It's just a thought but here's how we might fund a response to the asylum seeker crisis

I, along with most of Europe, have watched on as we see increasing numbers of people fleeing their home countries and seeking refuge in the Western World. Up until now I haven't made any comment because there are plenty of others who have offered far better analysis and opinion than I could have done (see here, here, here, here, here and here among others). Frankly, there are a limited number of lines one can take on this issue: either let them all in, let none in or let a proportion in. Each of these views have been presented reasonably forcefully elsewhere.

There has been a lot of talk over whether we refer to this as a migrant or a refugee crisis. For what it's worth, I don't think it is either. It is an asylum seeker crisis. A refugee is somebody who has applied for asylum and been granted leave to stay. A migrant is somebody moving for reasons other than fear of persecution in their home country. All the people coming, detained in camps or seeking to move are trying to claim asylum in Europe. None of them have automatically been granted leave to remain, so they cannot be classed as refugees yet. None of them claim to be coming for reasons other than seeking refugee status, so they cannot be deemed economic migrants yet either. They are uniformly asylum seekers. If we grant them asylum, they will be refugees. The terms migrant and refugee have been bandied around as emotive terms to underscore particular predisposed views. The people in question are, however, undoubtedly and factually asylum seekers.

We are reasonably well acquainted with the issues surrounding asylum in Oldham. The UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) tells us, at the end of 2014, there were 36,383 pending asylum cases in the UK. Greater Manchester housed around 4,000 of those asylum seekers and Oldham in particular received c. 600. My own church has a significant number of asylum seekers and refugees in attendance and are reaching c. 5% of the Oldham asylum seeker population. So, though I am no expert, I am aware of many of the issues surrounding asylum and refugee status.

Having said all that, I am firmly in the camp that says we should welcome more. The biblical imperative strongly suggests, if not demands, we allow more asylum seekers into this country. Any claims of being "swamped" or too much strain being placed on public services do not hold up to scrutiny. For example, in Oldham we have a population of c. 220,000 people, of which 600 are asylum seekers. That amounts to around quarter of a percent (0.27%) of the local population. This is in line with the national level which stands at 0.24% of pending asylum cases. The Greater Manchester region has c. 2.7m people of which c. 4000 are asylum seekers. This amounts to 0.0015% of the regional population. Though they are disproportionately spread throughout the region (1), the boroughs that house a larger proportion per population are in line with the national average and the region as a whole is well below the national average.

I am sympathetic to the argument that the burden ought to be spread. Just as we are seeking a joined up approach throughout Europe, it doesn't seem unreasonable to look for a joined up approach across the UK. There is a good case to be made for asking each of those in the public eye if they are willing to take refugees into their own local areas or, as some have been suggesting, into their homes. If they agree, they truly mean it whereas a refusal is nothing short of demanding others meet the costs and burdens of doing that which will salve their own consciences from a distance (2). I can see why some are frustrated that Rochdale, which houses 1 in 41 of all asylum seekers in the country, supports more than the whole of the South East of England, covering 8 counties and housing only 441. Nonetheless, even the disproportionate placement of asylum seekers in particular areas amounts to a minuscule proportion of the overall population and can hardly be said to be a huge drain on resources even in the most burdened areas such as Rochdale and Bolton.

One of the central problems is that parts of the asylum system has been farmed out to private companies. G4S and Serco run a number of detention centres and are often involved in the placement of asylum seekers housing. As such, these companies are inclined to place asylum seekers in the cheapest possible housing making the greatest amount of profit on the contacts taken out with the government. It is little wonder that Rochdale and Oldham carry a larger number of asylum seekers than the South East because housing in and around London, with an ever-extending commuter belt, is astronomically expensive. The asylum seeker has no choice in where they are placed and there is a "no choice" policy that means they can be placed anywhere outside of the South East region. Typically this is in places with cheap, or "hard to let", housing.

None of this information is new or different to anything anyone has put out before. The reason I decided to comment was because I saw this on twitter:

Wenger confirms Arsenal will donate £1 for every ticket sold vs Stoke to the refugee crisis http://t.co/sQBiRkndG4 pic.twitter.com/rB7gvcWFGL

— Indy Football (@IndyFootball) September 10, 2015

Whilst on the face of it, this seems very nice it hardly scratches the surface. What is even more interesting is that even if the Emirates Stadium were full to capacity, this would raise a maximum of £60,000. When one considers the millions clubs spend on players each season without any thought whatsoever, this seems pitiful. The Manchester United manager just claimed that £58.8m on a new player very few people know much about was "ridiculous".

