Skip to main content

Are the rich a bunch of shits?

I have come to a conclussion that the rich are a bunch of shits. You might think two things about this: 1) how did it take so long for me to reach such a conclusion, and 2) surely I don't mean all those who are rich. In truth it didn't take me so long. It has just taken me so long to say it and 'austerity' brings it out.

The poor have been political fair game, particularly over the last five years of the coalition government here in the UK.  But somehow the wealthy have been 'ring-fenced'.  We have had the systematic attack on 'welfare scroungers' but little to root out wealthy tax scroungers, those who are arrogant enough to assume they owe society nothing. They are those who take but do not give back. They will make profit from other people's suffering.  They will send their children to the best schools money and privilege can buy but avoid paying for schools in general.  They will speed on our roads in their expensive, probably chauffeur driven automobiles but avoid paying for their maintenance or construction.  They will use our street lights but avoid paying for them. They are the real scroungers, and that is why I say they are a bunch of shits.

I still find more people who will complain about welfare cheats than about wealthy tax cheats.  What then is it that ring-fences them.   For the rich it is get away with what you can get away with - we all would if we could wouldn't we? And there lies the problem.  None of us want to be poor, so we blame the poor for their poverty.  Most of us want to be rich so we admire the rich, until they fall off their pedestal which happens occasionally.  The newspapers publish the rich list of the top 100 people in a given year. I haven't seen them publish a list of the 'top' poorest people. That of course would be difficult as there as so many more of them. The rich are fewer, yet their moral turpitude has the greater impact. The consequences of a rich man's cheating the system is far greater than that of a poor man. The rich have become the 'untouchables'.

It has been estimated that  £69.9 billion is lost on a yearly basis in what the Tax Justice Network call the "shadow economy."   Think of the deficit and the effects of austerity on the poorest. Think of the cash-strapped NHS at breaking point.  Think of the way this government has pushed to cut welfare while the rich have been laughing all the way to the...bank. I recall the declaration that 'we are all in this together' from Downing Street.  Now we must wonder who 'we' are.

Boots Chief Executive, Stefano Pessina, had the audacity to criticise Labour's tax policies. This is the billionaire boss of Boots who was criticised by the Business Secretary for not paying UK taxes.  Mr Passina is not resident in the UK and Boots moved its formal tax residence from Britain to Switzerland following Messina’s private equity-backed buyout in 2007.

We measure success by wealth not deeds.  The rich man in his castle the poor man at his gate is still the standard. The Thatcherite concept of the rich providing jobs for the poor leads to the false notion that there would be no jobs without the rich.  Let's not hurt the rich because they provide work for the  otherwise idle poor.  It is the trickle down concept.  The problem with it is that it is a false prospectus. There is little if any trickle down, and a lot of trickle up.  The poor make the rich richer.

If modern politics really reflected this the debate would be more meaningful. Sadly it doesn't.  We are no longer allowed to challenge the core concept about wealth.  Any politician to do so is immediately castigated in the media as a raging, dangerous loony. What that means is that it is lunacy to challenge the rich. Let's not redistribute wealth! it would hurt the rich and that would...lose jobs? Make people poorer?

The other problem is aspiration, or at least a prevailing concept of it.  According to this we all aspire to be rich.  We don't of course, but some of us do, and if there were no rich then there would be nothing to aspire to. Really? Would there be no good to be done? Could we not aspire to doing good in our communities? The problem is that we define success by wealth. Even our universities do it. Good research has become defined as 'research' that brings in oodles of funding or can be converted into wealth creation - a translational effect! We increasingly justify what we do by the wealth it creates. Universities have been encouraged to do this. They have appointed enterprise Tzars to encourage exploitation of research. Let's make oodles of money. Even the philosophy departments have to justify themselves in this way.  What is the point of history if it doesn't create wealth?

But lets get back to the cheats.  Let us hope that he HSBC revelation opens up to public and political scrutiny of the real cheats. The poorest didn't create the financial crisis form which they suffer. The rich did. It is time they payed the price.

 

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 ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As