Here’s your starter for ten as we experiment with a new Saturday slot posing a view for debate:
Belief in equality is, as the preamble to the Lib Dems’ constitutions states, one of the fundamental values of the party. But, as with all values, equality can mean different things to different people.
There has long been tension between liberals who believe the role of government is to aim for equality of opportunity for everyone, and liberals who believe government must promote equality of outcomes. The former will tend to stress the importance of education as the chief means by which individuals can better themselves and improve their lot; while the latter will argue that yes, education is vital, but ultimately life chances are determined by income – and the poorest in society will find life stacked against them no matter how good the educational opportunities, so we must actively promote ways to redistribute wealth from rich to poor.
This is now a very real issue for the party. In years of plenty, it was possible to reconcile these two approaches, to argue in favour of the party ploughing money into (for example) abolishing tuition fees, while also arguing in favour of (for example) real-terms increases in child benefit. But with public funding facing a savage squeeze the Lib Dems now have to prioritise like never before.
So what is the party going to put first? Policies which are most likely to deliver equality of opportunity, or those which will most likely deliver equality of outcome?
Let’s take a practical example. The party has made much of its plans to lift 3 to 4 million people out of tax completely by lifting the income tax threshold to £10,000. As Left Foot Forward has noted this will “result in a £700 tax giveaway to all earners including the wealthiest”. And as Vince Cable has admitted, “it’s redistributive effects may be not quite as radical as you get with tax credits.”
All politicians talk of tough choices. But it’s all tough choices for at least the next five years. We live in a deeply unequal society, where those born into poverty too often are unable to escape its grip. Yes, we should aspire to provide them with a wonderful education. More importantly, more urgently, we need to get serious about true redistribution of wealth from rich to poor. Ofering equality of opportunity just isn’t enough any more.
Agree? Disagree? Comment away …
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
They shout Houses, don't they
That "anti-growth coalition" in full
My tweets
House of the Goat
Dundee Community Music Festival
One of my most quoted polling findings is no longer true
Standing charges are a rip off
David Raw
Steve Trevethan
Katharine Pindar
Lorenzo Cherin
Jeff
63 Comments
Equality of opportunity is fine and, from a personal perspective I think it important to retain as our aim as it is essential that outcomes come from individuals in society taking ownership and responsibility for their actions. What you are highlighting is that an equal education is not sufficient to provide equality of opportunity, but rather that entrenched wealth and privilege still has not been compensated for.
A classic example of this, on which Phil Willis has done a lot of campaigning, is the need for wealth, or at least an ambivolence to costs to work wageless as an intern for parliament or big businesses and to obtain the resultant career advantage.
With the wealth inequalities in our society I often think we set the bar too low; we punish those who are merely aspirational, not actually that rich, whilst paying lip service to the obsene wealth not earnt, but accumlated over generations; at least with the CGT changes and the mansion tax our party is doing something.
I once cornered Nick Clegg and ranted at him (poor guy) about significantly scaling up the rate of inheritance tax. I’m told it raises very little and wouldn’t be politically beneficial. He wasn’t having it.
“The party has made much of its plans to lift 3 to 4 million people out of tax completely by lifting the income tax threshold to £10,000. As Left Foot Forward has noted this will “result in a £700 tax giveaway to all earners including the wealthiest”. And as Vince Cable has admitted, “it’s redistributive effects may be not quite as radical as you get with tax credits.””
But that’s mostly the point of it! After all, before the latest rejigging it was going to be a cut in the basic rate of income tax, billed as “big permanent tax cuts” for those on low and middle incomes.
If you really wanted a radical redistributive effect you could raise the basic rate as well as the allowance. But what good would that do to the party’s electoral prospects in “Middle England”?
“So what is the party going to put first? Policies which are most likely to deliver equality of opportunity, or those which will most likely deliver equality of outcome?”
I am not sure that it makes sense to talk in terms of there being a dictomony between the two. The Spirit Level by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett suggests that distributional equality and social mobility are strongly correlated. I’d, therefore, suggest that we can and should tackle them simaltaneously.
Equality of outcome is only possible by large scale redistribution and social enginering – ie socialism. People have different abilities and work ethic and vary in an infinite number of ways. As Liberals our job surely is to make sure that people can achieve as much as they are capable of,not that everyone ends up in the same place.
I’m all for a theoretical debate but shouldn’t we put our own house in order first?
Simon,
“Equality of outcome is only possible by large scale redistribution and social enginering – ie socialism.”
Not even then! The most motivated, the best self-promoters, and those with the fewest scruples will still rise to the top of the socialist apparatus, the vast state machine that will have to exist to manage the redistribution. They will garner power and privilage to themselves.
I heard a Russian joke once. A chap boarding a busy bus tries to squeeze past the other passangers. “Excuse me, comrade,” he says, to which another passanger replies “If I was a Comrade, friend, I wouldn’t have to get the bus.”
Absolutely not. Equality of opportunity, and let outcome go where people take it.
It’s government’s job to ensure everyone has access to toilet paper. It’s not government’s job to wipe their arses for them.
Everyone should read The Spirit Level.
Demos has just published a book by Liberal Democrats on this issue. They all agree, including David Laws who writes in the forward, that we should be more radical in redistributing resources from the rich to the poor.
You can get the free download here
They even propose the Tobin Tax!
Can I just say here how ridiculous it is that you’ve closed the thread on the sacking of Jenny Tonge?
Obviously it generated a lot of comment and controversy – not all of which you may have agreed with. But just to close it down is completely at odds with your declared purpose of inviting discussion from all quarters both inside and outside the party.
But I suppose this comment will be deleted on the basis that it’s “off-topic”!
“Equality of outcome” politics often involves elaborate social engineering and doesn’t work. Indeed, the past 13 years of Labour have shown principally why it doesn’t work. You end up with initiatives, targets and interference from the state that restricts people’s freedom to actually achieve anything. You end up with the idea that the government can do absolutely everything for people, and that a solution dreamed up by a consultant is far better than the individual solution that the people lower down the chain might come up with.
If, however, you ensure equality of opportunity, and that means opposing extreme concentrations of wealth as well as a bloated “Santa Claus state”, things are different. If you have a limited state that does the areas it does intervene in well, for example one that allows people on the minimum wage to work without being taxed for it, then you will achieve progressive goals. I’m very happy with the current policy direction of the party, mostly, and I think that the last thing UK politics needs is a “New Labour” clone that wants to ensure you do well by running every last facet of your life.
