Skip to main content

The rich should pay more tax

The rich should pay more tax. That would be fair. From the reaction of  business exectutives in recent days you would think that Labour were bent on some kind of socialist revolution.  "Red" Ed is said to be unfriendly to business. It is symptomatic of the vice-like grip the business world has on politics. You would think that the much needed redistribution of the balance of power and privilege in the UK was about to become a major political issue. It isn't. It will hardly feature in the election and the differences between the economic policies of the main political parties will be nuanced. That is not to say those nuances are unimportant, but they are hardly radical.

So what are these business executives screaming about?  Once again they hold politics to ransom, and British politics suffers as a result.  We cannot address the real issues of law pay and unfairness in work contracts - 'Anti-business' the top executives will cry, and Lord Mandelson will come out of the woodwork to 'warn' Labour to behave itself. Debate is stifled once again.

We cannot address the real unfairness in the tax system that taxes the poorest more than the wealthiest - 'Anti-business' they will cry, and Lord Mendelson will 'ride to the rescue' of Labour once again advising it to put forward a more positive 'business friendly' message.

A straight road has been defined and the political parties mustn't stray from it. We are locked into the politics of austerity with the three main parties signed up to some version of it.  The SNP has broken ranks to suggest that austerity should be abandon as a strategy. Most in the Labour party agree with them. I agree with them too. Of course it is opportunistic game play by the SNP, particularly as it plays for the wobbling Labour vote in Scotland. Labour should have been the anti-austerity party but that would be too much.

It is time we have a proper open debate about the unfairness in our society - the inequalities of opportunity that start at such a young age.  It is time we had a proper debate about taxation and how we make the rich pay their fair share. Perhaps with the revelations about 'dodgy' banking and tax evasion we may get it. The rich should pay more tax, the poorest should pay less.  But I don't hold my breath.

 

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