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

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