The basis should be equality of opportunity – for the simple reason that people make different choices and desire different lifestyles. Some people are ambitious workaholics, some prefer relaxing in easy jobs. And in any case, the logical conclusion of equality of outcomes is absolutely equal incomes – but why should we care so much about money? Also in the preamble is freedom from conformity, one dear to my heart, and this should be taken into consideration.
Which is not to imply that I think people “choose” to be poor. Actual disadvantage is worrying and deeply unfair. That is why education is important, and the pupil premium (a redistributive transfer) is right. Redistribution is necessary to provide equiality of opportunity.
But nevertheless, income disparity is not a bad thing when limited (to be expected) – not to say that we shouldn’t close it down – but the only self-sustaining sensible way to do that is to help people help themselves.
Oh well – you probably all already know what I’m going to say, but I’ll say it anyway.
“Equality of outcome” is an utterly futile nonsense. It is different for every single individual and even different at different stages of any individual’s life. To pretend that politicians and the state can determine “equality of outcome” is the true end of totalitarian socialism: the dystopian ideal where evryone is wandering around in their same grey Mau suits, eating the same slop, doing the same kafkaesque meaningless drudge and with no incentive. Such a society would be dead from the neck up and soon from the neck down.
The only form of “equality of outcome” (which should really be called something more like “parity of outcome”) that could be aimed at, is the one which says that the product of labour is its full product and that the just wage of labour is its product. And to achieve that; that is, to get rid of the ability of capital and landlord to eat into the product of labour, thus exploiting it, is to eradicate the state that creates and sustains the opportunities for capital and land so to do by created privilege.
Only then can you see how different natural ability and so on determine whether someone’s “parity of outcome” (i.e. being paid all, the full amount that he or she is worth) is capable of supporting them in a decent life, and only then can you begin to build structures that help them achieve a decent life without creating utter dependency or exploiting everyone else to create it.
In order to eradicate privilege you have to eradicate the only body that can create it. Only then do you have a level playing field and a truly free market, and only then can you see whether the outcomes need voluntary assistance or not.
Short of that, a Georgist economy of Single Tax based on land would be the closest achievable…:-) Since land could not then be a factor in the exploitation of labour, and the availability of capital is so often tied to the so-called wealth in real property, the ability of capital similarly to exploit labour would be minimised.
I am not sure how great The Spirit Level is actually at demonstrating it, but Mark Mills is right that income and, say, educational attainment are linked. You have to tackle both at the same time.
Equality of outcome is an absurd ambition.
Instead there must be a satisfatory Income Welfare State providing free education, free health and a reasonable income safety net. Liberals must surely concentrate upon that, together with greater equality of opportunity not only in education and health but also in the inheritance of wealth.
There is nothing wrong with footballers or pop stars as well as business entrepreneurs earning great fortunes. They do so because people pay for the benefits and the enterntainment that they provide. What is wrong is that their children inherit tens, hundreds, or thousands of millions while other peoples’ children never inherit anything.
What is the LibDem policy on a judicious positive redistribution of gifted and inherited wealth in each new generation?
Given that there is 17.5% VAT (double taxation, of course) on ordinary expenditure, what would be wrong with, for example, a 10% Capital Donor Tax on all the luxury expenditure of ALL giving and bequeathing of capital (however defined), except between partners, spouses annd cohabiting siblings? – in place of the present 40% IHT with vast and unlimited 0% exemptions for lifetime gifts and agricultural, business and shareholding assets held by the wealthy?
And given that all earned income – of footballers, pop stars, business people and others, is quite rightly taxed progressively, what is wrong with, for example, a cumulative lifetime Unearned Capital Receipts Tax on gifts and bequests of capital that beneficiaries have done absolutely nothing themselves to create, earn, make or save, at progressive rates up to 40% and maybe beyond, starting at the same 10%?
It’s double taxation, of course. So make the Capital Donor Tax deductible from the Unearned Capital Receipts Tax, with a wide 10% starting band, so that for most beneficiaries receiving modest amounts the 10% tax will already have been paid by donors. Only those who receive larger amounts of unearned capital during their lifetime will pay more, so encouraging donors and bequeathers to spread their generosity more widely.
Then why not use the proceeds to give every British born UK citizen at 25 a basic minimum £10,000 British Universal Inheritance? This is less than 10% of average wealth in the country. Introduce it over a five year period, starting at £2,000 for those reaching 25 in the first year, £4,000 in the next year and so on up to £10,000 in the fifth year and thereafter.
Banks could lend to those over 18 against the certain receipt at 25. Government could subsidise the interest rates on loans for approved purposes such as education, business start up and home purchase.
A LIberal Asset Welfare State would help to reduce the need for and the cost of the Income Welfare State safety net. Child poverty is important, but so is young adult poverty, which in turn affects child poverty.
British Universal Inheritance would help reduce alienation, financial and social exclusion and young adult poverty and would increase entrepreneurial activity, home ownership and opportunity.
Isn’t it time that the LIberal inspired Income Welfare State was followed by a Liberal inspired Asset Welfare State, leading to an entirely new form of Popular Capitalism in place of the present unfettered Dynastic Capitalism? Let the UK lead the way internationally as we did with privatisation.
There you are folks! Make of it what you will!
But please don’t speak to me about EU-inspired Bambini Bonds! Clause IV nationalisation kept Labour out of power from 1979 to 1997 until they dropped it.. The LIbDem’s Clause IV – slavish support for the EU and the Euro – will hold the LibDems down for many years, with or without electoral reform, unless and until they drop that.. For a start, LibDem EU, Euro and CAP madness means that the only realistic coalition partner for the LibDems would be Labour. Rather a one sided way to approach a General Election, don’t you think?
Dale:
Everybody now…”Oh yes there is!”
If their exceptional incomes and wealth are derived from privilege, which has, by definition, been granted by state action or state protection (and there are *vast* amounts of this going on now – it is not a relic of the aristocracy – every piece of crony capitalism is a piece of state created privilege), or they are derived from artificial scarcity in some way, then it is a problem.
And “redistribution” is not the best way to fix that economic rent caused by privilege; the way is to eradicate the privilege that leads to it, for only this way does it begin to end the exploitation of others who are disadvantaged by that privilege. Sadly, however, for fans of state action, privilege is inherent in the nature of the state, always has been and there is no sign of it ever not being.
“Jock”,
I agree! Exceptional pre-tax incomes and wealth are wrong it they come from vastly unequal inherited or gifted capital.
But “Oh no there isn’t! ” anything wrong with footballers, pop stars and business people earning and making a lot from a standing start, because of all the pleasure and utility they provide for which people are happy to pay!
