Why don’t the super-rich pay down the budget deficit?

There is an alternative to ever-greater austerity for the majority.

One assumption dominates the start of 2012. It will be an extremely grim year as the public starts having to pay down the deficit in real earnest, but they will grudgingly accept the substantial pain involved so long as it is fairly shared. It certainly isn't, however, and the growing realisation of this could well prove the government's Achilles heel in this year's bumpy handling of austerity.

There has been debate about whether the deficit should be cut through a stimulus to growth or through austerity measures, and even if the latter were chosen, how far and how fast the cuts should be inflicted. But there has been no discussion as to whether the pain is being fairly parcelled around. Initial Treasury claims after Osborne's June 2010 budget that the richest fifth of the population would be harder hit than the poorest fifth were quickly exploded when it was shown that this paradox depended on smuggling in the effects of Labour's last two budgets as well. But since then a great deal of new evidence exposes the falsity of this convenient canard.

The 100-page Rich List compiled by Philip Beresford and published last May presented a very different picture. Its analysis found that the 1,000 richest persons in Britain were £60.2bn better off than they were in 2010, and that they were £77.3bn better off in 2010 than they were in 2009. What this means is the staggering fact that just 0.003 per cent of the population, the richest of the rich, could by themselves alone pay off the entire deficit of £127bn and still leave themselves £10bn in surplus. Yet in the absence of a wealth tax, a mansions tax, a land value tax or a supertax on excess gains they are being required to make hardly any contribution at all to deficit reduction, even though many of them were directly involved in causing the financial crash in the first place.

This is all the more remarkable that such colossal gains accrued to such a tiny group of super-rich people when the vast majority of the population were being forced into stringent belt-tightening. In 2010 and 2011 full-time workers right across the earnings range have seen their real earnings decline. Nor was this just a temporary freak winner-takes-all for Britain's richest. In 1997 the richest 1,000 persons had assets of £99bn; by 2011 their assets had grown to £396bn. This means that the increase in their wealth over this period was almost two-and-a-half times the size of the total budget deficit. In terms of fair shares, one might expect they would be required to pay down at least a sizeable chunk of the nation's overdraft.

Whilst these are the facts about wealth in Britain today, the position on the distribution of earnings is equally damning. The OECD report 'Divided We Stand', published last month, showed that the top 1 per cent, those earning over £150,000 a year, doubled their share of the nation's total income from 7.1 per cent in 1970 to 14.3 per cent in 2005. Even more significantly, the share taken by the top 0.1 per cent, those with an average annual income of £1.2 million, jumped to 5 per cent. At the other end of the scale the share of the bottom quarter of the population was only 9.6 per cent. This means that the highest-paid 30,000 earners were taking home the same amount of money as the lowest-paid 4.5 million, a ratio between top and bottom of 150:1. The onus however between rich and poor in paying down the deficit represents almost exactly the opposite ratio.

As a result of the switch from the retail prices index to the significantly lower consumer prices index in uprating benefits, the cap on housing benefit payments, the doubling of the pension contribution rate for public sector workers, the pay freeze and real terms pay cuts, and the disproportionate dependence of the poorest households on public expenditure, the burden of paying back the deficit falls overwhelmingly on the bottom third of households. For the richest, by contrast, the burden is payment-lite. The balance between expenditure and benefit cuts on the one hand and tax increases on the other as decreed by Osborne is 77:23 per cent, and of the latter 23 per cent half is accounted for by the rise in VAT which falls most heavily on the poorest households.

In terms of fair shares in the pay-down this is gratuitously up-ended. Data published last month showed that the bottom tenth of earners got a 0.1 per cent rise in pay in the previous year, while over the same period the rise for FTSE-100 directors was 49 per cent. The month before the published accounts of the canteen catering firm Compass Group, a typical FTSE-100 company, revealed that the pay of the chief executive Richard Cousins was £84,615 a week whilst the average pay of his staff, many of them dinner ladies, was £240 a week, a ratio of 352:1. Yet the deficit charge on Mr. Cousins and others like him, unlike that on his dinner ladies, will be relatively paltry.

Even where the Labour Government had made a small start in focusing payback on the better-off, Osborne has now reversed it. In 2009 tax relief on pension contributions amounted to £20.6bn, of which £14bn or two- thirds was concentrated on higher-rate taxpayers. The 2009 budget then announced that the 40 per cent higher rate pension tax relief would be tapered down to 20 per cent for those with incomes of £150,000, with effect from April 2011. One of Osborne's first acts was to repeal it.

