2
6

A
p
r
i
l

2
0
0
4

Free Identity

There’s much talk in the UK media at present about the proposed introduction of identity cards. They’re touted as being useful for preventing illegal immigration and terrorism. Civil liberties groups claim that they will be not be useful and that they impinge on the rights and freedom of individuals. I’m not going to comment on their concerns, there is clearly much still to be discussed. However, I am increasingly amazed by vox pop and media concerns about who is to pay for the introduction of these cards, which by 2013 will be in the hands of 80% of the economically active population.

Some demand that the government should pay for them, others think that individuals should pay. So why do I get all uppity about this? Because we always pay. If the government pays for any policy, it either has to borrow more (which we have to pay back later), or it has to increase taxes (which we pay for sooner), or it has to allocate the money from existing expenditure (which we pay for ultimately either in reduced services, or in the fact that reducing expenditure in some governments doesn’t ultimately lead to reduced taxes).

Payment is a non-issue. Are people so ignorant that they do not realise this?

Permalink | General Musings

One Response to "Free Identity"

  1. 27 April 2004 at 10:03 AM

    Mark wrote:

    I have two thoughts on this, interestingly each coming from opposite sides of the politcal tuppence:

    (1) From a socialist perspective. If the state pays then the cost is distributed to the populace according to the wealth of the individual. i.e. people on low or no income are not crippled further by having to pay for something that the state deems to be mandatory, they are effectively subsidised by the taxes of those who are in the higher wage earning bracket.

    (2) From a capitalist perspective. Presumably the introduction of ID cards will make government departments more efficient? i.e. after the initial investment is recouped then there should be reduced operating costs. So the government, viewed not as “the state” in this case but as a “service provider” should make the investment.

    I know that neither extreme viewpoint really applies. Politics are far more complex than that (and I hope I’m not quite as niaive as I sometimes appear). But it strikes me that if the rollout of ID cards is mandatory within some time frame then the individual should not pay for it directly (sure, we all pay for it indirectly, but in relation to our income – the purpose of taxes). On the other hand, if the plan is to issue ID cards as part of routine Passport and Driving License renewals with no mandatory timeframe then I don’t have any objection to increasing the cost of those services to cover the ID card (but what is the “true cost”?)

Leave a Reply

Grab the RSS feed, or have a wander through the archives

copyright ©2006 and so on, ninthspace.org, except quotations, lyrics and some images which are the rights of their respective holders