Bob Kerslake (Lord Kerslake) has almost hit a nail on the head in comments to the Guardian this morning when suggesting that if the NHS is to survive than an extra 3p on the basic rate of income tax is needed.
So let me pick up the hammer and finish the job. The question is a simple one. It is, for the economy as a whole, do we want more stuff (including useless savings for some) or do we want to be have decent healthcare?
You could add education, a social safety net, housing, security and defence into that last issue, but they're just elaboration.
We've reached the point where three things are obvious. The first is that a few in the UK have far too much.
The second is that most in the UK could have all they need and a fair bit of what they want (you can never do better than that).
And some, of course, both here and elsewhere (where we do have obligations) do not have enough. But we could certainly tackle this domestically and to some degree internationally if we so wished.
To put it another way, we could all have sufficient or more in the UK.
And yet we don't have that; not by a long way. And that's because the market delivery mechanism we use, backed by a politics based on personal greed, deny us that chance.
You cannot be indifferent to this choice. This is the issue at the heart of 21st century political economics.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Thanks RICHARD. Strongly agreed.
The obsession with ‘growth’ has obscured from us that there are things that are far far more important than having more stuff. That’s why I think the Green Party is so sorely needed, and why I regret that Corbyn and McDonnell go on about the need (sic) for ‘faster growth’. We just need to share out what we have more fairly, and prioritise well-being. A country like Britain doesn’t need any more net economic ‘growth’, ever.
I totally agree with your comments. This obsession with growth will surely ruin the planet for future generations. However there does need to be investment in selected infrastructure – power generation from renewable sources, sanitation to maintain good public health etc. For some people maybe ‘peak stuff’ has arrived but for others there is a long way to go (for example Africans in rural areas without light and proper sanitation).
Just reflect on Christmas in the UK with the shops full of imported goods, many of which must have been discarded to landfill. The problem is we live in an age of rampant consumerism in which many seem to derive self esteem from the amount of shopping they engage in. I did think that this might be a generational problem but I am not sure as I know some in my age group (sixty somethings)who have the same mind set.
i agree: distribution of ‘enough’ is an issue – internationally and inter-generationally
This brings to mind the book ‘To Have or To Be’ by psychoanalyst and philosopher, Erich Fromm. ‘Having’ and ‘Being’ describe 2 modes of existence: the first (having) is materialistic, acquisitive, possessive, dominating, of people, possessions and the environment, with a strong Occidental, dualistic philosophical worldview. Fromm states that this is a retrograde mode of living; it is – from a Freudian POV – a worldview that is subject to arrested development in the ‘anal’ stage, with humanity as toddlers, obsessed with their own waste! He goes on to say that this is exhibited as absurdities, or telling characteristics, in our language: can you really ‘have’ a shower? ‘Have’ a husband, wife or partner? What does that signify? Above all, it is characterised by deep alienation from our inner selves.
This is, I believe, the deep wellspring of neoliberalism and Anglo-Saxon capitalism. Something wrong and twisted. Inhuman, really.
The ‘Being’ mode, however, is different. Fromm describes this as the quality of being present in one’s life; being productive through non-alienated labour. He advocates sharing, respect and living an authentic personal existence. This is the optimal mode of living, as the alternative leads to despair, violence and aggression.
I cannot square these truly human values with the nonsense spouted by the neoliberal, ‘having-oriented’ types in the Conservative party (and others – looking at you, Labour party!), the media and other parts of public life.
I am optimistic, since the ‘Having’ mode, I believe, is an aberration. What is happening in the US makes me think that the true nature of humanity – our progressive nature, in the historical sense – is asserting itself. I just hope it happens in time to avoid environmental collapse. This might appear a somewhat Manichean view, but there are forces more powerful that economics and finance, as hard as it might be to believe!
Thanks
The Age of Compassion
http://www.onbeing.org/program/james-doty-the-magic-shop-of-the-brain/8397
And yet, as the former Greek Finance Minister amongst many others points out, there exists a pile of unused cash accumulated in the hands and swimming pools of a tiny, tiny minority which is not being used for any useful purpose. It is not being invested, it is not being circulated and this has produced an equally massive pile of debt for individuals, companies, and Governments.
Wages are stagnating and may well need to follow interest rates into negative territory if the banks need bailing out again. The tax take is groaning because many large corporations are not paying their dues, choosing instead to add it to the piles accumulated in the swimming pools of the Cayman Islands, Jersey etc; and yet all Kerslake can offer is that those with nothing and less than nothing put their hands in their pockets to pay more income tax.
