Category Archives: tax

Urgent questions for St Paul’s Cathedral

Posted on by symonhill

I have been forcibly removed from buildings by police on several occasions, but never before have I been dragged from the steps of a church as I knelt in prayer. I am profoundly shocked to have been dragged from my knees as I prayed about economic injustice on the steps of St Paul’s Cathedral.

What is even more alarming is that this seems to have been done with the support and approval of the cathedral authorities.

The incident took place during the forced eviction of the Occupy London Stock Exchange camp. I have not long got back home, having spend the night at the eviction. I was praying with other Christians. We declared our solidarity with people of other religions and none who are resisting economic injustice with active nonviolence.

On two occasions, the police physically pushed back a group of people who were praying. Later, we decided to pray on the cathedral steps. We knew – or thought we knew – that we couldn’t be removed from there, because the eviction order related only to the land owned by the City of London Corporation. It didn’t cover the cathedral.

But then police threatened us with arrest if we did not move. They told us, several times, that the cathedral had given them permission to remove us.

I was one of several people who were removed while praying. I’m not sure how many. There was Anglican, Quaker and Buddhist involvement, and probably more. Some were hurt more than me. One Quaker was carried down by several officers as he loudly prayed the Lord’s Prayer. I was dragged away from the steps by two policeman, but I returned shortly afterwards. I was recognised, and thought I would be arrested, but I was again removed to the bottom of the steps, which the police now surrounded.

I knelt there reciting Psalm 23 (which got a bit garbled in my confusion), before the police told me I was too close to the steps. I again politely refused to move, and was carried further away.

This whole outrage raises urgent questions for the cathedral authorities and the bishop of London.

  • Were they aware of the eviction date and time before it happened?
  • If so, did they attempt to influence the procedures in any way, for example by arguing for a more humane time of day?
  • Did they really give permission for the removal of peaceful people from their steps? If so, when did they do so?
  • Why did they choose to take this action?
  • Do they still believe it was the right thing to do?

Throughout the night, we were approached by people, many of them non-Christians, who thanked us for praying at the eviction. As we watched the people destroy their peaceful camp, I wondered if it was enough to offer. But it was apparently too much for the Chapter of St Paul’s Cathedral.

Stonewall forget their radical roots (again)

Posted on by symonhill

Is there no limit to the number of exploitative and violent institutions that Stonewall is prepared to endorse? Having already made awards to the likes of Goldman Sachs and the Royal Navy, Stonewall yesterday gave prizes to Ernst & Young, Barclay’s and MI5 for their supposedly gay-friendly employment practices.

Stonewall describe themselves as “the lesbian, gay and bisexual charity” (although many bisexual people dispute the description, arguing that Stonewall’s overwhelming concern is with gay and lesbian people). I have no doubt that Stonewall genuinely do a lot of good work. They have played an important part in raising equality issues in the media and in Parliament, tackling homophobic bullying and working for changes in the law.

Sadly, however, their campaigns are hampered by their failure to link their struggle with other issues of equality and justice. Not only are they rather cosy with elements of the establishment, but by giving awards based on absurdly narrow criteria they imply that there is no link between working for LGB people’s rights and promoting equality and justice in other areas. Their awards condone and celebrate some of the most unethical organisations in the country.

It is, of course, a good thing for an organisation to treat LGB people the same as straight people in recruitment and employment. But Stonewall’s awards seem to take no account of whether an organisation is a good employer in other ways. It seems it’s OK for them to treat their staff appallingly, as long as they mistreat their straight staff as well as their LGB staff. The Royal Navy, like the other armed forces, is exempted by law from a great deal of employment legislation. Its employees may not join trades unions or leave after a reasonable notice period. Giving them an award for employment practices is as absurd as it is offensive.

Stonewall also seem unwilling to take account of the purpose and practices of the organisations they reward. Ernst & Young’s promotion of tax avoidance helps wealthy individuals and corporations to steal millions from the rest of us at a time when this money is desperately needed. Barclay’s perpetuate a banking system that ensures an unjust distribution of the world’s resources and helps to keep power in the hands of the rich.

The core purpose of the armed forces is to engage in acts of violence. Not all their members are directly violent, and many of them are decent, compassionate people when in other contexts. But we should not be naïve or ignore the reality. MI5 is an extension of the violent, hierarchical and secretive practices of militarism.

