It doesn't surprise me that the top rate of tax has been cut in the budget, funded by freezing pensioner allowances, at a time of national hardship. It makes me want to kick things, but it doesn't surprise me.
For one thing, there has never been a truer word spoken than the popular protest chant, same old Tory, same old story. For another, the cabinet is stuffed with white male millionaires who went to Eton and Oxbridge - of course they are going to look after their own.
I have heard it said, and by perfectly reasonable people whom I like very much, that this is justifiable because it is important to be business friendly and tax competitive. Personally I was brought up to think that if the last five thousand of a billionaire's wealth was taxed at ninety five pence in the pound, then good, because to the billionaire that's a drop in the ocean and we need public services. I am aware my politics are further to the left than most, but how, how can we justify squeezing the poorest and most vulnerable until they bleed whilst giving tax breaks to the richest?
The tax competitive argument also doesn't hold water, because the UK has always been business friendly. The banks have been bailed out and their top executives continue to rake in seven figure bonuses, consciences seemingly untroubled by the destruction and desperation they have wrought on others. Stockbrokers pay lower rates of tax than their office cleaners. And London is a beacon to the super rich, who flock there in droves thanks to our unique "domicile" rule - that is, that if you can prove a residency overseas to which you periodically return, your overseas income is untouchable. As John Lanchester, writing in the Guardian Weekend, wryly commented: "What this policy amounts to, in practice, is that the UK has a giant sign hanging over it saying, 'Rich People! Come and Live Here! You Won't Have to Pay Any Tax!"
Aha, some would argue, but you are forgetting about the trickle down effect, that wealth at the top benefits everyone. Well, I am afraid I have been forced to conclude that the trickle down effect is a myth. In the eighties, the yuppies in the South drove around in Ferraris whilst the North was systematically broken. That wealth didn't trickle down to anyone. If the trickle down effect really benefited everyone, why was the minimum wage so fiercely resisted for so long, and set so cautiously low when it did come in? The fact is that you don't get rich by sharing the wealth, you do it by using cheap labour and the lowest pay and shoddiest working conditions you can get away with. The rich hold all the cards, they always have, and down here at the sharp end we don't see any benefit. That's the simple truth of the matter.
This tax discourse also links in a rather disturbing way to Cameron's "Big Society". The idea of volunteering is laudable, of course. However, when it is being pushed to persuade people to do for free what is correctly a function of government, then you get a slippery slope. As soon as something is recoded as charity, it can be taken away. Consider the Health Lottery - at first glance, seems a nice idea, right, your pound going towards good causes? But health care is a RIGHT, it should not depend on the generosity of Good Samaritans, especially when we're all so broke that philanthropy is a nice idea but falls by the wayside due to the need to feed ourselves. When the needs of immediate family are barely being met, altruism is a luxury. And these things pave the way for more NHS cuts, for more erosion of the welfare state, more Americanisation. Remember, in America, if you can't afford medical treatment, you don't get it. And if you're ill enough, and you still can't afford it, you will be left to die. Volunteerism, therefore, is all well and good, but if we are going to continue to have our basic rights and needs met, we need to pay our taxes. We need the rich to pay their taxes.
Instead, and as ever, the haves can have more, and the have nots have no choice but to accept ever greater poverty and inequality.
