Another interesting video - "The Squeeze Out"

Bumping

I saw Gary on Question Time. He just calls a spade a spade. Of course the Labour Government taxed the rich post WW2. The death duties on landed estates and sliding scale on income tax were far fairer than they have been since.

The National Trust was a method by which the gentry could remain in their homes whilst giving the running costs to the Trust in return for visitor entry. At least that my understanding and I could be wrong.

The Trade Unions were powerful post war and supported the Labour Party. They fought for better working conditions and at this time we had manufacturing industry.

This industry was decimated by Mrs Thatcher to decapitate the Trade Unions. One steelworks, Round Oak had full order books when they were closed in the early 1980s. The made extremely high grade steel.

So here we are now. With little manufacturing, relying on imports and to cap it all outside the EU.

Interesting ayse. I thought this video was more like a Ted Talk than a podcast but that it made it easier to assimilate.

It would be good to find out all the taxation changes at the time. I believe a lot of work had been done on the plans for the NHS in the 1930s so you would assume the Labour government had also worked out possible taxation for that and to recover from the war.

It was interesting to hear him reflect on how much better most people's lives became - and his reference to TB. My father spent a year in a sanatorium when he was 10/11 and his father died in the same sanatorium when my father was 16.

They weren't poor, both my grandfather and grandmother were skilled, but the loss of the main income meant my father had to abandon plans for University (his brother had been the first in the family and went on a scholarship) to go straight into work, to help keep the family. This is only 1 and 2 generations ago. I think our generation needs to reflect on how lucky we have been if we want a more equal society. GS shows how rarely this redistribution of wealth has been down the whole of history.

It would be good to find out all the taxation changes at the time. I believe a lot of work had been done on the plans for the NHS in the 1930s so you would assume the Labour government had also worked out possible taxation for that and to recover from the war.

The nationalisation of many industries post WW2 didn’t involve tax revenues. Owners were ‘compensated’.with government stock (bonds). See section 3 of this parliamentary research briefing.

researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8325/CBP-8325.pdf#page9

The NHS was formed from a variety of institutions, many of which were already being financed by local authorities, some of which continued to be so financed.

Some funding also seems to have been from voluntary contribution schemes, so if taxation was increased post 1948 to fund the NHS it may have made little difference in deductions from income for those who were in the schemes.

Interesting article here

blogs.hud.ac.uk/academics/2018/august/whatwashealthcarelikebeforethenhs/#:~:text=Although%20hospital%20treatment%20was%20not,secure%20members%20free%20hospital%20treatment.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/57a08d91e5274a31e000192c/The-history-and-development-of-the-UK-NHS.pdf

In general, taxes on income and transfer of capital assets was far more progressive in the 1940s to 1970s, with tax rates reaching as high as 80+%. This was a prime cause of reducing inequality and moves towards a more equable distribution of wealth in that period.

The retreat from Keynesian economics and adoption of the current neoliberal economic ‘orthodoxy’ post 1980, which featured massive cuts in income tax rates for high earners and reduced tax rates on corporate taxes, very much accounts for the more rapid acquisition of wealth and the growing inequality which Stevenson is campaigning against. His analysis is not particularly original in any way, plenty of economists have spoken about it over the past 40 years, but he manages to be high profile.

Thanks Maizie. That looks as if it will fill some of my gaps. I'm going out this morning so have just scanned your post but will look at it properly when I get back

Thanks for that informed post Maizie.

I think Stevenson's appeal is his background - he can't be accused of the "politics of envy". Moreover, he explains difficult concepts in a straightforward way, so most people should be able to understand him. Unfortunately, that does sometimes make him appear superficial.

I'd like Dale Vince and Gary Stevenson to have louder voices in the media. They're already pretty loud, but they tend not to be taken that seriously. I can't say I think either is an appealing character, but both have real-world experience and don't hold back.

Yes, I picked up on this: "In general, taxes on income and transfer of capital assets was far more progressive in the 1940s to 1970s, with tax rates reaching as high as 80+%. This was a prime cause of reducing inequality and moves towards a more equable distribution of wealth in that period."

This backs the idea that our change period was as short 25 years but we carried on as if the taxes hadn't changed for another 50 years. In fact what became IHT rose for some time until the 1970s. How relevant do you feel this was?