The government is asking for design ideas for the back of the new £1 coin.
Here are a few messages I can think of
You've had the cash now pay your tax
Or
Money - one of the great things government does for you
Or
This coin is yours for a moment. The NHS is for life
Or
£1 in tax helps provide a child with hope
They won't happen, of course.
But why not?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Why don’t they just print your face on the coin instead of the Queen’s while they’re at it.
Oh dear: how sad that comment really is
How depressing, there are 10 people who like this comment.
Besides, why not have inspirational camapigners on the coins? Richard has devoted his life to tax justice, and the good of all … not good enough for you Terry? Maybe just stick to counting your money, and the broken bodies of the 3rd world poor who earn it for you.
I’m sorry, but I’m very very angry right now.
More likely to be sold off as advertising inventory.
The best thing I can think of would be “Austerity – never again!” Or “this coin is not for use by the 1%”.
I like those
Which 1%?
If you earn in excess of £35k a year you are in the top 1% of earners world-wide.
And in the UK it would cover anyone from those earning £160k to a multi-billionaire, two people who would have little in common in economic outlook.
Richard, I’m not sure why you should applaude such a petty, vindictive outlook. I thought you would judge a person on more than just their income. After all, you and your wife probably sit comfortably in the top 10% of family incomes. Should the 90% revile you because of that?
Metaphor clearly passes you by
I’m fully aware of what a metaphor is.
All I’m seeing is an explicit message to a group of people based on their income that they are not welcome (although no doubt their tax is).
Perhaps you could explain what the metaphor is that you see in Howard’s suggestion?
Maybe you are unable to differentiate a person and their wealth. If so, it says a lot about you
Most of us can readily do so
Perhaps you should read a little of John Rawls’ philosophy
“Maybe you are unable to differentiate a person and their wealth. If so, it says a lot about you”
Didn’t you endorse an article entitled “all billionaires are bastards” a while back?
Not that I am aware of
But if I did (and you people seem to spend your life documenting everything I say in detail which is why I do not believe you have just emerged out of the woodwork) then I suspect it was for content reasons
But again, a literal mind could not comprehend that
“Richard, I’m not sure why you should applaude such a petty, vindictive outlook. I thought you would judge a person on more than just their income”
Were Richard to do so (& for all I know he may) he might be accused of being rather naive. The top 1% in this country distinguish themselves by:
1) Their access to Parliament
2) Their control of the media
3) Effectively setting their own tax rate
4) Using their untaxed income to buy control of universities & charitable foundations
5) So fixing markets that they cannot fail
It would seem, to me, absurdly silly to suggest that the 1% in this country don’t pose a very real risk to the wellbeing of the 99%. As well to say that the wolf in a pasture is merely killing time amongst the sheep.
eriugenus
Out of curiosity, how many of the 1% do you personally know? Your language sounds paranoid and reminiscent of the language the Nazis used to describe and villify the jews. I act for a number of people whose income puts them in the top 1%. They are wholly uninterested in politics and the media or buying universities and would laugh at your suggestion that they are fixing things so they can’t fail. They are just businessmen running their businesses and you are seeking to demonise them, ascribe actions and motives to them based purely on their income without knowing anything about them at all.
If you want to criticise particular people for particular actions, that’s fine but to create an arbitray divide and a hatefull ‘them and us’ culture based on prejudices serves no good purpose.
Andrew
You are wrong
Of course they are interested in those things
I have never met one who is not
It’s only blinkers that make you not see the reality
Richard
Money is a claim on wealth. It is not wealth in itself.
I agree
For many reasons
Why not just “render unto Caesar” – in latin of course, as at least most people will recognise this.
Redde Caesari quae sunt Caesaris
Given the enormous range of interpretations of that phrase I suggest it adds not a lot to understanding and is alienating to many
Maybe you are unaware of that?
If so, open your mind
?
Are you in a bad mood today? insults seem to be your default mode. Malcolm suggested a phrase, I merely supplied the Latin translation he asked for, without any comment on its suitability.
And I suggested why it should not be used
What about: ” this pound is debt free -the rest (97%) isn’t”
Can’t do that one in Latin -I’m afraid.
Do the 1% know what a £1 coin is?
Well, I don’t think any of us will do better than Richard’s original suggestions, which are just excellent, and the last is pretty emotional too.
This one I like in particular:
“Money — one of the great things government does for you”
This strikes mercilessly at the core of neo-liberalist wrongness. We have been programmmed to believe that we should be “keeping more of our own money”. Er, no. No government, no structure, and we’d all be living in caves.
Governments allow us to keep x amount, and that’s how it should be. This is particularly important as on our own, we tend to make unprogressive or harmful spending decisions (4×4’s, GM crops, sexist tabloids, whatever)
We agree!