This got me to thinking about a more valuable approach. What if, rather than blowing astronomical sums of money on people who kick a piece of leather around a field for 90 minutes, the Premier League enacted a one year transfer embargo? What if each club promised to donate one year's transfer budget to support the refugee crisis? Rather than paying inflated wages and transfer fees for a few economic migrants who do very little work, why don't we apply the transfer budget of all 20 clubs toward the refugee crisis? Just this year that move would have raised £860m. Considering most asylum seekers are given £30 per week plus a small room in an unlettable house with several other asylum seekers, the rent for which couldn't demand more than £50 per week (and that's being generous), think of how many asylum seekers we could support with £860m.

Now this plan would have multiple benefits. It would curb exorbitant transfer fees. It would mean that football clubs necessarily focus on developing youth (at least for one year) rather than buying in foreign talent and would benefit both club and country. But best of all, it would provide nearly £1bn to help address the asylum seeker crisis. If such a plan could be extended across Europe (given that we are supposedly attempting a joined up campaign on this), there would be billions available in aid for those desperately seeking a new beginning. And very few people would lose out in the process. Even the footballers who might have been transferred will still rake in their astronomical wages for another year at the same old club and can push through that iniquitous "big money move" the following year if they so desire.

This is why I thought I would write something. I've got nothing to add to the crisis itself but I think I might have just hit upon a decent way of sharing some of the financial burden.

Notes

1. The Borough of Manchester houses just under 800 asylum seekers, 200 more than the Borough of Oldham, yet Manchester has a population of 515,000, nearly double Oldham's 220,000. Stockport supports only 100 (pop. 287,000) and Trafford 73 (pop. 232,000).
2. Though I don't agree with the whole article, this particular argument is made by Peter Hitchen here.

Tax, total depravity and why I disagree with R.C. Sproul Jr.

Great piece by @rcsprouljr. A man theologically close to me; politically poles apart. Relevant for left & right alike http://t.co/Qi6DDzE7hr

— Stephen Kneale (@steve_kneale) July 24, 2015

As you will gather from the above embedded tweet, R.C. Sproul Jr is a man with whom I have a lot in common theologically. Yes, we differ on the issue of baptism and we would see things differently regarding polity. Beyond that, we're not far apart theologically. And, as he has helpfully pointed our here, we ought to weigh the views and advice of those from different church cultures and theological backgrounds. Without throwing the baby out with the bath water, we should learn to take the good and leave the bad. In all of that, I am total agreement with him even though, of course, we will differ slightly on what constitutes the good and bad (1).

While we are (broadly) theologically on the same page, politically we are poles apart. No doubt there are areas of agreement (2) but when the man considers Barack Obama as far away from him on the political spectrum as one can get, I dread to think how he would categorise one such as me! Which leads me on to a short conversation I recently had with him on twitter.

@rcsprouljr really? Why not emphasise total depravity, inherent selfishness, and if the system takes that into account by redistribution?

— Stephen Kneale (@steve_kneale) July 24, 2015

@steve_kneale Really and truly. Because systems don't undo depravity and selfishness.

— R.C. Sproul Jr. (@rcsprouljr) July 24, 2015

It was this I wanted to dig into.

As I have previously commented here and here, the doctrine of total depravity tells me that a society built on philanthropy, charitable giving and the economics of 'trickle down' will not work in the interests of most. The capitalist model is predicated on greed as a motivator. Unfortunately, greed being deemed good is entirely antithetical to the teachings of the Bible. Moreover, if greed is the motivating factor in creating wealth - and if greed is deemed good by society as a result - we can hardly be surprised when that greed extends to seeking to keep as much money to myself as I possibly can. A society that functions on 'trickle down' or philanthropy as a principle for helping the poor fails to account for the base desire to hoard wealth. Examples of companies and individuals using tax loopholes and avoidance schemes serve only to underline the point. The rich - who become so by being told their greed is good - merely take that view to its logical conclusion and do all they can to keep their amassed wealth and do very little for the poor.

