Silly season - mark 2

George Monbiot writes an article that starts with some wonderful polemic nonsense. 

"There are two ways of cutting a deficit: raising taxes or reducing spending. Raising taxes means taking money from the rich. Cutting spending means taking money from the poor. Not in all cases of course: some taxation is regressive; some state spending takes money from ordinary citizens and gives it to banks, arms companies, oil barons and farmers. But in most cases the state transfers wealth from rich to poor, while tax cuts shift it from poor to rich."

If you can bother to read the rest of the Monbiot's article, you can find it here.

The problems with that first paragraph include: -

That there are many more ways to cut a deficit and the extremes he proposes are at opposite ends of the spectrum - most sensible commentators would advocate a mix of both; but no, Monbiot chooses the extremes.

Raising taxes does not, on the whole, mean taking money from the Rich; however you may define the 'Rich' which, of course, is a debate in itself.  On the whole, if you wish to raise significant sums of money, you will need to tax everyone who can afford it - and that means many people who are not rich.  As I have repeatedly explained, the amount you could raise by confiscating the assets and income over a certain threshhold would not raise very large amounts of capital.  This inescapable fact seems to escape many, particularly those whose agendas differ from my own.

Cutting taxes does not mean taking money from the poor, either.  It can mean you reduce benefits, which would reduce such incomes, but it can also be acheived by rising economic growth (something that sadly appears to be lacking at the moment), but it can also be achieved by increasing efficiencies and reducing unnecessary expenditure that costs more than the benefits that are produced.

The absurdity of speakimg about bankers, arms companies, oil barons and farmers in the same derogatory manner merely exposes Monboit's own prejudices.  Anyone who meets the average small holder and farmer from the hills and mountains of mid Wales will tell you that these are people who have, on the whole, struggled to make ends meet and who cannot be, in any sensble world, lumped in with the excesses of some parts of other worlds and industries.  In addition, not all who work for the Banks have been at fault - do you really imagine that the vast majority of the RBS employees were in some way invovled in the excesses that led to the collapse of that bank?

As to the last sentence; state spending includes public goods - which involve no transfer of money from the rich to the poor, merely expenditure on things, such as Defence, hospitals, roads and other infrastructure, from which we all benefit.  That the benefits bill in the UK has become too high appears to be something that both the main political parties agree - that it needs reform is common ground.

Polemic is a wonderful tool; but in this article, Monboit merely exposes his own prejudices and priorities rather than providing an illuminating and thoughtful commentary on the deal done by the US political parties.