But you would not expect anything else from someone who starved and destroyed grassroots community groups in his locale of Objective One EC funding in order to divert it through artificially created organisations consisting of local political gatekeepers from the three main political parties so it could be divided up to pre chosen projects decided at from the centre during the years of the Blair Governments.
Beware of geeks bearing bullshit.
A focus on greater wealth taxes, corporation tax, dividend income taxes, land taxes, tax avoidance and evasion would be a better left wing response to the NHS funding requirements.
Every time income tax is mentioned as a solution to public sector funding gaps, the majority of potential left wing voters who are swayed by Tory fear mongering will continue to think of their own pockets first.
Of course that’s what many of these commentators really want!
Unfortunately as Satyajit Das points out in his latest book we have been programmed to believe that we can have first class public services with low taxation.
I’m afraid that it is now time to bite the bullet. Especially for those who avidly avoid paying tax.
I don’t think it has been emphasised enough that the Labour Party not only created the NHS but rescued it from gross tory neglect the last time they were in power. It hasn’t taken the tories long to bring the NHS to its knees again.
I’m a bit puzzled as to why the Labour Party are not making more of this issue – eh, Seamus?
In fact I keep hearing Labour people despair at the silence on many vital issues. What’s going on?
I wish I knew
You’re not the only one. I have to assume that putting in place the structures and mechanisms that Corbyn’s people hope will ensure he stays Labour leader are where all their effort is going. It certainly isn’t into exploiting news of the many policy failures now emerging (eg. after six years in power, and despite promises from Cameron, mental health services are worse than they’ve been for decades). But perhaps when they’ve done protecting his position they might move on to external politics.
I am going to a John McDonnell event tonight
But I remain baffled by the overall silence
How can so many people do so little?
I have a ticket for tonight’s John Mc lecture. Any chance we can meet up quickly? I’ve been hoping to have a word with John – although not pushed it because I know how very busy he is – since the LP conference.
I have a press pass
I will be with a colleague
But if we see each other – of course, let’s talk
research by Positive Money shows high rates of economic illiteracy amongst M.P’s (90%!)-that must be at the root of the problem. It’s like allowing motorists on the road with no knowledge of the Highway Code.
It’s also a failure of the economics profession, those that understand money and banking need to do more to get this stuff out to the public. Richard is doing his bit but there need to be meeting in schools, village halls, community centres dispelling the myths and fug of mendacity that chokes everything. I think Bill Mitchell has an ‘economics in the pub’ series ongoing.
I realise that we now have a highly stressed populace that is tired and drained and overworked and/or worrying where the next meal will come from, so with a dumbed down ‘bog-roll’ media as well it will be a hard job to motivate interest. The great danger is that this austerity bullshit will lead to neo-fascism, the signs are already there in Europe. This, combined with cold-war revivalism/middled East in an intermediary state looks abd, very bad.
What is the point of Labour making a big issue over the NHS? It was quite obvious what Cameron’s agenda was 2010 to 2015 yet last year they were chosen to finish the job off. The electoate have spoken. They no longer want an NHS. They prefer the prospect of a US style private health insurance scheme. To be honest, pre May 2010 it was bloody obvious Cameron was going to destroy the NHS as he devoted so much time pontificating over it.
I do not in any way agree with you
Your claim is, in fact, crass
No one voted for US style healthcare: it was not offered
So of course there is an issue of democratic accountability
They may get it but they did not vote for it
I agree that Labour need to be much more vocal, but Corbyn et al need time to change the parties direction (with much sniping from the parliamentary party). I do have faith that once this is in place we will see Labour once again taking the fight to the tories.
This is pure conspiracy theory on my part, but I’m beginning to wonder if there is now a concerted effort on the part of the media to totally boycott any reporting of Corbyn, McDonnell, et al’s speeches, declarations or press releases *except* where these may verge on the ‘controversial’, and can serve as ‘evidence’ that they are “out of touch”, “loony lefties” etc.
An operation to impose a sort of unofficial blanket censorship would be extremely effective, and lead precisely to this impression that Corbyn and his team are neglectfully silent on the gross maladministrations of this Tory Government, whilst devoting themselves enthusiastically solely to seemingly unpopular, irrelevant and misguided rumblings on issues like ‘handing back the Falklands’, ‘Women only carriages’, ‘Tridents with no nukes’ etc.