In strugglnig aganist homophobia, I suggest that it is important to recognise that heteronormativity has been used by capitalism – either consciously or unconsciously – as a means of control. It has been linked to very narrow understandings of “family” that encourage people to be loyal to their own group of people, rather than compassionate towards the whole of humanity.

Of course, it is quite legitimate that there should be different views about war and economics within movements for queer freedom. I do not expect everyone to agree with me. Ethical considerations are, by their nature, very complex and very messy. Nonetheless, it is is reasonable to expect that a group of people campaigning for equality in one area should consider equality in other areas. Stonewall have this week undermined their own message by deliberately ignoring this principle.

Christian solidarity with Occupy London

Posted on by symonhill

A number of groups have now signed a statement of Christian solidarity with the Occupy London movement. I’m delighted to say that the statement has been welcomed by both Christians and non-Christians involved in the occupations near the London Stock Exchange.

Signatories so far are Ekklesia, Christianity Uncut and the London Catholic Worker, although we’re confident that others will join in soon. The statement has been welcomed on the Occupy London website.

The statement can be read below.

 

Christian solidarity with the ‘Occupy London’ movement 

As Christians, we stand alongside people of all religions and none who are resisting economic injustice with active nonviolence. We offer our greetings to people engaged in occupations of financial centres throughout the world.

We seek to witness to the love and justice of God, proclaimed by Jesus Christ. Jesus said that he had come to “set free the oppressed”. His gospel is good news for all people. It is a challenge to all structures, systems, practices and attitudes that lead people to exploit and oppress their fellow human beings.

The global economic system divides people one from another and separates humanity from creation. It perpetuates the wealth of the few at the expense of the many. It fuels violence and environmental destruction. It is based on idolatrous subservience to markets. We cannot worship both God and money.

We are inspired by Jesus, who protested against exploitative traders and moneychangers in the Jerusalem Temple. Christianity began as a grassroots protest movement. Nonviolent direct action can play an important and ethical role in resisting injustice and achieving change.

We stand in solidarity with the ‘Occupy London’ movement and regret that they have not been able to make their protest closer to the London Stock Exchange. We applaud their commitment to co-operating with St Paul’s Cathedral and to ensuring that their camp is safe for everyone in the vicinity. We were pleased by the cathedral’s initial welcome to the camp and hope that difficulties between the occupiers and the cathedral can be speedily resolved, keeping the focus on the need to challenge the financial injustices perpetuated by the City of London.

Would Jesus kick the ‘Occupy London’ protesters off the St Paul’s Cathedral grounds?

Posted on by symonhill

I wrote a piece for the Guardian on this issue on Thursday (20 October). It can be read online at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/20/occupy-london-st-pauls-christianity. This was before St Paul’s Cathedral had closed and asked protesters to leave.

The reality of BAE’s job cuts

Posted on by symonhill

I don’t claim to be an expert at making political predictions. Some of my predictions have been woefully off-course. But yesterday I made what must surely be the most precise political prediction of my life.

Speaking about the arms trade at a fringe meeting at the Labour Party conference, I was asked about the impact on jobs if the UK stopped exporting arms. I replied that even if arms exports are not reduced at all, arms industry jobs would gradually disappear from Britain, as companies such as BAE move employment to India and elsewhere. Later in the day, BAE confirmed nearly 3,000 job losses in the UK.

The redundancies are already being blamed on the government’s military cuts. The reality is that cuts to the military budget (or the “defence budget”, as its euphemistically known) have been relatively slight when compared to the coalition’s swingeing attacks on public services and the welfare state.

Furthermore, BAE have got form for being misleading about employment. When they signed a major deal with India last year, they said it would protect jobs at their Brough plant. Within months, they were announcing job losses at Brough. In 2006, when arms dealers were lobbying to end a criminal investigation into BAE, they claimed that the latest Saudi arms deal would provide 16,000 jobs in the UK (and both the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph put the figure at 50,000). Once the deal was signed, BAE cynically announced that most of the jobs would be based in Saudi Arabia, with very few new jobs in the UK.

In this context, it would not be a surprise to hear an announcement from BAE pretty soon about the creation of new jobs in India or the USA. If this happens, it would be naive to think that this had no connection with the job losses in Britain.

