Speaking at a lunchtime event yesterday, the Very Rev Bob Key said that although politicians were ‘great at window-dressing’ such charges, in his view they were all part of the tax system.
‘It is a lovely accountancy translation, but it if takes money out of my stipend, it is a tax,’ he said.
The Dean’s comments follow a number of States debates during which ministers have argued that proposals for a new health charge and liquid waste ‘user-pays’ charge are not the same as increases in taxation.
The lunchtime discussion was organised by Business Connect, who had asked the Island’s head of the Church of England to outline his views on tax and fairness. Previous States Members asked the Dean several years ago to produce a paper on the subject, but his conclusions have not been debated fully.
The event held at Church House attracted an audience that included politicians, church members, civil servants and office workers.
Defining taxes as ‘the financing by a community of the services it deems necessary for the wellbeing of all its members’, the Dean said that, historically and in other cultures around the world, opinions differed about how much should be provided by the state and what people should do for themselves.
He said that whereas he had no objection to contributing to health charges such as hip replacements – and would be happy if those payments never had to be drawn down for his own benefit – living on benefits as a career choice had no foundation in Christian theology.
Referring to the situation in Jersey, he said that there had been a ‘huge debate’ about the balance between direct taxes and indirect tax such as Goods and Services Tax (GST), in particular whether some items such as food should be exempt.
‘In my view there has been a simplicity argument – there would be a cost to business that would be passed on to the customer. Practicality has won over principle,’ he said.
Another question was whether direct taxation should be proportionate, so that those higher up the scale paid more. ‘Twenty means twenty is a fantastic slogan, but some earn so much that it should be 30 per cent. But the counter-argument is that we do not want to scare off those who will buy things and provide employment for cleaners and gardeners.’