Now I have no idea whether Corbyn and team are constantly, vehemently, and vocally opposing the Govt or not – I don’t know them, work with them or am even a Labour Party member, so I can’t say for certain whether my theory is right. Perhaps they are indeed visibly neglecting their oppositional duties and concentrating on fringe issues – absent media publicity, how would i know? – but I have a considerable hunch that this is not the case, and that, agreed behind closed doors, there is an effective, and selective, media blackout in place.
Am I nuts? Has this occurred to anyone else?
Or are Corbyn & Co genuinely useless as an opposition?
Growth of the “good” things is positive for society and the planet, while growth in “bad” things is negative. It would be good to see GDP separated into positive growth items and negative ones, or just replaced altogether with a more meaningful measure of human progress.
For example why should a growth in coal, oil or gas production be seen as good for the economy when it is clearly not for society and the planet. Or a whole host of other things included in GDP that do not contribute to an improved quality of life for people or the planet, and in fact do exactly the opposite.
Time for a reset button – preferably a soft and controlled reset, but as vested interests are unlikely to agree then a hard reset may be required at the end of a pitchfork!
I fully agree with this. However, can we badge it more effectively? Instead of using that awful American word ‘welfare’ can we just go back to calling this sort of provision ‘social security’ or ‘social insurance’.
Why can’t ‘national insurance’ (NI) actually be national insurance?
I think that Professor Paul Spicker has a good approach although he does use the dreaded ‘welfare’ word in this very thoughtful book;
open access page
https://paulspicker.wordpress.com/?cat=83986
Welfare is indeed a dreadful word
Indeed, and reminds me that Zoe Williams had an excellent piece in The Guardian yesterday in which she looked at the obsession our Tory (and the previous Labour) governments have with adopting US policy – even where it’s be shown not to work. Ideology trumping evidence every time (as well as payback on all those networks and friendship made while at Oxbridge).
Language is a choice: sometimes subconscious, and sometimes deliberate.
The media, the Westminster village, Labour front-benchers, and oligarchs from a hostile foreign power use the term ‘welfare’ in a calculated and very, very deliberate way.
We don’t have to do as they do; and if we fall into the trap of speaking as they do, we will slide ever-closer to thinking as they do; and on our way down there we become decreasingly effective at persuading others to think otherwise.
Meanwhile, only one Front-Bencher – Ian Duncan Smith – has been honest and forthright in expressing his visceral abhorrence of the term and the concept of ‘Social Security’. Others are happy to let is slide away, elided out of consciousness by lazy language.
Or by deliberate decisions of vocabulary by the most effective communicators in society.
If any front-bencher, of any party, has spoken out for Social Security as and of and for itself, I haven’t heard it and I’m certain that we’ll never hear it on mass media: it’ll only ever be reported, if at all, in the language of ‘Welfare’ and ‘Handouts’ and ‘Claimants’.
All the more reason for us to choose our language better.
I couldn’t agree more Nile – ‘welfare’ is used as a pejorative, as a weapon. Again Labour have blundered into the elephant trap, adopting the language and framing of its opponent.
Same goes for the economy, the deficit and austerity – the framing and language adopted by Labour to its own detriment.
I’m not sure what the current silence is for (malice or stupidity? to paraphrase a famous quote) but it’s a mistake whatever the reason is. I can’t say it’s unexpected as i didn’t have high hopes – i think the policies that Mcd and Corbyn have outlined are promising, i just don’t think they will be able to communicate those ideas and policies effectively enough to make any difference.
The sadness is that i look at the rest of the Labour benches and i see almost nothing to replace them, zombie neoliberals in the guise of Umunna, Hunt, Kendall etc and the rest are solid constituency MP’s which is not a problem of course, but i don’t see anybody with the radical policies, independence of mind, intellectual ability and communication skills who could turn things around.
Hope i’m wrong.
Anyone remember the dear old DHSS?
I cannot disagree with any of what you say.
But if we are to break the silence from HM opposition, we need a new term to identify it – ‘social insurance’ for example.
Like car insurance – many of us pay into it and because we are good drivers and owners we may never use it but it is there if we are wronged or we wrong someone else with a mistake we make. But we also know that insurers are constantly paying out for accidents etc. Why do we accept that for cars but not for our health or to help us when we hit hard times?
I believe that Corbyn & Co have gone quiet for the simple reason that the way in which the Blue Labour contingent start publically disagreeing with him whenever he tries to put forward an alternative view.
