THERE is a real danger that Guernsey’s system of taxes and government charges is becoming less fair and equitable. No one likes paying these levies but most people accept that they are needed to provide public services. Where real objections arise is when the public considers those taxes and charges are not ‘fair’ in the way they are calculated.

Fairness comes in two basic shapes: either by relating taxes to the ability to pay, with the better-off paying more than those on lower incomes, or by relating them to consumption – on the ‘user pays’ principle.

The best example of the first type of ‘fairness’ is income tax, with islanders paying 20% of their income above their personal allowance.

Whether that fairness is eroded by capping tax on ultra-high earners is a separate issue.

Some will feel it is doing just that, while others will argue that attracting the rich to Guernsey will benefit us all. The fact remains that for 99% of us, the system is proportionate, transparent and fair.

The other traditional approach of charging by usage, or consumption, applies to duties on fuel, alcohol and tobacco, as well as passenger charges at the airport – and, of course, parking. Well, it will if the States brings in a sensible scheme of paid parking and not a flat rate.

These charges are maybe slightly less egalitarian and more regressive, as they hit those with less cash hardest, but at least they have the rationale of relating to consumption and people can minimise their impact by changing their lifestyle.

Where governments really run into difficulty is when they abandon both of these approaches and go for a flat rate charge, or poll tax.

It may be administratively simple, but it stirs up anger because it is so unfair. It was just this mistake that brought Margaret Thatcher’s stint as prime minister to an end.

I think Guernsey is in danger of copying her mistakes. Not that we are about to impose any flat rate tax per head but we are steadily introducing a series of ‘poll taxes’ on homes and maybe soon on cars.

One such long-standing charge is that made on households by the parishes for solid waste collection and disposal.

Yes, it might have some vague relationship to ability to pay, because bigger properties pay more, but we all know of lots of very poor pensioners living in basic but large houses.

It certainly bears no relation to the amount of rubbish produced or put out for collection. It is not fair, does not encourage beneficial changes in behaviour and has nothing to recommend it but simplicity.

The new waste-water charges, or ‘toilet tax’, will be even worse, in particular the suggested flat rate per household to fund preparation for sewage treatment. No relation to ability to pay at all.

No correlation to level of usage.

Just an arbitrary charge per home, because that will produce the necessary readies. It’s enough to make one want to produce more liquid waste to get one’s money’s worth.

Of course, it is also a way to sidestep the capital prioritisation process, but why should it?

As a community we need to decide what is most important to us. We all want to see full sewage treatment, but with no evidence of significant harm from the current system, we have to ask ourselves if it is more or less important than a new school or hospital.

My answer (sorry ‘green’ friends) is less.

Or, if we really want all our capital requirements very quickly, then we should increase ‘fair’ taxes and charges to fund them, not bring in arbitrary new ones.

What next – a flat rate per child to fund new schools?

I don’t suppose we will see poll tax riots in Guernsey. It is not that sort of community.

But as our tax system becomes less fair, I predict that more of us will start to resent these seemingly random charges.