Skip to main content

Letter to the deserving rich - from the Greek

This is not your island.

 The 'Duke' of Westminster


It's very simple really.

Some people pay more tax than others. They think that the additional tax burden they pay comes out of their salaries and dividends. It is true that the people who pay more tax do contribute more to the provision of public services and it is also true that they do not benefit from public education and public health in the way that we do. They use private education and they use private health and they have private pensions and they do not need unemployment benefit now do they?

So, for the relatively well off, it feels unfair that:

a) they pay most of the tax.
b) they use public services less than we do.

When it comes down to it they believe they are the deserving rich.
The well off deserve the money they are paid because because they think they are damned good at what they do. And each and every one of them, no matter how much they are paid for their work: bonuses and salaries and perks, they come to believe that they deserve what they earn.

And if they deserve what they earn then the question remains. If they deserve their success then do the ordinary people deserve to have their public services and salaries paid for by the taxed rich? The suspicion of the rich, of the well off and successful, is that people are freeloading off the successful.

The parents who send their children to join the establishment clubs; sending them to private schools and through their networks, think that their actions are justified because their taxes pay for the government schools.

I would point a moral to these fellow humans. So sure that they are worthy of the money they are paid and pay themselves; so confident that the pensions of public sector workers are 'unsustainable', and that the haute  bourgeoisie should not be sustaining public sector pensions.
Let's use a model from the Greeks. The establishment likes analogies with the Greeks. They get them. Here's the analogy.

Once upon a time...

Nope. Wrong genre.

Try again.

When rosy fingered dawn appeared over the island it revealed the new territory of the first colonists. They shared the land out among themselves equally.

Still, the soil on some people's plots was thinner and rain fell more on one side of the island than the other. Colonists fell ill and couldn't work. Others stayed healthy. And some, perhaps it's true, were lazy.

When crops failed, farms failed and gradually the an oligopoly formed. When crops failed the farmers borrowed and some of them became indentured labour. Some of them became slaves and on the island a few families came to control wealth creation.

The olygopolists collected wealth, put the majority of the people to work building temples, building palaces, making weapons - they trained soldiery to reinforce their control.

And then...often, when conditions got intolerable, the ordinary people were left with two choices.

Kill the oligarchs and take back the land and redistribute it again or leave to find another island.

It was the dictators like Solon and Pisistratus and Polycrates who held the ring to stop the cycles of oppression  which were followed by revolts and killings.

The point is this. You may think Britain is your island, but it isn't. You may think that you are a creator of value, but you, like the profit making companies are only permitted to do so under sufferance.

This is not your farm. This is not your island. Though the ordinary people are mainly confined to the ugly cities and you own the country side, the beauty of Britain.

This is not your island.
You live on it and make your 'well deserved salaries and profits under sufferance. This island is our island and (from the Greek) take it too far and you will leave us two choices.

Pay for public pensions, pay your taxes.

And be grateful that we allow you to do so, for the moment.

On sufferance.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Aerogramme from Lisa and Richard

To: Mr & Mrs J. Hall, Box 49 Eikenhof (TVL) Johannesburg Afrique du Sud. 28.3.76 Dear John and Nola, Today a week ago we were still in New Delhi with Eve and Tony and the boys and the whole thing looks like a dream. We arrived on the 28.2 in New Delhi and were happy to see the whole family fit and in good health. The boys have grown very much, Phil is just about the size of Tony and the twins are above average. We stayed untill the 22nd March, as our visa ran out and we did not want to go through all the ceremony of asking for an extension. It also got hotter and I don't know how I would have supported the heat. The extra week would also have passed, so we decided not to go to all the trouble with the authorities and leave on the 22nd. I cannot tell you how happy we have been to see such a lovely family, so happy and united. It is rare to experience sucha thing and we have both all the reasons to be proud of them (when I say goth I mean you and us ). There is su

Guardian: Kate Harding's reactionary censorious blog on CiF

It should go without saying... ....that we condemn the scummy prat who called Liskula Cohen : "a psychotic, lying, whoring ... skank" But I disagree with Kate Harding , (in my view a pseudo blogger), posting her blog in the Guardian attacking bloggers. It's a case of set a thief to catch a thief. The mainstream media is irritated by bloggers because they steal its thunder and so they comission people like Kate Harding , people with nothing to say for themselves, apparently, other than that they are feminists, to attack bloggers. I'm black. So I can legitimately attack "angry white old men". I'm a feminist, so I have carte blanche to call all anonymous bloggers "prats." Because yes, that is her erudite response to bloggers. No I don't say that the blogging medium can't be used to attack progressives in whatever context. Of course it can. But to applaud the censorship of a blogger by a billion dollar corporate like Google, and moreov

Guardian books blog fringe: Norman Mailer

FLASHING THE GUARDIAN -- A BOOKS BLOGGERS' REBELLION :  The unheroic censor with a death wish Part 1: In which Norman Mailer stars in an experiment in search engine optimisation By ACCIACCATURE 3 February 2009 When Norman Mailer died in 2007, informed opinion – in the blogosphere, people who had read at least two of his books – was split. The army of readers who saw him as one of the most despicable misogynists writing fiction in the 20th century was perfectly matched by warriors on the other side, who raged that the label wasn’t just unwarranted but tantamount to heinous calumny. Before commenters returned to bitching-as-usual, tempers were lost on literary sites all over the net in debating temperatures high enough to bring to mind tiles burning off space shuttles re-entering Earth’s atmosphere. After I'd agreed to a spontaneous suggestion by our good friend Sean Murray -- a pioneer and stalwart of the comments section of The Guardian’s books blog – that we re-