Maybe a few Blue Labour hands shall we say need to be asked to move on before Corbyn and Co can get going? After reading the egotistical and vain glorious profile of the Eagle sisters in last edition of the Observer, it certainly seems like that at the moment!! Cor blimey!
I’ve never understood why say 2% growth, with 2% pay (or pension) increase, and 2% inflation should make me better off. More like running to stand still. Maybe the extra 2% of GDP goes into the coffers of the greeedocracy, instead of where it would do general good?
I always come back to Gandhi: “The world has enough for everyone’s need, but not enough for everyone’s greed.”. The bigger the balloon gets, the greater the explosion when it pops.
Most people have made only modest progress for decades
Si thats the solution? Cant scrap int aid and no it is not to help the poor overseas by saying so you must be believing the tories. Cant cut cut agency cost to the nhs? Cant stop handing out like sweets anti depressants which make things worse? Which in turn makes people want more spent on mental health.
If you have not noticed I have suggested more solutions than most people
Start with my books
A read this blog with an open mind
I am guessing your solution is raise taxes? My idea is that would have to be the last resort rather than first. Like in this article you stated Education was important (not disputing that)however education policy is to dumb people down deliberately (could be different). Defence, well if we hadn’t created upteen enemies over the years we would not need that so much. So instead of attacking the reaction to policy try and stop the cause. Same with mental health how much would need to be spent if prescribing anti depressants weren’t so virulent the past decade.
I am sorry: anti-depressants are not like anti-biotics
Sorry the book by Prof Spicker I would recommend people read about a re-orientated ‘welfare state’ is:
‘The Welfare State: A General Theory.
I wish it was called ‘Social Security; A General Theory but be assured that the content is much more that its title.
thanks.
Politicians from all political parties are not committed to a publicly funded health service. And the general public do not seem to get it, what has happened because of 2012 HSCA. To invest in the nations health and well being, funding useful public health programmes as well as acute care, social provision for the vulnerable has to be afforded in a civilised caring society. But of course caring through the most wonderfully effective safety net is not on the agenda, hence the demise of our health service. It was always there wasn’t it the NHS, this secure, superb thing, well staffed clinics, now run by other providers still bearing NHS logo, when in fact they are nothing of the sort.
Clinical commisioning groups with advisory procurement officers. I am a died in the wool, biased, ardent admirer of our lost Nye Bevan time. Can’t come to terms with the changes.
To die or not to dye. Dyed in the wool, please engage your wits Sylvia.
As an Aussie not brought up with the NHS, I still don’t get why millionaires (350k households in the UK) should get free health care.
There is an opportunity cost every time a rich person gets free medical treatment. Making the rich pay directly or via insurance would free up resources for those less fortunate.
Make is such that if you earn over a particular income and you don’t have medical insurance, you get slugged with tax.
Make it illegal for health insurance companies to discriminate on the basis of age – the young and healthy pay the same as the elderly, so there is a cross-generational subsidy (nobody in Oz blinks at this, and is probably one of the best laws we have – as far as I know it is still in place).
I think the French and Dutch have similar arrangements so it isn’t just an Australian thing.
Everyone gets it free for several reasons
On a trolley we are all just people
It means everyone buys in
There is vastly less admin
There’s no reason why a millionaire shouldn’t have free health care when they need it. Just ask them to pay more towards it through the taxation system.
Agreed
But that’s what I mean by buy in
Adrian I think you’re looking from the wrong end of the telescope, as many people do who have not grown up with the NHS and instead suffered from the private health business model of “you get what you are able to pay for”.
From my end of the scope, it looks like the wealthy are not paying enough for the NHS that they are all entitled to use (and very many do). Instead of encouraging them to spend more on private insurance, we should just increase the National Insurance rates on the upper end of the income scale and add it to all other forms of income e.g. dividends.
It would actually save them a fortune in the long run as most private health insurance isn’t worth the paper its written on, as the Americans know only too well (due to exclusions, excesses, co-pays, etc etc)
Agree with your second para, in particular
Keith, asking for more tax to pay for this has 2 problems:
1) you’ve got a wait on your hands. The Conservatives are in power for at least another 4 years, and maybe then some if they win in 2020.
2) even if there is a tax increase, who is to say it will find its way into health care? Lots of competition for funding.
If underfunding is as urgent as Richard suggests, then isn’t it time to consider discarding vague ideology like ‘we all buy into the system’ (as other countries appear to have done without obvious harm) for the sake of getting additional funding into the system?
