I made a speech at a TUC rally a year or so ago when I said the following:

If we spent the money that the government proposes to spend on tackling benefit fraud on beating tax cheats then I can tell you this with absolute confidence we wouldn’t get back £1 billion a year. We would get back £20 billion a year.

And by chance that’s the annual investment that we need now if we want to turn this economy around to create the jobs we so badly need – and which would create the wealth and generate the tax – all the tax – we need to clear the deficit.

Which is exactly why we don’t need cuts.

But the Conservatives won’t do this.

And I’ll tell you why.

They would rather the tax cheats of this country have this money than the pensioners of this country have this money.

Better that the cheats have their ill-gotten gains, they say, than the children of this country get the education they need.

And the better the accountants, the lawyers and the bankers have this money they say than the sick, the unemployed, the disabled, the public servants and the defenders of this country have it.

That’s the Conservatives’ choice. It’s a choice to support tax cheats.

It’s the wrong choice.

You know that.

I know that.

Together we must fight them.

We must fight for fair taxation.

We must fight for the jobs of those who will collect tax.

And we must fight so that the honest people of this country can have the money that the Conservatives will give to the cheats.

That’s the fight we have on our hands

And friends that is the fight we must win.

I stand by that analysis.

My logic is a simple one, but one that is rarely said. By choosing to leave money in the shadow economy – which is what the government is doing by choosing to cut staff at HMRC – it is deciding that it is better that criminals - because that is what tax evaders are – have money than do children who need education, pensioners who need to keep warm, those on benefits who simply can’t make ends meet, the disabled who need services, armed forces who need kit and so much more besides.

I make it clear, this is an explicit choice  by our politicians right now: they are choosing to support criminality.

They are doing so because they think the consumer spending of criminal tax evaders is more important to the economy than meeting the social needs of the young, the poor, the disabled, the vulnerable, those who defend and protect us and those who ensure that these services are delivered.

And let’s be clear: in making that choice they’re saying they think that money paid to the government is wasted. But they’re wrong! tax does not disappear. It is not a black hole. It is spent! It is spent on supporting these groups in society who need to spend to meet their needs and in paying the public servants who support them. So it directly supports consumption too. But consumption by different people. Tax collected supports consumption by those in need and those who work for an honest living. But the government is choosing instead to support consumption by those who steal to pay for it.

The choice the government is making by reducing the resources to tackle tax evasion is therefore a simple one. They’re saying they think criminals are more important than honest people in real need. And that criminals are more important than people who work for an honest living.

That’s why they choose to ignore £69.9bn of tax evasion in the UK a year.

That’s why they’re sacking tax inspectors.

And they’re wrong to do that. Because in doing so they’re ignoring the biggest single criminal activity in the UK, and the one that’s tearing the heart out of our society and our economy.

And that’s why tax evasion has to be tackled. Now.

 

All I can say is please read this from ‘Think Left’.

The NHS is being dismantled.

So is welfare.

And all to make the rich richer.

I could weep.

Instead I’m angry.

And I know I’m not alone.

Through #occupy.

Through other movements.

By our personal acts.

By our collective acts.

We have to claim the right to be the people we can be, and which this government and those it acts for want to deny to at least 99% of us.

That’s why I wrote The Courageous State.

It was and is my way of saying we have a right to this country.

But a tiny minority are trying to take it away.

And we have to say no; that will not happen.

 

Just too good not to share, from Left Foot Forward:

 

 

“Slashing spending now could push the economy back into recession and inflict further structural damage on the UK,” said the Liberal Democrat Shadow Chancellor.

Commenting on George Osborne’s Mais Lecture, Vince Cable said:

“Osborne’s latest economic commentary shows just how out his depth he is when it comes to the important economic issues.

“Slashing spending now could push the economy back into recession and inflict further structural damage on the UK that will make it harder to sustain our credit rating.

“He is at odds with his leader on when cuts should come and fails to appreciate that what the markets are looking for is a credible plan to reduce the deficit, not a willingness to slash regardless of economic conditions.

“In the current climate it is essential that decisions about the speed and timing of tackling the deficit are based on the state of the economy, not political dogma.”

——-

That’s what was reported on the Lib Dems web site on 24 February 2010.

I’d contend not much has changed since.

Except Vince no longer has the courage to tell the truth.

 

As the Guardian reports this morning:

A private company, listed on the stock market, has been given the right to deliver a full range of hospital services for the first time in the history of the NHS, reigniting a debate about the use of business in the health sector.

