We, rightly, don’t do hypothecation of taxation

The amount that can be raised from taxing a particular activity bears no relation - none whatsoever - to how much should be spent upon some other activity. Therefore the tax - impost, charge, fee - upon any specific activity should not be devoted to some other specific activity. The British state has long said no to the hypothecation of taxation. It’s one of the - few possibly - things that the country gets right at that basic level.

A group of MPs are calling for a ticket levy on concerts at UK arenas and stadiums to raise funds for grassroots venues that are struggling with rising costs and the risk of closure.

No. That’s it, it’s as simple as that.

The amount that can be raised by packing the female teenage population of the country into the O2 for Taylor Swift bears no relation, at all, to how much - to use an example from the youth of one of us - Moles Club needs to stay open so that The Cure could play an early date there (alternatively one could have gone around to The Bell and seen early Tears for Fears, as, umm, one of us did).

No, think on it. If Taylor decides not to tour this year then does Moles need less money? Or she does, does Moles need more?

It is the hypothecation that matters here, not the idea of the taxation. These days - some will call it old bufferdom, others maturity - the idea of taxing Swifties, Cureists and Fears has a certain attraction. But that devotion of the money raised here to spend on this over there - no, that’s just not the right thing to be doing. Collect tax where possible, spend where necessary.

That you’re calling it a levy not a tax changes nothing about that logic. Tax concerts? Meh. Create an allocated pot of money? No.