For some on the left, more often than not the secular left - though I may often (but not always) agree with their outcomes - there is far too much confidence in the inherent good of man. Total depravity tells me their optimism is more than misplaced, speaking against the reality of what we see in the human heart and the world all around us. I do not see a world full of people who naturally help each other at great cost to themselves (3). For those on the right, more often than not the Christian right in America, they see through this optimism in the inherent good of man. However, they then presume, despite man being inherently selfish and sinful, those individuals who generate wealth will be philanthropic and generous. They motivate individuals through greed - recognising that sinful human nature can be harnessed this way - but with a ludicrous sleight of hand simultaneously argue these same sinful people will suddenly become generous and philanthropic despite having been motivated to amass their wealth through greed and monetary motivation. It makes no sense and doesn't speak to the reality of a world in which the very rich do all they can to maintain and hoard their wealth.

It would be my contention that because the human heart is sinful we cannot rely on the generosity of rich and wealthy individuals. It is precisely because I believe in the doctrine of total depravity that I cannot see how a low tax system, that relies on philanthropy and trickle-down economics, can possibly work for the good of all. Rather, it makes more sense to recognise that people are inherently sinful. That sinful nature does not suddenly disappear upon the generation of vast amounts of wealth. Therefore, to have a system that imposes redistribution on wealthy individuals seems a far more sensible approach. This allows people to amass wealth whilst simultaneously recognising they are unlikely to share their money for the benefit others.

This brings me back to my twitter conversation. My response to R.C. Sproul Jr's view of economic systems being beneficent if they let you keep your money was this: why not emphasise total depravity and selfishness and assess an economic system by its redistributive effects? His answer was illuminating: because no system can undo total depravity or selfishness entirely we shouldn't even bother trying to mitigate them.

Now, this was surprising. One could argue, using the same logic, that because no system will ever undo total depravity or murder then we shouldn't bother assessing any system based on its efficacy of limiting and preventing murder. He and I share a view on abortion. We would both support a system that limited the proliferation of abortion on demand. But, by his logic, the system shouldn't interfere because it won't undo total depravity or the desires of some to abort children. Unless we can wipeout total depravity and the sin that underlies each and every outworking of it, we must ignore it and allow it to continue. As we can't undo total depravity, and the sins of greed and selfishness, we shouldn't bother to mitigate them and, in fact, should press on with a system that not only allows them but  actively encourages them to thrive. This is madness. As Martin Luther-King said: "morality may not be legislated but behaviour can be regulated. Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless". To paraphrase another comment by the man: it may be true that the law cannot make a person generous, but it can keep him from the sinful outcome of his selfishness and greed, and I think that's pretty important.

One may seek to argue that it's not the same. One may argue that in allowing selfishness we are allowing state theft with a system that steals from its citizens (4). But this strikes me as a weak argument. Jesus and Paul are both clear enough that taxes do not equate to theft (see Mk 12:17 and Rm 13:6f). They are a legitimate part of governance and cannot be equated with sin - unless of course Jesus and Paul were trying to encourage us into sinful behaviour by telling us to pay them! The selfishness and greed inherent in the capitalist system cannot be deemed anything other than sinful; taxes inherent in almost every system are evidently not forms of state sin.

For me, it is my view of total depravity and sinful human nature that tells me we require a system that does something for the poor and needy. Left to our own devices, there would be no measures in place for them at all. In fact, God himself seemed to recognise this tendency and put such measures into the civil law of Israel. Without such laws, human nature was unlikely to ever come up with any sort of solution (or, dare I say, truly care about it). When the Early Church in Acts 2 were living as they ought under the gospel, we don't see amassed wealth and no giving. We see something much closer to an uneforced version of Socialism. But we must recognise that those who aren't under the gospel, who aren't regenerate and don't have the Spirit of God dwelling in their hearts and changing their desires, aren't going to act like this voluntarily. Hoping that they will is simply pie in the sky. It is for that reason I believe the state is duty-bound to redistribute wealth through a fair system of taxation.