There is no future in the arms industry. Apologists for the arms trade try to justify it by speaking of the number of jobs it creates (a tactic also used by supporters of the transatlantic slave trade over 200 years ago). In reality, the arms industry is subsidised with about £700million of taxpayers’ money every year. Future generations will look back in disbelief, unable to understand why, when faced with the horrors of climate change, we chose to throw millions into arms production. We could be using those millions, and the skills of thousands of British workers, to research and develop renewable energy and technologies that can help us to tackle the physical, economic and security threats resulting from climate change. Let’s start by retraining the workers that BAE have so callously thrown on the dole.

To read more on arms trade issues, please visit the Campaign Against Arms Trade website.

A mansion tax and the realities of class

Posted on by symonhill

Britain may be broke, but the government’s desperation to cut the deficit seems to have its limits. This morning, Eric Pickles has ruled out an increase in council tax for houses valued at more than a million pounds.

This is the so-called “mansion tax” proposed by the Liberal Democrats when they were in opposition.

As Communities Secretary, Pickles is responsible for council tax. But he went further, saying in an interview with today’s Daily Telegraph that he also wants to see the end of the 50p tax rate for those on high incomes.

He described top-rate taxpayers, and people with million-pound homes, as “middle class” and “hardworking homeowners” who put lots into society but “don’t take a lot out”. These three phrases combined can easily give a misleading impression about who would be affected by a “mansion tax”. Indeed, they perpetuate an inaccurate understanding of wealth and class in British society.

Firstly, Pickles talks about the “middle class”. Only about 1% of houses are valued at over a million pounds. Similarly, only 1% of the population are rich enough to pay top-rate tax. In no sense are these people in the “middle”.

Eric Pickles is following the common practice of implying that a tax on the very richest would apply to far more people than it does. These implications help to create more opposition to such taxes (as I pointed out when the Liberal Democrats proposed the “mansion tax” two years’ ago – see http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/10256).

Secondly, Pickles regards this wealthy section of the population as a group of “hardworking homeowners”. I am sure that many of the are indeed hardworking. Some are not. Many people are low or middle incomes are also hardworking. Some are not. There is no general correlation between hard work and income within the population as a whole. The majority of people in the UK live and die in the same social class into which they were born.

But certain politicians and commentators constantly associate wealth with hard work and poverty with laziness. Despite the lack of evidence behind this, it conveniently makes inequality appear fair.

Thirdly, Pickles claims that “middle class families have put a lot into the country and don’t take a lot out”. Again, he is using “middle class” to mean the tiny percentage rich enough to pay a mansion tax or top-rate income tax. To suggest that these very wealthy people give lots to society without taking much is demonstrably untrue.

As Church Action on Poverty (CAP) point out, richer people pay a lower percentage of their income in tax than poorer people. Admittedly, income tax is higher for the better-off, but VAT is the same rate for everyone from a homeless person to a billionaire. CAP’s research suggests that the richest fifth of the population spend 7% of their income on VAT. For the poorest fifth, the figure is a whopping 14%.

Between them, a number of corporations and wealthy individuals deprive the Treasury of billions every year through tax avoidance. Of course, there are some wealthy individuals who conscientiously pay their tax without looking for loopholes, and I applaud them for doing so. But the extent of tax avoidance undermines Pickles’ claims about how much wealthy people, taken as a group, put into society.

More importantly, the very fact that the rich are rich means that they have taken more of society’s wealth than the rest of us. We are encouraged to see wealth as a personal possession. If we instead see society’s (and the world’s) wealth as belonging to society (and the world) as a whole, it is clear that some people have taken vastly more than others.

The Daily Telegraph quotes Tory MPs who believe that tax cuts for the rich will stimulate the economy and increase growth (from its current level of virtually nothing). For now, I’ll leave aside the question of whether growth is good in itself. But many of those who want to see growth would acknowledge that giving more money to the richest is not an effective way of generating it. Poorer people are far more likely to spend extra money that richer people. And only the very richest syphon off their money to tax havens, where it is of literally no use whatsoever to the British economy.

As you will have guessed, I would be happy to see a “mansion tax” and would like to see the top rate of tax increased, not abolished. However, the money these measures would raise would be minimal compared to the amount that could pour into the Treasury’s coffer if there was a serious crackdown on tax havens and other means of tax dodging by corporations and the very rich.

