Tax has a brand problem. The word puts all the focus on what it takes from the individual, rather than what it makes possible together. What could we call it instead?
Language is powerful, our choice of words is therefore potentially impactful on beliefs and behaviours?
Three thoughts on this around phones, tax, and abortion rights.
Phone Notifications are really Interruptions
Tim Harford recently wrote a post: “Your phone’s notification settings and the meaning of life“. As you can imagine it was both tongue in cheek and also serious. One key point he made was:
“Notification” is a dishonest euphemism, anyway. The correct word is “interruption”, because it prompts the right question: how often do I want my phone to interrupt me?”
Indeed. My own phone has an empty first screen, a reminder that I have to swipe to see any apps. I then have disabled almost all notifications on both my phone and my computer (those notifications flashing up while you work or are on a call are interruptions, even if you disable the sounds). Still, anytime I pick up my phone, I am consciously interrupting myself from whatever other focus I had.
If we thought of our phone notifications as interruptions, might we be more conscious of our “notification” settings?
Tax has a brand problem
Also, last week both Nick Parker and Oli Barrett mused about reframing tax.
First from Nick:
‘Tax’ has a brand problem. The word puts all the focus on what it takes from the individual, rather than what it makes possible together. What could we call it instead?
— Nick Parker (@nickparker) July 19, 2022
My reply was
Brilliant thinking. On a recent podcast with @romanovsun we mused on putting a levy on bank accounts so they could provide overdrafts for emergencies. Instead of calling it a charge we could call it a “Financial Inclusion contribution”. I’d happily pay a fee £ a month for that.
— Tom McCallum (@TomCayman) July 19, 2022
You can listen to Sacha Romanovitch and me talking about this on WhaComesNextLive here.
Next, Oli Barrett, in a twitter conversation with Oli Barrett I mused on renaming tax to a: “fair and inclusive society contribution”, prompting Oli to reshare an old tweet he made:
Idea… on the subject of TAX.
Let's set a challenge to the world's smartest advertising and marketing minds…
How would you set about "rebranding" tax to "civic investment"? To inspire fresh attitudes and positive social change. #CogX19
— Oli Barrett (@OliBarrett) June 12, 2019
“Civic Investment”.
Love that, perhaps people would not be so anti-tax if it were called Civic Investment.
PS in Cayman I taxed myself (by making quiet charitable contributions with a set percentage of income) as there is no income tax there. Now I live in the UK I am happy to pay tax as my Civic Investment. For Cayman readers, please ask yourself honestly whether you pay enough in Civic Investment.
It’s not Pro-LIfe, it is Forced Birth
One last language reframing, also brought to my attention by Nick Parker, it’s not “pro-life“, it is “forced birth“. For clarity, and as regular readers could imagine given my focus on Frankl and choice, I am pro-choice.
It's not 'pro-life', it's 'forced birth'. Excellent bit of linguistic re-framing. https://t.co/9dKX80IDr1
— Nick Parker (@nickparker) July 20, 2022