The perils of non-compliance

Ireland and America are suffering the same problem with their contentious taxes.

A flat tax, levied on milllions of people matching a basic selection criteria, is being fought vehemently. Although non-payment is ostensibly illegal, in practice it is unlikely to result in any real punishment. This in turn could result in a major headache for the government. Am I talking about Dublin or Washington? Both, obviously.

The Irish property tax is the subject of a massive campaign of non-payment. At the first deadline for registration, last Saturday, only half of Ireland's 1.6 million households had registered to pay. There will be many more waves of deadlines, threats and posturing before it comes but the theoretical end-point is jail.

Clearly, that isn't going to happen to 800,000 homeowners. But what other possibilities do the government have? They can't afford – politically or finanically – to back down. The expected year-one revenue of €160m is too much to turn down and in a country seems to have taken all the austerity it can bear, a moment of weakness could well mark the end of the project.

The government may simply hope that attrition (and increasingly scary letters) will reduce the number of holdouts. It is possible to jail a few thousand people in a way that it isn't with a few hundred thousand.

But they then have a further problem, in that they are "only" fighting over around €80m. If they still want to come out on top financially, they can't go for expensive measures of coercion. For instance, it costs over €75,000 to keep a prisoner in jail for a year; if each holdout manages to take up just five hours of a civil servants time, then at the average wage, they would cost the government more than they owed.

As a result, any enforcement the government does will have to be enacted on the cheap, which won't be easy given the scale of the problem.

On the other side of the Atlantic is a tax that nobody wants to admit is a tax. The Affordable Care Act – Obamacare to its detractors – imposes a $695 charge on anyone who fails to purchase insurance. This individual mandate is the subject of a supreme court hearing which is baffling many economists – because it really is all in the name.

The constitution, after nearly 250 years of interpretation, allows for the imposition of taxes by Congress for pretty much any reason it sees fit. There are still limits to the legislature's power, but it is universally agreed that if the individual mandate were a tax, it would be legal. In fact, the Republican alternative to the act is essentially just that, except instead of imposing a tax on those who don't buy insurace, it gives a tax credit to those who do. In fact, the credit, which is over $2,000, imposes a far bigger penalty on non-purchasers than Obama's plan.

The administration knows how unpopular new taxes are, however, so it is refusing to call it one. And the opposition is playing along, because they know that their best chance to get the bill overturned involves pretending that the new tax is a fine along with the government. And so the court case continues.

That's not the only strange political compromise in the bill, though. In the one measure that supports the claim that the mandate is not a tax, there are no legal penalties for non-compliance. The IRS, which administers the charge, is able to send threatening letters, but ultimately non-payment means nothing.

Even more worrying for the admistration is the fact that the charge is actually far too low to do what it is meant to do. Its implementation is due to the fact that Obamacare requires insurers to take anyone who asks, and cover all pre-existing conditions; but this led insurers to fear that people would remain insurance-free until they got ill, then buy healthcare until they got better. If this were the case, health costs would shoot up, and everyone would be worse off.

Hence, people are penalised for not buying insurance even if they are healthy. All well and good, no?

Not quite. Health insurance is really expensive. That's what got the US into this mess in the first place, after all. $695 a year is actually less than almost every insurance package currently on the market, so the fear for many is that healthy young people will take a decade of paying the charge (or not paying it, if they have the courage), then join up when they get ill. If that happens too much, then insurance premiums will rise further – making that course of action even more appealing.

As President Obama and his Irish counterpart Enda Kenny are learning, making people do what you want them to is hard.

Barack O'Bama: The president with the Irish Taoiseach, Enda Kenny. Credit: Getty

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Getty
Show Hide image

A general election means Jeremy Corbyn's euroscepticism is finally an asset

The Labour leader's track record means he can connect with Remain and Leave voters alike. 

The first anti-establishment party leader to offer true ideological opposition and alternative to the Thatcher consensus in a generation is staring down the barrel of a 20 point polling deficit at the start of this snap election race. This leader has filled halls; galvanised hundreds of thousands and consistently voted on the side of freedom, progress and justice. So just why has he been abandoned by those who should support him?

While Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership has rightly been held to account, the criticisms have been, at times, unfairly amplified both by hostile MPs and a condescending press. With the election just over 40 days away, the left must now realise the severity of the task at hand, and question whether its constant attacks are helping to create the monstrous Tory landslide we all so fear. In the run-in, Corbyn will need unified backing by all those who oppose austerity, inequality and injustice, in a way he’s so far failed to receive.

The votes for Brexit and Donald Trump show the sheer disillusionment with the extreme centre governments of the last decades, that have given rise to mass inequality, caused global instability and brought terrorism to our doors. While Corbyn’s policies – on nationalising railways, foreign intervention, supporting the NHS, tuition fees, and more – are overwhelmingly supported by the public, he has so far lacked the communicative edge to ride the wave of this new age of populism. Whereas policy-lite Trump romped home with the mere repetition of eight syllables, Corbyn often misses opportunities to sell the bright, inclusive future needed to inspire the British public. He needs to create the punchy soundbite that sells his vision, in one, short sentence what a future Britain can look like, and how it stands in stark contrast to that of the Tories.

Throughout his spell at the helm of the Labour Party, Corbyn’s style has constantly been ridiculed; from his dress sense to tone of voice. So what do we really value in a leader and how should they act?

As PM, David Cameron regularly hit home in Parliament, brashly mocking opponents with quips and digs. He stood smug and unrepentant as deeply damaging cuts were enforced. But while he was once considered a strong and stately leader, history now judges him quite differently. For inflicting austerity, and leaving behind a heavily divided Britain, he’s now recognised as one of the worst. Theresa May’s brief stint at leadership has already seen a humiliating u-turn, dodged live debate and false election date promises, all while cruelly playing with the lives of millions of EU nationals.

Meanwhile, Corbyn, who at times has been unfairly lambasted for his approach has consistently displayed personal and professional dedication to championing pro-people politics for over 30 years, undeterred by spin and political games. Compassion, equality, fairness - surely these leadership traits hold equal worth.

In an election based primarily on Brexit, Corbyn can take real and emboldened ownership. A lifelong eurosceptic, Corbyn has the chance to offer a people-led Brexit that works for the majority, reaching out to Leave and Remain voters alike.

Much of the Remain protest movement and post-referendum activism revolves around fears of Britain becoming racist, hostile and isolationist in its approach to would-be migrants, and EU nationals. In negotiations, if a deal on immigration is to be struck, Corbyn’s historically compassionate views on migrants and refugees could create the most fair, humane solution possible. In his move today, he’s sought to reassure EU nationals of a future far removed from May’s brutal nationalistic games. And in Corbyn’s lifelong championing of workers’ rights, and redistribution of wealth, he can at last speak to the working-class heartlands freely of an inclusive and beneficial post-Brexit future.

While there can be shortcomings in Corbyn’s communication, and occasionally muted approach; criticisms can frequently seem unbalanced. His inability to shout about recent budgetary u-turns, for instance, made headlines over the actual climbdown itself. The time has surely come to focus on the severity of the alternative.

Throughout his leadership, Corbyn has been targeted by all corners of the press, with focus poured on his character over providing a real and important platform to explore his policies. When he refused mass media engagement he was dubbed cranky and weak, yet we’ve largely let May off the hook for dodging much-needed live debate. Written off by Westminster, mocked and condemned by the media. A principled voice fighting for equality, inclusion and fairness. Not much has changed in 30 years.

While we must hold his leadership to account, there is a sense that we, on the left are at times helping to fuel the massive Tory victory we apparently dread. So now is the time to remind ourselves, and others, who and what we’re up against. The "go-home illegal immigrants" vans circulated, and then pulled by May; her election u-turn, reinvention and uncompromising hard-Brexit approach. A party of callous, brutal decisions that have caused despair and plunged many into poverty. A snapshot of their comparative voting records alone should be enough to put the choice ahead of us into stark perspective.

And just to reiterate Corbyn’s largely swallowed, forgotten record during his rebranding as meaningless, lost and ineffectual. He was right on sad, regrettable wars; he passionately protested apartheid, championed workers rights and equal pay, and has consistently stood up for the NHS – against party line.

That’s a name, record and leader many will be proud to put an inked endorsement by on 8 June 2017. 

0800 7318496