The St. Paul's Occupiers were right about the 1per cent against the 99 per cent, except that the inequality and the unfairness that goes with it are more extreme than even they imagined. Most people have been persuaded that they must now endure grinding austerity for years and years ahead because there is no alternative. But actually there is.

Michael Meacher is Labour MP for Oldham West and Royton.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

No, the battle in Momentum isn't about young against old

Jon Lansman and his allies' narrative doesn't add up, argues Rida Vaquas.

If you examined the recent coverage around Momentum, you’d be forgiven for thinking that it was headed towards an acrimonious split, judging by the vitriol, paranoia and lurid accusations that have appeared online in the last couple days. You’d also be forgiven for thinking that this divide was between a Trotskyist old guard who can’t countenance new ways of working, and hip youngsters who are filled with idealism and better at memes. You might then be incredibly bemused as to how the Trotskyists Momentum was keen to deny existed over the summer have suddenly come to the brink of launching a ‘takeover bid’.

However these accounts, whatever intentions or frustrations that they are driven by, largely misrepresent the dispute within Momentum and what transpired at the now infamous National Committee meeting last Saturday.

In the first instance, ‘young people’ are by no means universally on the side of e-democracy as embodied by the MxV online platform, nor did all young people at the National Committee vote for Jon Lansman’s proposal which would make this platform the essential method of deciding Momentum policy.

Being on National Committee as the representative from Red Labour, I spoke in favour of a conference with delegates from local groups, believing this is the best way to ensure local groups are at the forefront of what we do as an organisation.

I was nineteen years old then. Unfortunately speaking and voting in favour of a delegates based conference has morphed me into a Trotskyist sectarian from the 1970s, aging me by over thirty years.

Moreover I was by no means the only young person in favour of this, Josie Runswick (LGBT+ representative) and the Scottish delegates Martyn Cook and Lauren Gilmour are all under thirty and all voted for a delegates based national conference. I say this to highlight that the caricature of an intergenerational war between the old and the new is precisely that: a caricature bearing little relation to a much more nuanced reality.

Furthermore, I believe that many people who voted for a delegates-based conference would be rather astounded to find themselves described as Trotskyists. I do not deny that there are Trotskyists on National Committee, nor do I deny that Trotskyists supported a delegates-based conference – that is an open position of theirs. What I do object is a characterisation of the 32 delegates who voted for a delegates-based conference as Trotskyists, or at best, gullible fools who’ve been taken in.  Many regional delegates were mandated by the people to whom they are accountable to support a national conference based on this democratic model, following broad and free political discussion within their regions. As thrilling as it might be to fantasise about a sinister plot driven by the shadow emperors of the hard Left against all that it is sensible and moderate in Momentum, the truth is rather more mundane. Jon Lansman and his supporters failed to convince people in local groups of the merits of his e-democracy proposal, and as a result lost the vote.

I do not think that Momentum is doomed to fail on account of the particular details of our internal structures, providing that there is democracy, accountability and grassroots participation embedded into it. I do not think Momentum is doomed to fail the moment Jon Lansman, however much respect I have for him, loses a vote. I do not even think Momentum is doomed to fail if Trotskyists are involved, or even win sometimes, if they make their case openly and convince others of their ideas in the structures available.

The existential threat that Momentum faces is none of these things, it is the propagation of a toxic and polarised political culture based on cliques and personal loyalties as opposed to genuine political discussion on how we can transform labour movement and transform society. It is a political culture in which those opposed to you in the organisation are treated as alien invaders hell-bent on destroying it, even when we’ve worked together to build it up, and we worked together before the Corbyn moment even happened. It is a political culture where members drag others through the mud, using the rhetoric of the Right that’s been used to attack all of us, on social and national media and lend their tacit support to witch hunts that saw thousands of Labour members and supporters barred from voting in the summer. It is ultimately a political culture in which our trust in each other and capacity to work together on is irreparably eroded.

We have a tremendous task facing us: to fight for a socialist alternative in a global context where far right populism is rapidly accruing victories; to fight for the Labour Party to win governmental power; to fight for a world in which working class people have the power to collectively change their lives and change the societies we live in. In short: there is an urgent need to get our act together. This will not be accomplished by sniping about ‘saboteurs’ but by debating the kind of politics we want clearly and openly, and then coming together to campaign from a grassroots level upwards.

Rida Vaquas is Red Labour Representative on Momentum National Committee.