We have just published this short video on YouTube and many other channels.
This is the transcript:
Inequality is undermining our economy. That's the consequence of too much income going to those at the top of the economic pile in the UK.
Those wealthy people do not spend most of what they earn. Their money is saved and not circulated. The result is that demand across the whole of our economy is weakened. Inequality leads directly to stagnation as a result. It's deeply dangerous to our well-being.
What we must do is spread spending power more widely. Those with lower and middle incomes spend most of what they earn. They don't have any choice but do so after all, that's all they've got to live on. Their spending power then supports jobs and businesses.
When their incomes fall because of wealth concentration, the whole economy suffers. Redistribution restores demand where it is needed. It gives the money that is required for those on lower and middle incomes to spend in the way that keeps economic activity going in this country.
Without redistribution, instability in the UK would grow. Weak demand leads to low growth, and underinvestment and wealth concentration just encourages that. The economy then becomes reliant on debt taken out by those on lower and middle incomes to sustain spending.
Meanwhile, asset bubbles are going on at the top of the wealth pile because they've got nothing to spend their money on and chase investment opportunities which aren't real. That replaces real economic activity, and the consequence is social tensions rise alongside inequality. We've seen that with regard to the price of housing. This makes our whole economy fragile and crisis-prone.
We need redistribution as a consequence. It's not optional. It sustains demand and economic stability. It reduces dependence on debt and speculation. It supports employment and productive investment.
Extreme inequality of the sort we've got is economically damaging.
Redistribution keeps the economy functioning properly.
It's time to tax wealth, and the income and gains from wealth properly. Our economy requires it, and we have to get on with it now.
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!
Baby boomers, like me, are saving pretty significant sums of money, if they can, to pay for possible care costs in future, as these costs are often very high. This must be having a fairly depressive effect on the wider economy. For this, I don’t think taxing savings is the right answer, as that would just make paying for care even more difficult. What’s needed is decent collective provision of care services, so we can spend a bit more.
If public funding for care costs was more humanely organised, you might need not to save quite so much for it. Just like I doubt you are saving to pay for medical care in old age, despite the fact that medical costs tend to increase rapidly as a person ages.
We don’t expect children to have funds to pay for local authority care placements. Looking after older people with decency and respect should be part of the responsibility of our whole society.
Yet somehow we cannot afford it. Perhaps we would be more comfortable pushing the aged back into the workhouse?
You can’t repeat this too often Richard. Every BBC economy report or interview always implicitly or explicitly suggest that equality is a sort of nice to have – but is only possible after the mystery growth process which can only come about by having ever richer ‘wealth producers’ around. Utter bilge – but never questioned.<p>
The simple fact that lower and middle income people spend their income into the economy and create growth in suppliers of goods and services, whereas the rich don’t, should be pretty obvious.<p>
If it is coupled with ‘we can afford to mobilise whatever unused resources we have ‘ like unemployed doctors and nurses , and unemployed young people , then we do have a way to boost the economy – the now not so mysterious growth,
Thanks.
You could add migrants to the list of under utilised assets. It is bonkers that it a. takes years to process asylum claims and
b. while waiting immigration decisions the people are not allowed to work
Can anyone find that wonerful Kevin Bridges skit about making ‘The Dole’ about £1000 a week?
Had fun searching! Here you go:
https://youtu.be/c8mRWW3C_Kk?si=LUYMBDPF_28ojuCi
Might a start be the clearly stated pronouncement by rulers and mass communicators etc. that our tax set ups favour the wealthy?
Might a second step be to make them genuinely more progressive and less partial?
In the United States, where the Supreme Court decision Citizens United enabled unlimited donations to political candidates (the one dollar one vote decision), the wealthiest 300 individuals now own the administration, the GOP congress members, and the Court.
The Working Americans Tax Cut Act, introduced by Senator Chris Van Hollen (MD), Senator Mark Kelly (AZ), Representative Don Beyer (VA-08), and a number of their congressional colleagues on March 12, creates an affordability tax cut paid for by millionaires. What it does:
Provides a Cost of Living Exemption (COLE) on federal taxes up to the cost of living for a single adult with no children (approximately $46,000 per year). It will take into account married couples filing jointly and heads of household, too. Middle-income earners will still have federal income tax obligations, but will nonetheless get some relief.
Transfers the responsibility for the lost revenue to the millionaire class by establishing a surtax on incomes over $1 million. It will apply:
A 5% surtax on any income over $1 million for single filers and $1.5 million for joint filers.
A 10% surtax on any income over $2 million for single filers and $3 million for joint filers.
A 12% surtax on any income in excess of $5 million for single filers and $7.5 million for joint filers.
Is deficit-neutral and only applies to federal income tax, not payroll or local taxes.
The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy estimates that the bill would extend tax relief to no fewer than 130 million Americans. The Yale Budget Lab also estimates that about 615,000 millionaires across the country would be liable for the surtax.