There are some on the left who seem to think that if we abandon the NHS (a ‘Beveridge’ system), the only option is a US-style system. There are other systems (‘Bismarck’ systems) that involve private insurance.
Adrian
Ah, the old Trojan horse idea: accept charging some because it might help a bit and before you know it we have a US system
You do realise that the US system costs twice as much as the UK NHS for what, cancer apart, are worse outcomes?
Why do that?
Richard
I have so far in my 50+ years of life not found a single insurance policy that I would truly consider good value for money. Not for anything, cars, homes, appliances, unemployment etc etc… and especially not health.
I have been lucky with some policies and saved a few quid and unlucky with many more and spent a fortune for nothing. That is the nature of insurance, a game of risk where under private insurance rules the overall odds are always stacked against the individual policyholder because in aggregate the insurers primary objective is to make a profit.
The same rules are now beginning to be applied to National Insurance, where I now have to prove beyond any slightest doubt to a private contractor that my own doctor and hospital consultants written reports are genuine and that there is no feasible way that I can perform even the most menial of task to deserve the pittance of Employment Support Allowance offered to those unable to work through no fault of their own.
I don’t remember that being pointed out to me when I took out my compulsory National Insurance policy 30 plus years ago as I entered the world of work, which I thought would provide the basics for the survival of myself and my family if things went wrong.
And it’s funny how all those private insurers who I topped up my health insurance with during the good time, very quickly walked away from me at the first chance that their contractual small print allowed them to. They were literally not worth the paper they were printed on!
So really Adrian, I have no time for arguments in favor of private health insurance and have become increasingly embittered by politicians who have brought private sector mentality into the UK public sector. The profit motive and market economics have no place in a civilised public health service as far as I am concerned.
Keith- I entirely agree. The culture of scam/wallet-line/disappear into the sunset has been noticeably rife for three decades now.
Today I received a letter for an appointment at a local clinic for a scan. The letter had NO NHS logo on it at all and was from a company called GPCare (great patient care-or should it be ‘great shareholder care’?). The NHS connection was only observable in the e mail address: GPCare.Imaging@nhs.net
It utterly sickened me to see this and felt ‘Americanised’ and counter-cultural. The stealth of this privatisation is palpable everytime one gets a letter like this.
We pay for the NHS by spending the money. It really is that simple.
Making any other kind of argument, like Kerslake does with his 3p on income tax, is simple neo-liberal framing designed to reinforce the message that the NHS is unaffordable so needs to be hived off to the private sector. And it traps the left on a battleground chosen by our enemies – “how will you pay for it” which is an argument history has shown we can not win.
Time to change the terms of debate. We pay for the NHS by spending the money. Taxes for revenue are obsolete under a fiat money system and have been for a long time:
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/08/18/taxes-for-revenue-are-obsolete/
Spending comes first, then the money the government has spent into the economy comes back by the way of taxation. Money that is not returned via tax is the government deficit and simply reflects the saving preference of the non-government sector. The real limit on government spending is not money but the real resources available to be bought in the currency (including labour) and it is when these limits are reached (and we are a very, very long way from that at present) that inflation starts to become a potential problem.
Bill Mitchell has done an excellent series of blogs over the last couple of weeks deconstructing the neo-liberal myth making around overt monetary financing, well worth a read:
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=32938
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=32931
Interesting historical perspective from Piketty today on the current US political divide (and taxes)
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/commentisfree/2016/feb/16/thomas-piketty-bernie-sanders-us-election-2016
Adrian are you seriously contending that the rich don’t already get “slugged with tax” to pay for the NHS? And now you want to tax them again? Just be honest about what you want and make income tax 70 percent. Not to mention that the evil rich will all have private medical so won’t use the NHS even though they’ve already funded it.
Please stop talking nonsense
The effective overall tax rate of the top 1% is lower than that of Middle earners and is less than 40%
Learn some tax basics
Nonsense? Tax basics? Are you seriously contending that the high earners don’t pay for their use of the NHS? The top 1 percent pay over 25 percent of all income tax for heavens sake. I have no problem with people arguing for raised tax but when you make out that the rich don’t pay as it currently stands you lose credibility. Frankly it’s infantile.
