Most taxation and economic decisions are made by the well-off: largely following representations made to them by the powerful and in the interests of the affluent and influential.

But isn’t it time that the interests of the poor: those basically living on state pensions, the farm labourer, the widow, the disabled, the student, etc, were also considered: perhaps even given a greater help than the rich and the near-rich?

Let’s take two examples: taxation of alcohol: and house rentals: and consider the background and the effect of present economic and fiscal policy.

Alcohol. There are two main features of the duty levied on alcohol: and the first is the concept of “taxing sin”.

“Taxing Sin” is an accepted principle: to cut down on the use of the motor car, which pollutes the atmosphere and causes global warming, increase taxation. To reduce cigarette smoking, increase taxation. But: there are several objections to this: firstly, that it is a misuse of taxation: to make something inherently good (the common sharing of wealth for the common good) be allied with something conceived of as bad. It’s rather like asking for Remembrance Sunday to be funded by a levy from drug barons and pimps, rather than by poppies… Should state costs be funded by what is sinful? Without the very concept of state funding becoming sullied?

Secondly, it punishes in direct proportion with the poverty of those receiving the punishment, not in proportion with the thing being punished for: and thus it does not fulfill a basic concept of taxation: fairness. The British duty on a bottle of wine is say one minute’s earnings of the high flyer: but a couple of hours income of the pensioner. Is it right that this “sin” be punished one hundred times harder on the poor rather than on the rich?

Thirdly, what is this “sin”? It is sinful to have 2 wives in the U.K.: but not in Saudi Arabia: whereas in the latter country taking a wee dram is a serious offence, whilst in Scotland??

Fourthly, what is the effect of “taxing sin”?

Is there any evidence that this has any significant effect on the well-off? Tobacco, for example, is also highly taxed: but does that cause the wealthy tycoon, who effectively pays £30,000 of his annual cost of cigars of £40,000 in taxes, to reduce his smoking? Does it fairly reduce “sin” for all? Or just reduce “sin” amongst the poorer?

Rather, might it not put up the cost of living for basic pleasures extortionately for the poorer: the basic pleasures which the rich take for granted: those who frequently recoup any increased costs by increasing their own fees or charges: while decreasing the quality of life for the poor? Those who might often be less well off if the did not believe in at least modest greed?

There are surely far more ethical objections to the concept of “taxing sin” than ethical positives.

But then we come to the second main feature: taxing alcohol because it is a major fundraiser for the UK government.

Yes, but from whom?

This comes down to a fundamental point: should taxation come from each according to his ability to pay, or be levied on a semi “Poll-tax” basis?

If the latter, then it is reasonable that the couple buying a bottle of vin ordinaire to have at their 55th wedding anniversary supper should pay the same amount of duty as the stockbroker does when buying a bottle of Chateau d’Yquem to celebrate the end of another day..

No, to get the cost of living down for the poor and allow them to have a pleasant life style demands an elimination of alcohol duties. Just why should our poor be so much more penalised in buying alcohol than the Spanish poor? Present duties are monstrously unfair to the British poor, whilst having scarcely any effect on the rich.