Charities such as Save the Children UK and Citizens Advice have warned that child poverty will rise to the highest level since records began unless Labour scrap the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) two child benefit cap. Labour’s response? Shocking.
In a letter to the prime minister, they refer to analysis from Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) that shows the DWP two child benefit cap will increase the number of children living in poverty from 4.5 million to 4.8 million.
In response, a Labour source told the Guardian that ministers have ruled out scrapping the cap because it’s
popular with key voters, who see it as a matter of fairness
That’s gross. How is it a matter of “fairness” that children grow up in poverty? That’s a turn of phrase you might expect from the Conservative party, but this is what Labour are doing in power.
And apparently, if something is ‘popular’ it should be followed. Okay then: nationalise key utilities such as water and energy, because they are very popular policies across the electoral base.
And there’s also a key difference here. Public ownership of essentials makes total sense because we all need to use them every day. So it’s more expensive to rent them from private companies, rather than owning them ourselves. Whereas, the DWP two child benefit cap defies all logic when you consider the realities of the UK job market. As of March, there are 781,000 vacancies in the UK. But there are 1.57 million unemployed people. And a further 9.22 million are economically inactive p4 (also unemployed, but not actively looking for a job).
So Labour’s narrative over the DWP two child benefit cap is an alternative reality where there are 10 million more jobs in the country then there actually are. And that’s compounded when you consider that 59% of the 450,000 households impacted by the cap have at least one working parent.
Without a programme of training and job sharing, there is no alternative to unemployment DWP welfare. The growth at all costs mantra won’t solve it, given the job deficit is around 10 million. And besides, do we need to keep producing and consuming more and more stuff? Surely it’s a question of quality, with positives such as technological advancement and negatives such as tobacco and fast food (guilty pleasures for some, but not industries we want to see booming).
In the letter to Starmer, the charities, including the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Trussell, write:
Ensuring that fewer children are in poverty at the end of this parliamentary term than at the start will require a direct investment in family incomes via the social security system. As the bare minimum, this must start with scrapping the two-child limit and the benefit cap. The two-child limit pushes more and more children into poverty every day and will act as a brake on any other action taken by government to reduce poverty.
From the 2024 election to October, Labour’s maintenance of the DWP two child benefit cap had already plunged 10,000 children into poverty, previous analysis from CPAG shows.
The charities also urged a long-term focus, given there are already 4.5 million children in poverty:
The strategy will also need to set targets to reduce child poverty over the next 10-20 years, laying the foundations for further policy interventions to tackle child poverty across different parts of government, and helping to maintain focus throughout this parliament and beyond.
The DWP two child benefit cap also has a negative impact on the economy through reducing demand for children’s products like books and toys. Scrapping it is a no-brainer, but the bureaucrats in government are ideologically wedded to a broken status quo.
Featured image via the Canary
By James Wright
This post was originally published on Canary.
Former director of communications for Jeremy Corbyn James Schneider took former communications chief for Reform Gawain Towler to task over inequality on GB News.
Gawain Towler was arguing against a wealth tax on the super rich with the classic myth that they will leave:
If you punish people for success… you do that, people will leave and people will not come and invest in this country
In response, James Schneider branded the angle “special pleading”:
What you are saying is completely ludicrous and is special pleading… look who’s been doing well in the last 15 years. It’s not people who use the NHS it’s not people who… work in the NHS. But the wealth of billionaires has tripled in that time.
Towler retorted with the same line:
You launch into the rich in that way, they leave, then there’s no money.
But Schneider said:
Wealthy people in this country are wealthy because they own a lot of assets that are in this country. A person can leave the country – the assets are here. So the idea that assets can just be spirited out of the country and there’s nothing we can do about them, is nonsense.
It’s impossible to argue against a wealth tax.
Even 68% of millionaires support an annual wealth tax of 1-2% on people with more than £10 million in assets.