What is wrong is when the children of the footballers start off with great fortunes while the children of others – or orphans – start off with nothing. So the children of the wealthy should pay some tax on all unearned gifted and inherited capital received so that all young adults can receive a basic minimum inheritance of capital to bring about greater equality of opportunity.
Why not?
Wow! I really thought that this debate was going to result in an unseemly spat.
The month of being polite to one another is obvioulsy still ongoing, or has (in Labour jargon) become embedded in practice.
Oh, yes there is! (Sheesh – where are Huntbach and Payne to see this attack on wealth through privilege at the hands of Jock!).
You misunderstand me, and in fact I believe you have it completely the wrong way about. There is nothing wrong with the passing on of property and wealth, so long as it has been justly gained in the first place. Yes, lots of inherited wealth has originated as a result of privilege, especially that based on land, in the past at least.
But lots of wealth, including much of that of what you describe here as “people earning and making a lot from a standing start” is also not justly gained, but gained because of privilege. Intellectual property, since you mention “pop stars” is a huge state created privilege that creates artificial scarcity of something that is not naturally scarce (words and notes of music). Barriers to entry of competitors caused by superfluous state regulation grant privilege to those already in a business against those who then find it difficult to get in. Landlordism continues to this day.
Many exceptional advantages of capital over labour are created by state privilege and protection of the money system. The tax system is often applied to give benefits to one group against another. The system remains riddled with privilege.
It is certainly harder to argue with you about “footballers” who are, after all, at first sight at least operating in a completely private sphere and therefore ought to know the barriers to entry to higher echelons of sport and the potential earnings, but here again, we find the hand of privileged capital in the form of the owners of clubs who can access vast sums of money based on existing privilege and create a wholly artificial market when compared with clubs whose owners do not have such access. But there is certainly an “economic rent” involved in professional football, which is indicative of some kind of skewing of the market somewhere.
There is more wealth created by privilege amongst those you assume have simply “worked and earned and entertained people” than you think. But once wealth is justly earned, it is up to the owner of it to dispose of as they wish and we should not take that away from the recipients.
“Jock,
Hands Off!
Thomas Paine is on my side!
It was he, in “Agrarian Justice” in 1797, who first suggested that every young adult should receive an inheritance of £15 financed by a 10% tax on inheritance, as I discovered when the Fabian Society came out with “A Capital Idea” in 2000. Until then I had thought that universal inheritance, as I called it in 1996, was my idea!
There is nothing wrong with passing on honestly acquired wealth, of course.
There is nothing wrong with spending money on goods, either. but we still tax it, with VAT.
There is nothing wrong with taxing the luxury expenditure of bequeathing or giving capital with a Capital Donor Tax (Value Given Tax? VGT? Very Good Tax?!)
There is nothing wrong with earning income , but we still tax it, with Income Tax.
There is nothing wrong with taxing the receipt of unearned gifted and inherited wealth with a progressive Unearned Capital Receipts Tax.
More later!
No, Payne with a “y” – as in the poster above who regularly calls me names for being an apologist for wealth and privilege!
Paine, of course, was dealing with a situation is which almost no inherited wealth could have been “justly earned” since it was, as the title of the work suggests largely based on landlordism – a state protected privilege.
My point is that if you abolish the state created privilege from the world, you won’t need to do the redistribution. Your system lets the injustice happen, then commits another injustice in an attempt to put it right. Mine doesn’t allow it to happen in the first place and so a more just distribution of wealth is more naturally achieved, and for those who still cannot attain financial independence then there is non-coercive assistance, but the number requiring such will be relatively small absent the exploitation enabled by state action.
“Jock”
Please explain your proposal – or system – in simple terms. I have explained my proposal and do not understand your objections, other than that you have an even better system yourself! Why does one exclude the other? You do seem to be rather keen on the unequal inheritance of wealth, I must say!
System? Now you want a system? It’s the “system” that got us into this mess in the first place. The state is a system of privilege. It creates the environment in which exploitation of one by another, or, usually, one whole group by another group, can flourish.
It is that system of state privilege which causes the great disparities of wealth you seek another system to redress, and in doing so, create a second injustice, of theft of justly acquired wealth alongside the unjustly acquired wealth the state enabled to be accumulated that you want to attack, rightly.
The best bet is to abolish that first system, the state, that creates the first injustice. Then you won’t need yet another system in a (vain, incidentally) attempt to set the first injustice right.
“Jock”
It seems that your solution to inequality of outcome and/or inequality of opportunity – the subjects of this thread – is to abolish the State or, as second best, for the State to introduce a single tax on land.
British Universal Inheritance, Capital Donor Tax and Unearned Capital Receipts Tax are not substitutes for all other subsidies and taxes operated by the State. They represent an additional policy proposal.to bring about greater equality of opportunity in the inheritance of wealth, given that the State already provides free education and health and a lot else besides.
I suppose your views stop you from haviing to think too much about the benefits or details of alternatives to them.
So your solution to state created privilege is more state action. Don’t you think that a bit odd? Oughtn’t you to look at what caused the problem you are trying to fix rather than simply deciding to take more off people in an attempt to do something that countless people have tried before to do by similar means (confiscation and largesse) with evident lack of success (since you are still trying)?
On the contrary – I think about the details of “alternatives” to my views all the time. How could I not do so, since the entire society in which I live and operate is so deeply mired in them. And I say “mired” deliberately, because I rarely find any benefit that outweighs the problems the state causes, and if I do, I can usually find a way in which, if it is a benefit to be worth having, it can be had without the state, more justly and, frankly, more humanely.
I doubt those who believe the state is the answer actually think about any other possible answers very often, and certainly not at whether their beloved state might actually be the cause of the problem in the first place! No; there’s too much to do putting it all right again!
“Jock”
From what you have said in this thread, your view strikes me as destructive, formulaic and negative rather than constructive, creative and positive.
What would you construct instead of the State?
Humanity. Maybe you don’t believe in it. Seems lots of people don’t.
Justice. Peace. Free society. Co-operation. Equity. Self-determination. That’s why I am a liberal. What are you sir?
“Jock”
Seeing your views expressed in this thread as destructive, formulaic and negative rather than constructive, creative and positive, I asked you what you would construct instead of the State.
You answered humanity, justice, peace, free society, cooperation, equity, self-determination.. I should also have asked you how you would construct what you would construct, without taking in any way for granted the existence of a State.
You also suggested, strangely, that I and others might not believe in humanity. How would one not believe in humanity? It exists as, unfortunately, also does inhumanity, whether within or without States. Remember Lord of the Flies?
