Tax Cuts Q&A

[Conservative politicians can’t stop talking about ‘tax cuts’. But rarely are they pressed to explain why it’s the be all and end all of their politics.  Perhaps something like the internal Q&A briefing we have for those seeking to stand as a Tory or Republican candidate may illuminate the matter]

Q: Why must I say ‘tax cuts’ at least three times at every interview?

A: People love hearing ‘tax cuts’. The more you say it, the more you’re liked.

Q: But then I have to explain public service cuts, won’t I?

A: Absolutely not. Don’t say a word about the public service cuts that will come with tax cuts. If people think you’re going to cut the health service, the police, education, housing, and all the rest, you’d be in trouble.

Q: What if someone brings it up? We cut taxes, we have less money to fund public services, public services will end up with more cuts.

A: If an interviewer does bring it up, do this – frown, look disdainful and ask rhetorically “are you yet another leftie sympathiser?”

Q: What if they brush that aside and keep pressing about the public service cuts that would result from tax cuts.

A: Then switch to this ‘full of self-confidence’ look, and say “On the contrary, tax cuts would generate more revenue, and there’d be more money for public services.”

Q: So I can promise tax cuts and more funds for public services.

A: Under no circumstance should you say that. The chance is that we would want to cut public services. Read your background papers, our tax cuts don’t generally help the economy, just our rich supporters. Things don’t trickle down. When it suits us, we would say that public finances are tight, and we must act responsibly and cut wasteful public services.

Q: And ‘wasteful’ is a code for essential public services, while our subsidies to big corporations will continue?

A: That is correct.  Furthermore, as soon as you mention public finances being in a difficult position, it’s your chance to go on about tax cuts again. Tax cuts will revive the economy.

Q: But actually tax cuts won’t revive the economy, will they?

A: Not the tax cuts we have in mind. If we cut taxes for the poorest, and increase taxes for the richest, that might help, but let’s face it, we’re going to do precisely the opposite.

Q: So, when inflation is going up, and many people on low to average income just can’t afford even the basic necessities in the face of rising prices, we will bring in tax cuts in the name of driving up spending power – but wouldn’t that push inflation up even more?

A: Just say something like “our monetarist-fiscal approach will ensure inflation is brought under control”. Nobody will have a clue what that means. We certainly don’t.

Q: Why don’t we increase public sector pay? That would nudge up private sector pay as well, and people won’t be left in such dire circumstances not being able to buy the things they desperately need.

A: First of all, we don’t want to help public sector workers. The worse things get for the public sector, the more excuse we have for cutting it. Second of all, the last thing we want is pressure on the private sector to pay the low earners more. For heaven’s sake, our main donors back us because we’re always poised to help them enrich themselves while keeping their workers’ pay as low as they can get away with.

Q: I probably should just keep going on about tax cuts and not get into any real discussion about our policies?

A: You’ve got it.

Pluralism, Not Relativism

Many people rightly support pluralism, but without due care quite a few have ended up promoting relativism.

And is that bad? Consider this.

Pluralism means that we accept there are different ways to explore problems, experience diverse forms of living, try out options in response to changing circumstances.

Relativism means that any solution put forward, every way we might treat one another, and whatever proposal offered to deal with the issues we face, is as equally valid as any other.

Pluralists believe we cannot dogmatically declare there is only one unquestionable source of information or a single set of customs by which everyone must live their lives.  We need to explore and experiment, criticise and compare, and see what we can learn from the results of diverse pursuits in science, culture, and politics.

Relativists, on the other hand, are adamant that regardless of what have been found, there is nothing to choose between different responses to questions about causal relations, moral requirements, or policy efficacy. However incompatible they are to each other, contrary to the available evidence, or inherently incoherent, every view is correct in its own right.

While pluralism enables people to follow diverse paths – provided they do not harm others – relativism leads us to the dubious position of standing back from criticising, let alone preventing, any behaviour even though it is damaging other people’s lives.  The problem here is that flawed reasoning can take us from embracing all harmless ways to seek answers in life, to passing no judgement on anything regardless of the harm it is causing.

For example, we should test out different scientific hypotheses rather than simply claim we somehow know which is correct; we should let people follow diverse religious practices to connect with their sense of the divine; and we should be open-minded in considering the merits of a variety of policies to improve community relations. However, it makes no sense to pretend that a hypothesis which has failed every test is as valid as one which has been confirmed by nearly all experiments; a practice that calls for taking others’ lives cannot be tolerated in the name of religious freedom; and any policy involving the promotion of hatred and violence against vulnerable groups cannot be regarded as a viable option for increasing social harmony.

Some argue that it comes down to the interpretation of the evidence.  But is there to be no differentiation between sound and untenable interpretations? What if someone maintains that what others see as a failed experiment is a case of them being deceived by the devil, or the apparent suffering of a child is actually a sign of ‘god’ welcoming the child into heaven.  What this tells us is that we must have objective means to assess what we experience.  We must openly test and cross-check our respective records and observations, and arrive at conclusions that stand up to shared scrutiny.  If any experience can just be interpreted in any way that someone wants to, and that is declared valid beyond all criticism, then we would be at the end of all possible discussion.