Trouser Tax

Hypothesise with me for a moment; let's say that a think tank of senior and well-respected government advisors identifies a pressing social impact from the increasingly common habit of the populace to wear trousers. The great and the good might view it as essential to "nudge" the ordinary citizen on the Clapham Bendy-Bus toward a modal-shift into shorts, kilts, dresses, robes, smocks or possibly even sarongs. But how to do it?

If one were to introduce a tax on trousers assigned at a rate of, say, £40 per leg, then at a stroke one has created a financial incentive for the taxed individual to enact the required behavioural change. Even better, by requiring this tax to be paid not by individuals but by a local council based on municipal trouser sales, then the entire edifice of "social change" can be enacted with no direct coercion or even knowledge of those ultimately taxed. Notwithstanding that "Trousers" is a plurale tantum, this new levy might come to be know as the Trouser Tax.

In creating this administrative device, one has also immediately created a market for two types of consulting service; trouser tax avoidance and trouser tax compliance.

In the world of trouser tax avoidance, there may be significant fees to be earned from retailers and users of the offending article. Sharp lawyers might explain that their particular style trousers constitute an element of their clients' cultural and religious heritage and thus should be exempt from taxation. Other Avoiders may argue that they are in fact wearing plus fours which are an element of their active and healthful lifestyle and again seek exemption on social health grounds. Particularly clever people may claim their apparel to be Knickerbockers, which must surely be exempt from taxation due to their "classic" status and contribution to the sphere of national heritage, or even lobby in the House of Lords for a lower rate of taxation on tweed and corduroy articles (a suprisingly cost-effective approach, one imagines).

Trouser tax compliance, on the other hand, could provide gainful employement for numerous graduate professionals - many with first class degrees in media studies - as well as many senior jobs in a new central Department of Trousers, Breeches and Pantaloons.

Since the tax would be collected but not spent by a local authority, there would be a strong incentive in local government to enact strategic policies to reduce trouser occupancy. Consultants could perhaps be paid to visit areas of a city with high trouser occupancy to extoll the virtue of long socks. Ultimately the cost of these consultants - Trouser Doctors we might call them - would almost certainly reduce the local authorities tax bill by more than the cost of employing them; a clear and unambiguous cost saving. In such circumstances, clearly hiring such "doctors" is a prudent and sensible measure.

But anyway, this is all just idle speculation.