I made a point about proprtionate tax paid
It was totally factually accurate
You completely ignored the massively skewed income distribution in the UK that gives rise to the payments you mention. That us obviously an issue – but you are then using it to justify lower tax benefits for those already unduly benefitting
That’s nor infantile. It’s indicative of deep prejudice
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/commentisfree/2016/feb/16/thomas-piketty-bernie-sanders-us-election-2016
Duncan Exley of the Equality Trust:
“”The public are misled about this country’s tax system. They think households with the highest incomes pay more than those with the lowest, whereas the opposite is the case. Even more concerning is how little our current system matches people’s preferences on tax. There is clearly strong support for a system that places far less burden on low-income households,”
Not sure whether you had a hand in that report, Richard.
I didn’t
But they are right
@Jim
Is Income Tax the only tax then? What do you think of the fact that the owner of a multi-million pound mansion in Westminster pays less than the tenant of a £599 per month flat in Weymouth?
Why don’t you come out and say it Richard, Tax the rich ‘until the pips squeak’ if that causes problems, as no doubt it will, real and perceived then we can sort them out but lets start from the other end of the scale where damage to individuals will be limited and not at the end, where our tax system is so desperately unfair and people have real problems, real pain, and suffering
The wealthiest in the UK pay less in overall tax than those on middle income
Is asking them to pay a bit more really squeaking the pips? Get real
a ‘bit’ more is nonsense. Considering you back taxes from Land Value Tax, Wealth Tax, 15% tax on ‘unearned’ income without lowing it to account for the 40p rate. CGT on income rates so the on road to truly rich on 6 figure gains would pay most but still have lots where as gains up to between 40k and 150k would disproportionately pay more thats paying a ‘bit more’
I am asking for more, yes of course I am
Because right now many on high income are grossly undertaxed and the system lets that happen
Being fair to the rest of the country demands change
There would be no need for re-distribution of wealth and income if we did not have an economic system that allowed such grossly unequal distribution in the first place.
While tax for re-distribution is a necessary sticking plaster to try to prevent the worst excesses of capitalism, it is not the solution as it fails to treat the root cause of the problem (and as history shows is easily avoided and evaded, which it will continue to do undoubtedly).
I still think the real focus for left wing movements must be to focus on achieving real economic as well as political democracy, by moving much more quickly to much broader social ownership of all of the means of production (land, labour and capital).
Firstly by developing a viable and sustainable alternative to private financial capitalism, starting with a large scale nationalised and community banking system to fund the development of nationwide cooperatively owned enterprises to provide all of the essential public goods and services.
This could be achieved relatively quickly by providing greater financial resources to the existing small and medium size enterprises and the self employed on the basis they also move to a cooperative ownership structure.
At the same time restricting the available flow of debt based money to the large corporations and multinationals who should be made to survive on the existing financial capital of venture capitalists, and when they fail so be it.
It is the SME economy (the real economy) after all where the vast majority of employment exists in any country, while under private financial capitalism too much of the financial value produced by that labour has been captured further up the chain of command in the large corporations and their financial institution owners (resulting in the gross inequality of income and wealth).
Ownership of land, labour and capital is at the real heart of the issue. The Labour Party lost sight of this by blinkered leadership hell bent on power for power’s sake and therefore have become an ineffective force for real social change. I’m not convinced they will change, because the current political system does not allow an effective challenger to the establishment and its vested interests, and so the Labour grandees are trapped in a situation of their own making as they are unwilling and/or unable to challenge the lack of both political and economic democracy in the UK.
And so a new political force is most probably required.
From each according to their means: http://www.communist-party.org.uk/shop/pamphlets/2025-from-each-according-to-their-means.html
Given a huge segment of poorer population are concerned about immigration, you could start with that? Being ‘fair’ to the rest of the country is just using envy to bring down not even the super rich. Perhaps you could start talk about the royal family with there vast holdings? Not content with the almost highest death duties in the world you would hike that? If your concerned with inequality how about making the nill rate band applies to each beneficiary? But that would expose its just the modestly affluent who pay it, and would incentivise sharing but would not cost anymore and actually would be progressive but don’t see anyone proposing it.
As for my earlier comment I clearly didnt say anti depressants were like anti biotics. Nice to know what I also said was ignored.
Sam
I am bored by your diatribes
But let’s start with immigration. Of course people are worried when the government deliberately creates unnecessary job insecurity
Address that and the fears go away
Richard
Yes thats is true. Pity you dont apply same logic with regards other things. Diatribes? Lmao. If the tories announced multi nationals didnt have to pay anything but other companies do you would be outraged. Meanwhile set in stone the royal family is tax exempt but others arnt and you want to up the anti on those who nowhere near their wealth. I suspect its because you think the royal family is popular so better applying envy to the faceless so called rich.
