Skip to main content

Bankers' bonuses and the 'bedroom tax'

I have heard all sorts of interesting justifications for the size of bankers bonuses, some reasonable, others downright tendentious. But the justification I heard today just about trumps them all; we shouldn't regulate bankers' bonuses because 'they pay for welfare'!

This appears to be the new line, and the Prime Minister used it in today's PMQs; no doubt it will become a mantra and we will hear it repeated. It is the kind of justification we hear often from this government. We mustn't regulate the rich because 1) they will go elsewhere and 2) their taxes pay for welfare. Thus the richer we allow them to become, no matter how obscene and unjustifiable in terms of productivity or effort, the more we have for welfare.

So, the wealthy are allowed to hold us all to ransom with their potential tantrums and threats take their expertise abroad. It is time we called their bluff. The newspapers should have the same attitude to such ransom as they often do to train-drivers when they threaten to strike for more pay; outrage.

How quickly Mr Cameron has changed his tune over bankers bonuses. In 2011 he was calling them 'obscene', now he is prepared to justify them because 'they pay for welfare'. It is as absurd a position as he has adopted about taxing the wealthy. Tax for the wealthy has almost become voluntary; a charitable gesture for which we must be grateful.

Mr Cameron objected vociferously to the use of the term 'bedroom tax'. He got very cross about it. It isn't a tax he shouted in the House of Commons. Well of course he is right; it isn't a tax. But its impact is the same as if it was. I wouldn't call it a tax; it is much more a penalty. It is a 'bedroom penalty'. Whatever it is called it all has the effect of driving more families deeper into poverty, and because it deprives them of household 'income' I would say it is in its effect, well....a tax.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services.

It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared.

Utilitarian ethics considers the balan…

Keir Starmer has a lot to offer

The Labour Party is in the process of making a decision that will decide whether it can recover from the defeat in 2019 General Election.  All the candidates have much to offer and are making their case well.

No doubt for some the decision will be difficult.  Others may well have made up their minds on the simple binary of Left-wing-Right-wing.

The choice should be whoever is best placed to pull the party together.  Someone who can form a front bench of all talents and across the spectrum in the party.

That is what Harold Wilson did in the 1960s.  His government included Roy Jenkins on the right and Barbar Castle on the left; it included Crossman and Crossland, and Tony Benn with Jim Callaghan.  It presented a formidable team.

Keir Starmer brings to the top table a formidable career outside politics, having been a human rights lawyer and then Director of Public Prosecutions.   He is a man of integrity and commitment who believes in a fairer society where opportunities are more widel…

No evidence for vaccine link with autism

Public health bodies are worried that an alarming drop in childhood vaccinations is leading to a resurgence of diseases in childhood that we had all but eradicated.  Misinformation and scare stories about the harmful effects of vaccines abound on the internet and in social media.  Where they are based on 'science', it is highly selective, and often reliance is placed on falsehoods. 
Conspiracy theories also abound - cover-ups, deception, lies. As a result, too many parents are shunning vaccinations for their children.  So, what does the published, peer-reviewed literature tell us about vaccincations? Are they safe and effective, or are there long term harmful effects? 
A new report now provides some of the answers.

New evidence published in the Cochrane Library today finds MMR, MMRV, and MMR+V vaccines are effective and that they are not associated with increased risk of autism.

Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (also known as chickenpox) are infectious diseases caused by …