You vounteer that you are a liberal. I see from the Free Dictionary that anarchism is “the theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished”. Since you are into describing yourself for my benefit and presumably for the benefit of others, might you consider describing yourself as an anarchist rather than as – or perhaps as well as – a liberal?
This is becoming a bit time consuming for no good purpose, it seems to me, since it is way off the original subject. I have to get on with sending out a Press Release and Letter to Editors about the Oxford Think Week next week, so I may not reply again. But do have a look at http://www.thinkweek.co.uk and come along if you are interested!
Can I join in please?
Jock is correct to say that redistribution isn’t a solution to causes of the problem of unjust wealth distributions, but Dane also has a partial point that there needs to be a bridging mechanism to prevent additional problems from being created whilst getting there.
Equality of outcome is a wonderful theoretical concept, but any correlative relationship with social mobility must be questioned as to which is the cause and which is the effect – I’d argue that greater social mobility creates greater equality of outcome, not the other way round, and therefore to target the latter is perverse, impossible to achieve and counterproductive.
The consequence is that some wealth inequality must be accepted, and therefore we must ask to what degree we can tolerate this.
Mentioning the case of footballers, pop stars, actors or celebrities etc who are paid ‘obscene’ salaries is a bit of a misnomer because their earning power is limited by their creative ability and determined by a balance of market forces. It is also important to note even the highest earners in those fields earn tiny fractions of those who set the financial rules, such as hedge fund managers.
A quick comparison shows top-earning sports personality Tiger Woods to have earnt $85m in 2008 and $110m in 2009 (followed by David Beckham and Michael Schumacher), or top-earning actor Harrison Ford’s $85m share from the 4th Indie film, which compares to James Simons who paid himself $2.5bn, John Paulson (£2bn), John Arnold ($1.5bn) and George Soros ($1.1bn) in the 2008/9 financial year.
So if we’re going to attack inequality I think it’s sensible to choose the right targets by formulating a solid set of reasons why the sums paid are or aren’t fair.
I think it’s interesting that the differentials at the top of each scale are relatively proportionate to one another, so it seems that there is some functioning mechanism at work, so my question is what would be a fair multiplication of average wage levels?
(NB. The prime example of corporate responsibility was Ben & Jerry’s, who famously limited the highest wage to 100X the minimum in their company, which is massively more moderate than the current unconstrained 100,000X limit in the USA.)
Once we have set some sense of the acceptable limits of inequality then it becomes much easier to understand how to ensure the base can be raised relative to the peak by increasing opportunity for mobility within that scale.
I think it’s also worth saying that unless we can do this then we allow the arguments for invasive state intervention through blunt redistributive methods to gain ground, while at the same time leaving the door open to the laissez-faire brigade, who between them only give rise to growing discontent and conflict across the floor – by creating a commonly understood mechanism we create a tool with which we can win the argument for voluntary restraint and mutual reponsibility and prevent the dual opposing attacks on civic and economic liberties.
Well, at least I think education is the only way to simultaneously tackle the two problems Mark Mills raises, which also gives us the means to (as Was says) show we are putting our own house in order.
Hmmm – I’m afraid that my difficulty in writing any more is compounded by the now steady trickle of crimson dripping into my eyes from my bloodied forehead…:-) Maybe Oranjepan’s calming unction will help!
oi!
Jock, when was it ever a case of either/or between moral equivalents?
Whenever I see that an alarm bell rings ‘false choice’.
What moral equivalents?
State/no-state?
I see no equivalence there!
“Oranjepan”
I agree of course that “redistribution isn’t a solution to CAUSES of the problem of unjust wealth distribution”! But it is a solution to the RESULT of the problem of any wealth distribution, inevitably an unequal outcome, whether just or unjust, being transferred into the next generation – the creation of inequality of opportunity.
It is seriously unjust, from the point of view of young adults in each new generation, if some of them start off with the prospect or the fact of inheriting tens, hundreds, or thousands of millions of pounds, while others will never inherit anything at all. This serious inequality of opportunity can and should be reduced by redistributing the inheritance of gifted and bequeathed capital in the way that I suggest.
Calls for social mobility take as given the unequal starting positions in life. The point about greater equality of opportunity is to change these starting positions. That is what a £10,000 British Universal Inheritance at 25 would help to do in a modest way, financed by flat rate 10% Capital Donor Tax on the luxury expenditure of giving and bequeathing capital in tandem with and deductible from a progressive 10% and upwards cumulative lifetime Unearned Capital Receipts Tax.
I did incidentally persuade the Liberal Party to adopt this as party policy at the 120th Annual Liberal Party Assembly in 2005.
I have in the meantime have had no wish to help the LibDems, who are anathema to me because of their slavish pro-EU position (thank goodness they have had no power to take us into the Euro, as they unwisely would have done if they could have done), but reckon that at this stage there is no chance of them adopting this British Universal Inheritance policy before the General Election. So here it is, teased out by your Saturday debate!
It will be interesting to see if either of the main parties comes out with something similar. Being a liberal policy, either of them could pinch it! But the fact that it stems from a popular capitalist ideology rather than a dynastic capitalist ideology will probably put them both off for different reasons.
With any luck by the General Election after that we will have a Preferential Vote of some kind and I suspect that the LibDems will be sunk unless they change their approach to the EU in the meantime, rather as Labour were kept out of power by their outdated Clause IV nationalisation policy for twenty years. Pity, really!
But perhaps a new EU-sceptic Global Britain leader will come along and change everything. In which case I will look forward to rejoining them, if I am still able to do so, and to seeing the two liberal parties become one again.
Dane,
I’m glad you’re not a doctor because treating the symptoms isn’t the same thing as treating the disease.
I also have to say that I think you haven’t moved on from fighting the 1974 general election – let it go man, it was a different era. Britain hadn’t even joined the EEC back in the day and the whole spectrum of issues have changed since then.
If it were up to me I would almost be tempted to moderate your comment for going wildly off-topic onto your own obsession which you find impossible to avoid at any turn, but I think it stands up for what it is – as they say, self-flattery will get you everywhere… with yourself!
So, first off, may I congratulate you for teasing out of yourself your opinion of LibDem policy to confirm your own muddled assertions. I’m sure that is a highly effective debating tactic in village halls, but an argument it does not make.
I’m also highly intrigued at your proposition that transitional policies both are and are not required, equally to avoid disruption, because no disruption would be caused and because any disruption is less unjust that your preferred form of radical solution – that’s almost exactly the definition of having your cake, eating it and vomming it up again to give to your neighbour!
