Four findings from a linguistic report that challenge how we see our work
Kirstie Skates’ report for theGood Ancestors Movement shows how tax advisers often misrepresent the role of tax in society.
Sometimes I wonder—have we, as tax advisers, come to see minimising tax as the default, almost without thinking? It’s how we’re trained, how the profession talks.
But should it be? Maybe it’s time to ask ourselves what that mindset says about our role, and whether we’re missing something bigger in the way we approach our work.
The report The Language of Tax highlights four key ways in which language is used in our field.
1. “Tax is framed as a burden, an obstacle, and a threat”
Tax is often presented as something to minimise, without explaining its overall purpose. This frames the state as an obstacle, rather than a necessary institution, and overlooks the public systems—roads, courts, contracts, utilities—that make private wealth possible.
By calling tax a burden, we ignore the foundations that support our clients’ success. We should instead make an effort as a society to frame tax as a necessary contribution to the structures that allow wealth to grow.
2. “The tax system is described as an ever-changing, punitive, and dangerous environment”
This may be the most common belief in our industry: clients expect tax efficiency, and we are trained to deliver it. There’s nothing wrong with that. But the report asks why we rarely question it. Sometimes, paying a bit more tax can support a client’s reputation, peace of mind, or chosen lifestyle. For that to be part of the conversation, we need better financial and tax education—for clients and advisers alike. If minimising tax is always the goal, are we serving the law, the client, or just the spreadsheet?
When the law is treated as a game to be played, we risk reducing our role to that of commentators, not professionals with a duty to the legal system.
3. “The uncontested assumption is that the adviser’s role is to minimise the tax paid”
This may be the most common belief in our industry: clients expect us to focus on tax efficiency, and we are trained to deliver it. There’s nothing wrong with that.
But the report asks why we rarely question it. We know too well that paying a bit more tax might make sense—for a client’s peace of mind or lifestyle. If minimising tax is always the goal, are we serving the law—or just the spreadsheet?
4. “Tax minimisation is framed as the responsible and caring thing to do for one’s family”
This was the most striking insight for me. The report shows how advisers and firms often present tax avoidance as a moral obligation. The logic is: “You’ve worked hard, so pass on as much as you can to your children.”
That feels instinctively right—but it’s also narrow. Many wealthy clients justify avoidance because they pay privately for education and healthcare. But they often overlook the public services they still rely on daily: roads, air traffic, regulation, clean water, legal systems, and more.
This narrative treats the protection of private wealth as a replacement for public responsibility. The issue isn’t legal—it’s cultural.
Something to think about
Kirstie Skates’ report doesn’t point fingers, but it does raise a challenge: has our language as advisers made tax seem separate from its role in society and law? It’s worth asking whether, in aiming to serve clients well, we’ve overlooked the bigger picture. Can we give strong advice and still reflect on how we talk about tax—and why it matters?
Report: “Tax Talk – A Linguistic Analysis of the Private Wealth Sector” by Kirstie Skates, Illume Linguistics Ltd. Commissioned by the Good Ancestors Movement (2024).
Add comment
Comments