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

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Prioritising people in nursing care.

There has been in recent years concern that care in the NHS has not been sufficiently 'patient centred', or responsive to the needs of the patient on a case basis. It has been felt in care that it as been the patient who has had to adapt to the regime of care, rather than the other way around. Putting patients at the centre of care means being responsive to their needs and supporting them through the process of health care delivery.  Patients should not become identikit sausages in a production line. The nurses body, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has responded to this challenge with a revised code of practice reflection get changes in health and social care since the previous code was published in 2008. The Code describes the professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses and midwives. Four themes describe what nurses and midwives are expected to do: prioritise people practise effectively preserve safety, and promote professionalism and trust. The
Post a Comment
Read more

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
7 comments
Read more

Half measures on heat pumps

Through the "Heat and Buildings Strategy", the UK government has set out its plan to incentivise people to install low-carbon heating systems in what it calls a simple, fair, and cheap way as they come to replace their old boilers over the coming decade.  New grants of £5,000 will be available from April next year to encourage homeowners to install more efficient, low carbon heating systems – like heat pumps that do not emit carbon when used – through a new £450 million 3-year Boiler Upgrade Scheme. However, it has been widely criticised as inadequate and a strategy without a strategy.  Essentially, it will benefit those who can afford more readily to replace their boiler.   Undoubtedly, the grants will be welcome to those who plan to replace their boilers in the next three years, and it might encourage others to do so, but for too many households, it leaves them between a rock and a hard place.  There are no plans to phase out gas boilers in existing homes.  Yet, that is wha
Post a Comment
Read more