The trade unions point out what the media fails to:

Despite claims from Business Minister John Hutton that the Government is powerless to close the widening wealth gap, this report lays out a range of economically and politically feasible measures that could cap unjustifiable fortune building at the expense of others and secure a fairer distribution of rewards:

• Banks should run higher levels of capital requirements to improve countercyclical policy.
• Greater transparency is needed in the extent of risk inherent in financial products.
• Private equity companies should have the same disclosure requirements as public companies.
• International controls need to be strengthened.
• Bonus payments should be deferred until the performances of those receiving bonuses become clear.
• Institutional investors need to take a greater role on pay, while remuneration committees need to be strengthened.
• The Competition Commission should launch an inquiry into the fees charged by investment banks.
• The Government needs to reassert a commitment to the principle of progressive taxation.
• New rules should limit the tax relief available on leveraged loans.
• Inheritance tax should be replaced with a lifetime receipts tax.
• Capital gains should be treated as income.
• A much more concerted attack is needed on tax avoidance by, for example, introducing a minimum tax rate for those earning over £100,000 and taking a tougher stance on the non-domiciliary rule.
• The Government should finance either a regular independent social audit that analyses the impact of increasing wealth concentration on wider life chances or establish a permanent Wealth Commission parallel to the Low Pay Commission.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

We've had plenty of discussion about equality issues on ET this week, and here is the crux of it all in many ways - that massive gap between the rich and poor and the greed of the rich to keep getting richer no matter what the impact on wider society is.

Ad astra per aspera

the growing power of "financialisation"

aka The Anglo Disease.

The globalisation of finance and the growth of tax havens allow the super-rich to blackmail nation states by threatening to pull out and go totally offshore if tax rules are not fixed for their benefit. We need international response to that, yet the marketistas in charge of the EU insist that countries within the internal market should practise tax competition.

If the UK were to show the way as the TUC suggests, that might have some influence on the rest of Europe. As things stand, there's a fat chance of that...

When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind

There are a couple of good articles in the Sunday press.

One re fairness in taxation, and the other in connection with central vs local taxation.

Firstly, Ian Bell, in the vaguely left leaning Glasgow Herald, writes a thoughtful essay on

Is there any such thing as a fairer tax?

which I felt deserved a response in the online "Comments", as follows...

A good starting point would be a tax on privilege.

Exclusive rights of use of a Commons, such as land, non-renewable energy or even the "Creative Commons" of intellectual property,all fall within this category.

As does the privilege of Limitation of Liability enjoyed by investors.

So, a tax on Land Rental Values (or "Location Benefit Levy") is not a bad start. In Denmark it used to gather in - relatively painlessly, and completely unavoidably - around 30% of the tax take, although this is withering on the vine now that the people who own Denmark are in power.

Those who cannot afford to pay in cash could simply give up a minor %age of equity - a variation on Professor Bell's concept.

A "Carbon levy" into an "Energy Pool" dedicated to direct investment in energy production and energy savings would be infinitely preferable to the completely fatuous idea of monetising something completely without value - ie CO2 - which is brought to us by the same people who brought us the Credit Crunch.

And why not abolish Corporation Tax, and replace it with a "Limited Liability Levy" collected at the clearing level on gross corporate revenues.

That would put an entire industry of professional tax advisers out of business overnight.

Secondly, there is an interesting piece from Michael Portillo in the Sunday Murdoch

Brown's fallen into Salmond's tax trap

which is as relevant to Wales as it is to Scotland.

I entirely agree with Michael Portillo's view of Salmond

In Scottish politics Salmond performs with an elegance and fluidity that make his opponents look elephantine, like a latterday George Best weaving his way around the flat-footed defenders of a political Raith Rovers.

that he runs political rings around everyone else. IMHO Salmond is the most accomplished UK politician there now is.

Portillo's take on central vs local taxation is based upon bitter experience in government, and worthy of reading on that account.

I became minister for local government just after the Thatcher government introduced the poll tax to England, the year after the Scots had started to pay it. I defended it then and later under Major I worked to scrap it and replace it.

Having thought hard about local government finance, I am convinced that an income tax supplement must be part of any equitable local tax system. I admit that earners would pay more and high earners much more, but greater social justice is not a powerful argument against it.

More importantly, raising the money in that way would enable local government to grow in scope and importance. By comparison with almost every country I know, we suffer from chronically weak local government and from central government that is too powerful. Decisions are made remotely, national policies are imposed although they are inappropriate in most localities and terrible amounts of public money get wasted.

At present local government is little more than an instrument of Whitehall. It is dependent for most of its income on the Treasury which can therefore dictate most of its policies. It simply cannot be otherwise for as long as local authorities are forced to raise their money through a levy that is unrelated to ability to pay.

I think that there is a strong argument that taxes on income (as well as the taxes on Privilege/Property referred to above in my comment) should all be collected locally and then passed upwards, for any regional and national spending deemed necessary.

ie reversing the existing centralised mechanism. My understanding is that income tax is collected in this way in Norway, I'm not sure about elsewhere.

The leading parties are constantly searching for a big idea that could be trans-formational. Salmond has hit upon it, admittedly for opportunistic reasons. Sadly, neither Brown nor Cameron is willing to offend income tax payers or risk competition from more effective city leaders.