Circle Healthcare, a John Lewis-style partnership valued at around £120m, will manage the debt-laden Hinchingbrooke hospital in Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire, from February after the government signed off on a decade-long contract on Wednesday.

But as the Bureau of Investigative Journalism reported in May:

[Circle's] accounts reveal a structure of fiendish complexity, with 49.9% of Circle’s shares held in the British Virgin Islands, and the remaining 50.1% in Jersey, although Circle says the Jersey arm “has recently been re-domiciled as a UK tax resident company”. The Jersey company’s accounts include six pages of related-party transactions.

UK tax resident does not mean UK incorporated, by the way.

As the Guardian also noted today:

However, Circle is viewed by ministers as a model “mutual” with 49% of its ownership in staff hands. It operates a scheme to allow more shares to be gained through a performance-related rewards system.

Well that may be a Tory view, but first of all this is not a mutual: it is 50.1% controlled by a private for profit company.

Second that ‘mutual’ bit is in the unaccountable, zero tax, regulation lite, British Virgin Islands where candidly anything can (and does) happen. Hardly ‘John Lewis like’, I suggest.

And third, I don’t want staff in any hospital managing for profit. That means they do three things:

a) Cut corners where there is no cash incentive applied to doing things. Care does not have cash incentives attached, nor do many services for the elderly, for example. It’s why we end up with consultants prescribing food and water which is otherwise not delivered;

b) Undertake too many procedures where there is a tariff payment - because this is how the hospital makes money – so look for an increase in operations in Huntingdon very soon;

c) Turns away cases where there is uncertainty and what is medically called ‘multiple comorbidity’ – or in other words the person is really sick, no one knows what is going on and it’s not clear what needs to be done so no payment is likely to be generated but sure as heck the person needs looking after.

That’s what will happen here.

Welcome to the National Heist Service, sponsored by Andrew Lansley: taking health care from the many for the benefit of the few.

 

Cameron faced his backbenchers yesterday on the EU, and lost.

But the EU was not the whole reason for this. Polly Toynbee had what was, without doubt, the best line on this issue:

But the “in or out” debate was never just a dry calculation of national interest. The two sides stand for profoundly different visions of the good society. A few Labour mavericks straddle the divide, but most anti-Europeans are from the far right for good reason. To them EU red tape, health and safety, human rights and labour regulations throttle British business.

Their vision is of a Britain thriving by undercutting basic protection of the workforce – working hours, maternity rights, holidays, sickness, security at work, equal treatment of agency workers. Read the sceptics’ outpourings to see their vision of our island as a low-tax, maybe flat-tax haven for the super-rich, free to treat employees as “flexibly” as they like. This is a fine distraction from the real cause of our worsening economic crisis – this government’s extreme austerity choking demand.

She’s right. Those voting against Cameron weren’t just anti-EU. They’re anti society as we know it in the UK and want to throw it all over in favour of radical transformation that will hasten the flow of funds from the poor to the rich; something flat taxes are designed to do.

If in doubt look to their inspiration across the pond: Rick Perry is proposing a flat tax. There is only one explanation – and that is that these taxes push governments to the very margins of existence – which is exactly what their proponents want. If in doubt look at the detailed analysis of the proposal by my friends Citizens for Tax Justice in the USA. They say Perry’s plan would give:

- Enormous tax cuts for the richest five percent of taxpayers and of $209,562 for the richest one percent in 2010.

- Tax hikes for all other income groups. The bottom 95 percent of taxpayers would pay an average of $2,887 more in federal taxes in 2010.

That’s what the Tories oppising Cameron really want.

There’s going to be a role for those in favour of tax justice for a long time to come.

 

It’s interesting to go back to see what the Tories thought in 2007. In August 2007 they published ‘Freeing Britain to Compete:Equipping the UK for Globalisation’. It was largely the work of John Redwood. This happened at exactly the same time as the world’s financial markets began to collapse. In it they said:

The last ten years in particular have been good years for the world economy as a whole. They have been characterised by two massively favourable trends.

The first is an era of easy money. The main central banks worldwide have opted for low interest rates, the ready creation of credit, and tolerance of innovatory means of financing public and private sector activity through big increases in debt. It has been the era of public/private partnerships, specialised credit-based funds and funds of funds, collateralized debt obligations, collateralized loan obligations, credit default swaps, special purpose vehicles and many other similar ways of raising borrowing throughout the financial system.

The second has been the remorseless downward pressure on prices of both goods and internationally traded services from the migration of business to lower wage countries in the East using newer plant and equipment, and from the application of new web based technology that is revolutionising business models. …

The UK has not performed that well against this very favourable background.

