Len McCluskey

[Chil1234]

Interviewed just now on R4 Today Programme in advance of today's march he was asked what alternative strategy he would like the government to pursue. His answer was not to cut spending but to get back '£20bn by closing down tax avoidance' in order to reduce the £150bn+ deficit. And when asked if there was any party that supported this call, he claimed that 'the Labour party are starting to look at it' ... which is a little woolly.

That's the problem in a nutshell, isn't it? We may not like austerity measures but no-one seems to have a working alternative solution.

Why are they only starting to look at it? Were they never serious?

It's a little known fact, that when McEnroe saw Labour's economic policy, he said "You cannot be serious"

Seeing as DC has got Philip Green on as an advisor (I think) I doubt they are going to take tax avoidance very seriously.

Len is a trade unionist. He was being interviewed as there is a massive march in London sponsored by the TUC. He was asked about his idea for the deficit, and he suggested closing down the tax avoidance loophole(s). As did George Osbourne in the Budget last Wednesday.

Whether or not the Labor party have the same ideas is not really Len's problem though is it?

You may be right, Meglet. But do you seriously believe that Labour were ever serious?

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1385434/Mittal-does-not-have-to-pay-tax-in-Britain.html

Plus ca change, but fortunately there was a change, and now there is a new man at the helm, George Osborne.

ilovemydog, there's no danger of Labour having the same idea. There'll be lots of spinning, lots of arm waving, lots of progressive slogans, but no there'll be no change.

"is not really Len's problem though is it?"

It's Len's problem because he doesn't like the current plan. And whilst it's fine to lead people through London shouting 'we're not happy about this', unless there's some credible alternative on the table, it's not going to change anything.

But Chil1234, it's not for the protesters, the ordinary people turning up in their thousands, or even Len McCluskey, to come up with an alternative; they aren't in government; they aren't in power. It is the government's duty to listen to the people and come up with the best possible plan. The protesters are doing a good thing by displaying that they are not happy, and asking whether things could be done differently. If no one protested, then everyone would be eternally shafted. There are things that can be done differently. Foreign aid has been ringfenced, money can be found for war. The government will listen and can adapt its policies based on the feelings of the people.

Of course, Miliband and Labour will ride on the coat tails of the people, pretending that their £20 billion of cuts would have been greatly different from the Coalition's £25 billion of cuts, but nobody takes them seriously anymore, That's why the public lost faith in them and kicked them out at the election. Miliband and Labour aren't the people. It is the people who are protesting and should be listened to.

What about these credible alternatives Chil?

Make the present, temporary, banker?s bonus windfall tax permanent, raising in excess of £500 million a year.
Extend the banker?s bonus windfall tax to other financial institutions ? such as hedge funds and private equity houses. An extension to hedge funds alone would raise in excess of £700 million.
Introduce a short-term ceiling on total remuneration, given as both cash and share options, saving around £520 million from RSB bonus payments in this year alone.
Set a 50% income tax band for gross incomes over £100,000, raising £4.7 billion annually, or £2.3 billion more than the sum raised by setting the band at its present £150,000.
Uncap National Insurance Contributions, so that they are paid at 11% on all incomes, including investment income above £110 per week. The extra tax take would be £9.1 billion.
Introduce minimum tax rates of 40% and 50% on incomes above £100,000 and £150,000 respectively in order to mitigate the ability of higher earners to displace tax burdens. The tax rates set out above would raise an additional £14.9 billion annually.
Institute a 0.05% financial transaction tax on instant sterling transfers between UK financial institutions, raising some £38 billion a year, sufficient, if devoted to deficit reduction alone, to halve the deficit by 2013/14.
Take concentrated action to bear down on tax lost within the existing system ? the £25 billion which goes missing through tax avoidance; the £28 billion of tax bills which the Treasury Select Committee (November 2009) concluded were agreed but had not yet been paid; the £70 billion which the Public and Commercial Services Union has estimated to be lost through tax evasion, such as illegal non-declaration of income on which tax might be due, or fraudulent claims for unjustified tax relief.
Separate retail and investment banking, removing the ?moral hazard? in which recklessness within finance capitalism is bailed out by the tax payer.
Establish a High Pay Commission to apply a permanent public interest test into the setting of senior salaries.

Obviously I cut and pasted this but 'tis intended to remind everyone that there ARE alternatives to these savage, ideologically driven cuts. It's become a media induced given that the cuts must be carried out.

Those are interesting Glasnost but who is proposing them? Not the Opposition, I'm guessing?

How can they be too vocal without blushing when it was THEY who paved the way for this neoliberal illogical monetary mess by cosying up to the city boys in the first place? The bastards. Blair will go down as a traitor to the cause as well as a war criminal. Their intense relaxion (to paraphrase) with all things filthy rich will be on their tombstone.

And ours!

The trade unions answer to everything is to just raise taxes which is why they are generally not listened to. A lot of the suggestions they either can't implemented or would be detrimental to the economy which is why when they are cross-examined they are rejected.

That's great glasnost, but I don't actually want to pay more tax either directly or indirectly so that owuld never appeal to me as a voter. I think that I am far better placed to spend my money than the government is and that the state is now so large and spends and wastes so much money that it needs to be massively reduced in size, child trust funds, health in pregnancy giveaways, endless initiative sin educatione etc are all IMO a waste of money. The waste in the public sector is astonishing. I am a frontline public sector worker BTW

I think it's part of the role of the Opposition to lay out a proper (and costed) alternative vision. They don't seem to be doing so.

glasnost - I've seen that list before (you probably posted it ).

Two issues jump out.

1. There is plenty of double counting. Eg. Putting a ceiling on earnings and taxing bonuses.

1. These schemes talk about raising £100miliions. To address the deficit we need £10billions. So even if they worked these proposals address 1% of the problem.

Which is probably why Labour prefer to infer an easy alternative to cuts - rather than cost it out.

I'm left wondering why a 50% tax increase on pensioners (which is the effect of a straight merger of NI/tax applied to all income, on all with occupational pensions over nil rate tax band) is considered a good way to avoid hitting the vulnerable.

Sorry - I missed the tax evasion one - which at least is the right order of magnitude.

Closing corporate tax loopholes is fine (and the current government appears to take it seriously). But there are often good reasons for 'tax loopholes incentives' which is why the last government created so many.

If we are relying on growth to get us out of our financial mess we need to retain and attract business.

Chil, the point is that Len is a trade unionist. Whether or not the Labor party listen to his suggestions is a matter for them, but while the Labor party used to be the political vehicle for the trade union movement, it definitely isn't any longer.

Are his proposals a viable alternative? Maybe, maybe not, but addressing the tax avoidance/tax loopholes isn't really that earth shattering as it was mentioned in the Budget.

Not sure though that I agree with having to have an alternative before protesting. yes, protesting alone probably isn't going to change matters, but a lot of people find that they don't have a voice or way of expressing outrage or despair.

Tax avoidance one .