As I was about to switch channels I looked at the question for the panel; “should the rich be taxed higher?” The panel who selected to address this no brainer was the Salmonella Queen, Edwina Curry, Journalist and left-wing reporter, Owen Jones, and Narinder Kaur, who I had never heard of until now.
To me this is a no brainer. If we wish to keep our public services, and this applies to any country practicing so-called free market economics and liberal democracy, somebody has to pay for them. As the bourgeoisie benefit from these services equally if not more so than the proletariat/working-class, then - as they have accumulated greater wealth through their cunning - yes, they should pay more
Little surprise Edwina Curry did not agree, as expected but, in a democracy which boasts free speech, she is entitled to her say especially as she had been invited on the show. She said, to answer the question; “They already pay 61% of all tax. The rich are mobile they can take their wealth anywhere”, a thinly disguised threat that they would leave the country, Britain, if taxes went too high for them.
My answer to that is let them go, but their wealth created by the labour of workers stays here, or most of it does! Owen Jones answered, far more pragmatically and honestly:
the wealth is created by workers. For example, the latest I Phone is not created by a bunch of directors of Apple. The screen, components, GPS are all created by scientists and assembled by workers.
Those who collect the wealth have very little to do with the product they benefit from more than anybody else, including those who collectively made the thing.
I make Owen's assessment correct and so do all the classical economists. From Adam Smith in his famous book, Wealth of Nations, to David Ricardo and finally Karl Marx all agree that labour is the creator of all wealth. Ricardo took Smith's theory and expanded somewhat to introducing the theory that it was “labour time” which was the major factor in wealth creation. Karl Marx then went a stage further calculating, correctly, that it was in fact “labour power” which created the wealth. Labour Power is, then as now, the only saleable commodity a worker owns, the power to labour and it is this labour fuelled through the workers' power to work, which creates the finished product which the capitalist then sells for profit. The capitalist then, benevolently, gives the worker a share of the wealth he/she has crated in the form of a monetary wage.
I make Owen's assessment correct and so do all the classical economists. From Adam Smith in his famous book, Wealth of Nations, to David Ricardo and finally Karl Marx all agree that labour is the creator of all wealth. Ricardo took Smith's theory and expanded somewhat to introducing the theory that it was “labour time” which was the major factor in wealth creation. Karl Marx then went a stage further calculating, correctly, that it was in fact “labour power” which created the wealth. Labour Power is, then as now, the only saleable commodity a worker owns, the power to labour and it is this labour fuelled through the workers' power to work, which creates the finished product which the capitalist then sells for profit. The capitalist then, benevolently, gives the worker a share of the wealth he/she has crated in the form of a monetary wage.
On these wages, certainly in modern times, the worker pays income tax which, certainly in Britain is supposed to fund public services. The NHS was supposed to be funded from general taxation when it first came into being. The rich, who accumulate the wealth out of the workers “labour power” also pay some tax, but not their net wealth. This is the money they have kept for themselves, often through tax avoidance which usually means lowering your taxable income, often through “cooking the books” which, unlike tax evasion, is perfectly legal.
So, considering most of the wealth amassed by the bourgeoisie, not to be mistaken with the petit bourgeoisie, small business people, shop keepers (no not Sainsburys or Dunnes) who put much effort into their work, the big bourgeoisie have become rich through legalised theft, theft of the wealth created by others while they play golf!
It was then the turn of Narinder Kaur to give us the benefit of her views. She claimed:
It was then the turn of Narinder Kaur to give us the benefit of her views. She claimed:
too many people who are on benefits are lazy. Sitting on their sofas all day, get back to work, why should rich people who have worked hard pay for you for not working. Work harder and longer.
This maniac obviously has no connection with the real world and is, if she did but know it, advancing the Nazi theory of forcing people to work harder, for less and for longer! She made Edwina Curry sound left-wing and that is saying something. Narinder was obviously coming from the Thatcherite concept that people make themselves unemployed. Perhaps she does not understand, or does not wish to grasp post-war British politics which in one form or another covered most of post-war western European economics.
The post-war political consensus was geared towards full employment with minor governmental adjustments to the economy when necessary. This method, which replaced the old Laissez Faire (non-governmental interference in the economy) was the brainchild of a liberal economist, John Maynard Keynes and became known as Keynesianism. Even the pro-market USA embraced these ideas for a time, one President (Nixon I think) once boasted, “I am a committed Keynesian”. After World War Two even the European bourgeoisie embraced Keynes ideas, firstly full employment with full taxation would save them money rebuilding Britain, the nationalised industries, part of the consensus, helped provide full employment leaving the larger private sector free getting on with making profits.
