Each day we’re advised that Britain cannot afford the poor and that there is not sufficient cash for care, housing or wages. However the fact is the alternative: it is the poor who cannot afford the wealthy.

On this video, I clarify how wealth extraction by curiosity, hire, and monopoly revenue acts like three hidden taxes on us all. These “taxes of rentier capitalism” drain our pay, inflate our payments, and hold poverty in place.

What this makes clear is that shortage is a political alternative, not an financial truth. Fiscal guidelines, low taxes on capital and privatisation all serve the rich, not society. Ending these subsidies may launch the capability for the funding we want in care, housing, and respectable wages.

If we cease affording the wealthy, we will afford everybody else.

That is the audio model:

That is the transcript:

Who can we actually afford? In response to the rich, we will not afford the poor. However day by day it is the poorest who pay for the richest in our society.

The true query is not whether or not we will afford care, housing, or wages for many who are on low incomes on this nation; it is whether or not we will afford the wealth extraction by a number of that leaves these folks in poverty. That is the query that we now actually need to reply in our politics.

The query, ‘Can we afford the poor?’, which is implicit within the bulletins from Rachel Reeves, Kemi Badenoch, Nigel Farage, and others, implies that there’s shortage: in different phrases,  that the general public assist for these in poverty or pensions, and even the wages of those that are working so laborious that they want two jobs to make ends meet, are one way or the other unaffordable.

All of that hides the reality: this shortage that they discuss is, actually,  created by the wealthy by fiscal guidelines that they promote, and, in fact, by the political management of the democratic system that their cash buys. What’s extra, their wealth is not a reward for manufacturing or creativity or aptitude; it is only a declare on everybody else’s earnings.

There are, actually, three taxes which might be claimed by the rich.

A type of is curiosity funds on loans, as a result of these, in fact, enrich the individuals who lend cash at value to those that should borrow it to make ends meet. That must be seen as a tax.

The second is the rents that enrich landlords while hollowing out the wage packets of those that should stay in that rented lodging, usually extracting 50% of their after-tax earnings to make funds for insufficient housing through which folks should stay as a result of they don’t have any different alternative.  Society has denied them another possibility.

And the final such tax that all of us pay is  by extreme costs, that are then changed into income, that are celebrated within the media, however that are actually extracted from us and paid to reward the wealthy and never reinvested, as a result of we will see the consequence:  we stay in a society the place we’re advised frequently that there isn’t any improve in productiveness, there isn’t any actual development, and there’s no charge of return to capital, and that is exactly as a result of the cash has been misdirected by those that are already rich for his or her profit and never for the advantage of society at giant.

These then are the three taxes of rentier capitalism. Each family is paying these indirectly or different.

They may be paying housing hire.

They may be paying hire inside the costs that they pay to firms who reward their rich administrators excessively, however move on that value to the patron.

They may be paying this tax by debt curiosity, whether or not on private loans, or mortgages, or automotive loans, or the rest.

And, in fact, there’s at all times the monopoly revenue extraction by issues just like the utility firms, whether or not that be electrical energy, fuel, water, or no matter.

On the similar time, public providers additionally pay tribute to those folks, and I exploit the phrase tribute intentionally in the best way that it was understood in Roman instances, as if it have been a price or tax. That is as a result of the general public providers now pay personal contractors inflated charges for providers that ought to at all times have been delivered by the state.

In the meantime,  the federal government pays extreme curiosity on its so-called borrowing to maintain the rich blissful. There is no such thing as a motive why now we have a 4% rate of interest for the time being that we’re recording this video on this nation. Even Rachel Reeves has mentioned it’s too excessive and a burden. However it’s paid nonetheless as a result of the Financial institution of England hold it in place. And the rationale why they accomplish that is to maintain the rich blissful.

For all these causes,  the poor are subsidising the wealthy and never the opposite manner round.

The wealthy say welfare and wages have to be restrained and that folks should study to stay inside their means. However the truth is that the inflated technique of the rich depend upon everybody else dwelling under the boundaries of their means, and in reality, past the affordable boundaries of risk.

