Self-interest in campaigning

I have a new found respect for Gregg’s the baker. Their Save our Savouries campaign including an online and counter-top petition was obviously self-interested and yet it’s worked. They got exactly what they wanted from the watering down of the Pasty Tax and achieved popular support and favourable media coverage.

What I like about this story is that they appealed to the mutual self-interest of the customer and the retailer, and shone a negative light on a tax. Too often tax is talked about as something that happens to other, nastier, people. The Pasty Tax was personal for millions of people on low and average incomes. Of course, that doesn’t mean people will look at other taxes the same way, but perhaps they might start to be a little more skeptical.

I was wondering if perhaps the self-interest angle could be replicated in other campaigns against taxes? Perhaps businesses might link the abolition of employers NI to extending opening hours?

Tags:

Tax

Date:

May 29, 2012

Up next:

Before:

5 responses to “Self-interest in campaigning”

James

June 2, 2012 at 11:51 am

The problem I have with it is that it reverts us to the previous position of inconsistent anomalies in our tax system, which gives some fast food sellers an unfair advantage over other fast food sellers.

Once self-interest is uncovered and realised by the public, they’re usually overcome by a sense of ‘fairness’ (whatever that may mean to them) – do we really want libertarianism to be associated with the “fuck you, I’m alright, thanks” perception?

I’d have been far, far more supportive of a campaign run by Gregg’s to expose the complicated nature of our tax system and the unfairness inherent in charging an additional 20% to go the state just for consuming food that is heated. I’m amazed that consumers and commentators aren’t bothered about those two points, but have been obsessed with heated pasties.

LikeLike

Simon Gibbs

June 2, 2012 at 4:25 pm

The one issue I did have with Greggs is that in some of their literature (not all of it) they made it about the customer and obfuscated that it was about them too. I would be open and honest about the self interest, and pitch it as a “win-win”, then there is nothing to “uncover”.

LikeLike

1. James
  
  June 2, 2012 at 6:11 pm
  
  A “what’s good for us is good for you” approach would be more welcome, but I think even that would take some balls, as it requires some honesty about what the agenda is about. Which business would honestly want to come out and say “this will hit our bottom line and we don’t want to contribute any more to the Treasury’s coffers”?
  
  LikeLike
  
Tim Carpenter

June 3, 2012 at 7:02 am

I concur with James that I would have seen more sincerity if the issue was about complex tax systems.

Is it possible Greggs might accidentally claim back VAT on ingredients of its pasties, confusing them with that for VAT liable products, p’raps? A twitter exchange indicates that a company VAT registered and selling non-VAT liable products could claim back VAT as long as it was for their VAT inventory. I think this would be very hard to administer.

I also concur that honesty of agenda is presumed not go down too well these days, sadly, but actually, if owners stood their ground and could get their point across – easier these days – then maybe grudging respect would ensue?

I think many people drift around not thinking about tax – too busy – and are misled by those with an agenda. If more people ran their own businesses and were not just on PAYE, I think this issue would be more intense, as it is in America.

PAYE? TTAYS more like (They Take As You Slave).

LikeLike

Lucian

June 4, 2012 at 6:01 pm

One tax has been rolled back. Great! Now let’s start on the others. If we wait to attack particular taxes until everyone agrees with the goal of generally lower taxes, we will wait a long time. Picking them off one by one may be a more successful tactic for now.

LikeLike