Tax has become a story about bullying, not belonging
In recent debate, paying tax — whether you have a little or a great deal — has come to feel like something done to you, not something you do. The conversation has narrowed to who should be forced to pay more, and who is getting away with paying less. Almost no part of the debate is about what paying tax well says about a person or a country.
This proposal does not change what anyone owes. It changes what paying it can mean.
Two badges. No shame. No ladder.
Each tax year, HMRC issues a tax receipt as it does today. Alongside it, a taxpayer may become eligible for one or both of the following marks of recognition.
The Green Badge
For filing on time and paying what is legally owed — nothing more, nothing less.
- Available at any income level, including those who owe very little
- Rewards honesty and timeliness, not amount
- No badge is issued for lateness or shortfall — there is no visible failure, only an absence
The Gold Badge
For contributing voluntarily, beyond what is owed.
- Entirely optional — wearing it is a choice, and so is earning it
- The amount given is never disclosed; the badge marks the act, not the sum
- Cannot be ranked or compared against other gold-badge holders
The badge is not a record of what you can afford. It is a record of what you chose to do.
Honours, awarded by category — not by wealth
Each year, a small number of honours are awarded across defined categories, so that recognition does not collapse into a simple league table of who gave the most.
Illustrative categories
Categories to be set independently, but might include:
The intention is for the honour to recognise behaviour — consistency, honesty, generosity relative to means — rather than simply crowning whoever wrote the largest cheque.
Points the committee will likely raise
Doesn't this just let wealthy people buy a knighthood?
Only if the honours categories are designed badly. Categories built around proportionality, consistency, and behaviour — rather than absolute amount — keep the award from becoming a rich list with a ribbon on it. This is the single biggest design risk and needs care before launch.
Who verifies eligibility for the green badge?
HMRC's existing self-assessment and PAYE timelines already record who files and pays on time. A reasonable grace period for genuine error, as opposed to deliberate lateness, would need to be defined.
Should voluntary contributions be earmarked?
Earmarking (NHS, social care, a named fund) tends to poll better, since people like seeing where their money goes. Unearmarked giving is simpler for the Treasury but less emotionally legible to the giver. Worth testing both.
Isn't a badge just a gimmick?
Possibly — but national symbols already do a great deal of unpaid emotional work elsewhere (the poppy, the Blue Peter badge, the Honours List itself). This proposal borrows a mechanism that already works in British civic life and points it at tax specifically.
No new burden, no new shame
Nobody pays more than they currently owe under law. Nobody is named, listed, or shamed for not holding a badge. The badge is additive recognition layered onto the existing system, not a replacement for it, and not a penalty for those who decline to take part.