Individuals are in poverty as a consequence of the calls for of the rich. Fiscal guidelines, low taxes on capital, and privatisation have all entrenched this hierarchy of energy that’s weighted in opposition to most individuals within the UK and in lots of different international locations as effectively. Accountability has been redefined to guard the pursuits of wealth, and that’s unacceptable.

There’s, actually, an ethical inversion occurring.  Poverty is offered as a private failure as a result of that’s the manner it’s constructed inside neoliberal economics, which, in fact, is just promoted by the rich. And wealth is seen as an ethical advantage inside that very same system of considering, which is  replicated within the concepts of Christian evangelical folks preaching their tales of how, if solely we imagine in God, we will probably be rewarded with advantage right here, represented by {dollars}, kilos, euros, yen, or no matter else.

And the actual fact is, none of that’s true as a result of who actually is dependent upon whom?  The rich truly depend upon public infrastructure and legislation, and low cost labour, and the facility of the state to create cash for them to make use of. And all of those are provided collectively. They’re, actually, the most important beneficiaries of the state they declare to resent.

There’s this affordability delusion as a consequence. If in apply  we stopped subsidising hire, and we stopped subsidising revenue, and we stopped curiosity extraction, public funds would, in fact, multiply.   We might have the money accessible for households to make ends meet and to spend on these issues that they should have a very good life.

If we simply ended the tax subsidies to the rich,  which I estimate might be as excessive as £170 billion a 12 months, though we may by no means get better that sum by altering the tax system at current, however which I’ve proven to be potential to gather to the tune of £90 billion a 12 months, then we may, actually, completely reorientate the economic system and create the funding that we want.

The argument that we will not afford the poor is an accounting lie constructed to guard the extractions of the rich. What we have to do is reclaim what’s reasonably priced, as a result of what’s actually unaffordable is a system that pays extra to wealth house owners than to work, and that is what we have.

What’s reasonably priced is a caring, sustainable economic system as soon as rentier claims are curbed, and that is the situation for an reasonably priced economic system.

The query then is not a fiscal one, however an ethical one. Whose futures are we selecting to afford? At the moment level of time, our economic system is structured to afford the rich, however the reply must be that we must always select to afford everybody, all folks, and never a number of.

We are able to, actually, not afford the rich, as is now evident. What we should select to do is to afford the remainder of us.

So now we have to alter the coverage. We have to equalise the precise taxation of earned and unearned earnings, one thing that I talked about in my Taxing Wealth Report, and there will probably be a hyperlink to that down under on this video.

Then we should cap land and monopoly rents, and both try this by public possession of issues like extra social housing or by worth controls in additional industries, if that’s obligatory. We all know it is potential. We now should ask the place it’s a necessity.

And perhaps we must also take a look at democratising credit score creation, as a result of for the time being, that is denied to most of us. We won’t get entry to the useful resource that the rich have, which is cash itself. So perhaps the state has to rethink its function as a banker, and I imagine it ought to, and it is one thing that’s important if we’re to construct that ‘Brave State’ that I carry on speaking about.

The wealthy ask, “Can we afford the poor?” The reply is, “We have been affording the wealthy for a lot too lengthy.” If we wish an economic system that works, we should be capable of afford to look after one another and never the rich. Ending wealth extraction would make life potential for everybody else.

What do you suppose? Do you suppose, if truly, we reduce the quantity that the rich extract from our pay within the type of rents, within the type of extra pricing, within the type of revenue extraction and so forth, you’d then be capable of make ends meet higher? Do you suppose you’d have a greater life? Do you suppose you’d be capable of afford to care? Do you suppose you can take care of your kids higher? Do you suppose you can take care of your aged kinfolk higher? Do you suppose you’d have extra household time? Do you suppose you’ll have higher relationships?

I clearly cannot put all these questions in a ballot, however there’s one down under. Tell us and inform us what you suppose within the feedback as effectively. We do take a look at what it’s a must to say. Thanks. ​

Ballot

 Loading …

Feedback 

When commenting, please be aware of this weblog’s remark coverage, which is obtainable right here. Contravening this coverage will end in feedback being deleted earlier than or after preliminary publication on the editor’s sole discretion and with out rationalization being required or supplied.