George Osborne has said today to the Institute of Directors that businesses:
get out there and put the business argument. Because there are plenty of pressure groups, plenty of trade unions and plenty of charities and the like, that will put the counter view.
It is, I know, a difficult decision sometimes to put your head above the parapet, but that is the only way we are going to win this argument for an enterprising, business, low-tax economy that delivers prosperity for the people and generations to come.
Let's remember who Osborne said this to and what they think.
The IoD is the body that with the Taxpayers' Alliance put forward the 2020 Tax Commission that demanded that:
- no tax rate exceed 30% in the UK,
- corporation tax should be abolished,
- stamp duty and wealth taxes should all be abolished and
- that government spending should not exceed 33% of GDP meaning that spending equivalent to the whole of the NHS would have to be cut.
These are George's friends and this is their vision of a 'enterprising, business, low-tax economy'.
I am proud to have worked with trade unions and NGOs who oppose that view of society which has implicit within it these assumptions:
- that the market will always make the best judgements
- that the government should not intervene in the operation of markets
- that rewards are fairly distributed by the market and that if some cannot survive on what they get that is their problem to resolve
- that it is not the state's job to provide such basic services as education, health, pensions and a social safety net for all
- that state spending can be cut to levels last seen before World War 2 when the school leaving age was 14 and there was no NHS.
To suggest when we say that we are opposed to such a view of society does not mean we are opposed to business. It says we are opposed to this Downton Abbey view of society.
And it says that we do not think a modern society made up of modern businesses could prosper without both the supply of state infrastructure and well trained and healthy employees who have confidence that they can take the risk of working for a single employer because there is a safety net provided by the state if something goes wrong with that company.
But when we constructively oppose business - as we have, for example, most successfully on tax in recent years - we do so precisely because we know that unless business operates on the fair and open level playing field that is only possible if tax haven, tax avoidance and tax evasion are beaten by the tax transparency that we have demanded then society can never secure the benefits that business can provide for all, but which are otherwise diverted to the few who cheat the system. As a result it has been the work of trade unions and charities in highlighting tax abuse and demanding change on that issue that has been the single most pro-business campaign run by anyone in this country in recent years.
That George Osborne does not know or appreciate this tells us a great deal about where his sympathies lie on this issue. He's not telling the IoD to go out and talk about business. He's promoting neoliberalism, market abuse and the small state that leaves most people without essential services and support when he makes the sort of comment he made today. Which is precisely why trade unions and charities have to exist to protect those who would be exploited in the world he seeks to promote.
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:
Arguing for low tax on Corporations is one thing.
Since, to the best of my knowledge, no Corporate entity has ever paid IHT or higher-rate IT, it is odd the IoD can be so convinced they are antagonistic to the well-being of their Corporations.
It may be that they think these taxes reduce their sources of funding & of income, which would be reasonable if they put forward any kind of economic analysis to support their claims,
Or it may simply be that they, as Directors, want to take out as much as they can whilst minimising their contribution to the state. In which case, @@@@@ em.
The “anti-business” agenda that li’l George so objects to would be better characterised as “anti-finance”.
If you think its “anti-business”, how do you explain that it is followed in Germany yet they still make cars there?
Christ, Osborne really is a joke isn’t he? Despite the failure of the Thatcherite ‘the market always knows best’ approach as shown by the financial crash, he’s still peddling the same right wing drivel. As Richard says, the type of capitalism that Osborne and his ilk want is the same one whose exploitation of ordinary people in the 19th century gave birth to trade unions in the first place.
It’s the ‘sweat the assets’ approach where the owner(s) of the business want to get the absolute maximum out for the bare minimum they can get away with put in. Anybody with a shred of compassion or feeling for others would oppose this.
As I’ve said before, ‘Forward to the 1930’s with the coalition!’
Even the Telegraph is asking why aren’t the middle-class staging a revolution. The article refers to financialisation which swallows up companies , strips assets and leaves the employees in the street -the sort of thing Osborne and his chums admire.
Here:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11109845/Why-arent-the-British-middle-classes-staging-a-revolution.html
”But when we constructively oppose business — as we have, for example, most successfully on tax in recent years — we do so precisely because we know that unless business operates on the fair and open level playing field that is only possible if tax haven, tax avoidance and tax evasion are beaten by the tax transparency that we have demanded then society can never secure the benefits that business can provide for all, but which are otherwise diverted to the few who cheat the system.”
That is it in a nutshell!
Well said.
Simon
That mostly went on under New Labour, aide d by Madelson’s infamous laissez faire approach & Blair’s determination to be the most evil man in modern history. There are hardly any manufacturing businesses left now.
You will also have noticed that many public services, particularly nursing homes, went the same highly-leveraged way.
A lot of us complained 15 years ago. Man U fans complained 10 years ago. I remember being taught that one of the founding principles of the Co Act was that you couldn’t buy a Co with its own money. I still, actually, don’t know why no-one has attempted to enforce that simple & so important rule, but its way too late now.
15 years ago we still had manufacturing in Birmingham & the Black Country. Oddly enough the loss of Phones4U doesn’t make me cry into my glass!
I admit that I also agree that the lack if willing to enforce that principle in company and tax law is baffling
But you gave to remember group structures are used to achieve it and the pretence is offered that each member is independent of the others even though we all know it is a lie
eriugenus – I agree, but the fact that a Telegraph writer can say this:
“It’s just another example of people who build and make nothing gutting businesses, privatising the profits and socialising the losses.”
And:
“All these guys care about is money. They don’t care about society. They certainly don’t care about jobs and they don’t care about you.”
and:
If there’s a buck to made jacking up your mortgage, or asset-stripping the company you work for, privatising some local service you rely on or selling a publicly-owned amenity you enjoy, they won’t think twice. In fact, they won’t even think once.”
And:
“If I were a member of the working classes who’d been laid off in the ’80s or ’90s, I might be laughing at the middle classes right now. Because we’ve duped and screwed by the elite just as the lower orders (sic!) were”
I’m sure I’m a million miles away from the politics of this writer but if the Telegraph is saying this and Labour isn’t – how bad are things in the political sphere?
Bad
The only political party which is promoting a different strategy to that of ‘business-as-usual’, are the Greens. And sadly they have been ineffective in getting this message out (The New Green Deal, NEF) and never implemented the recommendations Tim Meadows (Prosperity – without Growth). Not helped by some within the party, who do not understand Green Economics.
¨The Deregulation Bill — promoted as liberating business from silly bureaucratic rules — includes what sounds like a rather arcane provision saying that all regulators for the first time must consider the impact on economic growth before they launch criminal or civil proceedings¨
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140923/08142528606/is-uk-government-trying-to-sneak-through-its-own-corporate-sovereignty-rules.shtml
¨That time might come, but it’s how much interference the public will tolerate, because clearly a lot of people believe there should be no state interference at all on the internet, but that leads to lawlessness and anarchy¨
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141001/03193328687/head-city-london-police-unit-that-operates-without-court-orders-worries-about-online-lawlessness.shtml