The Tax Reform Commission’s proposals for changes to the British tax system clearly show that, though Comrade Cameron may claim that the New Conservatives care about public services, their primary objective is to help their friends by cutting taxes for the wealthiest in society.
The Commission’s proposals will result in personal and corporate tax cuts of up to £21bn. These cuts will have to be funded from either cuts in public expenditure, increases in other taxes or a mixture of both.
The Tories claim that they can raise the £21bn from green taxes. Green taxes are by nature regressive - they will have greater impact on the poor than on the rich. One example of a green tax is a road tax based on the fuel consumption of the vehicle. The rich, who can afford this green tax, will continue to drive their gas-guzzling SUV, MPV and 4X4. It is the poor, who can only afford older, less efficient vehicles, who will really face the pinch.
Most economists agree that green taxes can only raise a small amount of revenue. The Tories, even though they won’t admit it, will have to cut public services if they are going to deliver the cuts in personal and corporate taxes. They won’t make cuts to the glamourous public services, such as health and education, which are the darlings of the middle class. Instead, they will focus on the less glamourous public services, such as social security, social services and social housing, whose main beneficiaries are the poor.
The Tories claim that these tax cuts will help everyone, including the poor. However, the poorest in society pay little, if any, income tax. They do not pay inheritance tax because most do not own their homes and those who do own homes haven’t reached the threshold at which inheritance tax becomes payable, despite the vast increases in house prices. They will not receive the alleged benefits resulting from the cuts to corporate taxes because they, on the whole, do not own shares or have pensions.
The people who will benefit the most from these tax cuts are the Tories’ friends - the fat cats in the City and on company boards.
The tax cuts will achieve the prime goal of Conservatism. The gap between the rich and poor in society, which is already at its greatest since Victorian times, will be widened.
Wednesday, 18 October 2006
Tuesday, 17 October 2006
Madonna & Child
There are thousands of children in care in the UK awaiting adoption/fostering. There are even more in the USA. Yet Madonna flies all the way to Malawi to adopt a child.
Madonna and her supporters argue that she will give the child a life he would never receive in Malawi. She could give a British or American child this life but she doesn’t. Why?
Firstly, the latest celebrity craze is adopt a child from the developing world. This is as obscene as people from Essex wearing a “Fight Poverty” wristband. The suffering of billions of people has become a fashion statement. Secondly, in Malawi she can use her money to pick and choose the child, something she probably couldn’t do in the UK or USA.
The child in question may have lost his mother but he still has his father and many relatives, all of whom would make a better parent than an American pop star who could never have a full understanding of Malawian culture. The child will grow in a foreign culture, literally, constantly in the media’s gaze.
Madonna has bought-off the Malawian courts. Will she do the same to the British authorities?
Several of London’s finest were used to escort the child from Heathrow to Madonna’s plush home. On 21 January Peter Woodhams was stabbed near some shops in Canning Town, east London. Despite several telephone calls the police didn’t lift a finger. On 21 August he was shot dead outside the same shops. Clearly the level of public service you receive in Britain depends on your bank balance. It is merely a matter of formality before the British authorities rubber stamp this adoption.
Madonna and her supporters argue that she will give the child a life he would never receive in Malawi. She could give a British or American child this life but she doesn’t. Why?
Firstly, the latest celebrity craze is adopt a child from the developing world. This is as obscene as people from Essex wearing a “Fight Poverty” wristband. The suffering of billions of people has become a fashion statement. Secondly, in Malawi she can use her money to pick and choose the child, something she probably couldn’t do in the UK or USA.
The child in question may have lost his mother but he still has his father and many relatives, all of whom would make a better parent than an American pop star who could never have a full understanding of Malawian culture. The child will grow in a foreign culture, literally, constantly in the media’s gaze.
Madonna has bought-off the Malawian courts. Will she do the same to the British authorities?
Several of London’s finest were used to escort the child from Heathrow to Madonna’s plush home. On 21 January Peter Woodhams was stabbed near some shops in Canning Town, east London. Despite several telephone calls the police didn’t lift a finger. On 21 August he was shot dead outside the same shops. Clearly the level of public service you receive in Britain depends on your bank balance. It is merely a matter of formality before the British authorities rubber stamp this adoption.
Thursday, 5 October 2006
The Sun - We Hate It
The vile Murdoch gutter press has once again been busy practising the dark arts of lies and half truths in order to promote their reactionary beliefs. They have managed to create an extraordinary storm from an unexceptional request.
A Met Police officer was excused from duties that may expose his family to reprisal. Nothing special about that. But this officer is a Muslim and his duty was to guard the Jewish embassy in London during the rape of Lebanon. The Wapping vermin must have thought it was their birthday - a chance to attack two of their biggest bete noires: Islam and political correctness.
The police officer in question has relatives in Lebanon and he feared that if, at the height of the rape of Lebanon, he was seen guarding the Jewish embassy they would attacked - by other Lebanese.
