Skip to main content

Labour is right on taxation

The opinion polls give the Tories a significant lead over Labour.  A big question is whether Jeremy Corbyn can reconnect with voters during the general election campaign.  Some might argue it is Boris Johnson's to lose, but Labour has a case if it can get its message across.

Whether Labour can win or not, it is right that the party should challenge the richest to make a fair contribution to society.

The Tory media attack Labour's tax policies, but their difficulty is they cannot now attack Labour's spending programme.   The Tories have also offered more public spending.   That has to be paid for.

The Tories offer tax cuts to the wealthiest; Labour is more honest.  Spending plans have to be paid for, and the budget deficit dealt with.  Labour is right to target inequality.

The UK has a very high level of income inequality compared to other developed countries.  Yet, the poorest are the ones who have paid for the greed of bankers.

Poverty in the UK has risen with over 4 million children living in poverty; social care is in crisis; the NHS is underfunded.  Our schools are crumbling; we have a shortage of nurses; in-house NHS services are being outsourced.

There is something obscene in the concentration of wealth, particularly with the impact of a decade of austerity. 

While the top fifth in the UK has nearly 50% of the country's income and 60% of the country's wealth, the bottom fifth has only 4% of the income and only 1% of the wealth.  
 
Inequality is the elephant in the room.  Nobody dared speak of it.  Instead, politicians focused on the idea of trickle-down.  If the rich get richer, then the poorest will also benefit from the crumbs. 
 
The Tories branded the poorest and needy as 'work-shy' and cut social support to force them into poverty wages. 

The UK has a very high level of income inequality compared to other developed countries.

The Tories will boast that median income has been rising by 2.2% on average for the last five years.  But this is a distortion.  

Most of this is accounted for by a 4.7% rise in average income for the wealthiest fifth. The poorest fifth, on the other hand, have seen incomes fall by 1.6%.  The poor are poorer, the rich are richer after a decade of austerity.  Labour's case is that the wealthiest must pay their fair share as their incomes have risen.   

We need fairness and social justice.  That is why Labour is right to address this through taxation, and it is why we should call the bluff of the wealthy who say they will leave the country if Corbyn wins.  

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