I’ll happily admit that’s being a bit facetious, but it does highlight the highly dubious quality of what your intended outcomes really are – that is, apart from just shifting blame for your own problems onto others – and whether you are actually realistic or wise in making conclusions about what they may be.
I’m also happy to accept a citizen’s dividend, or CBI, or whatever it’s being called these days, does have some obvious appeal, but I challenge you to put forward some calculations to show how it could be afforded.
And finally (rounding things out) I have to question how your tax proposals would actually play out given the fact we are members of the EU and we do have freedom of movement and how this does create a strong element of tax competition within the high level of migrant flows between countries which is a fact of today’s life – as a former Ukipper I suspect you are happy to abandon all the real diplomatic, social and economic benefits enabled by political integration in exchange for the folly of a singular definition of ‘sovereignty’.
As far as I’m concerned if you want to increase equality of any sort then it is imperative to be consistent and do it between people around the world, not just internally – and that requires representative politcal forums with political institutions that can be held accountable as standard in an open and transparent way.
The EU or the UN are by no means perfect and not even their biggest fan would say so, but they are an infinite improvement on the thousands of years of war and suffering out of whose ashes they were created. But neither should we forget that the UK is by no means immune from the same corruption in the current political establishment. At least between each of the political infrastructures we have created a system of checks and balances that prevents any one from tyrranising all the others.
“Oranjepan”
I do not understand much of the way you talk about things and it seems that you do not understand what I am talking about.
A citizen’s dividend is an annual income, with which I do not agree, since it is either enough to live on, or it is not. It would represent a huge capitalalised sum at index linked gilt interest rates.
British Universal Inheritance, Citizen’s Inheritance or the Fabian Society’s “A Capital Idea”, is a broadly self-financing once a llifetime modest inheritance of capital. If you look back in the thread you will see that it works on the averages,
Why so much personal attack, bluster and unpleasant imagery, I wonder, rather than argument? I leave others to decide the reasons.
Dane,
My point is this: liberalism, since its inception, or at least until the second half of the nineteenth century was the political grouping that was sceptical of the state. When Cobden and Ricardo and company looked at the poverty being caused by expensive and adulterated foodstuffs being sold to the workers, their answer was not to let the British farmers and merchants carry on inflating their prices because state protection allowed them to and then try and pay off the poor so they could afford these inflated prices. It was to eradicate the state created privilege that allowed the farmers and merchants to inflate their prices in the first place.
In other words they tried to undo the causes of the problem which they saw had been caused by earlier state intervention. This is clearly a better way, because it removes a state created injustice rather than leaving one in place and then compounding it by adding another injustice.
Taking peoples’ resources is not a trivial matter. Except in a few specific cases where the precise beneficiaries of a privilege can be identified and the excess profit of that specific privilege taken off them it is a blunt instrument. In your case, the suggestion that all estates would pay towards this universal inheritance does not care whether the estate was wealth justly earned or not. It is merely a random confiscation. The more the state gets to move around chunks of peoples’ property the more it seems to fall into the trap, highlighted so long ago by the likes of Spencer, of believing it actually has a right to all of everyone’s property, except that which it decides to deign to allow you to keep.
Now, the cause of much of the inequity which you rightly highlight as a scandalous injustice toward the poorest in society is previous, and current, state intervention to grant privilege to one group of people at the expense of another. Far better than allowing such an existing injustice perpetrated by the state to continue, and *then* try to put it right by yet more state intervention is not, or at least should not, be the instinctive way of liberal thinking. It should be to eradicate the state created problem first. By all means, if coercive collectivist “philanthropy” is your “bag”, then, after you have eradicated the original interference that created the problem and you still believe the economic outcomes for people are not fair, then do some new state action.
But do not compound two injustices, call it “redistribution” and say it is A Good Thing.
And to be honest, inheritance is not that vast a problem, not compared with, say, land monopoly. Eradicating the monopoly cost off land for the poorest by Land Value Tax, preferably simply turned straight round and distributed as a Citizen’s Dividend with only the administration costs taken out would be the simplest and most far reaching mechanism that would have significant further effects, such as lowering the cost of labour, so that more people could be working, the nation’s industries more competitive and more people gaining financial self-sufficiency instead of state dependency.
This is far better done on an annual basis rather than as some kind of capital lump sum, because the “land value” concerned is something that is made up of annual economic rent, not some lifetime accrued capital, it is a sum that will adjust for the entire lifetime of the recipient – rather than say, the two extremes of paying one person a lump sum at 25 and they get hit by a bus and killed during their birthday hangover the next day or paying someone a lump sum at 25 and finding they live to 125, and it *prevents* the build up over a lifetime of such large pools of wealth to be inherited in the first place.
This is all *long* historical policy of both the contemporary parties in Britain that claim the liberal name. Why would you want to swap it for something that is more cumbersome, less equitable and fails in any way to fix the problems caused by the state of exploitation of monopoly privilege?
I start with the world as it is and would like to try to make it fairer in an evolutionary rather than a revolutionary way. Both greater equality of opportunity in the inheritance of capital and greater equality in after-tax income are important.
Land value tax – or rating empty property on a grand scale at a variety of rates from a tax on notional income from land to a destruction of the value of land – is not a panacea for everything in life. Moreover, it need not be incompatible with British Universal Inheritance, so I do not understand from your political theorising why you are so against it.
We already have a flat rate Capital Donor Tax: it is the so-called Inheritance Tax. But it is at too high a flat rate which has enabled lobbyists to win too many vast and unlimited lifetime capital gift and asset linked exemptions for the wealthy.
The Insititute of Fiscal Studies already proposed a progressive cumulative lifetime Unearned Capital Receipts Tax – which they called an Accessions Tax – in the 1970s.
Using these two taxes, with the former deductible from the latter, to finance a British Universal Inheritance of £2,000 for British born UK citizens reaching 25 the first year, £4,000 the next year, up to £10,000 – itself subject to the cumulative lifetime tax in due course – for those reaching 25 in the fifth year and thereafter, would make life fairer in each new generation. The Fabian Society proposed something similar earlier this century – “A Capital Idea” – but New Labour control freaks suppressed it and produced Child Trust Funds and Baby Bonds.
Banks could lend to young adults from the age of 18 against the certain receipt, with state (yes, state!) subsidised interest rates for loans for education and business start up. Alienation, financial and social exclusion and young adult poverty would be reduced; entrepreneurial activity, home ownership and educational and other opportunity would be increased. In due course such an Asset Welfare State would reduce somewhat the need for and cost of the Income Welfare State.
Anarchists may be against British Universal Inheritance for some theoretical reasons of their own, but I cannot for the life of me see why liberals should be, other than perhaps for reasons of personal self interest or, in the case of LIbDems, EU-madness such as Bambini Bonds.