Ministers tell us that the economic situation is so dire that they have no choice but to increase VAT, abolish Disability Living Allowance, make massive job cuts, scrap Education Maintenance Allowance, treble university tuition fees, attack public sector pensions, cut funding for local services and basically tear the heart out of the welfare state.

But it seems that the situation is not bad enough for minsters to introduce a mansion tax, slightly raise the top rate of income tax or bring in VAT on private education and private healthcare. And the most commitment they have shown to tackling tax dodging is feeble words that seem to have led nowhere.

Their treatment of the wealthy contrasts sharply with the demands made of the rest of us. New Labour governments also seemed wedded to the interests of the rich, though their loyalty was rarely so blatant or their economic policies so extreme.

This situation makes one thing clear. The coalition’s economic policies are not primarily about addressing the deficit. They are the weapons in a vicious assault against the working class and lower middle class. In short, ministers are fighting a class war.

I have for a long time hesitated to use this sort of language. But I am now convinced that it is an accurate description of the extreme approach to society and economics that this government is pursuing. It’s time for people of all classes to stand up and say so.

———-

This blog post appeared originally as my latest column on the website  of the Ekklesia thinktank. To read more of my Ekklesia columns, please visit http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/news/columns/hill.

Benefit claimants and top-rate taxpayers

Posted on by symonhill

 A glance at the front pages of this morning’s papers gives a brief snapshot of the grotesque reality of ConDem Britain. The Daily Mail and Daily Express lead with vicious and misleading attacks on disabled benefit claimants, while the Daily Telegraph reports on Boris Johnson’s call for very wealthy people to pay less tax.

 Welcome to the UK under David Cameron, where the poorest are blamed for the nation’s problems while the richest are portrayed as victims.

The gleeful headline on the Daily Express is “Sick benefits: 75% are faking”. The Mail uses the same figures to make a similar claim. To say that these figures are “out of context” would be polite. They are deliberately deceitful.

They appear to refer to disabled people who are assessed for Employment Support Allowance. It takes a fair bit of concentrated reading through the Express article to realise that they have combined figures for those assessed fit for work with those who don’t complete their applications.

Given the bureaucratic hurdles that the assessment process involves, it is no surprise that some give up before they have completed it, particularly if they are applying because of a mental health problem or learning disability.

The Express back up their position with quotes from David Cameron, junior minister Steve Webb (who was regarded as on the left of the Liberal Democrats before he became responsible for slashing benefits) and the Taxpayers’ Alliance, a right-wing lobby group whose main purpose seems to be to object to taxes being spent on anyone poorer than their own members. In a feeble attempt at balance, a brief critical quote from the TUC’s Brendan Barber is thrown in right at the end.

Conveniently, the article makes no reference to the number of claimants who successfully appeal against their assessment. Around 40% of appeals are upheld. This is amazing. It reveals the unreliability of the assessments in which the Mail and Express place so much faith.

The assessments are carried out by Atos, a private company awarded a multi-million pound contract to assess ability to work – and with a clear mandate to get people off benefits, unhampered by such considerations as reality. Atos have found people with terminal cancer to be fit for work. As mental health charities such as Rethink and Mind have pointed out, they also seem particularly unable to grasp the complexities of mental health problems.

Neither Atos nor their friends in the right-wing press take account of the reality that many disabled people would love to work but are prevented to do so by inaccessible workplaces, prejudiced employers and social structures that marginalise them. Disability is caused by society’s attitudes to people with certain impairments, not by the impairments themselves.

But companies will not have their fitness as employers determined by Atos in twenty-minute assessments by unqualified individuals with a biased mandate.

As the government and their friends in the press launch this vicious assault on disabled people, the Daily Telegraph reports that Boris Johnson has repeated his call to scrap the top rate of income tax. It is 50p in the pound and only about 1% of the population are rich enough to pay it. This income tax; when it comes to VAT, everyone pays the same, from a homeless person to a billionaire.

As Church Action on Poverty have pointed out, richer people spend a lower percentage of their income on tax. The poorest fifth of the UK spend about 14% of their income on VAT, while for the richest fifth the figure is only 7%.

The Tories and their allies tell us that cuts are necessary to address the deficit, but it’s hard to take them seriously when some of them are them are keen to offer yet more concessions to those whose wealth would allow them to contribute the most to tackling the economic situation.

In this warped response to economic problems, those with the least have to pay the most.