None of this is to turn anyone away from R.C. Sproul Jr - I really do hope this doesn't come across that way. I honestly did mean what I said at the beginning. R.C. Sproul Jr. is a man with whom I agree on so much. I find his blog helpful in many ways. On lots of theological and church issues I think he often gives good counsel. I, frankly, wouldn't engage with him at all were that not the case. I see this as an example of the very principles he outlines here. Only, now, we're not talking specifically about theological and ecclesiastical issues, but political ones. Nonetheless, I suspect if we ever were to meet and become friends, he and I would agree not to "get [our] eschatology from [our] dispensational friends" but I would certainly be the friend from whom he wouldn't get his political or economic insights.

Notes

1. For example, I favour congregational polity, independency and credo-baptism. But on the doctrines of grace, the ordo salutis, soteriology and any number of other theological areas there would almost certainly be a great deal of agreement. I read his blog and often find it very helpful.
2. He and I share a definite and clear view on the issue of abortion, for example. 
3. Whilst there are individuals like this, they are often notable because of their scarcity
4. This is an argument R.C. Sproul Jr. has made before (see here)

Should we extend Sunday trading: our answer shows what we value

When the right-wing Archbishop Cranmer blog lines up right alongside The Guardian, USDAW, several Labour leadership candidates and TUC General Secretary Frances O'Grady one knows something has gone awry. In this case, it is George Osbourne's latest plan to extend the Sunday trading laws. It seems left and right, Christian and non-Christian alike believe the move to be less than excellent.

First, lest we forget, let's remember that the government introduced a short-term measure to extend the Sunday trading laws for the duration of the London Olympics. As Gillan Scott remembers well, "voices from the Church of England along with various others raised the concern that this was the first step to them being permanently scrapped." Nonetheless, a response was sent as recently as April to the Keep Sunday Special campaign assuring them that the government had no plans to extend the Sunday trading laws. To be precise:

I am writing on behalf of the Prime Minister... 

I can assure you we have no current plans to relax the Sunday trading laws. We believe the current system provides a reasonable balance between those who wish to see more opportunity to shop at large stores on a Sunday, and those who would like to see further restrictions. (Abigail Green, Political Correspondence Manager, letter dated 20th April 2015).

Given such assurances, it seems odd that the extension of Sunday trading laws are now being mooted once again, this time on a permanent basis, by George Osbourne. I wouldn't quite want to say the quoted letter represents a lie but it does rather suggest assurances from the office of Prime Minister aren't worth the paper they are written on. Certainly it is an assurance that is hard to square with Osbourne's new proposal and his comment that "Even two decades on from the introduction of the Sunday Trading Act, it is clear that that there is still a growing appetite for shopping on a Sunday”.

So what if shops open up a bit longer on a Sunday? Let's be clear why this represents an issue. The issue is not primarily one of faith. Traditional sabbatarians are perfectly able to keep the Sabbath themselves (i.e. not using shops and services on a Sunday that cause others to work) without restricting the freedom of others to do so if they wish. Moreover, as outlined here, there is no particular reason to tie the Sabbath command to Sunday and thus it is possible to have a day of rest another time in the week. So, if not an issue primarily revolving around sabbatarianism, why does this represent a problem? There are three basic reasons.

First, it is detrimental to the families of shop workers. Though it is possible for shop workers to have another 'day of rest' in lieu of Sunday, it is often not possible for them to have any time with their families on any other day. Saturday and Sunday used to afford families time together. Traditionally, Saturday was nuclear-family time whilst Sunday was church-family time. Weekend opening has been in force for decades and Sunday trading possible since 1994. Children are on ever-increasing schedules of extra-curricular clubs, additional tutoring and nightly homework with parents faring little better. Sunday used to be a time for families to relax before beginning the hectic weekly routine. Sunday trading already eats into such family time and extending it further can only make matters worse.

Second, it is detrimental to Christian workers. Though there is no scripture command for us to meet together on Sunday (see here), this has traditionally been the day Christian churches meet. Moreover, despite being free to meet on any other day of the week, it is clearly the case that the majority of people enjoy weekends off and thus Sunday becomes a good day for most to meet. Sunday trading laws make it particularly difficult for Christian shop workers, and even some of those in higher managerial positions in the retail sector, to meet with other believers. Though we are free to meet on any given day, Christians are still commanded to not "neglect our meeting together" (Heb 10:25). As most churches meet on Sunday, the trading laws make this nigh on impossible for Christian workers.

