You are right, seeformiles. Prioritising expenditure is important. It’s where lobby groups come in along with many other voices. Your voice and my voice add to the overall choir.

I offer these notes to your proposal…

In summary…

I believe that everyone can benefit. Tax collection, industry, people needing life saving drugs and Mr./Ms. Tattoo. All for a relatively small initial tattoo removal investment.


In detail…

If we were to spend say £100 to remove a small facial tattoo from someone where this is the only barrier to a specific job and we then collect £1,000 in tax revenue per year rather than giving out £1,000 in benefits then my calculation is that we are £1,900 better off in the first taxation year. And that £1,900 effectively could be released, for example, to the various health authorities for life saving drugs.

The one off cost of £100 is just that. The increased income stream by our now tattooless tax paying person is potentially over many years. Without adjusting for inflation then over the medium period, of say 10 years, this one off investment of £100 creates £19,900. (£1,900 for the first year and then £2,000 for the remaining 9 years.) We are creating wealth.

That is an almightly return on a relatively small investment for the tax payer. And again, one that I believe benefits everyone.

Your prioritising is thoughtful. Bringing in the example of saving someone’s life is a strong argument no doubt.



(My example contains simple figures. The £100 for a small simple tattoo removal was sourced from The Telegraph’s original article. The £1,000 tax receipts and £1,000 of outgoing benefits were just simple round figures to demonstrate the return on our small initial investment.)