Note the language of August 2007: easy money, the ready creation of credit, financial innovation – all these are things that they said were massively favourable trends.

We need to remind them of that often. And to hold them to account for it.

 

Rumour has it that David Cameron has a first in PPE from Oxford. The E stands for economics. However, the only way that’s possible is if he did what all creeps do: read the set texts and never ask a question. Why do I say that? Because there is no sign at all that he actually learned anything from the process.

What’s the evidence? Because this morning he’s saying that the only cure to our financial crisis is that everyone, government, business and individuals must put all our efforts into paying off our debts.

Now it so happens that I do think debt is, particularly if personal debt used to fuel excess consumption, a ‘bad thing’ and I dedicate a lot of space to this issue and how to address it in The Courageous State. I also think bank gearing to fund speculation and business borrowing to finance mergers and acquisitions are also seriously bad news for the economy, being wholly unproductive uses of cash that drain resources from the real productive economy that meets human need. This activity is where the so-called practice of ‘squeezing out’ that neoliberals attribute to borrowing really occurs. But all that being said to have everyone throughout the economy at the same time seeking to reduce ther debt is an economic prescription straight from the mad house (or maybe Oxford; you choose).

Why is this so crazy? There are three main reasons. First, and most importantly, if everyone saves at the same time we very obviously get a recession. If people don’t spend what they earn, which is necessary if they are to save, then demand crashes. If demand crashes then very clearly employment crashes with it, businesses fail and recession follows. So that is what Cameron is calling for.

Secondly, if we have everyone repaying debt then the money supply also crashes – because debt is the basis for all money creation in the UK. Now we could get round that with QE, for example, but the government has given away responsibility for such issues and as such Cameron is calling for a cut in the money supply and a consequent liquidity crisis at the same time as he’s calling for recession. Smart move Dave.

Third, Dave really has not got his head around the fact some debt is really, really useful. Government debt is the most useful of all. We need vast amounts of it because the annuities that underpin almost all old age pensioners private pension income are based on the ownership of gilts – that is, government debt. Perhaps he doesn’t realise this, but if the government were to repay all its debt, which seems to be his fantasy, he’d destroy the entire logic of the private pension sector. It’s an interesting idea that this seems to be what he is setting out to do.

So universal debt reduction is a massively bad idea.

Cameron also ignores the fact that it is also basically not possible: it’s pretty much an accounting impossibility that we can all reduce debt together. Debt is owed to people. Unless those to whom money is owed agree to sit on massive piles of cash they will not spend or even save with a view to earning interest when debt is repaid to them then everyone repaying debt simply can’t occur. I agree the issue is a little more complex than this, but that’s the essence of it.

That does not mean reducing pernicious debt of the sort I note above is not possible. I note lots of ways to do this in The Courageous State so now is only time for an overview.

Firstly, you cut business debt by removing tax relief on it.

Second, you cut pernicious personal debt by regulating the personal finance markets.

Third, you take action to stop the advertising whose main aim is to drive people into debt. In particular you remove tax relief on it.

Fourth, you provide sufficient social housing to ensure people aren’t forced into excessive mortgages.

Fifth, you regulate takeovers and mergers.

Sixth, you introduce capital controls.

Not all of these will go down well with the Tories. But they’re preconditions of reform.

And finally you have to make sure that people have incomes that make sure they can generate the cash needed to repay the debt. This is so glaringly obviously a part of the equation that it is staggering that Cameron does not mention it. If people are repaying debt there is a shortage of demand for consumption which is fine if, and only if, the economy is rebalanced by excess demand for investment in the creation of new productive assets at the same time. And since business glaringly obviously won’t be picking up this issue, since it will be suffering a downturn in demand, then the only agency that can ensure that the equation is rebalanced during a time when most debt is being repaid is the government.

In fact for the government this is a no-brainer. Unless it spends in this way mass debt reduction will mean that the automatic stabilisers – benefits payments – will sky rocket as demand crashes and recession sets in – as Cameron is demanding. The alternative is to spend that money productively – on investment that creates employment.

But Cameron has not mentioned this. He wants everyone to cut debt – which is impossible. His failure to understand this logic is frightening. And it also guarantees recession.

And he’s in charge. Very scary indeed. You have every reason to be very, very worried. I am.

 

Sarah Montague was asking on the BBC this morning why George Osborne hadn’t cut corproate tax rates more.

On Saturday on PM and interviewer (sorry, can’t remember who) was demanding that the Tories cut the 50p tax rate.

Why is the BBC doing this?

Has to joined the Taxpayers’ Alliance? Or just forgotten its duty of impartiality?