Taxation is integral to ongoing discussion about the well-being of the various sectors of society. This is not peculiar to Malta. The range and level of taxation is a tool of national management, wielded in every economy. Here, the debate over the abolition of income tax, and the non-introduction of VAT, will not be resurrected. Our policymakers now agree that the bulk of public revenue has to come from taxes on both income, as well as consumption.

They also understand that the consumption has to extend to services, as well as to goods. Call that VAT, or by some other name - governments cannot avoid it. Some individuals do their utmost to evade it. Too many are succeeding. A proportion of the self-employed do not collect VAT from clients, to be able to under declare their income. The audit trail implicit in the VAT structure is not as effective as it should be.

For both economic and political reasons, the debate continues over the rates at which those taxes should be levied. Should VAT be at 18 per cent? Should the lower rate of five per cent be spread to so many products? Such questions will lead to no common answer.

Similarly with income tax. Both the threshold of non-taxable income, as well as the level of income at which the top marginal rate (35 per cent) begins to bite, raise more heat than a late spring day. So do the way bands progress erratically between the mini-maximum points.

Discussion is healthy, even if it gets heated. It could go deeper. For instance, in various countries are experimenting with flat taxes on income. Those of us who believe that one should pay according to one's means, it is unthinkable to remove progression from the income tax system. Yet, there are governments that have put the unthinkable into practice.

The flatteners say that, in a flat-tax system, there is zero tax up to a threshold. The lower income group would remain outside the net. Further up, a flat rate of income tax cuts enforcement and compliance costs. Maybe. But, what of social justice? Those who favour a flat tax say that simplicity yields efficiency gains; gains could translate into more jobs; and without jobs talk about social justice will remain just that - talk. Flat-tax regimes are growing.

Malta, too, was heading in that direction. John Dalli, in his decade as Finance Minister, had introduced a flat rate of 15 per cent tax on up to Lm3,000 annual income from part-time work, and similarly on interest from bonds and deposits. He had indicated that a flat regime could be a longer term aim. The notion of extending flatness has now resurfaced.

The Inland Revenue is targeting those who do not declare any income from hosting in their homes foreign students who come to our language schools. That has become a significant niche market. But, it seems, not all the 1,600 or so families who act as hosts are declaring their net income from that source.

The tax department wants information, to gauge what has been going on. Surprisingly, the resentment of families who may be made to pay now what they ought to have paid earlier, has induced Labour voices to speak out in sympathy. The government has reacted with a suggestion that one might consider taxing such net income at a flat 15 per cent.

It would be sensible, and acceptable in terms of equity, to consider such income (net of expenses) as coming from part-time work, and to tax it as such (at 15 per cent), up to the limit applicable to other taxpayers. To extend preferential treatment to this sector would not be justified.

There are grounds for a radical approach to non-taxable thresholds, to take into account, say, hours put in. But, enforcement of tax collection ought to be tightened up, across the whole spectrum of business and personal earners - and not loosened in any way.

That is necessary from the standpoint of the need to collect revenue. It is essential in terms of equity. To go slow or soft over enforcement, in all sectors, would be the antithesis to what is required. Manifestly clear fairness should always to be the basis of public action.