It is quite routine for police officers to be excused from duties that may expose their families to reprisal - they do not work in the area where they live. But you wouldn’t know that if you read today’s edition of the Murdoch gutter press. Never let the truth get in the way of brainwashing the mindless people who read your newspapers.
The Murdoch gutter press, and their subsidiary in the Police Federation, argue that no police officer should be able to pick and choose their duties. A few years ago, all the armed response officers in London threatened to withdraw their service if any legal or disciplinary action was taken against one of their own who had committed a murder. Did the Murdoch gutter press cry foul?
A Met Police officer was excused from duties that may expose his family to reprisal. Nothing special about that. But this officer is a Muslim and his duty was to guard the Jewish embassy in London during the rape of Lebanon. The Wapping vermin must have thought it was their birthday - a chance to attack two of their biggest bete noires: Islam and political correctness.
The police officer in question has relatives in Lebanon and he feared that if, at the height of the rape of Lebanon, he was seen guarding the Jewish embassy they would attacked - by other Lebanese.
It is quite routine for police officers to be excused from duties that may expose their families to reprisal - they do not work in the area where they live. But you wouldn’t know that if you read today’s edition of the Murdoch gutter press. Never let the truth get in the way of brainwashing the mindless people who read your newspapers.
The Murdoch gutter press, and their subsidiary in the Police Federation, argue that no police officer should be able to pick and choose their duties. A few years ago, all the armed response officers in London threatened to withdraw their service if any legal or disciplinary action was taken against one of their own who had committed a murder. Did the Murdoch gutter press cry foul?
Monday, 2 October 2006
A Tale of Two Dictators
Dictator Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan visited the US last week and was feted like the King of England by the neo-cons. Once again the blatant hypocrisy shown by the neo-con regime in Washington is unbelievable.
They rant and rave about bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan and yet at the same time they give their wholehearted support to murderous tyrants like Dictator Nazarbayev.
Dictator Nazarbayev has ruled Kazakhstan like his own personal fiefdom for nearly two decades. He holds "elections" in which he and his party receive over 90% of the votes but these "elections" have been condemned as rigged and flawed by all neutral observers, including the OSCE. Opposition politicians have been imprisoned on trumped up charges or they have mysteriously "died" just before the elections.
Many of the companies privatised by Nazarbayev have ended up in the hands of his family who also run virtually every TV/radio station and newspaper in the country. Despite all this Dictator Nazarbayev has the US's full support.
Q) Why?
1) Could it be because Dictator Nazarbayev has allowed the US military to use Kazakhstan as a launch pad for it's rape of Afghanistan?
2) Could it be because Kazakhstan, sandwiched between Russia and China, provides the US with an important foothold in a strategically important part of the world?
3) Could it be because Kazakhstan contains vast reserves of oil and natural gas?
A) All of the above.
Meanwhile Dictator Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan was speaking at the Oxford Union. Has the world's leading academic institution abandoned democracy? No, this is simply a case of the wallet ruling the heart.
The Pakistani elite, who have profited under Dictator Musharraf's rule, love to send their sons and daughters to Oxford so that they can learn to speak posher than the von Saxe-Coburg Gotha's. The tuition fee they pay Oxford is many times that paid by British students. This buys them a great deal of influence. The Pakistani elite are using this influence to add one more badge of legitimacy to Dictator Musharraf's rule.
They rant and rave about bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan and yet at the same time they give their wholehearted support to murderous tyrants like Dictator Nazarbayev.
Dictator Nazarbayev has ruled Kazakhstan like his own personal fiefdom for nearly two decades. He holds "elections" in which he and his party receive over 90% of the votes but these "elections" have been condemned as rigged and flawed by all neutral observers, including the OSCE. Opposition politicians have been imprisoned on trumped up charges or they have mysteriously "died" just before the elections.
Many of the companies privatised by Nazarbayev have ended up in the hands of his family who also run virtually every TV/radio station and newspaper in the country. Despite all this Dictator Nazarbayev has the US's full support.
Q) Why?
1) Could it be because Dictator Nazarbayev has allowed the US military to use Kazakhstan as a launch pad for it's rape of Afghanistan?
2) Could it be because Kazakhstan, sandwiched between Russia and China, provides the US with an important foothold in a strategically important part of the world?
3) Could it be because Kazakhstan contains vast reserves of oil and natural gas?
A) All of the above.
Meanwhile Dictator Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan was speaking at the Oxford Union. Has the world's leading academic institution abandoned democracy? No, this is simply a case of the wallet ruling the heart.
The Pakistani elite, who have profited under Dictator Musharraf's rule, love to send their sons and daughters to Oxford so that they can learn to speak posher than the von Saxe-Coburg Gotha's. The tuition fee they pay Oxford is many times that paid by British students. This buys them a great deal of influence. The Pakistani elite are using this influence to add one more badge of legitimacy to Dictator Musharraf's rule.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)