for investment advice, he answers: “Location, location, location”. Thus, he acknowledges that he has not created his fortune on his own, writes David Vogt. PHOTO: Tuva Åserud

Why is this important? Because it costs money to create the social and legal structures that make any fortune possible. No tax, no wealth. Just as you have to pay for the materials when you build a house, you have to pay for the legal structures that allow you to own the house.

It, therefore, makes no sense to claim that it is fundamentally wrong to tax wealth, inheritance, and property.

All economic values ​​and transactions that depend on tax to exist can be legitimately taxed. One has no moral right to a fortune without wealth tax.

The interesting question is therefore not whether to tax wealth, inheritance, and property, but how much they should be taxed.

The answer to that question must take into account both what is economically efficient and the fact that the system of property rights – including the tax system – as a whole must create a fair distribution of goods.

In the new book Fair distribution and fair tax, Jørgen Pedersen at HVL analyzes the Norwegian tax system on the basis of the most recognized philosophical theories of justice. Pedersen’s conclusion is clear: “The Norwegian tax system is unfair as it is now because it allows too much capital concentration”.

Today’s tax policy leads to increased social differences, which in turn undermines the goal that the Conservatives have set that “everyone should have equal opportunities regardless of social background”.

When the instruments undermine one’s political goals, a rational approach dictates that the instruments must be changed. Then it remains to be seen whether the Conservatives continue to control tax policy in ideological blindness.

The graphs are also published in the book by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everyone (Penguin, 2010)

67 Comments

  1. Pingback: where to buy firearms

  2. Pingback: สล็อตวอเลท ไม่มีขั้นต่ำ

  3. Pingback: 다시보기

  4. Pingback: leonax.net

  5. Pingback: กายภาพที่บ้าน

  6. Pingback: click here

  7. Pingback: https://www.advantageja.eu/supplements/phenq-reviews-know-ingredients-pros/

  8. Pingback: shroom bars

  9. Pingback: ks pod

  10. Pingback: click homepage

  11. Pingback: benefits of joining illuminati

  12. Pingback: sildenafil buy over the counter

  13. Pingback: sildenafil 50mg tablets in india

  14. Pingback: tesco pharmacy viagra price

  15. Pingback: tadalafil tablets 40mg

  16. Pingback: what is tadalafil oral jelly

  17. Pingback: you could try here

  18. Pingback: university essay help

  19. Pingback: best essay for you

  20. Pingback: essay writing homework help

  21. Pingback: compare and contrast essay help

  22. Pingback: write my essay affordable

  23. Pingback: Avapro

  24. Pingback: buy zolpidem online pharmacy

  25. Pingback: ez pharmacy

  26. Pingback: tadalafil 40 mg india

  27. Pingback: does cialis keep you hard after coming

  28. Pingback: viagra tablet cost

  29. Pingback: what is the cost of cialis

  30. Pingback: cialis and alcohol

  31. Pingback: people's pharmacy lipitor

  32. Pingback: how much does viagra cost at a pharmacy

  33. Pingback: over the counter tadalafil

  34. Pingback: viagra capsule

  35. Pingback: cabergoline online pharmacy

  36. Pingback: buy generic viagra without prescription

  37. Pingback: sildenafil usa

  38. Pingback: cialis side effects

  39. Pingback: brand cialis australia

  40. Pingback: valtrex wikipedia

  41. Pingback: lasix insert

  42. Pingback: foods to eat with rybelsus

  43. Pingback: วิธีเปิดบัญชี forex

  44. Pingback: flagyl dairy

  45. Pingback: buy sildenafil online usa

  46. Pingback: delayed allergic reaction to bactrim

  47. Pingback: what is augmentin used for

  48. Pingback: citalopram lexapro

  49. Pingback: flexeril 10mg street price

  50. Pingback: how much aspirin can you give a dog

  51. Pingback: how does celexa work

  52. Pingback: youtube semaglutide injection

  53. Pingback: robaxin 500mg for dogs

  54. Pingback: zithromax lactose

  55. Pingback: acarbose pka

  56. Pingback: amitriptyline and cymbalta

  57. Pingback: alendronate synthroid

  58. Pingback: voltaren over counter

  59. Pingback: remeron rash

  60. Pingback: aurochem laboratories tadalafil

  61. Pingback: cialis online pills

  62. Pingback: levitra 5 mg

  63. Pingback: g and e pharmacy edmonton store hours

  64. Pingback: tadalafil 10mg prices

  65. Pingback: fish ciprofloxacin

  66. Pingback: ampicillin sulbactam per os

  67. Pingback: ozempic and metformin together

Send this to a friend