Where I said in my previous post “empty property” I should have said “all, including empty property”
You are right, Dane, you are completely missing the point.
It’s quite simple, but whether it is worth re-repeating I’m not sure.
State privilege causes the problems you seek to address, most obviously in the monopolisation of the economic rent of land, which usually forms the biggest part of the majority of inheritances for example.
You propose leaving that privilege where it is and adding yet another payer of state interference on top is some attempt to provide redress for the people disadvantaged by the existing state interference.
The simpler, more equitable and more liberal solution is to address the problem itself. Until that is done I certainly have no truck with any further interventions. Two wrongs do not make a right. Fixing the first wrong might.
yet another payer of state interference
yet another layer of state interference, that should read.
“Jock”
I know what you want to destroy. But how do you introduce Land Value Taxation without the State?
You seem to like your anarchistic theory too much to be able to think about any practical improvements in the world as it is.
I asked you what you would construct, instead of the State, without in any way taking for granted the existence of the state. For all your theorising, you have not given an answer.
So be it.
I have not given you an answer because anarchism does not seek to “construct” anything. This implies that I, like politicians, have some “grand scheme” they think is right, and given a bare majority (or not even that) they will impose it on everyone else.
That is illiberal and unjust. We believe that humanity is sufficiently sophisticated on its own to develop structures voluntarily and spontaneously as the need arises to address particular “social problems”. You, on the other hand, despite your humanism or secularism or whatever think week is about, seem not to be able to conceive of humanity except with some kind of artificial authoritative body placed in governance over them. *That’s* sad to me!
That said, I could regale you for weeks with “ideas” of the sort of structures that have been suggested might arise to address particular things. But they are not prescriptions.
seem not to be able to conceive of humanity except with some kind of artificial authoritative body placed in governance over them.
…and despite all the evidence of history that these authoritative governing structures *cause* most of the problems politicians then spend their lives trying to address, instead of spending their lives doing something actually productive.
Ahh, now things are heating up!
I’m sorry you don’t like the imagery, Dane, do you think it is an unfair characterisation of your position?
Anyway I think we’ve hit upon an important point – do we indeed “start with the world as it is and… try to make it fairer” by growing the state, by shrinking the state or by reforming the state?
I think it is difficult to argue that following the huge masses of regulation introduced under Labour and the resulting increases in inequality that it is in any way possible to repeat the practise. Given the troubles in the economy I also think the public has little stomach for unaffordable policies which cause greater confusion.
So I was particularly impressed when Clegg began talking about eradicating market distortions as a way to increase fairness by simplifying bureaucracy (and thereby saving billions for the Treasury).
And I’m particularly glad that this has been reflected in the ‘four steps to a fairer Britain’.
Although raising income tax allowances to £10,000 will do far more than anything involving inheritance tax and do it far quicker than anything involving a land tax, a sustainable jobs market built on a better schools system will provide far more opportunities for individuals to fulfil their potential than any amount of tinkering with the tax regime.
So while we debate I think we should also acknowledge the LibDems do have our feet planted firmly on the ground about what appeals to the public.
**APPLAUSE**
“Jock”
Anarchism does not seek to “construct” anything, you say, and it certainly seems that way. So there it is! Humanity “develops” structures that might arise, you say. States have arisen. Oh well! Have fun!
“Oranjepan”
“Ahh now things are heating up!” , you say.
Gadfly?
How do I use “blockquote cite” please?
I skipped over the imagery, because it appeared to be rather distasteful, so I don’t know whether it is an unfair characterisation or not and I can’t be bothered to look.
The themes of this thread are equality of outcome and equality of opportunity. As I said, greater equality of after-tax income is important. And so is greater equality of gifted and inherited capital in each new generation. One does not exclude the other. The LibDems rather anodyne fairness point includes the former to some extent but altogether excludes the latter.
I accept that you may be right about what appeals to the public at this stage, when there is so much instinctive opposition to Inheritance Tax.
“APPLAUSE”, you say.
Cheerleader? Gadfly? Or both?
It is a question of getting the reform of Inheritance Tax across to all those who will benefit, i.e. all British born young adult UK citizens, whose children will benefit immediately and in due course directly, and to their parents, who will be pleased to see their children being given a once a lifetime helping hand and introduction to the ownership of savings and capital – or reduction of debt.
Banks should be pleased, since every young adult will have to have a bank account into which to receive the British Universal Inheritance.
Anyway, there is clearly no danger of the LibDems helping themselves to the policy before the General Election. So THAT’s a good thing! I wonder whether either of the main parties will, in some form or another. We will see!
You are the one who quoted Tom Paine. Have a look at Common Sense for a critique of how “government” became “state”. State comes about because of aggression, conquest and confiscation. Just because it once did, now that we know the consequences, if we decide to ditch the state why do you think it would “arise” again. Once bitten, twice shy so to speak. The institutions of justice and protection that would likely arise in a stateless society would at the very least be aligned against the sort of mechanisms that allows a state to happen – giving someone a territorial monopoly of ultimate arbitration.
Or are you saying that humanity has not advanced one bit since the days of King Menes?
“Jock”
How would you “ditch the state”, as you want to do?
I’m sorry – if this hasn’t already gone far off topic, then an exposition of how a non-state society might be achieved certainly wold take it so.
One thing is certain; it cannot be done “politically” since you have ably demonstrated that even those who consider themselves “liberal” – state skeptics – are so deeply enamoured of it they can’t help themselves.
Opportunities are for sure few and far between, but the Kondratiev wave of economic collapse, the imminent bankruptcy of the welfare ponzi scheme and deep distrust in politicians may provide a more receptive audience.
Market-anarchism and Mutualism are both about proposing, and even creating, alternative solutions to social problems when state ones are proposed. There does seem to be a certain appetite for such things at the moment.
“Jock”
How would you ditch/overthrow the state – which as you know I do not want to do – without a violent revolution? How many people would you consider it worth killing to overthrow the state? Wouldn’t that be rather illiberal?
Seems to me like people could do with reading some of Anthony Crosland’s ‘Future of Socialism’ published in 1956. As a revisionist socialist (many of his supporters in fact ended up forming the SDP) he argued for a position in between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. In fact he argued (and right so in my view) that equality of opportunity in itself could not be achieved unless there was a great deal more equality of outcome. For example if peoples starting positions in life are so different how can it be possible for them to have an equal chance? Later in the 1970s John Rawls called this concept ‘Democratic Equality’ in his book ‘A Theory of Justice’.
Simon Slater,
How I agree with you! It is good to hear a voice of sanity addressing the subject of this thread..
By great coincidence I have just told an evening class which I am attending in Oxford on “The rise and fall of political ideology in Britain since 1945” that I mean to look again at and review as part of the course Rawls “Theory of Justice”. Because when I first read it in the 70’s while standing for Parliament in Newbury either side of my finals in PPE (as a mature student) at New College Oxford, I was very struck that the” people in the original position” were not considered to want to inherit in a capitalist democracy a basic minimum, at least, of inherited wealth. I took that as an example of the normal middle/upper class taboo, or blind spot, on discussion of the redisttribution of inherited wealth. But someone told me since that Rawls rectified this in a later edition. I will be interested to see.
And also by another curious coincidence, in view of your other suggestion, a friend also attending the course told me this evening that she is planning to review Crosland’s Future of Socialism, which I remember as being too much about wealth effortlessly trickling down from above, but I may have remembered that wrong.
Dane
The trick with reading the Future of Socialism is to make sure you get an un-edited edition. Unfortunately the 2006 re-print misses out quite a lot of stuff. So try and suggest to your freind that they read an earlier version. I think the 1968 version is complete. The Future of Socialism is very much a book of its time. In the final chapter Crosland talks about how automation will ensure all of us have far more leisure, to pursue the arts and culture, and even mentions we could all go on to a working week with far less hours. That never seemed to materialise. Crosland also talk about how capitalism no longer exists and that we have moved into a post capitalist era.
Another good book on this subject is actually Roy Hattersley’s ‘Choose Freedom’ which in my view try to combine the social democratic tradition of community as espoused by R.H. Tawney with Crosland concept of equality. David Marquand also has written the ‘Unprincipled Soceity’ which I suppose the SDP response from the early 1980s. But apparently in the 1970’s Crosland told all the young revisonists like Hattersley, Owen, Marquand, Shirley Williams etc to go way and write their own versions of the Future of Socialism.
Must admit I find Rawls far more complicated to understand. Far more theoretical but his ‘Original Position’ and ‘Difference Principle’ helps to justify arguments for greater equality or outcome far more succintly. Similar to Crosland’s Rent of Abaility idea. The view that differentials in pay are only justified if they benefit the least well off and more so than they would be if the differential was not paid. But the argument is that pay differentials are not justified on merit or talent but on the view that those services would not provided properly unless there was a pay differential. Probably badly explained but both Crosland and Rawls seem to come to that view. Of course a question here is whether or not this view is similar to the trickle down effect as you have already stated? It is not totally disimilar but I suspect the society Crosland and Rawls wanted to see are very different to the type of society the Thactherites wanted.
Simon Slater
Yes, thanks for that, but do you notice that you avoid the question of the redistribution of the inheritance of wealth?
Going back to the beginning of this thread, Stephen Tall wrote in his article that liberals who believe in equality of opportunity for everyone (Equality of Opportunity liberals) will tend to stress the importance of education as the chief means by which individuals can better themselves and improve their lot, whereas liberals who believe that government must promote equality of outcomes (Equality of Outcome liberals) will argue that, yes, education is vital but ultimately life chances are determined by income – and the poorest in society will find life stacked against them no matter how good the educational opportunities.”
I would argue that in addition to stressing education, Equality of Opportunity liberals, could, should and would, if not subject to the middle/upper class taboo or blind spot on thinking about redistribution of inheritance, call for exactly that – the judiciouls redistribution of inherited wealth in each new generation.
And in fact, the preamble to the original and continuing constitution of the original and continuing Liberal Party, says that the Liberal Party “exists to build a Liberal Society in which every citizen shall posess liberty, PROPERTY and security and none shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. Its chief care is for the OPPORTUNITIES of the individual.” Hence it was natural for the Liberal Party to adopt British Universal Inheritance at the 120th Annual Liberal Party Assembly in 2005, in order to redistribute the inheritance of wealth in each new generation. By their constitution ,and now by their policies, the Liberal Party tend to be Equality of Opportunity Liberals.
The constitution of the Liberal Democrats, however, now including the influence of the SDP, says that “we exist to build a fair society in which we seek to BALANCE the fundamental values of liberty, EQUALITY and community, in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. We opppose all forms of entrenched inequality. We support a just distribution of the rewards of success. We support the widest possible distribution of wealth”. No mention of opportunity or of property for all, which it may imply is not possible. So it seems that the Liberal Democrats are constitutionally more led to be Equality of Outcome liberals when it comes to income and wealth.
Nevertheless, if, again, the middle/upper class taboo/blind spot on the redistribution of inherited wealth is overcome, Equality of Outcome Liberal Democrat liberals can no doubt see that a judicious redistribution of inherited wealth in each new generation would increase the width of wealth distribution. It would also increase equality without reducing liberty, because everyone would start off more equally.
So perhaps it is not too much to hope that maybe the Liberal Democrats will in due course follow the Liberal Party and adopt at some stage British Universal Inheritance in order to redistribute the inheritance of wealth in the interests of greater equality of opportunity in each new generation.
The problem with equality of opportunity is that it cannot exist without a great deal of equality of outcome. That is why when Conservatives talk about equality of opportunity it is a bit weak. The problem of course is that even if you had the best education system available absolute equality of opportunity would still be impossible if you had some kids coming from extremely poor backgrounds and others from extremely wealthy ones. The wealthy and the middle class kids will always have more opportunities because their parents are generally more educated and know how to play the system to get the best education. In this sense the bigger recipients of government welfare is often the middle classes because they know how to get their kids into the best state schools, etc, same with health.
Of course complete equality of opportunity is itself probably an unachievable aspiration even if you had a great deal more equality of outcome. However I would argue that if people do not believe in more equality of outcome then by default they cannot believe in equality of opportunity in its truest form.
In terms of inheritance tax I think it plays an important role in redistribution, indeed inherited wealth is probably the biggest obstacle in terms of ever achieving a realisable concept of equality of opportunity. The problem is of course that no one wants to pay it. They may think other people should pay it, but generally think they should be excluded. Of course thats the problem with all taxes.
The paradox facing all political parties as a result is therefore as follow:
1. Everyone wants better and more public services
2. People see the need for tax to be raised to do this. But then dont think it should be them that have to pay the extra tax.
3. Politicians then are forced into a position of promising tax cuts and improved public services all at the same time.
4. This can only be achieved if the economy is growing at a very fast rate and in historical terms the British economy generally does not provide enough growth to pay for all the demands upon it.
