As he left the building, he looked worriedly at the sky. The first drops of rain hit the sidewalk, forming a pattern. In his mind’s eye it looked like the holes left by moths. Clearly the new tax was worrying him more than he realised.
In the past it was far simpler, he thought with a tinge of regret. Taxes were always an unpleasant subject and often people felt that they were paying too much in tax, but nobody actually sat down and calculated exactly how much
tax they paid in a year – or enquired why, or demanded a detailed account of how the money was spent. Sure a tax form had to be filled in, but this was mainly focussed on detailing the tax on the input – nobody focussed on the
often hidden output taxes levied on items and services such as food, fuel, most items purchased and the place where you lived as well as the countless new fines and penalties continuously being introduced.
Every year the published “tax freedom day”, (the date from which you worked for yourself having effectively paid all the monies earned before that date in taxes) moved later and later in the year from May to June and then to July, despite reassurances from politicians. He privately suspected that the true date was much later, but had never set out to prove it. And taxes had a reason then. In return for taxes, we were told, the poor were looked after and health care, education, security, roads and even the collection of waste were all organised and paid for by the community.
He could not remember when or why it all started to go wrong. That taxes had to increase was vital, he was repeatedly reminded by the media, for the continuation of essential services. Without more taxes we could not have medical care, care for the elderly, decent roads and public spaces as well as all the other things needed by a normal society.
At some point in time this guilt message had moved to the next level as the increases in taxes were matched by reduction in services. He remembered a discussion with his doctor during a nasty bout of flu. As a normally healthy person, the doctor argued, any sickness that he suffered must be the result of his own actions. Why, therefore, did he expect the state to pick up the costs?
This reasoning was also true, he realised, for any accidental injuries, hereditary illnesses, and defects or, in fact, most health issues. He remembered paying the bill and leaving the surgery confused but too tired and weak to argue. When he had reached his car in the nearly empty car park he noted that he had exceeded his ticket by five minutes. He had removed the fixed penalty notice and proceeded home, thankful that his minor ailment
had meant that he had not been forced to stay longer in the surgery.
On the way he had stopped at the garage to fill up his car. He had tried not to look at the cost of fuel, knowing that he would be paying more that day than the previous week, and that the extra tax for the fuel as well as the purchase tax on that tax magnified any increase in the raw product cost. He had felt that the new tax on the air in his tyres was a little excessive as he put a coin in the air pump, but he knew that it was an offence to drive with incorrectly inflated tyres, and that poor tyre maintenance would lead to a shorter tyre life and another possible fine for unsafe tyres. He drove carefully to avoid speeding having recently learnt his lesson. The fact that it was at 02:00 am and that the sign indicating the new reduced limit was unlit and hidden by a tree did nothing to support his defence, although he heard later that a local school had been fined for allowing the tree to grow unattended in a public space near its entrance.
But back to today’s worry. He supposed that it all started with the cost of treating water. Having sold off all the companies that processed water (where did those proceeds go?), the government realised that it no longer had a revenue stream from water and took corrective measures. It reasoned that the larger users should pay more, so a charging mechanism was set up. This was relatively easy for the fresh water delivered as all water users were forced to have meters, however it was soon realised that, when adding
charges for wastewater, the cost of removing rain water could be added to the bill. As rain falls over an area, the larger the area, the higher the cost. The problem with simply using area was that it did not extract sufficient funds from buildings with more than one floor, so the charge had been increased to include living area and number of occupants, personalising the tax, or service charge as the authorities preferred it to be called.
It was unfortunate that this model did not account for all the open “public” spaces, until a think tank recently solved the problem. If a person is in the rain then they are enjoying the water and should pay for this privilege on a time basis. If they get wet, then they are transporting the water, which could also incur a further service charge. If they use an umbrella then they have increased their surface area and should be charged for that in line with the existing rules on area wetting, together with the portability charge. CCTV with
face recognition technology was already in place, sponsored by the tax payer as a security measure, so charging could be carried out automatically.
He looked up at the sky once more, not sure whether he could afford to get wet again this week and whether putting up the umbrella was an option. After all, he was still reeling from the cost of watching his son’s football game in the rain the previous week.