The post-war political consensus was geared towards full employment with minor governmental adjustments to the economy when necessary. This method, which replaced the old Laissez Faire (non-governmental interference in the economy) was the brainchild of a liberal economist, John Maynard Keynes and became known as Keynesianism. Even the pro-market USA embraced these ideas for a time, one President (Nixon I think) once boasted, “I am a committed Keynesian”. After World War Two even the European bourgeoisie embraced Keynes ideas, firstly full employment with full taxation would save them money rebuilding Britain, the nationalised industries, part of the consensus, helped provide full employment leaving the larger private sector free getting on with making profits.
The capitalist class knew that this would not last for ever and eventually these nationalised industries would be given back to them, as would unemployment and their “reserve army of labour” which suppresses wages and maximises profits. Capitalism itself creates unemployment simply because if a capitalist boss gets a new machine, itself constructed by working-class labour, then ten jobs and wages can be done away with.
There is nothing wrong with new technology. The question is, as always, who owns it and for whose benefit? Under the post-war consensus came the welfare state which provided unemployment benefit for those out of work. Nobody was claiming this benefit because everybody had a job, the only unemployment was what was known as “frictional unemployment”, people between jobs. So, is our unemployed critic, Narinder seriously telling us that all these hard-working people suddenly got out of bed one morning, just after the election of Thatcher when unemployment really kicked in, and decided to get back into bed and claim benefit?
Thatcher reduced benefits for the unemployed, stopping Earnings Related National Insurance Contributions (ERNIC) which enhanced benefits for six months. She then cut the rate of the so-called dole to the bone. This meant that the unemployment benefit which could have been claimed, but nobody did, was now a shadow of that figure. Why then should people suddenly decide to retire “sitting on their sofas”? The fact is people like Narinder Kaur, herself comfortable, are trumpeters for the capitalist system which can no longer supply goods and services. John Maynard Keynes was no Marxist. He was a liberal and supporter of capitalism which is why his ideas saved capitalism from the so-called communist surge which gripped Eastern Europe. Even in Britain the great “war-time leader”, Winston Churchill and his conservative administration were kicked out of office as Clement Attlee and Labour swept into government.
Now, is it fair the rich pay more? Well as they benefit as much and more than anybody else from the goods and services like health care free at the point of need, and have infinitely more wealth than the majority then yes, it is fair. I can hear voices saying, but the rich have their private health care, and pay for it, so they do not benefit. This argument is flawed immediately because it is these rich idlers who own the means of production, distribution, and exchange. They expect their workers to arrive at work to make them even more money in a fit and healthy condition. It is the public health system which maintains these workers health and as a result, increase the profits of the bosses.
Let us now come a little closer to home, Ireland. Admittedly we have no nationalised health service, yet, hopefully Sinn Fein if elected will deliver (but holding my breath for it is not an option) along with a progressive income tax rate to help fund it. This in effect will mean the richer elements, the better offs will pay a little more in tax. I do not see a problem here. Afterall, when the economic crash of 2008 came it was the workers, “in the national interest” who bore the brunt of the income cuts, not the wealthy. So, again in the “national interest” the rich will not mind paying their share, as we are all “in this together”, will they? Well, it appears they will.
Now, is it fair the rich pay more? Well as they benefit as much and more than anybody else from the goods and services like health care free at the point of need, and have infinitely more wealth than the majority then yes, it is fair. I can hear voices saying, but the rich have their private health care, and pay for it, so they do not benefit. This argument is flawed immediately because it is these rich idlers who own the means of production, distribution, and exchange. They expect their workers to arrive at work to make them even more money in a fit and healthy condition. It is the public health system which maintains these workers health and as a result, increase the profits of the bosses.
Let us now come a little closer to home, Ireland. Admittedly we have no nationalised health service, yet, hopefully Sinn Fein if elected will deliver (but holding my breath for it is not an option) along with a progressive income tax rate to help fund it. This in effect will mean the richer elements, the better offs will pay a little more in tax. I do not see a problem here. Afterall, when the economic crash of 2008 came it was the workers, “in the national interest” who bore the brunt of the income cuts, not the wealthy. So, again in the “national interest” the rich will not mind paying their share, as we are all “in this together”, will they? Well, it appears they will.
Two of Irelands richest, the much-vaunted Collinson brothers do not reside in Ireland. Although they are Irish citizens from Limerick, I understand, they live in the USA. In the US the tax regime is far more friendly to entrepreneurs than the present one in Ireland, which is hardly an enemy of business – twelve percent corporation tax – but for these two undoubtedly talented lads it is just too much to bear. The Collinson brothers are not alone in this, far from it, as many of Irelands wealthiest live in foreign climes to avoid paying tax here towards their own peoples well-being. Quite extraordinary how suddenly we appear not to be all in this together.