This isn't just an issue of Christian workers being able to meet with fellow believers. Many good Christian people cannot enter the retail sector because it will force them to choose between church commitment and work. This happened to me some years ago. I applied for a managerial role with one particular supermarket and, as my CV obviously indicated, I was involved heavily in church. I made it to second-round interview and was asked directly about my desire to work on Sunday. I made it very clear I was prepared to work 6 days a week, and would even work slightly longer hours if need be, to avoid Sunday working so that I could attend church. Unsurprisingly, I was not invited back. Extension of Sunday trading laws will force some to choose between feeding their family physically and feeding their soul spiritually.

Thirdly, it is a measure of government policy and what they value as important. George Osbourne cited research which claimed that extending the laws by just 2 hours in London would create 3000 extra jobs and £200m in extra income. The driving force behind the measure is monetary. It is a placing of the national economy over and above the health of the family unit. It is a desire to put markets ahead of the needs of the workers propping them up. What is more, the research cited by the Chancellors seems questionable given that during the relaxation of Sunday trading laws during the London Olympics retail sales fell by 0.4% overall and as much as 20% being reported by some smaller retailers.

This is an ideological position being touted by the government where growth in GDP is considered the summum bonum of British existence. The workers are simply there as wealth creators to prop up market performance. Gillan Scott argues, to paraphrase Jesus, "the markets were made for man, not man for the markets". Whilst I don't agree markets particularly serve the interests of people, he is right that we were certainly not created as market-fodder. As Frances O'Grady rightly puts it "We need a better economic plan than asking people to spend another day of the week putting debt on their credit cards".

It is questionable whether the measure would, in actual fact, increase GDP. Nonetheless, the question is primarily not one of faith nor one of growth. The question is what do we value as a society. If increasing GDP is all there is, and it can be proven the measure would strengthen the economy, a solid case can be made for relaxing the law. If the family unit, workers rights, the ability of Christian people to practice their faith, Christians in the retail sector, spiralling costs related to stress  brought on by high expectations and increasing hours and other non-monetary concerns really matter, then perhaps we should consider not only keeping the laws as they are but restricting them further still.

At the heart of this move is the rampant capitalist consumerism that we have seen at large since the 80s. The banking crisis should have been warning enough that untrammeled greed is not, as Gordon Gekko famously averred, good. If it is not good in the banking sector, for those who have vast amounts of money to spend, how much worse is such thinking for those who will be encouraged to rack up increasing debts buying goods they frankly don't need. What is for sure is that buying those goods you really don't need can certainly wait until Monday and nobody will be more grateful for your minuscule attempt at restraint than the working parents who can finally spend a day with their children.

Changing the definition of child poverty: Right move, wrong motive and mendacious cover

Much has been made of David Cameron and Iain Duncan Smith's latest proposal to alter the definition of child poverty. The current definition states a child is living in poverty if their household income is less than 60% of the median average. Gordon Brown first pledged to do away with child poverty, based on the old measure, but now David Cameron promises the same by altering the definition of the term.

First, let me say where I agree with Cameron. The current definition of child poverty is a nonsense. It is clearly true that in times of recession and depression, where median income falls, child poverty falls right along with it despite that same household having less money. Frank Field has also argued along similar lines. If the measure is simply to determine whether children are doing worse than average in any given year, then the measure does what it claims. If the idea is to determine whether children are better of in real-terms than they were before, then the measure is deeply flawed.

Nonetheless, this is where my agreement with Cameron's plans start and end. I have no issue with a change in definition per se. I do, however, object to both the timing and motive of the move as well as the supposedly superior definition being offered.

First, the timing. It will come as no shock to anybody that statistics due out this month are likely to show a significant increase in child poverty. There can be no doubt that this move has been prompted by such unhelpful numbers for the government. The Prime Minister had just over five years to tackle this problem of definitions but has only been prompted to do so now. All but the most naive  political observers will surely conclude this is a prime example of reality not backing up government plans thus the government seek to alter the statistics.

