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

A time for every purpose

All life moves. Or, more precisely, all life moves purposefully.  This is true even for trees and plants.  Movement is essential for maintaining life.  Animals migrate; plants disperse.  Some form of migration is an ingredient of all life.  For many organisms, it is a key function of reproduction.  We don't reproduce merely to create a new organism, but also to disperse the population - finding new fertile ground, or resources. Reproduction is a form of migration. Reproduction isn't merely to replicate. Reproduction produces change and diversity.  While we may have strong resemblences in families, we also have differences.  Creating a difference is how evolution works.  In this sense, nature is a continuous exploratory process, finding what works best.  Nature senses change and responds.  Some of this is immediate and physiological or behavioural; some of it is over generations.  If we look at a forest over long periods of time, we would see that it shifts. There is a movement

Noise pollution puts nature at risk

 "I just want a bit of peace and quiet!" Let's get away from all the hustle and bustle; the sound of endless traffic on the roads, of the trains on the railway, and the planes in the sky; the incessant drone; the noise. We live in a world of man-made noise; screeching, bellowing, on-and-on in an unmelodious cacophony.  This constant background noise has now become a significant health hazard.   With average background levels of 60 decibels, those who live in cities are often exposed to noise over 85 decibels, enough to cause significant hearing loss over time.  It causes stress, high blood pressure, headache and loss of sleep and poor health and well-being.   In nature, noise has content and significance.  From the roar of the lion, the laughing of a hyena,  communication is essential for life; as the warning of danger, for bonding as a group or a pair, finding a mate, or for establishing a position in a hierarchy - chattering works.  Staying in touch is vital to working