Sinn Fein are talking of a nationalised single tiered health service for Ireland, based on the British NHS model. This service, should it come to pass and assuming the party are elected, will be funded by a “progressive taxation” of all those earning over 100,000 euro per annum. This sounds fair enough except these people, although well paid and should pay that little more, are comparatively small fry when it comes to wealth. The already alluded to Collinson brothers, John and Patrick, have personal wealth of 8.3 billion euro each. Denis O’Brien is worth 1.0 billion euro. Michael O’Leary is also worth 1.0 billion euro, as is Larry Goodman while John Magnier is worth 2.5 billion euro, and Dermot Desmond comes in with a modest 2 billion euro.
Sinn Fein are talking of a nationalised single tiered health service for Ireland, based on the British NHS model. This service, should it come to pass and assuming the party are elected, will be funded by a “progressive taxation” of all those earning over 100,000 euro per annum. This sounds fair enough except these people, although well paid and should pay that little more, are comparatively small fry when it comes to wealth. The already alluded to Collinson brothers, John and Patrick, have personal wealth of 8.3 billion euro each. Denis O’Brien is worth 1.0 billion euro. Michael O’Leary is also worth 1.0 billion euro, as is Larry Goodman while John Magnier is worth 2.5 billion euro, and Dermot Desmond comes in with a modest 2 billion euro.
When Ireland boasts of being one of the richest countries in the world it is these, tax exiles in many cases, they boast. It does not mean Ireland is a well paid country to work in. Somehow it is the wealth of these people we should be going for, as well as the progressive income tax Sinn Fein speak of. Whether the party will deliver on their promises remains to be seen. I’m not optimistic but they must be given an opportunity because one thing is for certain, the present cabal in government will not deliver.
Have Sinn Fein got the backbone to go after these mega wealthy plastic patriots? They would have to be prepared for a bourgeois backlash. I cite Chile as an extreme example of bourgeois counter revolution when Salvador Allende was murdered by the forces of Augusto Pinochet on behalf of the country’s wealthy back in 1973. The billionaires outlined above are only a few, there are more but these are examples. So, lads, in the “national interest” as the workers were constantly reminded, are you prepared to hand over a few bob to fund your country’s public services? Or, all of a sudden is being Irish not such a good idea? Why not have a progressive one-off payment, say 3billion off each of the Collinson brothers, 50 million off the 1 billion euro club and so on. Then, and this is the main issue, having left these people with the bulk of their personal wealth intact, how do we get them to pay income tax on a regular basis in Ireland? Let’s see how patriotic these proud Irishmen are, let them come home and help out the land which gave them birth and with it a birth right called Irish citizenship which they cannot be stripped of I believe?
Will these people come home to help? Do not hold your breath as suffocation is not a pleasant way to go. Can we force them to come clean? No, under the present system I don’t think we can so what do we do? Well, these people must have assets here, they could be seized for a kick off as a last resort. This would take a government of gumption and courage. Under the present system unlikely. As Karl Marx once commented; “the executive of the modern state is nothing more than a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie”. These words were later echoed by James Connolly, except he used the word government, I understand, instead of executive which are the same thing. So this “executive” is not going to enact laws detrimental to the management of “the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie” are they? As Connolly once said, “the next time we meet I want to talk sedition”. This was at the time of the Dublin Lockout, not the Easter Rising. I’ll leave the rest for the reader to work out!!!
Will these people come home to help? Do not hold your breath as suffocation is not a pleasant way to go. Can we force them to come clean? No, under the present system I don’t think we can so what do we do? Well, these people must have assets here, they could be seized for a kick off as a last resort. This would take a government of gumption and courage. Under the present system unlikely. As Karl Marx once commented; “the executive of the modern state is nothing more than a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie”. These words were later echoed by James Connolly, except he used the word government, I understand, instead of executive which are the same thing. So this “executive” is not going to enact laws detrimental to the management of “the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie” are they? As Connolly once said, “the next time we meet I want to talk sedition”. This was at the time of the Dublin Lockout, not the Easter Rising. I’ll leave the rest for the reader to work out!!!
Good article.
ReplyDeleteThat isn't the same Narinder Kaur that was on Big Brother about 20 years ago, is it?? I just had a Google and I think it is.
Wow... she's going after the Katie Hopkins low-rent reactionary dollar.
Tragic.
Thanks Brandon, yes I believe it is the person you refer to. She certainly sounded to me like a modern Katie Hopkins, I got the impression she would have gone even further down this trail of reaction had she been allowed. The BBC code of ethics I doubt would have allowed much further ventures down this road.
ReplyDeleteCaoimhin O'Muraile