The SNP Council Tax freeze has triggered an avalanche of gleeful and unresearched attacks quickly accusing them of betraying their commitment to progressive taxation.

The Herald’s Garavelli, has joined in today, from a self-perceived position on the left with the poor.

Quickly, before dealing with the issue, some may remember that in 2020, Garavelli was paid by openly rightist group, Tortoise, to attempt the assassination of Alex Salmond: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/04/who-paid-dani-garavelli/

OK, back to progressive taxation.

Council Tax with its bands is clearly progressive though it could be more so by taxing the rich a bit more.

So, at first sight, a universal tax freeze does not seem progressive and so, if only for the period of the freeze, joins free prescriptions, the winter tax allowance, bus passes and free tuition in the universal category. Note they’re not called ‘un-progressive?’

That’s because universal benefits can be progressive as the Jimmie Reid Foundation demonstrated in 2012.

Here are the reasons they offer (full report at the link below):

Universalism creates a higher and more progressive tax base which also improves economic stability, reduces price bubbles and creates more efficient flatter income distributions (p2).

Universalism is progressive, redistributive taxation and seamless provision of social welfare for all in a linked social system. It is a social system based on the dual principles of ‘from each according to ability to each according to need’ and ‘from the cradle to the grave’. It has produced the most effective society civilisation has yet achieved. We undermine that system at our peril.

The second approach to social inclusion is solidarity. Most people in society are part of a complex series of social relationships, based on families, communities, work, education and government provision; social cohesion depends on overlapping, intertwined networks of mutual responsibility and support. People are said to be ‘excluded’ when they are not part of such systems – when they are left out, shut out or pushed out (Spicker, 2007). Social policy in continental Europe has been based on a progressive extension of solidarity, beginning with people developing mutual support, but subsequently seeking to include people who would otherwise be left out (Baldwin, 1990). The central problem with this model is that solidarity and mutual support can be exclusive as well as inclusive (Paugam, 2004); there might still be the same kind of social divisions that characterise selective provision. (3)

A key characteristic of universal benefits is their role in automatically stabilising household, regional and national incomes over the business cycle. So, as part of a progressive welfare and taxation system, there is a lower reduction in spending power by those becoming unemployed or suffering falling take-home pay during a recession. During the 2001 foot and mouth outbreak, the economic impacts on the economies of Cumbria and south west Scotland of reduced agriculture incomes were strongly tempered by the continued payments of pension and other universal state welfare benefits. Similarly, in a properly functioning welfare state, in times of expansion gaps between rich and poor are managed through universal benefits ensuring that all gain from greater prosperity. (7)

The emerging political argument at the present to both undermine first universal benefits and then by association progressive taxation is that rich and middle class people are getting benefits that they don’t need (for example free bus passes, free prescriptions, free tertiary education). An easy and straightforward argument for progressive tax is that higher taxes for richer people compensates for their access to these benefits. This is an argument we give up at our peril. If we allow the rich or the middle classes to be removed from access to benefits then we start to weaken the coalition in support of progressive taxation which is our main instrument in creating a more equal and therefore better society. When the major benefit programmes include the middle class among those who benefit, the resilience of the universal welfare state is expected: voting to preserve the welfare state will be in the narrow self-interest of a majority of the voters. (12)

Progressive taxes and universal benefits are the joint pillars of the welfare state. Without either the roof will fall in. We know unequal societies are harsh and painful for many. The state and progressive taxation are vital to ensuring equality and in creating a good society. The neoliberal project is damaged but like a walking zombie refuses to die. The wrong thinking and narrow orthodoxies remain like a hangover from a bad party that went on too long. Lets not fall back into those narrow ways of understanding our political economy and society just because we lack the courage or creativity to find something better. (13)

One of the authors of this was Robin Mcalpine!

The Case for Universalism: An assessment of the evidence on the effectiveness and efficiency of the universal welfare state