I did this interview on LBC this afternoon:
‘We want to actually collect money.'
Political economist @RichardJMurphy tells @SangitaMyska how Labour should raise tax funds, ‘all from the wealthiest' – as Rachel Reeves pledges to scrap the Wealth Tax. pic.twitter.com/hQYXuIw5gj
— LBC (@LBC) August 27, 2023
It could have gone better: the fixation is what is not possible or undesirable rather than with what can be done.
I will be working on starting my series on this issue this week, if possible,
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!
Well, no-one can accuse you of not having a go Richard can they?
The key message here is how low income people are actually charged more tax for having a job and earning less than the rich.
This should be taken apart publically, one advantage the rich have in the current tax regime at a time.
As for Labour, I would not even hang up their manifesto in my toilet.
“As for Labour, I would not even hang up their manifesto in my toilet.”
That’s how I feel. Quite amazing really they’ve lost track of what they were originally set up to do. You might think they’d be announcing if elected they’d take a good hard look at how to make taxation more equitable which is all part of understanding how a society uses the tool of money. Instead we get the unbelievable statement from her of “I don’t see the way to prosperity as being through taxation.”
https://news.sky.com/story/no-wealth-tax-under-a-labour-government-shadow-chancellor-rachel-reeves-says-12949110
Labour are quite simply now a Mickey Mouse party of the right and people only vote for them as Peter Mandelson very cynically stated because they have nowhere else to go (excepting Scotland of course)!
Liebore ain’t listening becasue they
… are very relaxed about very rich people & would never think of lumping taxes on them (can’t think where I heard about “being relaxed about rich people”… its funny what you retain when listening to imbeciles). Continuing the tradition of citing musical prophets, I will leave you Credence Clear Water Revival – and Bad Moon Rising – lyrics for our time – a disaster for everybody!:
I see the bad moon arising
I see trouble on the way
I see earthquakes and lightnin’
I see bad times today
Don’t go around tonight
Well, it’s bound to take your life
There’s a bad moon on the rise
I hear hurricanes a-blowing
I know the end is coming soon
I fear rivers overflowing
I hear the voice of rage and ruin
Very good
Mike: “being relaxed about rich people” – actually it was “intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich” by Peter Mandelson. The one time I heard him talk, about free trade, it was clear he is profoundly undemocratic, so much so I was quite shocked.
It seems that there is always going to be intense resistance to any significant changes in our tax system. Given that the central government doesn’t actually need wealthy people’s money to “pay for” any spending commitments, could we maybe start framing that the need for taxing the wealthy is really about reducing inequality and build a case based on the evidence highlighting the societal damage that our extremely unequal society causes? It seems that arguing about how much various taxes will raise continues to play into the flat earth theory when we need to make them realise that the world is round.
That is my framing
Further to Vince’s argument, it is not through money that we convey our needs and wants to the market place and our claim on the resources needed to meet them? Is it right that those who have acquired vastly more money than others should have the privilege of commanding that resources are used to produce private jets, luxury yachts, mansion style homes, gourmet meals, designer clothing etc., while millions of others do not have the money to command the supply of basic housing, nutritious food, convenient transport etc.? Limiting the cornering of the use of natural and human resources by the few seems to me to demand a mechanism to distribute the power of money more widely – through the design of taxation.
Economists assume the issue you refer to away by assuming we all have equal access to capital.
That, of course, is absurd.
Looks like Labour is clawing back some seats in Scotland, despite mirroring much of Tory policy. This is to do with SNP imploding, a fervent unionist press & a desire by just over half the population to be lorded over by an archaic establishment backing Westminster institution that stokes resentment of Scotland. I’m English. It’s odd that a socially conscious country like Scotland wouldn’t want to be in control of its purse strings. GERS is a joke.
Like the Tories, the SNP is looking like a party tired by oower.
The support for Indy has not fallen.
I hope peiople realise that vitonmg Labour is not a protest vote in Scotland.
Alan, with support for independence consistently sitting around 50% despite the barrage of doom by the almost entirely Unionist media, my view is that any gains made by Labour in Scotland are more likely to be taken from the Tories than SNP. I’m not a member of any political party, but my outsider’s view is that the crises in the SNP result from the party being run like a small family business with the “front office” and the “back office” effectively being run by a married couple. That inevitably leads to stifling of innovation, of healthy debate, of dissenting opinions etc and should never have been allowed to take root in a democratic party representing the opinions and hopes of half a nation.
Where I agree with you is that GERS is a joke, albeit in very bad taste, but I’m pretty certain that the majority of Scots have observed the chaotic and harmful policies foisted on us by successive Westminster governments (and now supported by Starmer’s Labour Party) and have concluded that Scotland would be better off in control of its own purse strings. The hard fact is that the SNP is currently the only party with enough support (internal and public) to deliver independence and conduct all the associated negotiations – like them or not we will need a “figure-head” party to do this. The Alba party hasn’t the support or talent pool to do it and Salmond has a track-record which causes mistrust – who will forget him blowing the economic debate with Darling in 2014 on which the whole referendum pivoted, or the parade of his peccadillos in the High Court case against him?
The signs of disintegration of the UK are evident across its 4 nations and Scotland, with its huge natural resources and more socialist views, simply cannot afford to be dragged down; Brexit was surely enough evidence of madness in Westminster governance?
It may seem as if you are shouting into a void, but actually I think it’s really important that you carry on doing this essential work. Increasing numbers of people are expressing their frustration at Labour’s current line, and it’s vital that there are concrete, practical ideas out there to be picked up – which you are providing. I would like to believe (hoping against hope possibly) that at some point (even if after an election victory) Labour will actually want some of these ideas, which can probably be implemented as what are often called in the MSM ‘stealth taxes’, i.e. hardly anyone will notice them because either they don’t pay them or they don’t understand them or both. (I’m pretty convinced most of the MSM doesn’t understand them either, outside specialist economic commentators.)