41: And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much. 42: And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing. 43: And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury. 44: For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.
Mark 12:41-44, King James Version
If Labour is going to do wealth redistribution at all, it should at least make sure that it is doing wealth redistribution in the right direction. Its failure to suss out the basics of social democracy represents one reason why the decision to push the abolition of the 10p tax band through the Commons last night will prove electorally disastrous.
In Britain today, the problem is that ‘many that are rich’ do not ‘cast in much’ to the treasury. They pride themselves on casting in as little as they can bleeding well get away with. Either they blag themselves non-dom status, or they stick their money into a tax-exempt trust fund in Bermuda.
So hedgies pay a lower marginal rate than those who scrub investment bank floors. But rather than challenge this state of affairs, New Labour seems determined to beat up on the certain poor widows. Make no mistake, the voters get the symbolism.
For the many, not the few? On the side of hardworking families? All the effort entailed in programming MPs and activists to reiterate such soundbites like so many I-speak-your-weight machines in a 1960s fairground is instantly lost when you clobber hundreds of thousands of Britain’s poorest taxpayers and send their money up a few notches further up the food chain.
The entire 10p tax band episode has been botched from its somewhat inglorious start in 2007 to yesterday’s finish. Ironically, the cock up has been so complete that the backlash forced government to implement compensation packages that will leave the vast majority of basic rate taxpayers in pocket.
But that is not the big fat point here. Half a million people – including some of Britain’s poorest wage-earners – have been made worse off. New Labour supporters who doubt this point can read a neutral analysis here.
Just 16 Labour MPs – some of them not exactly hardcore leftists – found the courage to vote against a policy that is just plain wrong. I’d be grateful if anyone could point me to a list.
As I read the scripture above, I take Jesus to be making the point that even a quid a week means more to the very poorest than several hundred pounds in tax allowances means to the affluent. It’s a real surprise to find that the son of the manse appears to be reading it in quite a different way.
Posted at 14:31, 8 July 2009
Comments (11)
Dear Dave, to further your parable, the widow gave her mite to the service of God - not to gild the Golden Calf named Brownian economics.
I particularly like the conclusion of that C4 piece:
short of reintroducing the 10p tax rate, it's hard to see how the government can compensate all of the 10p tax rate losers without leaving itself open to the accusation that it has increased the tax burden on the poorest
I think what this is telling us is that "increasing the tax burden on the poorest" wasn't some sort of unforeseen side-effect of abolishing the 10p rate - that was exactly what it did. It was a measure to make some poor people pay more. (Including me, incidentally, and since the other half is doing OK I'm not 'compensated' by tax credits - although given the nightmarish complexity of the WFTC system, calling a tax credit 'compensation' is a bit of a bad joke in itself.)
I'd also like to see a list of the rebels - it's not showing up on PublicWhip, as yet anyway...
Matt
The vote is Division No.184 here:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090707/debtext/90707-0013.htm
And to what depths do Labour have to fall that would make you quit?
Do the right thing.
With charitable giving, it's the same now as ever - the poorest give most as a percentage of their wealth compared to the super-rich.
Mandelson famously said New Labour were relaxed about the rich - as long as they paid their taxes. But they try to wriggle their way out of paying their due, and what's due isn't nearly enough.
There's also an argument for restoring the lower tax band on the grounds that it will leave people with a bit more money to spend - and that would stimulate the economy, no?
Dave, I'm mystified. I want of course to toe the line and slag off the rich who dodge paying a penny of tax, but then I see the figures showing that the richest 1% of earners in the UK personally contribute 24% of total income tax revenue, while the lowest 56% of earners contribute only 11%. And that doesn't even include the corporation tax revenue from the banks and hedge funds etc that keeps the economy afloat! Doesn't this mean that the rich pay for nearly a quarter of the cost of all schools, hospitals, roads, policemen, fire engines, universities, benefit cheques and diversity outreach cordinators (even though the rich generally don't actually use the schools and hospitals themselves), while the glorious proletariat get these things for next to nothing? Must be a mistake somewhere? Please advise.
You should just die, Dave
No doubt the Labour whips made sure that no-one kicked up too much of a fuss about this.
The media didn't seem that interested either, which is a shame.
The Frank Field amendment was a technically deficient one that would have wrecked the rest of the budget (made it impossible to collect any taxes) until it was certain that no-one lost a single penny over the tax changes. It was not, frankly, a serious attempt to help people affected by the ending of the 10% starting rate of income tax, and Frank Field is rather short on suggesting practical ways in which the Government might have acted.
I see Rocket Ronnie Reagan is back with his mad comments, I had thought he had topped himself when Barack Obama became President.!