Every day we're told that Britain can't afford the poor and that there isn't enough money for care, housing or wages. But the truth is the opposite: it's the poor who can't afford the rich.
In this video, I explain how wealth extraction through interest, rent, and monopoly profit acts like three hidden taxes on us all. These “taxes of rentier capitalism” drain our pay, inflate our bills, and keep poverty in place.
What this makes clear is that scarcity is a political choice, not an economic fact. Fiscal rules, low taxes on capital and privatisation all serve the wealthy, not society. Ending these subsidies could release the capacity for the investment we need in care, housing, and decent wages.
If we stop affording the rich, we can afford everyone else.
This is the audio version:
This is the transcript:
Who can we really afford? According to the wealthy, we can't afford the poor. But every day it's the poorest who pay for the richest in our society.
The real question isn't whether we can afford care, housing, or wages for those who are on low incomes in this country; it's whether we can afford the wealth extraction by a few that leaves those people in poverty. That's the question that we now really need to answer in our politics.
The question, 'Can we afford the poor?', which is implicit in the announcements from Rachel Reeves, Kemi Badenoch, Nigel Farage, and others, implies that there is scarcity: in other words, that the public support for those in poverty or pensions, and even the wages of those who are working so hard that they need two jobs to make ends meet, are somehow unaffordable.
All of that hides the truth: this scarcity that they talk about is, in fact, created by the rich through fiscal rules that they promote, and, of course, through the political control of the democratic system that their money buys. What is more, their wealth isn't a reward for production or creativity or flair; it's just a claim on everyone else's income.
There are, in fact, three taxes that are claimed by the wealthy.
One of those is interest payments on loans, because these, of course, enrich the people who lend money at cost to those who have to borrow it to make ends meet. That should be seen as a tax.
The second is the rents that enrich landlords whilst hollowing out the wage packets of those who have to live in that rented accommodation, often extracting 50% of their after-tax income to make payments for inadequate housing in which people have to live because they have no other choice. Society has denied them any other option.
And the last such tax that we all pay is through excessive prices, which are then turned into profits, which are celebrated in the media, but which are in fact extracted from us and paid to reward the rich and not reinvested, because we can see the consequence: we live in a society where we are told continually that there is no increase in productivity, there is no real growth, and there is no rate of return to capital, and that's precisely because the money has been misdirected by those who are already wealthy for their benefit and not for the benefit of society at large.
These then are the three taxes of rentier capitalism. Every household is paying these in some way or other.
They might be paying housing rent.
They might be paying rent inside the prices that they pay to companies who reward their wealthy directors excessively, but pass on that cost to the consumer.
They might be paying this tax through debt interest, whether on personal loans, or mortgages, or car loans, or anything else.
And, of course, there is always the monopoly profit extraction by things like the utility companies, whether that be electricity, gas, water, or whatever.
At the same time, public services also pay tribute to these people, and I use the word tribute deliberately in the way that it was understood in Roman times, as if it were a fee or tax. That's because the public services now pay private contractors inflated fees for services that should always have been delivered by the state.
Meanwhile, the government pays excessive interest on its so-called borrowing to keep the wealthy happy. There is no reason why we have a 4% interest rate at the moment that we are recording this video in this country. Even Rachel Reeves has said it is too high and a burden. But it's paid nonetheless because the Bank of England keep it in place. And the reason why they do so is to keep the wealthy happy.
For all these reasons, the poor are subsidising the rich and not the other way around.
The rich say welfare and wages must be restrained and that people must learn to live within their means. But the fact is that the inflated means of the wealthy depend on everyone else living below the limits of their means, and in fact, beyond the reasonable boundaries of possibility.
People are in poverty as a consequence of the demands of the wealthy. Fiscal rules, low taxes on capital, and privatisation have all entrenched this hierarchy of power that is weighted against most people in the UK and in many other countries as well. Responsibility has been redefined to protect the interests of wealth, and that is unacceptable.
There is, in fact, a moral inversion going on. Poverty is presented as a personal failure because that is the way it is constructed within neoliberal economics, which, of course, is only promoted by the wealthy. And wealth is seen as a moral virtue inside that same system of thinking, which is replicated in the ideas of Christian evangelical people preaching their stories of how, if only we believe in God, we will be rewarded with virtue here, represented by dollars, pounds, euros, yen, or whatever else.
And the fact is, none of that is true because who really depends on whom? The wealthy actually depend on public infrastructure and law, and cheap labour, and the power of the state to create money for them to use. And all of these are supplied collectively. They are, in fact, the biggest beneficiaries of the state they claim to resent.
There is this affordability myth as a consequence. If in practice we stopped subsidising rent, and we stopped subsidising profit, and we stopped interest extraction, public funds would, of course, multiply. We would have the cash available for households to make ends meet and to spend on those things that they need to have a good life.
