Oxfam has what I think to be a major new report out today. This is the cover, which tells its own story:
And these are the recommendations:
I warmly endorse these calls.
I make clear that it is absolutely right that a poverty dedicated to the relief of poverty should, and should have the right to, say such things.
I believe it essential that these things happen.
And let me stress how it might happen. As Oxfam note in the report:
Poverty in the EU is not an issue of scarcity, but a problem of how resources — income and wealth — are shared. Credit Suisse estimates that the richest one percent of Europeans (including non-EU countries) hold almost a third of the region's wealth, while the bottom 40 percent of the population share less than one percent of Europe's total net wealth. In other words: the richest seven million people in Europe have the same amount of wealth as the poorest 662 million people (including non-EU countries).
Redistribution is key.
We need to commit to it, unreservedly.
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:
Absolutely right. Only the greedy or wilfully ignorant could disagree.
And they will.
It’s not even that Richard. We can make everyone absolutely better off by producing more stuff that otherwise wouldn’t get do done or made.
But the politics of envy on the right stops that by denying resources are being wasted – “why don’t you just give everyone a million Euros, then”
It’s all rather silly.
Unless Corbyn gets in there will be no audible voice for this in ‘Westmonster.’ There might be a Corbyn ‘effect’ in that if weather-vane Burnham or Weimar-Zimbabwe Cooper get in they will have to take note of Corbyn’s following but I suspect they will climb straight back into their bubble and dance around the middle-England vox populi as before.
I have no problem with some redistribution, Richard, but I think the goal should be to ‘maximise the minimum’, not ‘minimise the maximum’. I want the best deal for those at the bottom of the heap; but I don’t want to kill the geese that lay the golden eggs.
The geese are not laying golden eggs
They’re cuckoos
Prof Bill Mitchell might put the argument slightly differently. He says we don’t need to tax the wealthy to achieve our social ends. I do have mixed feelings about this approach. I can see that what he’s saying is academically and technically correct, but I do wonder about the politics of ‘selling’ this concept.
Still, it’s an argument we might want to familiarise ourselves with:
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=31604
Need is not the same as wanting to do so to redistribute
I do think we need to redistribute
You make a fundamental point, Richard-it’s getting the message across that Tax is about redistribution and behavioural changes that have, hopefully, a democratic basis once we’ve reintroduced the concept of ‘public purpose’ that neo-liberalism has nearly annihilated.
Income tax is certainly a highly divisive issue. It is key to dividing the majority. Mostly that majority statistically have virtually nothing as individuals and should be united against those who statistically have so much. Income tax acts as the divider. Joe Bloggs earning 50k sees himself as a “have” sacrificing so much for the “have-nots”.
Selling a low, or zero, income tax policy to the majority (say those earning less that 100k) surely can’t be that hard. Joe Bloggs, above, feels he needs to be tough because he’s squeezed at both ends. I believe that this toughness is an act of self defence. He does want great public services, but he doesn’t want to pay for them out of his pittance. We know he doesn’t have to.
The rich, on the other hand, love income tax. It enables them to aggrandise their value to society and acts as an enabler toward their grossly exaggerated incomes (“look at all that lovely tax money we provide”).
Taxing the income of the rich is currently a low priority for me. They can safely be ignored, along with their bluster. Number 1 priority is “taxes for revenue are obsolete”. This is the key message that needs to get home.
It is a leap from understanding the real nature of tax to what you suggest
And one that involves a crash in the size of the government
Bill Mitchell sums up well what is needed at the end of his article: “Developing comprehension is just the first step. A bold confidence is also required to withstand the vilification that comes with expressing ideas that are contrary to the neo-liberal norms.”
The impression I get is that MMT you don’t NEED to tax the wealthy to have public services but tax is desirable and necessary for many other social purposes.
Precisely
I am thick skinned
Sadly, all too many on the left are buying into the scarcity meme. There is plenty in the world for everyone’s needs. The big problem, as you said, is that too much is concentrated in too few hands…hands that are in the pursuit of relentless profit.
There badly needs to be a shift away from this, and the sooner the better.
Oxfam are treading carefully. They are a recipient of EU and UK government funding, so it’s no wonder they are so soft in their criticisms, including the lack of democracy.
For example, Oxfam say they want better democracy but they are not championing the 2 million+ people defined as legal permanent tax-paying residents of the UK who are denied the vote in General Elections because they are EU nationals.
This could have swung the outcome of the 2015 election to a cooperation based
hung parliament.