Wednesday 22 September 2010

Tax The Rich Not The Poor

In the UK the top 10 % of the population own four thousand billion pounds.

The 800 billion pound debt paid to the banks did not ever profit the poor in Britain, it just made the rich richer.

But the Tories with their Liberal yellow running dogs are ripping apart the welfare state, that helps the poorest people in our society, to repay money paid to the bankers.

What we need to do is follow the ideas of Professor Philo of Glasgow University and hit the rich with a one off tax that removes 1 / 5 th of their fortune to pay back the debt.

They only pay the interest on this debt until they die and then a new tax hits them with death duties that remove the money and repay it to the government.

This tax will be a historical way of the rich elite paying for their privileges, their vast land holdings and vast wealth, which was given to them under the whim of ex-kings in distant history or by virtue solely of their birth as they inherited it.

With this tax unemployment would fall, taxes would not need to rise that hit small businesses and we can keep the welfare state as it is to help the poorest in our society.

It is time for a massive redistribution of wealth and land to begin in our society, and it be taken from the rich and aristocracy to create a true meritocracy.

The social and economic inequalities in Britain are a result of our pathetic class system, and are based primarily on land and wealth awarded to killers, murderers and maniacs who were given land by Kings and Princes in the past and whose descendants then inherited it.

That is why we have poverty in our country, as around 70 % OF THE LAND IS OWNED BY AROUND 3 % OF THE POPULATION.

That sort of society must be smashed and a new 'Levelling of the Land' begin to turn our monarchy and aristocracy into a democracy and a meritocracy.

Only when the rich no longer have undue wealth, power and land can we create a Nationalist society that rewards each free born Briton with the rights, social opportunities and wealth they each deserve as Britons.

Only when our people have a stake in their own country, will we create a country we can be proud of.

The welfare state is simply a product of class inequalities, in that the poor exist as a result of wealth inequalities and therefore the Welfare State exists to ameliorate their condition of poverty.

If the wealth and land inequalities did not exist, and each Briton had a stake in their own country, then the welfare state would not need to exist.

The aim of the Nationalist Struggle must not be to perpetuate the existing social, class and economic inequalities, it is to give all our people a stake in their own own country so they can therefore become self sufficient and not rely on the state.

The state exists as to protect the interests of the minority of rich and landowners by repressing the majority and the welfare state exists to prevent the poor rising up against the rich by keeping them in controlled poverty.

We must therefore remove the power of the state by redistributing wealth, land and social opportunities to people therefore negating the need for the state and the welfare state.

A nation of land owning, socially conscious and economically independent citizens means the state and the welfare state are no longer needed.

That is our aim as nationalists, not to perptuate the present failed system.

We must become The New Levellers and create a New Britain.

How making the rich pay their taxes would halt spending cuts

By Eamon McCann
Tuesday, 24 August 2010

There is no need for spending cuts. The public finances could be brought into balance by raising more money through fairer taxation. A wealth tax would make a good beginning.

The total wealth held by individuals across the UK is £9,000bn. The richest 10% own almost half of this. A once-off wealth tax of 20% - graduated so that the super-rich paid more than those of merely extravagant means - would raise £800bn. This would pay off the national debt. And since interest on the debt is a major factor in Government spending, the deficit would be automatically reduced. We could protect pensions, refurbish schools, restore cuts in arts funding, etc.

Implementing the tax would not necessarily mean dispatching squads of bailiffs in protective gear to storm gated communities in the Home Counties, entertaining as such a spectacle might be to the non-gated begrudger community.

Making a case for the tax last week, Professor Greg Philo of Glasgow University argued that the wealthiest among us would not have to ante up a fifth of their riches but only assume liability. They could pay a low rate of interest over a number of years on the amount owed, or make the debt a charge on their property when they die - the way student loans work. One significant advantage of the measure in these days of ominous disconnect between the Government and the governed is that it would be enormously popular. Crowds might even assemble in public spaces chanting - "What do we want? More of the same!" and showering effigies of Treasury ministers with confetti and bouquets of blossom.

A YouGov poll revealed 74% support for the tax, with only 10% disapproving. Citizens who have been around a while and know a bit, the over-55s, emerged as the most enthusiastic supporters of the measure.

If a once-off wealth tax were accompanied by a more rational system of income taxation, we could not only cancel the cuts programme but plan for the expansion rather than the contraction of public services.

A TUC pamphlet published earlier this year calculated the amount of money lost to the public finances annually through taxes going uncollected. The report, 'The Missing Billions' by tax consultant Richard Murphy, estimated a shortfall of £25bn from tax avoidance - £13bn avoided by individuals, £12bn by big corporations. This isn't far short of the total amount by which the Government aims to cut growth in public spending.

The main forms of individual tax avoidance highlighted involve switching income from the person who should be paying the tax to someone else, usually a relative, liable for less tax; moving taxable transactions outside the UK; representing an individual as a limited company in tax returns; and changing the designation of particular transactions to bring them within the remit of capital gains rather than income tax.

These are all legal manoeuvres under existing tax law.

Companies can avoid tax more easily than individuals mainly because they can more easily operate across borders, distributing income and expenditure, profit and loss, in the most advantageous pattern. One result is that the 50 largest companies "almost always" pay 5% less tax on average than they declare in their accounts. The average tax rate paid by the top companies fell by more than half a percent a year over the seven years studied: thus, their de facto rate of corporation tax for 2006 was 22.5% - compared with the 30% rate set by parliament. (If this proves a continuing trend, smaller companies will, in practice, be paying higher rates of tax than larger companies next year.)

By the end of 2006, Murphy reckoned, the accounts of Britain's 50 biggest companies held £47bn 'saved' by avoidance of tax. The coffers of the state were by the same token £47bn light. One conclusion is that the whingeing of 'the business community' about the burden of tax it shoulders should be treated with scorn.

Recovering half the amount lost annually to tax avoidance would fund a 20% increase in the state pension or a 3p reduction in basic income tax or the construction of 50 new hospitals.

In light of all this, it might be assumed that the Government would be working flat out to plug the loopholes through which all this revenue is gushing out. But instead, HM Revenue and Customs is currently looking to close tax offices and cut 20,000 staff positions to save the state money.

There is no truth in the suggestion that there's no alternative to drastic cuts. The truth is that the alternatives would be regarded as outrageous by a section of society which flatly refuses to pay its way and which no mainstream party, in or out of government, is willing to confront.

Read more:

Add to Technorati Favorites


Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

How is this different to Marxism? And how is this not class war? You seem to oppose Marxism yet you are definitely going its way.

Seriously, we do not have an aristocracy anymore because if we did, then they would have taken harsh action against the bankers and the rich merchants.

Anonymous said...

"That sort of society must be smashed and a new 'Levelling of the Land' begin to turn our monarchy and aristocracy into a democracy and a meritocracy."

Please note, any kind of "British nationalism" which wants to "smash" anything related to the British Monarchy isn't going to go anywhere - at least not among most normal indigenous "non-Irish republican" people.

Unknown said...

Sounds good to me. My thinking is that if they can't show an original purchase form common land hoders the land should return to the people who first lived off that land, us. All royal lands should be returned to us. We can charge tham rent.
By the way Lee this new vid is worth a look: