Why we've been conditioned to accept High Taxes and shamelessly corrupt Governments.

Someone once said that noting is certain “except death and taxes”. I get the death bit, but I have grown to conclude that we are conditioned from childhood that taxes are our moral responsibility towards society. But we need to be taught to question taxes: What is an acceptable level of tax? Or how much control we have over how our tax money is spent?

The reality is that the public has very little control over how the tax money is spent. We are offered a cyclical choice between two dominant political parties who often implement similar policies despite their ideological differences and enjoy near-impunity while in office. The system keeps citizens divided along left-right lines, masking the broader issue of accountability.

Elected governments frequently enter office on a wave of promises, many of which are broken with little to no consequence. The electorate is told they can "vote them out" in five years, but the damage is often done by then. Politicians have already secured personal gains and facilitated policies that benefit corporate interests at the expense of the general public.

A prime example of this is the Labour Party's pledge not to raise taxes during their election campaign. Just four months into office, this promise was abandoned. Hypocrisy is evident in other areas as well. Angela Rayner, the Deputy Prime Minister, once criticised then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson for employing a taxpayer-funded photographer, tweeting:

"The public will be rightly questioning why there is apparently no limit on the money that can be found to pay for a coterie of vanity photographers for the prime minister."

Yet, once in office, she spent £68,000 of taxpayer money on a personal photographer.

People accept that taxes are inevitable in a well-functioning society. Sacrificing a proportion of your income to fund public services like schools, hospitals, roads, train tracks, etc., is your duty to your nation and society. But who accounts for that money?

While I generally accept the argument for fair taxes, I do not accept that they are inevitable or need to be as high as they are if governments did their job properly or were held to account for their spending. How can a socially housed family in London be better off on benefits compared to someone earning £70,000 in salary every year? How can this be fair to those who get up and go to work daily and are told to contribute more and more each year? The UK government will spend £303.3 billion on welfare this year alone, accounting for almost 25% of the budget.

The productive segment of the population largely shoulders today's tax burden. The top 1% of earners already contribute 29% of all income tax, while the top 10% account for 60% of total income tax revenues. Yet, we often blame wealth creators for our problems rather than the government. The tax burden is at its highest level in 70 years, and taxes on earnings represent a larger share of GDP than at any time since 1990.

And yet the influx of funds hasn't resulted in a crackdown on shoplifting, A&E waiting times, hospital waiting lists getting back down to pre-pandemic levels, or pristine roads and punctual trains. Instead, taxpayer money is spent on vanity photographers, £1,200 on just two ministerial folders or Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, and £43,000 on office refurbishment. The welfare state is growing larger and larger each year. At what point is the public allowed to say enough is enough? A fair taxation system should fund public services and ensure transparency, efficiency, and accountability. 

However, we live in a system where accountability in government is practically non-existent, yet as taxpayers, we're expected to abide by strict rules and deadlines on tax payments. The state, funded by us, holds all the power to demand more and more, while we, the taxpayers, have almost no mechanism to hold the state accountable for its financial decisions. We argue endlessly about left-wing versus right-wing policies, distracted by ideological battles. Meanwhile, regardless of party, politicians can continue to make empty promises, mismanage public finances, and evade meaningful consequences. This divisiveness works in their favour. Corrupt leaders know that if we fight among ourselves, we're not united in demanding accountability from them.

Imagine a system where government officials automatically face consequences, including resignation, for failing to deliver on their promises. If a council misuses funds or national leaders squander resources on vanity photographers or fancy office refurbishments, there should be a transparent process to hold them accountable. In any job, poor performance leads to termination—why should this not apply to those managing our money?

Taxpayers need to demand transparency and accountability. Without these measures, we continue the risk of being deceived and exploited. True change is recognising that accountability in government is essential for everyone.

We fund the state, and we deserve the power to hold it accountable.