Sam
I have had enough of your ridiculous aspersions
I am a republican for a start
Your days here are over
Please do not bother to post again: you will be deleted
Richard
To David Drinkwater (and Sam too)
So you like quoting from history do you?
Who said this then:
“the subjects of every state ought to contribute….in proportion to the revenue they respectively enjoy under the protection of government”.
It was that old Tory staple Adam Smith of course. He went on to say that taxes should also be low (amongst other things) – but why is it that current tax bills for the rich are lower than that of people who earn less? And corporate taxes too – as you may know in the eyes of the law they can be considered as ‘persons’.
If even the doyen of Tory economic policy (he is often misquoted and much more sensible when you actually read him) thinks that the rich should pay a bit more (which he certainly seems to suggest) where does that leave you two?
Quoting from history again, perhaps it makes you look a bit out of touch – like ‘silly billys’ even?
Thanks PSR
Erm ever since commentang here I have not once quoted history. I am just questioning that all is being asked is ‘bit more’. Plus my main issue is corruption and misallocation of money current spent. How is it that some countries ‘NOT’ even considered tax havens while not perfect have lower tax rates and not drastically worse (and better in some cases) than most here? I will cite one misallocation example the ‘LABOUR’ council I am in is closing the Libraries in the ‘poorest’ areas to ‘save’ LESS than they paid out to consultants whose advise they didn’t even take in the end. Now would it not have been better to keep them open least another year than pay lavish fee’s to consultants? I might add it was later revealed it was just the cost of Library staff that was going to being saved.
I am afraid every council is now in the process of closing libraries. My own (tory) council has also wasted money on ‘consultants’.
The bigger picture is that this government is slashing council funding. That is a consequence of the false austerity that Richard has been criticising all these years.
Sam
True – you did not quote from history but Mr Drinkwater did.
However the message to both of you (and you were basically agreeing with Mr D’s accusation that Richard wants to tax the rich ‘until their pip’s squeeked’) is that even Adam Smith whom the Tories often wheel out as a founding father of their policies) actually believed that the rich should pay more tax than the poor.
The fact is that today that is not the case.
Some of the taxes Richard might put forward could be for all of us to pay – but again in line with our income. Also Richard has suggested that even if these new tax ideas were adopted, it could mean that other taxes we currently have could be reduced or dispensed with altogether. This blog is not just about raising taxes Sam; it is about equality and justice and fairness and the changes needed to bring these about.
Get This: Your Labour Council is making some difficult and bad decisions like even some Tory Councils are having to do all over the country. Many are on the verge of bankruptcy – not because of bad management but because of cuts in budgets from central Government and higher levels of need created by austerity in other sectors of the economy created by this Government which are having to be met by Councils like yours locally.
The disabled, mentally ill and homeless are not turning up outside Parliament Sam. They turn up outside of their local Council – more of them everyday. Do you get it?
Basically this government is supposed to pay local government to provide public services in local areas for these people and even you. Right? The government is not paying local authorities enough to cover those costs.
Why is the Government not paying to meet the full cost?
Because the Tories hope to create a surplus in the public accounts which they can then use to bribe voters as a tax cut in order to get elected? That is my view shared by others.
The lower tax bills you desire will come at the cost of your local library, those expensive consultants and many other things that one day you will find just aren’t there anymore or are being provided by the very expensive private sector instead.
You might have noticed that homeless people started to disappear from the streets not so long ago. Well, you might very well be tripping over them soon.
So, welcome to your future Sam but remember that you read it here first.
On a more personal note, you come across as very angry and frustrated to me. You need to calm down and investigate things a lot more. Many of us come to these blogs angry and confused searching answers and find out that our anger is misdirected.
For your sake and ours make that journey yourself and dig around a bit more. Don’t be a blind man shooting at the world.
(If this is posted)
Speaking personally what I would do is simple: I would cut the military budget drastically (all we do is put our noses where its not wanted)Scrap international aid (as if it really helps poor people) and if we could somehow be self supporting not bother paying debt interest. Force multinationals to pay up. Those things could make a difference if directed to Local government. Education standard is awful for example some Romanian and Hungarian students (Uni level) I know said the maths at secondary school back home was better than here? I simply cant believe thats all down to cuts. For years governments have had inadequate ministers. Eg how many ministers have any real expertise? Eg the one in charge of education at the moment was never even trained as a teacher? Mr Alexander of the lib dems was 2nd in command at the treasury til last year yet had ‘no’ finance background. Yet if you or I wanted even minor roles in said fields they would want formal qualifications.
