Opinion: In Aotearoa New Zealand, everyone pays income tax and GST. But does everyone pay in accordance with a human rights conception of taxation? This holds that we have a duty to pay tax because only in a community can we all flourish.
As we approach the 80th anniversary of the negotiations that led to the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and with an election coming, it’s a good time to reflect on human rights and taxation.
The declaration captures fundamental ethical values that endure through time and space. These are expressed in a way that allows them to be included in international and national law.
Four fundamental propositions underpin the provisions of the declaration:
- Recognition of the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family;
- Protection by the rule of law;
- The dignity and worth of the human person and the equal rights of everyone regardless of nationality, sex, gender, or any other characteristic; and,
- Universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
The declaration is a record of our highest ethical aspirations and a practical road map for action.
A “human rights state” is formally committed to the declaration and the supporting covenants that give it legal effect under international law. For ex-colonies such as Aotearoa the term must also include acceptance of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Undrip).
Despite its lack of a fully written constitution and its low-calorie Bill of Rights, New Zealand is a human rights state. It has ratified the three principal human rights instruments. In addition to the declaration, these include the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Though initially reluctant to do so, New Zealand has also adopted Undrip, which recognises the dignity of indigenous peoples as well as the dignity of individual persons. Furthermore, we have adopted the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, which affirms: “All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated.”
A country cannot be a human rights state if it only endorses civil and political rights (eg the US) or only economic and social rights (eg China). A cafeteria approach of picking and choosing the human rights to protect is incompatible with the Vienna Declaration.
New Zealand does sail close to the wind here: though the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 expressly affirms civil and political rights, the list of guaranteed rights in this Act is not exhaustive.
So, what does all this have to do with paying tax? To reiterate, rights are only possible when we live in a community – and those rights must be funded.
Here, we need to look at a little-known provision of the Universal Declaration, namely article 29(1). It affirms: “Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of [their] personality is possible.”
This brief statement makes the Universal Declaration into a declaration of rights and duties. In this respect, it mirrors the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, which was concluded in 1948 just months before the Universal Declaration.
A study of the negotiations and drafting that led to the final text of the Universal Declaration shows that duties broadly corresponding with rights were understood by delegates. However, lack of time and the desire for a concise text led to article 29(1) being inserted as a short-cut.
As with the American Declaration, which places a duty on every person to pay taxes, we can be certain the Universal Declaration intended taxpaying to be a duty as a corollary of claiming rights. This is implied by article 29(1). Many countries include a duty to pay tax in their constitutions. In fact, Italy guarantees taxation in accordance with the principle of ability to pay.
All rights require government funding to ensure they can be upheld. For example, enforcement of property rights is supported through the government-funded court system. Ensuring free and fair elections also requires government funding. Social and economic rights – in particular, health and superannuation – are the most significant costs for government.
In human rights states, it is clear that taxes must fund guarantees of rights.
In a modern society, everyone needs some property and a certain amount of income to live a full life. Some people have a greater desire to accumulate wealth than others, but most people’s needs and aspirations are similar – decent housing, access to efficient health services, education, and nutritious food for their children.
If my human flourishing needs are comfortably met, not only should I contribute to helping others flourish, I also have a duty to do so through paying tax in accordance with my ability to pay.
Almost 80 years ago New Zealand promised to uphold and fund human rights. In the coming election, which parties’ tax policies will be most consistent with these undertakings?
