Social Change Delivers for Everyone.

The publication of the Sunday Times Rich list is always a prompt to think about the inequality of life in the 21st century. The top ten families have over £200 billion to spend, fight about dramatise in the battles of inheritance, the dreadful stress that managing the avoidance of tax creates, and the determination to keep as much as possible and earn more.

There must be a gene that triggers on the accrual of a certain amount of money. Most people living with a normal income level and by that I mean based on earning through work, not having due to inheritance or shares, are usually reasonably generous. In Northern Ireland, we are known for being above the norm in our donations to BBC Children in Need and Comic Relief, yet have a lower level of income than the rest of the UK. But why do we need charity? The total amount raised could be donated without making a jot of difference to the lifestyle of the top ten families at the tip of a finger used on a bank app. Will they do it? Of course not. These people will give to charity, but it will be arranged by their accountants and offset against tax.

Tax arrangements are greed. If you can afford to engage a tax accountant to move your wealth about, you don’t actually need one, as you are already rich. And the richer people get the more they resent paying taxes, yet it has less and less impact on their lifestyles. If you have a pile of money it is almost impossible not to make more, simply by putting it in the bank. The recent rises in interest rates have hit people with mortgages and credit cards hard while increasing the wealth of those with money in the bank. All those on the Rich List will be secretly, smugly smiling when the Bank of England hands them more money. You can be damned sure they are not on the phone telling their accountants to take their extra earnings and offer them to the local food bank users.

The irony is that s more socially aware approach to society could make them even richer.

Were we to have a government that introduced a wealth tax, a high rate of tax on money kept inert in banks, stopped the spring of money in offshore accounts, our economy and society would be better all around.

If there was investment in education and training with a radical overhaul of the curriculum, which is still based on the same subjects as when I was at school, using new teaching methodologies and having self-worth as one of the guiding principles, we could see a revolution that benefitted all.

Henry Ford was a smart man, and in the early days of Ford, he paid well above the average for the new car industry. Why? Because his workforce could then afford to buy the cars they were making.

The pressures on society that the wealthy hide from, financially and physically can be changed. Crime is driven by poverty and drugs. Violent crime is an extension of that driven by desperation. Poverty is generational. Poor people begat poor people because the education system is underfunded in poor areas. Why else do wealthy people pay for their children’s education? Because the schools, facilities and culture are beneficial for their future. A properly funded system would create a better workforce, wearing more, to buy more o grow the economy.

It would be interesting if the wealthiest families in the UK owned up to drug use. Maybe none of them have tried the Columbian marching powders, but I would hazard a guess that many may have had s supply of top-quality coke. Why does it matter? Because the so-called war on drugs is predicated by the damage they do when the wealthy seem to be able to function well enough as they are able to buy without impacting their ability to eat.

The untapped potential of people is beyond calculation. The organisational skills of the biggest criminal gangs would sit well in any corporate business, but the opportunities are seen as so far away as to not even attempt to climb the ladder of legitimate success. Going back to Capone, gangsters climb to the top of their trees by having the ability to understand numbers and be innovative. Their world requires an ability to be ultra-violent, but would that be tempered with an education and a clear path of opportunity. The assumptions of the class system work throughout education. The middle class push hard for their children as they see the rewards, both financially and socially. The working-class parents that have no experience of third level of education think that they are not wanted or able enough, and fear for their children being rejected. I have met so many people who had not been to university but would have been a perfect fit to fly through. And what they would have discovered is that education is not an end in itself but a beginning of a life of continuous learning. You learn how to learn, so when you go to work you are able to assimilate and improve without realising that it is happening. Education is not about knowledge, it is about the recognition that you will never have enough time to learn everything, but it is exciting to try.

Meanwhile, the accrual of wealth actually damages the economy. By hoarding money in various ways and taking it out of the economy, it creates shrinkage. Money spent through the distribution of taxation in the community results in growth. The New Deal which drove the recovery of the US economy post the 1929 crash, was devised to get money circulating. People who are paid for being in work spend the money on basics and a few luxuries. The money is reused by the producers and retailers, as Henry Ford realised when he needed people to buy his cars.

So if there was a hyper wealth tax, taken from those with over £100 million, used to energise the health and education sectors, education and training, opening up potential, creating new businesses which would add to the multiplication effect, the hyper-wealthy would also benefit. More people to hire, more to buy, lowing the costs in society by reducing the number of economically inactive. The reduction in poverty that would result would also impact on the problems created by drugs, on street crime, and burglary. Violent crime would reduce through societal change with young people in all parts of society seeing that there are opportunities for all.

Will it happen?

No. Not until a political party gets this simple message out, presents a radical programme for change of the magnitude of the 1945 Labour government. That presents a win-win scenario, that refuses to be put off track by the vested interests of the wealthy, who have moved so far beyond their ability to spend their wealth. The ideas of tax avoidance should be replaced with societal participation. The accrual of hyper wealth needs to be presented as unacceptable, not an ambition.

It is what Labour should be doing. The media channels are there, to get past the right-wing press. Make cogent straight forward reality-based policies that are too strong to be shot down by the simple “no tax rises” mantra that protects the wealthy.

It is there to be done. But it won’t happen. Our democracy is riddled with the corruption of wealth, as seen every day in Ministers using public money to fly in private jets, and taking money to promote their friends.

A revolution? Bring it on.