I suppose some would consider this an unfortunate externality, a necessary side effect or in the US mindset a little collateral damage.
But really it is a shocking example of the likely cost of government dictatorial behaviour to achieve their ideologically driven aims. The full cost to the NHS and UK taxpayer is certainly going to be very much higher.
I can only think this must be in some perverse way a part of their “economic plan” and not some horrible misjudgment on behalf of the whole Cabinet?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/doctors-leave-country-work-abroad-leaving-nhs-jeremy-hunt-contract-1000-per-cent-a6878776.html
Doctors leaving is a real cost to the economy in terms of a loss of real resources with the potential to make a better society. However, I am not sure if we should be referring to it as a loss to the taxpayer? If tax does not pay for services as Stewart reminded us earlier (see again below), and tax belongs to the government as Richard argues in his book, then maybe we should talk about loss to ‘citizens’, (though the term can also be problematic if considered in the narrow sense of legal identity that can be restricted by a xenophobic populace and state)?
From Stewart: We pay for the NHS by spending the money. It really is that simple.
Making any other kind of argument, like Kerslake does with his 3p on income tax, is simple neo-liberal framing designed to reinforce the message that the NHS is unaffordable so needs to be hived off to the private sector. And it traps the left on a battleground chosen by our enemies — “how will you pay for it” which is an argument history has shown we can not win.
Time to change the terms of debate. We pay for the NHS by spending the money. Taxes for revenue are obsolete under a fiat money system and have been for a long time:
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/08/18/taxes-for-revenue-are-obsolete/
Spending comes first, then the money the government has spent into the economy comes back by the way of taxation. Money that is not returned via tax is the government deficit and simply reflects the saving preference of the non-government sector. The real limit on government spending is not money but the real resources available to be bought in the currency (including labour) and it is when these limits are reached (and we are a very, very long way from that at present) that inflation starts to become a potential problem.
Katy
I know exactly where you are coming from. The problem is however that Government never actually tells us in a simple way how much money it creates (fiat money) and how much tax revenue it puts back into the services it is responsible for.
A healthy mix of each is welcome. But until voters get their heads around this, the anti-statists will have a field day framing the debate with their lies.
Voters have been told by successive Governments over and over again that tax is THEIR money. They have been badly misinformed in order to increase a sense of ownership that is then manipulated to justify privatisation.
That is the ‘cognitive map’ doing the rounds now (thank you Gillian Tett). Maybe Kerslake’s appeal for 3p could be used positively.
I take issue however with the notion of Government ‘deficit’. Given your support of Stewart’s thesis – if Government money – once produced – is there to be spent and not stored, how can the concept of a Government deficit actually exist? Once again it illustrates how microeconomic ideas seep into macro reality and why the concept of ‘functional finance’ fails to take hold – which I wish it would.
Pilgrim – a lot of our language surrounding the idea of Government Debt derives from the gold standard and not the fiat currency world that we live in now. The question is about HOW money is used NOT its so-called shortage. It’s only resources we can be short of, not money. As Warren Mosler is fond of saying by way of illustration: ‘A sovereign money issuing Government can no more run out of money than a cricket score board can run out of runs.’ (I’ve anglicised it with the cricket). We know from QE that money comes from someone at the Central Bank typing the numbers into a computer – if we can tap into this reality for the social purpose by means of democratic processes then that would be a real sea change in thinking but we’ve got years of myth-debunking that protect vested interests (bond dealing/commodity speculation etc).
“You might have noticed that homeless people started to disappear from the streets not so long ago. Well, you might very well be tripping over them soon”
Not around here.
Sleeping on the streets isn’t allowed. They get moved-on, or arrested if they don’t.
Another item not being plastered over the government propaganda sheets (newspapers)…ASDA has removed all charity contribution points [foodbank boxes] from its stores.
Oh well….
I can tell you that I’ve seen them creeping back – especially in rural areas. Last year I arrived at my local station to catch the first train of the day to work to find a man sleeping in a sleeping bag on a bench on the platform in sub-zero temperatures.
There are around 3 cases of doorway sleeping going on in the midlands town I work in as I walk to work. when the shops open and the punters come in well of course they have gone then – but they are there – again.