Short thread on The Times' front page story on tax avoidance and honours. THREAD.
Getting an Honour isn't a prize for not breaking the law. We set a higher bar than that. So the question whether your tax dodging was 'lawful' seems to me entirely beside the point. /1
Dodging your taxes means there's less money available to support the priorities of a Government democratically elected by the people. That seems to me both profoundly immoral and inimical to the interests of society. /2
But not all tax dodging is the same. Some behaviours that reduce your tax bill are encouraged by Government. And to morally condemn a tax dodger - whilst justifiable in the abstract - can be unfair in the specific. /3
The difference between behaviour that Government encourages - 'good' tax avoidance, if you like - and behaviour that is morally wrong can be genuinely hard to identify, even for experts. /4
Refusing to give Honours to 'bad' tax dodgers feels to me like an entirely appropriate response. But I do have concerns about whether those who appear to have been punished have been punished justifiably. /5
Few sportsmen and women or musicians - brilliantly talented kids often from working class backgrounds - will have support structures that enable them to analyse the technical quality of their tax behaviour in a way that renders them meaningfully morally culpable. /6
And if they do fall, just, on the wrong side of that line that should only be one factor to assess in considering their overall contribution to society. /7
The analysis is very different for the financially sophisticated who wittingly engage in artificial measures to reduce the contribution they make to the society that has created the opportunities they enjoy. /8
I tweet as someone who has written and lectures on the relationship between tax and morality and whose contribution to the debate has been recognised by HMRC and leading professional bodies. And who has argued many of the highest profile tax avoidance cases of recent years. /ENDS