Second, the new definition proposed by the government is hardly an improvement on the old. In fact, I would go as far as to say it is worse. Rather than focus on household income, Cameron and Duncan Smith suggest we focus on 'life chances'. Instead of determining poverty levels on the basis of actual poverty, they will instead focus on things such as worklessness, educational attainment, drug dependency and family breakdown. Never mind the fact that, under certain circumstances, worklessness doesn't always make one worse off than those in work (1), it is clearly possible to have low educational attainment and make quite a lot of money, drug abuse is often rife (though hidden) amongst the middle-classes and family breakdown does not necessarily imply low income. Despite the flaw in the current definition, the existing measure at least looks specifically at income levels. For what is poverty if it is not linked to the money in your pocket?

A much better (and more creative) definition of poverty is obviously in order. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation offers one such measure. Rather than base their definition on median income (which is liable to change and throws up obvious anomalies) or 'life chances' (which is double-speak for ignoring how much money you actually have), they use a Minimum Income Standard (MIS). This is the minimum income - set by the public, ratified by experts and updated annually - according to costed basic essentials for families with children. This provides a moving measure according to current levels of income whilst not tying the definition to median incomes that will change during times of recession.

Worse than the timing and new definition, however, is the motive behind this move. This is not simply a case of government, once again, massaging figures. Rather, this move is now intended to soften opinion for further benefit cuts to be announced next week. First in line for the chop is working tax credits, largely paid to 'in work' families not given enough by their companies to raise them above the current poverty measure. In one fell swoop, families will have money taken away from them, in the form of tax credits, and simultaneously told that child poverty levels have improved because the measure will take no account of their income. If it be flawed to measure child poverty according to median income because it falls during times of recession, it is down right mendacious to use that as a basis for altering the definition of poverty whilst simultaneously revoking supplementary income for those working in the lowest paid jobs.

Very few will argue that child poverty does not need addressing. However, the way to address it is not to define it away and measure it in anything other than monetary terms. Nor, as Alison Graham from the Child Poverty Action Group pointed out, can any moral mission involve "taking away tax credits for our poorest children, no serious plan for the low-paid begins with making them poorer by cutting their tax credits”. Even if we concede that 'life chances' are a better measure of poverty, surely we can't ignore the glaringly obvious fact that income-levels and life chances are closely linked.

I am reminded that this is very often our approach to sin. If we simply define it away - saying what God calls sin is not actually sin - then our problem is gone forever. Yet, the solution to sin is not to so define it that we can pretend it's not there. The solution to sin is to actually get rid of it but, like poverty, that is easier said than done and not something we can do simply by our own hard work. The means of doing that is by coming to Jesus Christ in faith and having God remove it from us (2). Whether we want to admit it or not, we cannot define our way out of our problems. Whether sin or poverty, the solution must lie in actually tackling the problem by first defining what the problem really is. It is only once we accept the issue, according to a credible definition, that we can really begin to find a solution. 

The solution to child poverty is not to pretend its not there. It's not to measure it against things that define it away. It is to accept that no money makes for poverty. Only when we finally accept poverty is a lack of money which impedes life chances (not the other way around), can we begin to improve life chances by solving the issue of households with no money.

Notes

1. Consider those in work on part-time and zero-hours contracts. Compare inner-London council house subsidies/private landlord subsidies and child benefits to those elsewhere in certain low-skilled jobs receiving tax credits.
2. That is not to say we no longer sin. Rather, that our sin is no longer counted against us because it will have been punished in Christ

Tax avoidance, tithes and total depravity

Tax avoidance seems to have taken centre stage in the news of late. In particular, HSBC have found themselves in the firing line (see here). Many right-wingers have lined up to defend lower-level forms of tax avoidance (cf. Lord Fink, Nigel Farage, Toby Young, et al). The Labour leader, Ed Milliband, as well as other voices on the left (e.g. Owen Jones) have come out against the practice. The Prime Minister is trying to walk that tricky line between upsetting his friends in business - for whom aggressive tax avoidance seems standard practice - and the majority of voters who don't have the income to warrant employing personal tax accounts and thus generally dislike the practice.

There is obviously some talking past one another on this issue. This typically revolves around our definition of terms. When Lord Fink claims "everybody does it" he is almost certainly referring to pension contributions, ISAs and other tax deductible activities encouraged by government. If our definition of tax avoidance is utilising anything that reduces our taxable income, then yes, most of us engage in tax avoidance. However, if our definition of tax avoidance, as per Owen Jones' claim, is anything that avoids the tax government would ordinarily expect us to pay, then it is probably true that most of us do not engage in tax avoidance.