If we just ended the tax subsidies to the wealthy, which I estimate could be as high as £170 billion a year, although we could never recover that sum by changing the tax system at present, but which I have shown to be possible to collect to the tune of £90 billion a year, then we could, in fact, totally reorientate the economy and create the investment that we need.
The argument that we can't afford the poor is an accounting lie built to protect the extractions of the wealthy. What we've got to do is reclaim what's affordable, because what's truly unaffordable is a system that pays more to wealth owners than to work, and that's what we've got.
What's affordable is a caring, sustainable economy once rentier claims are curbed, and that's the condition for an affordable economy.
The question then isn't a fiscal one, but a moral one. Whose futures are we choosing to afford? At the present point of time, our economy is structured to afford the wealthy, but the answer should be that we should choose to afford everyone, all people, and not a few.
We can, in fact, no longer afford the wealthy, as is now evident. What we must choose to do is to afford the rest of us.
So we have to change the policy. We need to equalise the actual taxation of earned and unearned income, something that I talked about in my Taxing Wealth Report, and there will be a link to that down below in this video.
Then we must cap land and monopoly rents, and either do that through public ownership of things like more social housing or through price controls in more industries, if that is necessary. We know it's possible. We now have to ask where it's necessary.
And maybe we should also look at democratising credit creation, because at the moment, that's denied to most of us. We can't get access to the resource that the wealthy have, which is money itself. So maybe the state has to rethink its role as a banker, and I believe it should, and it's something that is vital if we are to build that 'Courageous State' that I keep on talking about.
The rich ask, "Can we afford the poor?" The answer is, "We've been affording the rich for far too long." If we want an economy that works, we must be able to afford to care for each other and not the wealthy. Ending wealth extraction would make life possible for everyone else.
What do you think? Do you think, if actually, we cut the amount that the wealthy extract from our pay in the form of rents, in the form of excess pricing, in the form of profit extraction and so on, you'd then be able to make ends meet better? Do you think you'd have a better life? Do you think you'd be able to afford to care? Do you think you could look after your children better? Do you think you could look after your elderly relatives better? Do you think you'd have more family time? Do you think you would have better relationships?
I obviously can't put all those questions in a poll, but there is one down below. Let us know and tell us what you think in the comments as well. We do look at what you have to say. Thank you.
Poll
Loading ...Comments
When commenting, please take note of this blog's comment policy, which is available here. Contravening this policy will result in comments being deleted before or after initial publication at the editor's sole discretion and without explanation being required or offered.
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!
Talking about tax, Daniel Hannan has been sounding off about tax on X, quoting made-up numbers from the TPA. But never mind him, it was encouraging to see a clear explanation about where public spending comes from in the pages of The Canary article refuting Hannan’s garbage, courtesy of James Wright. It’s getting through. Today, the Canary, tomorrow, …?
https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2025/11/11/lord-hannan-budget-tax/
Inequality and care may be considered as political opposites.
A politics of care is a politics of equity. A policy of care is necessary and possible. Just needs pragmatism and the abandonment, after 40 years, of neo-liberal idealism.
Mamdani victory gives me hope that a young will mobilise to support politicians prepared to confront reality.
Aside from rents, mortgage holders are also paying the cost of those higher interest rates.
This is where even the 5th and 6th wealth deciles end up feeling their position is still fairly precarious, because debt payments are often high enough that any savings would be eliminated almost immediately in any periods of loss of income
Yes, indeed we can’t afford the wealthy.
But we, the citizens of the UK, or at least those capable of progressive rational thought, also cannot afford to do nothing more than write to their MPs reinforcing or echoing points made by Richard’s videos and articles.
That is not serious campaigning. That requires the “hard yards” of authentic engagements with the electorate by citizens who understand the progressive narrative alternative to neoliberalism and at least some of the practical policies that underpin it and the real threat of fascism and are determined to articulate it in authentic engagement with other citizens.
The obvious vehicle for that campaigning is the Green Party (GPEW) but it must become rather more professional and clear about its purpose than it seems to have been to date. I express the point reservedly because my own experience of Green Party campaigning is in Manchester Green Party, but I believe that it is quite typical of the Green Party’s campaigning in general.
The Green Party’s campaigning is based on the Targeting to Win document but that is concerned with winning council seats. That is bound to be inadequate for gaining MPs and eschews the role of the progressive narrative in authentic engagement with the electorate.
The Green Party membership may now be more radical and progressive than it was pre-Polanski and may recognise the inadequacy of the existing approach to campaigning. That justifies the hope that the campaigning of the Green party will become more assertive in explicitly aiming to persuade voters to vote for the Green Party and even to join it as activists in the movement for a government of the people for the people by the people.
Interesting article by George Monbiot here where he talks about high rents and property prices as a form of ‘Private Taxation’
https://www.monbiot.com/2019/07/19/private-taxation/
Possibly a term that might push the right buttons
As far as I understand it though one of the reasons for the ban on Usury that is still present in Islam and used to be in Christianity as well, is a realisation that in a ‘gold based’ money supply, the supply of money was finite and in particular if you start ‘allowing ‘making money from money’ you can end up with a situation wher e a group of people or even just one person ends up with all the money.
