No consensus on bitter medicine

Daniel Thwaites, Contributor

As predicted, the withdrawal levy was scuttled. The proposal was far too sensible to survive our political grudge-match system, and so threats of street protests helped kill it off properly. Mind you, there were some reasonable criticisms of the levy, but nothing that it couldn't be tailored to accommodate, and I wonder if the new alternative measures will make up the $2.3 billion.

In erasing the measure, Minister Phillips said, "The primary objective of the Cabinet, the prime minister, and myself is to maintain the consensus that we have built," and indeed, his remarks were full of appeals for "social cohesion" and longing for "social capital". I take the point that these are important things. It would be nice if we had some. But for now, I don't know how well built any "consensus" is.

On social media, the reaction to the tax was mostly negative. Although there were some voices pointing out that it was a good way of relatively painlessly collecting needed revenue, those were fewer. Partly, that's the nature of online forums, which act as sluices for tremendous amounts of loose criticism and negativity. Researchers have studied this. Someone generally feels very positively, or very negatively, about an issue before commenting, and who feels extremely positive about a tax?

However, the most telling postings come when the question was asked about alternatives. The more sober and level-headed suggestions point to Government's failure to really go after tax cheats. The small percentage of registered companies that actually file returns is, perhaps, the most glaring example.

Then there were suggestions to legalise and regulate ganja. A few suggest taxing the Church, which is an interesting suggestion only raised by people who understand that they will never solicit for a vote.

Tax bleaching, false hair

After these, the suggestions get more creative. The Government, some suggest, could tax things like bleaching and false hair. This I agree with. Bleachers should have to pay a special consumption tax that should go directly to the Ministry of Health in anticipation of them burdening the health system for folly. False hair and false nails are a more difficult subject, particularly if you accept as a principle that Government shouldn't tax necessities too heavily. Remember that if false hair and false nails were totally eliminated or suppressed, it might have some unforeseen consequences. Dancehall wouldn't nice again. But then again the birth rate might drop.

Then there was fellow columnist Michael Abrahams' suggestion that whoredom be legalised, then taxed. There's a kind of symmetry to that idea as a replacement of the withdrawal levy. I guess he's saying: don't tax withdrawals, but tax deposits. All the same, it's one of those plans where, I suspect, the idea is far more thrilling than the reality.

A prostitution tax would be a nightmare to collect. First, the authorities would have to figure out who counts as a prostitute, which the older I get I realise isn't such an easy determination. Also, even if you jumped that first hurdle, record-keeping isn't particularly strong in that professional cohort. It doesn't help that it's a cash business.

All told, the most popular suggestion was that Government could close the fiscal gap by government officials taking a pay cut, firing consultants and advisers, and taking fewer foreign trips with smaller delegations. Another popular suggestion, perhaps as a subset of the pay-cut thought, is that Government be divested of its fleet of SUVs. Sometimes it's said that they should use handcarts or donkeys, although some more generous commentators suggest Corollas.

Personally, I like the idea of public officials using the public transportation system, if only a few days a week. I'm not talking about a publicised 'one ride', but a routine use of the public resource. I suspect it would discourage a certain kind of public 'servant' and that it would mysteriously dramatically improve the public transportation system.

Alternative versions of reality

Back to the online commentators. Some were shockingly ignorant about some basic facts about the cost of Government. Frequently it's clear that "millions" and "billions" are all the same in many minds. In another instance, one unintentional comic gave the serious recommendation that senators have their pay reduced!

I've concluded that we've long crossed the threshold into having alternative versions of reality on either side of the parliamentary aisle. The situation reminds me of what happens in the USA, where sociologists have noticed that the majorities in red (Republican) and blue (Democratic) states don't only have different opinions, but on a growing number of issues, operate with different 'facts'.

We are in danger of developing utterly incompatible 'green facts' and 'orange facts'. I suppose this isn't actually so surprising, because people always interpret information in a way that confirms their preconceptions, in what's called 'the confirmation bias'. But it also isn't helpful, because largely the people in 'debates' on the Web or in Parliament simply speak past each other.

So I would say that Phillips put his most optimistic foot forward when he spoke of "consensus". The way I see it, while we may have a consensus that there's too much public debt, there's another consensus that somebody else should pay it off, not us.

Anyway, maintaining "consensus" aside, there was a more earthy reason to back off the levy. There's hardly a point in insisting on a measure intended to yield $2 billion, when if the country got locked down for a day or two, it would cost more than that.

Daniel Thwaites is an attorney-at-law. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.