There is certainly something distasteful about government employing accountancy firms to help draft tax legislation who then win customers on their ability to avoid the very legislation they helped implement. At the very least, those of us without the income to warrant access to personal tax consultants are not on a level playing field. Even on a business level, when larger companies can write off their tax losses in the UK against other EU countries and thus avoid UK tax is not a level playing field for smaller, independent companies who have no such foreign presence.

The question that inevitably does the rounds is whether, if you could, you would accept the ability to pay one per cent tax. But it is a redundant question when most of us aren't in the position to do so. We can make any bold statement we like knowing we will never actually have to follow through on our claim. As the comedian David Mitchell put it when asked if he would pay 1% tax if he could get away with it, "well I certainly wouldn't say I would". This is probably closer to the truth than many of us like to think.

At heart, however, the issue is clear. It is not fundamentally one of the tax system (though that is an issue) but one of sin. Given the chance, the human heart will exploit whatever means it can for greed and gain. The OT system of jubilee years recognised this tendency. God instituted a system that would effectively redistribute wealth, stop long-term poverty and lifelong slavery. It was a system in which wealth and land could not be hoarded forever and the impoverished would not remain so generation after generation. Debts were mandatorily cancelled, land returned and slaves set free. God recognised, left to their own devices, the rich would exploit the poor in perpetuity and thus set in place a system to stop such practices.

It is this very tendency that always staggers me when Christians (rightly) uphold total depravity on the one hand, whilst (wrongly) maintaining trickle-down, capitalist economics will work for the many. Since when did the sinful human heart think, of its own volition, giving away wealth to strangers is a good idea? Since when did the sinful human heart think, of its own volition, I have a means of keeping more of my own money but I'm not going to utilise it? That some people don't do this is testament to common grace. That most do (or would do given the opportunity) rather underlines human nature. The OT system seemed to recognise that without legal structures to enforce wealth distribution, land return and slave release it simply would not happen. This is as true today as it ever was. 

A heart changed by the spirit of God may cause these things to happen without enforcement. The collection boxes of churches up and down the country are testament to this. However, even there, sinful human nature plays its part. My offering may be equal to the number of people watching me place it in the offering box. My tithe may be a portion of my income after my outgoings have all been taken into account. It may not be tax avoidance but it might be tithe avoidance. The Bible never dictates how much or how often we ought to give, it simply says believers ought to give. Yet we too continue to fight against the old man; greed or approval may still rear its head. As one minister friend was fond of pointing out: most people either want more money or a round of applause. If we are able to get both, what a day!

Greed is a powerful motivator. We shouldn't be surprised by tax avoidance because, in a system which openly encourages greed what are we to expect? There needs to be a system that doesn't simply expect greedy, sinful people to act in honourable ways. As the old quote says (often, probably wrongly, attributed to Keynes), “capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all".

Yet, though we are fast to point the finger, most of us pay tax through PAYE and have no opportunity to avoid it on any large scale. But what do our tithes and offerings suggest about what we'd do? Do we skim off our outgoings and other things to effectively reduce what we feel we ought to give? Are we generous toward the Lord and his people or are we greedy and seek to hoard our wealth for ourselves? 

If our response to the Lord's work, and our claim to love his people, doesn't extend to our wallets and purses then perhaps we haven't been affected by the gospel. If we skim off our tithes and offerings, using loopholes and arguments to justify what we give, then how are we any better than tax avoiders? In fact, surely we are worse. Many companies make little pretence they like paying tax and clearly say if they could pay less, they would. Their exploitation of loopholes is a logical outworking of that claim. We, who claim to love the Lord and say we support his work, are hypocrites if we seek to lessen our offerings. With our mouths we claim to love the Lord, his people and his work but with our wallets and self-justifications we don't.

Tax avoidance is a soft-target. Most agree the face-value of the tax owed ought to be paid by those that owe it. It is quite right they should come under pressure to pay their tax. It is also right the government should clampdown on existent loopholes. But we shouldn't forget that most of us are in no such position to do it. It is very easy to claim we wouldn't do the same when there is no reason to presume we will ever be in a position to make that choice. What we are in a position to see is our own generosity toward our saviour and the work of his church. That should give us a real insight into whether we would seek to avoid our taxes the same way given the opportunity.