While modern money doesnt work like that finite resources do so the millionaires McMansion no Council Houses
I described them as such in a video last week, I think.
Rentierism is tax by any other name.
You’d think a majority of voters would realise by now we don’t have adequate economic contributive justice in this country because our democracy is inadequate. Instead we have politician shills for the rich playing the distraction game of fantasy blaming and scapegoating others. Sadly many voters with poor thinking skills go along with this. It’s always been the case in all life forms there’s been a need to restrain cheaters but we are failing to recognise that the invention of money has given greater advantage to human cheaters.
I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment of your post. I agree with your proposals. I certainly agree that without rentier “taxes” the country could better afford to care. But, I think it is much worse than you state!
Doubtless we could easily, and should, tax the wealthy much more. But we don’t need to do so to care, we just have to do it. It is a political choice not to care. If we can actually care, provide decent education, health, housing, public services and support those in need, then we can do it. As the sixth largest economy in the world we CAN do these things.
We can, for example, pay for university education without burdening our young people with crushing debt. How do I know? Because we ARE educating them; we’re just dumping rentier taxes on them. The government could simple borrow from the Bank of England (or, equivalently, create the money if you prefer) and abolish (new) loans. But, neoliberals would say, “that will create inflation”. Well, no it won’t. Why not? Because we’re already educating these young people. No extra real resources are needed. There would be no increased demand and hence no inflationary pressure. The government simply chooses not to pay and to burden students with debt.
Other public services are similar even if the details are less obvious.
We CAN afford a caring society. But the government(s) CHOOSE not to do so and tell us it’s impossible, that we can’t afford it.
Of course there is no magic solution. But, really, can it be that a huge modern economy, is not be able to afford to care? That’s utter nonsense. And, absolutely, the wealthy should be taxed much more to reduce inequality and excessive political influence, but that’s a separate issue.
We can afford a decent society, it’s not dependent on taxiing the rich. It is simply a political choice not to care. It doesn’t have to be this way.
Thanks
Make sure you have put any drinks down before opening
https://x.com/i/status/1987499359752097840
Flicking through the news channels, I saw Daisy Cooper, Liberal Democrat, say on Sky that we should have a windfall tax on the banks citing the interest payments on their CBRA . She would use part of released money to lower VAT on hospitality.
Whatever the merits or not of that, I would think it better to just reduce the interest paid as you have long argued.
But we may be seeing a bit of fresh thinking even though it has a long way to go.
A very good video & good title.
Thanks
Have you read Why We Can’t Afford The Rich by Andrew Sayer? I don’t see it mentioned as a source but it is basically the same message, so if you haven’t read it, you might find more arguments there and a deepening of your knowledge.
I have a copy – but amn not sure I ever read more than the introduction. Sorry.
Why We Can’t Afford The Rich by Andrew Sayer
https://policy.bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/trade/why-we-cant-afford-the-rich
The planet can’t afford the carbon footprint of the rich either.
https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/billionaires-emit-more-carbon-pollution-90-minutes-average-person-does-lifetime
What annoys me profoundly is that we, as a society, instruct our government to create money by spending into the economy. That money created is OUR money, for the benefit of all of us. Unfortunately what we have allowed, as a society, is for the government to divert disproportionate, often obscene, amounts of our money to be captured by a minority. This minority tries to establish themselves as ‘special’ and ‘deserving’ when, if their contributions to society are examined, they are no such thing, certainly not to the hugely disproportionate extent that we currently have.
There is ample scope for merit and intellect to be recognised and rewarded but within a much more fair and just system.
All should have their basic needs met before any can then go on to acquire surplus because we all have an equal claim to the money created in our name.
That aside….if we took all of the proposals in the Taxing Wealth Report and applied them to the wealthy then, having paid their dues, they would still be….wealthy.
It is the failure of these avaricious,dog-in-the-manger individuals to acknowledge this that is particularly galling.
Another good video. On the productivity side of things, it is a sad indictment of the lack of inspiration of publicly listed companies that they would rather reinvest bloated profits into buying back their own shares, rather than investing in something much more productive. But then these buybacks just increase the wealth of the management team, and do nothing for increasing productivity over the medium to long term.
It always seem an irony that the wealthy demand free movement of capital across borders, but argue that we cannot have more freedom of people across borders. Why is that capital is free to roam the globe seeking the largest tax free return? Better to hoard your wealth and take advice from your “trusted” advisors than ensure that whatever you sell can be purchased by more people.
Much to agree with
It’s only 5 years since Covid lockdowns. Then, we appreciated vital workers; we clapped for nurses, and appreciated the dustmen, the train and bus drivers, the people who served in shops — so many of whom are now “the poor” who we can’t afford. What happened to that true perception of our vital services and the people who carry them out?