Take two cows...

I'M PRETTY sure that you, my reader, are familiar with the two cows satirical description of political systems. However, if your memory is not what it was, it went like this:

Socialism: You have two cows. The government takes one and gives it to your neighbour.

Fascism: You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them and sells you the milk.

And so on and so on. Google 'two cows jokes' for many more definitions, it's worth it.

There is, however, no two cow one-liner which adequately defines our own political system. The nearest one is probably:

Bureaucracy: You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. After that it takes both, shoots one, milks the other and pours the milk down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cows.

All of this came to mind when I read that deputies Yerby and de Sausmarez would like Policy & Resources (that's States speak for Deputy St Pier) to investigate diversifying (States speak for increasing) the tax take by investigating a plethora of new taxes to bleed us dry.

No stone is to be left unturned, with taxes on property, capital, 'environmental taxes', luxury goods and increased income tax. Deputy Yerby wants to put the extra burden on those in the best position to pay. That will be those who have managed to squirrel a little bit away rather than spending it.

The pensioner in a family home which, through no fault of her own, is now worth an eye-watering amount. Will it take much of her pension to pay the new property tax? Or even worse, will she be forced to sell her home to pay the tax?

The caring parents who have made a point of saving to invest in their children's future, perhaps by giving them a leg up in the property market. Will they see that nest egg eroded by tax?

The professional family of mum, dad and five kids on a good wage which attracts the higher rate tax will struggle inequitably compared with the professionals next door who've decided not to have a family.

And when every last drop of tax has been wrung out of us, will it be well spent? Perhaps the whole L'Ancresse anti-tank wall can be demolished and the bay restored to its pre-conflict beauty? Or the runway can be extended at both ends to allow future space tourists to land their shuttles here to top-up on duty free?

We know from experience that no tax money is ever wasted here and that the efficiency of our government is an example to others.

I would like to suggest that if Deputy Yerby wants more funding for essential services and, indeed, to continually add new 'essential' services we are apparently all clamouring for, that she looks up the definition of capitalism.

Capitalism: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.

Over time you get more cows, which produce more milk. Then exponentially that grows until you have more milk than you need. You move into making butter and ice-cream. These are skilled trades and you create high-value skilled jobs which generate more taxes. You open export markets and money flows into the island to replace the vast sum we spend on importing just about everything. The tax surpluses grow, everyone is happy and a huge statue of Deputy St Pier is erected in front of the Market.

I know capitalism is not your thing, but it has worked better than socialism for almost all of recorded history. Compare the happy island above with one paying your taxes. People with two cows either sell one or find a place where both cows will be safe.

With only one cow there isn't enough capital to buy a bull. The cow goes dry and eventually dies of old age. Everyone is sad. Even Deputy St Pier is sad. There is no statue.

I know Deputy Yerby from having worked with her in years gone by when she was, probably reluctantly, helping to create wealth in this island. In many ways she may have served us better by turning to the dark side of the force and using her considerable intellect to make our island richer.

I respect her decision to walk the narrow path which few can and I admire her compassion and heart, which genuinely wants to devote her efforts for the benefit of others.

But on the idea of regressive taxes which will penalise the efforts made by many to be prudent, hard-working and fortunate enough to enjoy the benefits of their labour, I say 'you are wrong'.

We are a special community. The socialism, almost Marxism, which is sweeping the UK is not for us. Look around and see that we are not declining into an even more unequal community, nor are we so filled with the hate for each other which seems to be growing in large urban areas. Things aren't perfect here and I realise that Deputy Yerby, in her position, gets to see terrible injustices that shouldn't exist in a rich island.

But as painful as those examples are, they are not as dire as in other places.

Emilie, we want to enjoy our lives in a very expensive place. We want to decide how our money is spent. Please focus on the efficiency and savings which was a big part of your manifesto. Say no to regressive taxes, as was your opinion on GST.

Deputy Yerby's heart, and it's a big one, is in the right place, but capitalism, not Marxism, is the future.

If island-wide voting is adopted, which by the grace of the God I don't believe in it will be, and I am able to vote for Emilie in 2020, will I?

You can bet your last dollar that I will. We may have our political differences, but deputies of her ability are like hen's teeth and in a consensus government we need different points of view. We can't all be right all of the time.

But on taxes, she is totally wrong.