The new Oxfam report to which I have already referred this morning includes an appraisal of who benefitted from the the increase in the UK's wealth between 2000 and 2015. The data can be summarised quite easily:
I happen to know the authors of this estimate: I trust them. But even if there is a margin for error nothing can justify such increase in the concentration of wealth.
In the Joy of Tax I unambiguously argued for wealth taxation. I am sure that the time for this has come. I am not optimistic it will happen this week.
But as an aside, this is why we campaign. If like Oxfam, and if like me, your concern is for the relief of poverty then we have a duty to point out that policy - whoever created it - is not working.
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!
And for this we have both New Labour and the Tories and even the Lib Dems, all of whom participated in the UK governments that oversaw and/or actively promoted this level of inequality developing in this country on their watch.
So all three political parties in this country have “blood on their hands” with this issue. Now if that is not a credibility issue for all those parties and damning indictment of the state of the UK’s political and economic democracy – I don’t know what else could be.
They cannot blame each other anymore, they all need to take a long hard look in their own mirrors and decide on who’s side they really are now. Because the results clearly show on who’s side they have previously been.
Yes Keith,
But there is also a degree of blame falling upon those who voted for them and those who did not vote.
I read this and Keith’s reply with interest. I like, I suspect, many who read Richard’s blog, would feel that it is totally unacceptable in a modern society , that over one quarter of the increase in wealth over the last 15 years should go to just the richest 1% of the population. But is this, as Keith suggests, just the fault of our politicians, or is it also the fault of our media and ourselves as voters. Encouraged by a media mostly owned by people who make up the richest 5% we are fed a diet of growth is great, tax is bad, public services are wasteful and the deficit must be eliminated. But the worst lie is that we mustn’t upset the richest people because if we tax them anymore than at present then they take their money out of the country and we’ll all be worse-off as a result. Having accepted this prescription of our country’s woes we vote for right wing parties again and again. Therefore politicians who want power offer us what we ask for, namely a more unequal society based on concepts such as ‘trickle-down’ and we the British Voters vote for them.
We now have a real alternative with a Labour Party lead by a left-winger and with a shadow chancellor, who would pursue policies designed to close the gap between the richest and poorest in society. But the polling organisations, if we trust them after the 2015 General Election, shows support for Labour falling because, we are told, Labour doesn’t have a credible economic track record. If we really want a more equitable society then all of us need to get behind Labour and get a Labour Government elected in 2020 which will pursue economic and tax policies to bring about such a fairer society.
In answer to Brian and Marco – we have to accept that in a first past the post voting system, it is not just those who vote for the Labour party who influence the results.
In fact it could easily be argued that the people most likely to elect a new left wing government will be the behaviour of Lib Dem, Green Party or even SNP voters in marginal Tory or Labour seats.
And therein lies the fundamental problem, very few people will get the government it wants because the structure of government and elections in this country is so biased to favouring a two party state (in which both parties can easily be corrupted by vested interests to support the status quo).
So I share the frustration in wanting the Tories removed, but I have never voted Labour in my life as I’ve never lived anywhere during years when I cared about politics where a Labour vote would have been anything but a vote to make a Tory MP more likely.
Until the voting system is changed the best we can do is make sure everyone who cares about the general direction of travel this country is taking to vote tactically (which is not what politics should be about at all!)
Unfortunately Labour is full of useless M.Ps who dance to the neo-liberal tune, so they are, as effective as chocolate teapots. McDonell/Corbyn have not yet challenged the memes of neo-liberalism with any success or vigour.
We now have to accept we are living in a ‘no-party-system’ where the financial sector IS the Government with politicians as puppets of these forces. Our Governments are largely ‘managerial castrati’.
The only change can happen by a critical mass of grass roots protest together with the work of independent campaigners like Richard. I’m hopeful this will happen but it will take years which means more suffering and further absurd levels of wealth syphoning.
This article gives a further insight into where we are: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/mar/12/family-office-private-wealth-funds
Another way of looking at it is that this is another welcome nail in the coffin of the theory of ‘trickle down’ economics.
As multi-millionaire Nick Hanauer tells the super-rich plutarchs – ‘the pitchforks are coming’.
What will undo them is their own greed and this is evidence of how greedy they are. The seeds of capitalism’s own destruction reside in human behaviour.
I do not know what the breaking point for this uneven accumulation of wealth is. We are so often thrown off the scent by those who rule so that we end up placing the blame on others (immigrants, benefits etc.,) but believe you me this is yet another step towards change although I confess that it does not feel like it.
The Oxfam report says in the notes that they got their data from Credit-Suisse 2013 and 2014 reports.
“Oxfam calculations based on Credit Suisse (2013 and 2014).
Calculations include negative wealth (i.e. debt), therefore the bottom 10 % includes some people who are in net debt, such as graduates with loans to repay, but the majority are people with small amounts of net wealth. This group has net wealth of only a tenth of 1 % of UK wealth and is negligible to the overall picture of a divided Britain. Negative wealth as a share of total wealth has remained constant over time, such that wealth distribution trends over time are not affected”
How did Oxfam get 2015 into the headline based on this?
Go and read the report
And please try to be original – this issue has been dealt with so many times now I can’t be bothered with trolls who raise it
The report defines tax havens this way:
“Tax havens are jurisdictions or territories which have intentionally adopted fiscal and legal frameworks that allow non-residents to minimise the amount of taxes they pay where they perform substantial economic activity”
That’s rather different to the Tax Justice Network’s primary definition.
I’m surprised you endorsed it.
That looks quite close to my definition