5. People get disillusioned with politcians because they cannot deliver the promises they have made in elections. Yet the politians would never have won the election had they not made such unrealistic promises.
Simon Slater,
I agree with you in many ways, but have you looked at my proposal and arguments in my post the 16th from the top above?
Dane,
how exactly would you determine who qualifies for this ‘British Universal Inheritance’? It sounds similar to something which has been tried in the past – that proved popular among the group which qualified, but was very divisive.
Simon,
‘Everyone wants better and more public services’ – really? Everyone, better, and, more, public services? that’s just a small bit of a sweeping statement.
Oranjepan
You are right it is a sweeping statement and if of course a big generalisation. But I think it does outline the views of people in my experience. The view was not meant to be taken totally seriously but I think does highlight an underpinning problem all parties have.
Dane
Not too sure about this idea of a Universal Inheritance. Would it be means tested or given to everyone? A lot of people might just blow the money?
“Oranjepan”
Every British born young adult who is still a UK citizen would receive the British Universal Inheritance, for which they would need to open a bank account – end of financial exclusion – on their 25th birthday.
I know many EU-fanatic Liberal Democrats will not like the lack of an EU dimension, but I believe in cooperative progressive nation states, such as the UK, within which empathy operates to a significant extent, Of course I also believe in aid from such nations to other nation states that need it. And once British Universal Inheritance is up and running, I would link aid to other countries to some kind of inequality measure within recipient countries.
Other experience of schemes similar to universal inheritance? Australia certainly provides capital to help with house buiding, but that does not help all citizens, which is what universal inheritance does.
Of course, in around 2002 – I could check the date – Gordon Brown announced his “Opportunity for All” soundbite, soon after the Fabian Society came up with “A Capital Idea” – very similar to British Universal Inheritance. I gave evidence on behalf of the Campaign for Universal Inheritance to the Consultation Process. But the Consultation Process was cynically given to a “Savings Incentives Team” in the Treasury – which of course City inveestment managers liked – instead of to an “Opportunity for All Team”.
So we got a Savings Incentives Scheme, the Child Trust Fund, and the Baby Bond. You might say that the Baby Bond is a kind of universal inheritance. But it is not.
The Baby Bond is at the wrong time – the British born baby’s birth. It should be the same amount in any one year for all British born 25 year olds who are still UK citizens.
The Baby Bond is ludicrously means tested in the wrong way – between a piffling £250 and £500, according to whether parents just happen to be – or not to be – on income support at the time that the baby is born, regardless of whether or not the babies are future inheritance billionaires. Whereas the means test for unearned capital receipts should be the cumulative lifetime total receipts of gifted and inherited capital, as with the progressive lifetime Unearned Capital Receipts Tax.
The Baby Bond is completely swamped into insignificance by the Child Trust Funds, the tax advantages of which, for those families able to afford to save and who were skilful or lucky enough to invest well, far outweigh the Baby Bond amount. So there is no equality of opportunity in any way for young adults.
British Universal Inheritance is intended to help tackle young adult poverty rather than child poverty. It does of course also help reduce child poverty indirectly – through its efffect upon young parents.
To pick up your point about divisiveness, British Universal Inheritance would have to be introduced gradually, with, say £2,000 for 25 year olds in the first year, £4,000 in the next, and so on up to £10,000 for those reaching 25 in the fifth and thereafter, so that no one year group loses out by more than £2,000, say, than the following year group.
Politically, it does only benefit those under 25 direcly, but older parents and grandparents will be pleased to think of their young adult children being given a helping hand when they cannot provide it themselves.
Personally I think that whichever party first says that they are going to introduce it will be onto a winner. So I only hope the EU-fanatic LibDems will not be the ones to do so before this General Election, since I do not want to lose our country to the EU or our Pound to the Euro!
Oh! How I wish the LIberal Democrats would come to their senses over the EU, CAP, CFP and the Euro, as the Liberal Party I thought had – until they elected a pro-EU Chair of their National Executive Committee! – and I hope will again!
Out of interest, why? What is there that is “liberal” about a “nation state”.
It seems to me that it is merely a territorial monopoly of government – very much anti-liberal in many ways.
And no, I do not favour a larger entity either, I am one of the few anti-EU Lib Dems you will find stalking these discussions.
Simon
As above, British Universal Inheritance is given to all British-born UK citizens at 25 – the same amount for all. It is effectively means tested according to cumulative lifetime receipt of gifted and inherited capital, by being subect to the Unearned Capital Receipts Tax as time goes by.
Some people would undoubtedly blow the money. But recipients will know that it is a once-a-lifetime receipt. There was some research showing that post war credits after the 1939/45 war were on the whole not blown, but treated differently from other receipts.
Speaking personally, I received from my grandmother £5,000 at the age of 25 in 1963, which became one third of the cost of our first house in 1971. Each of our children had a lesser amount in real terms at 25, which they have used/blown/invested in various ways.
Who is to say what is blowing money and what is not. Now is a good time, anyway, to allow young adults to blow a bit of money or reduce some debt. Everyone should receive a basic minimum inheritance at the reasonably financially responsible age of 25.
I see it as a Human Right in a capitalist democracy to have not only Universal Suffrage – votes for all – but also Universal Inheritance – capital for all. Let us start to bring about Popular Capitalism instead of unfettered Dynastic Capitalism, with an Asset Welfare State reducing to some extent the need for and cost of our Income Welfare State.
British Universal Inheritance would have to be introduced gradually, with, say £2,000 for 25 year olds in the first year, £4,000 in the next, and so on up to £10,000 for those reaching 25 in the fifth and thereafter, so that no one year group loses out by more than £2,000, say, than the following year group. Incidentally, I understand that the average wealth of every adult and child in the country is now about £130,000. Those over 18 would be able to borrow from banks against the certain receipt at 25. The government could subsidise interest rates for approved purposes such as education, business start up and house purchase.
Less alienation, financial and social exclusion, young adult poverty and Income Welfare State needism! More educational affordability, enterpreneurial activity, home ownership and OPPORTUNITY!
Please forgive the repetition, but it is Friday now and so probably time to stop the Saturday debate, so I thought I would leave it on a practical note!
You might like to look at http://www.universal-inheritance.org, although I am ashamed of the fact that it is currently a mess which I hope to sort out soon. Some hackers got in and I have not been able to change it for a long time for other reasons, complicated in my mind although perhaps not in practice by the fact that the website has been archived for posterity by the British Library, something which or course very much pleases me but which I do not want to risk losing. My plan is to form a not for profit company and to raise and spend money on the website and more effective campaigning!
Thank you and others very much for your thoughts.