Skip to main content

The poor pay more tax than the rich

In my last post I wrote that the rich should pay more tax. The balance of the tax burden in the UK is unfair on the poorest. The poorest 10% of households pay eight percentage points more of their income in all taxes than the richest – 43% compared to 35%.  Yet, when we talk of tax it is the wealthy who scream the most.  They have become the untouchables. We can't increase tax else they 1) won't pay it (increase in tax avoidance) and 2) it is a disincentive to the 'wealth creating' rich. And so it is that the poorest have shouldered the greatest burden of the recession and it is the poorest who have payed in taxes and cuts in benefit. Is that fair? No.  Does it feature in any of the key messages from the major political parties? No. This also is the problem.

We need to bring back into focus social justice at the heart of measuring outcome of economic strategy. To grow the economy is not in itself sufficient to ensure social justice. The rich simply get richer. Of course growth is important, but we must all have a stake in that growth. Currently the poorest do not.

More than one in four children is growing up in poverty in the UK today - 3.5 million children. But in some areas of the country it is between 50 and 70%.  Two-thirds  of children growing up in poverty live in a family where at least one member works.  This is unacceptable. But does any political party put it at the top of their strategy for dealing with the economy? Sadly, they do  not.

Labour has something to shout about. During the last Labour government child poverty fell. Child poverty reduced dramatically with 1.1 million children lifted out of poverty. This reduction is credited in large part to measures that increased the levels of lone parents working, as well as real and often significant increases in the level of benefits paid to families with children.  The recession and austerity has reversed that trend. The poor are getting poorer. It is an unfair prospectus and it is time we had a party speak up for them.

The current focus on tax avoidance by the richest is a good thing, but only if it now translates into a movement for fair taxation.




Read Ray'a Novel: It wasn't always late summer 

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