I find it difficult to disagree, with a wry comment that most politicians ever have anything other than opportunistic reasons....

Salmond's approach is right in principle, and he cannot lose politically by taking it.

Portillo, who IMHO is both intelligent and a pretty straight guy, demonstrates in his last remark the need for a backbone transplant which could have made him a statesman.

After all, I once proclaimed that the poll tax would be the platform on which the Tories would win the following general election. In my defence, even as I said it I knew it was incredible.

The tragedy is, that he says this in his defence...

Slightly related: to her credit, German chancellor Merkel commented this study:

DoDo:

A study by two economists is causing outrage: they 'calculated' that the low social/long-term unemployment benefits introduced by the infamous Harz-IV reform are too high, as people could live from significantly less, "provided they don't smoke and make calls"...

...in clearly negative terms.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

An analogy:

The super-rich are the parents in the front of the car, they are drunk as all hell, putting blow up their nose, the car stereo is blaring, and the car keeps going faster and faster.  The rest of society are the kids in the back seat, wide eyed, screaming, terrified, but incapable of doing anything other than screaming "Daddy, slow down!".  How does this scene end?  You  KNOW how it ends!  Once the crash is over, IF any of the kids live, assuming their is any portion of the car still salvageable, some of those kids will get together and MAKE SURE THEIR PARENTS NEVER GET THE CAR KEYS AGAIN, assuming they're still alive and allowed to live.

Read into this as you will.  

McCain/Palin ... total sacks of SHIT!

This has always been the goal of what used to be called the bourgeoisie.  Socialism, or populism, or any number of movements under reform banners, developed in opposition to nation-states being run for the interests of the ownership class.  In the 19th century it was observed that the bourgeoisie had little or no interest in the nation as a whole. The bourgeoisie's interest in the state began and ended with property rights and the security necessary to protect property rights.  The state was to have no other function than to protect wealth accumulation.  When social democracy began to threaten the minimal state the bourgeoisie turned to politics and tried to convince the politicians that their narrow class interests were the interests of the whole nation.  The bourgeoisie did embrace the nation when protection of foreign markets and resources became a concern during the age of imperialism (Globalization exists for the same reason imperialism existed. War just became too costly).  But this was only to use the state's monopoly on violence to create investment stability in far off countries.  Beyond military support imperial administrators resented intrusion of home parliaments into colonial affairs.  

The ownership class is in a struggle against claims to rights or justice that would limit wealth accumulation at home and abroad.  In this they are against the conscience of the nation expressed in parliament or by a free press.  The true national model of the bourgeoisie is not a republic or a liberal democracy or a bureaucratic state or even an aristocracy with those troublesome noble obligations-these are all forms of oppression; it is the colonial outpost where society is powerless and administration focused on protection of wealth accumulation wields absolute power.  This relationship has turned from the philosophical arguments of the Manchester Capitalists and early Herbert Spencer into the righteous ideological movement, a kind of inversion of the Revolution of the Proletariat, of neoliberalism.  

the problem with tax rates is that most of the high earners don't pay PAYE and so the rate becomes irrelevant. It's all the tax avoidance schemes that various rich politicans have loaded the statute books with that are the problem. I'll never forget that Lord Vestey once boasted he only pays £50 tax a year, as a voluntary contribution, stating that once out of PAYE, paying tax was entirely voluntary with a good enough accountant.

Look at the viscount althorp, how come they pay next to no tax, or the Duke of Westminster. At the last election the Daily mirror reckoned that the top 10 earners in Britain avoided over £100 billion in tax. That's the problem, not 40% on £100,000

keep to the Fen Causeway

I read this on the front page of the Sport's Section of The Sacramento Bee (CA) newspaper, of all places.  Apparently the San Diego Chargers (US football) haven't sold out their stadium seats, apparently a lot of teams have the same problem, there is therefore a threat to "black-out" the game to the locals (force them to pay to go to the game rather than watch it at home on TV), the article admits that these are tough times financially for your average Joe, and their solution is TO BUILD A NEW STADIUM!!!  

Hey, your house is burning down!

That's OK, let me throw this gasoline on it, it will burn faster, and once it's all ashes, the fire's over.  Don't panic.  It's all under control.

McCain/Palin ... total sacks of SHIT!

So who dropped the top tax rate to such low levels? As you know, this identical phenomenon in the USA is the direct result of favorable tax rates for the wealthy, but mostly the low dividend/capital gain tax rate of only 15%. We were all led to believe that if you taxed the wealthy at the usual rate, 90%, and not make life easier for them, we would all die in poverty (see Sweden's tax rates for a wake up call).

Well, democracy has a lot of problems but one especially detracts from its benefits: it can be bought and sold. Free speech also permits lies so that you can eventually get poor people to vote for candidates who support the wealthy. One asshole I heard recently actually repeated an old mantras of the wealthy: when has a poor man ever offered you a job? That was at the Republican convention in the US. Reminds one of Dicken's London.

Not that it would be easy to do, but it would appear that fundamental reform of election finance, and possibly in GB of candidate selection as well, may be the only real solution to your problems.  My guess is the the closest thing to taxes that the very wealthy in GB pay are the contributions they make to politicians and political parties.

If sanity be culturally normative, then by the norms of this culture I claim insanity.