Those who oppose should suggest an alternative, but they won’t. pic.twitter.com/FbL63cWyml
— James Schneider (@schneiderhome) April 17, 2025
The idea that the super rich will leave if they’re taxed more has been parroted across the corporate media for a long time. For instance, a flurry of media reports from January claimed that there has been an “exodus” of the super rich since Labour came to power.
Apparently, 10,800 millionaires have left. But that represents just 0.5% of the more than three million millionaires the UK harboured in 2023. The UK already has a proportionately very high number of millionaires.
Tax Justice Network, meanwhile, has documented that just 0.01% of super rich households relocated after Norway, Sweden, and Denmark introduced increased wealth tax reforms.
The organisation points out that there are many factors that prevent them from leaving:
Research suggests that the majority of wealth holders have strong ties to their countries and a genuine desire to contribute as citizens. Factors such as family and social connections, access to education, and overall economic stability carry more weight than tax levels when it comes to their decision on whether to relocate
Indeed, even 68% of millionaires themselves support a wealth tax, according to polling by Survation.
Besides, economist Gary Stevenson has argued that the super rich who own valuable assets in the UK such as commercial property are the “least mobile” people in the world when it comes to tax. He distinguishes them from people who are paid to work for a living, because they could take a job abroad, whereas assets are based here.
Stevenson further said
Who owns your country? Who owns the wealth in your country? Look around you… Look at all of the land. Look at all of the buildings. Look at all of the property. Look at all the productive buildings and machinery and all of the natural resources. Somebody owns that. Who do you want to own it?
The former city trader notes that we are “losing” the middle class because of spiralling inequality.
The Labour government could bring in a wealth tax of 1-2% on assets worth over £10m. This would rebalance society by £22bn per year.
James Schneider knows this – and so does Gawain Towler. But only one of them is willing to acknowledge it.
Featured image via the Canary
By James Wright
This post was originally published on Canary.
A North East mother has passionately called on the government to scrap the controversial Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) two-child benefit cap, arguing that the policy has unfairly restricted her family’s resources and left her children struggling to keep pace with their peers.
This plea comes as new figures reveal that over 70,000 children in the North East are affected by the cap, with campaigners asserting that its removal could help lift many families out of poverty and inject more than £90 million into the region’s economy.
In a heartfelt letter addressed to chancellor Rachel Reeves, the Northumberland mother expressed the dire financial situation she faces. As Chronicle Live reported, she said due to the two-child benefit cap:
I have found myself relying on credit cards and ‘buy now pay later’ for essential items like bills and fresh food, fruit and vegetables to feed three growing children.
She further lamented that her children’s involvement in extracurricular activities—which contribute positively to education, social skills, and self-confidence—has been severely limited by financial constraints.
During the recent pandemic, the mother reported that her children lacked access to crucial educational resources such as laptops and tablets, severely hindering their learning opportunities.
She expressed concern for her son, who has additional needs, stating that he would greatly benefit from educational apps that are often inaccessible without certain devices that she cannot afford. “My son cannot keep up with his peers,” she concluded.
The End Child Poverty Coalition has pointed out that the two-child benefit cap affects a staggering 70,110 children in the region, with a significant number hailing from working households.
The cap disproportionately impacts areas like Newcastle Central and West, Gateshead Central and Whickham, and Newcastle East and Wallsend, placing further strains on families already struggling to make ends meet.
Beth Farhat, the chair of the North East Child Poverty Commission, shared her perspective on the pressing need for policy change:
There is a growing mountain of evidence that there is absolutely no route to ending child poverty, both here in the North East and across the country, without scrapping the two-child benefit cap in full.
Farhat believes that abolishing this policy could lead to an immediate reduction of poverty levels among tens of thousands of children, as well as provide a significant boost to the local economy through increased spending by families.
Echoing these sentiments, Steph Capewell, founder of the Sunderland baby bank Love, Amelia, remarked:
We see the deeply damaging impact of the two-child benefit cap every single day at Love, Amelia. This cruel policy leaves families—many of whom are in work—unable to provide essentials for their children, so they have to turn to charities like ours for vital support.
Capewell expressed that ending the cap would not only ease the financial burden on many families but also provide children with opportunities for growth and success that every child deserves.
Introduced during the Conservative government in 2017, the two-child benefit cap restricts families from receiving financial support for their third child and any subsequent children. May consider the policy little more than Eugenics.
Although Labour initially opposed this significant policy, in 2023, they confirmed their intent to maintain the two-child benefit cap – with DWP boss Liz Kendall even announcing the move behind the paywall of iNews.
The consequences of the two-child benefit cap are evident, with families in need facing mounting hardships as they grapple with everyday essentials.
The urgent calls for reform from campaigners, charities, and local leaders highlight the growing sentiment that such policies should be reassessed to ensure the well-being of children across the North East, many of whom find themselves at a disadvantage through no fault of their own.
Featured image via the Canary
By Steve Topple
This post was originally published on Canary.
With whirlwind tariffs and a looming trade war with China threatening to raise prices, government services halted by sweeping staffing cuts and Republicans in Congress moving to slash the social safety net to pay for tax cuts that would primarily benefit the wealthy, experts say the GOP agenda coalescing under President Donald Trump poses a “triple threat” to the economic well-being of millions of…
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
Since assuming office, the Trump administration has taken actions resembling those of an absolutist state: undermining civil rights and democracy at home while introducing a reciprocal tariffs plan that has unleashed chaos around the world. Indeed, Donald Trump’s “liberation day,” a declaration of economic war on the rest of the planet, wiped several trillions of dollars in market value from Wall…
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
The UK government has reviewed the rules for its petrol and diesel vehicle sale ban and decided that posh cars will be exempt. Luxury vehicles McLaren, Aston Martin and Bentley will no longer have to follow the electric vehicle (EV) mandate and can continue making fossil fuel chugging cars beyond 2030.
A Labour government statement said that they are “preserving some of the UK car industry’s most iconic jewels for years to come”. But that doesn’t add up given these companies can make electric versions of such cars and are in the process of doing so. It looks like Labour are actually feeling gooey eyed over posh people’s toys and in the process ensuring it’s one rule for the rich and one for the rest.
What’s more, Aston Martin and McLaren have previously engaged in lobbying activities with their own cooked ‘evidence’. These companies previously used a sock puppet public relations (PR) firm to lobby the former Boris Johnson-government against EVs. The ‘study’ used found that EVs were not quite so green, but the PR firm behind it was registered to the wife of a director of Aston Martin.
More broadly, multiple reports show that rich people generally emit more CO2 than normal income people. And for billionaires, they have higher emissions in just half an hour than normal income people do in their entire lives.
A striking example is Jeff Bezos and his two private jets. They spend around 25 days in the air over a 12 month period. During that time, Bezos emitted 2,908 tonnes of CO2, which is more than an Amazon employee would in 207 years. Or, for someone from the global poorest 50%, it would take 2,000 years to produce that much carbon. And that’s before you consider super rich investment in fossil fuels, a huge driver of CO2 emissions. Then there’s a study that found 100 corporations are responsible for 71% of emissions.
Indeed, supercars like McLaren and Aston Martin follow suit, emitting much more CO2 than affordable makes.
While the EV mandate still phases out the sale of single petrol and diesel cars by 2030, Keir Starmer’s government has also further relaxed the rules so that companies can sell hybrid cars up until 2035.
The incoming removal of fossil fuel vehicles (other than some posh people’s) may be a welcome move, but it ignores the wider energy sector. Also Labour inherited the meat and bones of this policy from the Conservatives. So it’s hardly like we’ve finally found an example of the significant ‘change’ Starmer keeps going on about.
When it comes to the overall economy, Labour reduced its policy of £28bn per year of public investment in renewable energy to just £8bn for Great British Energy to ‘crowd in’ private investment. A much more efficient policy would bring in a renewable energy system through state funding, delivering cheaper bills through public ownership in one fell swoop. In 2023, the average price per unit of electricity in the UK was £127 per MWh. A renewable energy system could deliver the same at costs as low as £55 per MWh. Over time, a Green New Deal would pay for itself and remove profiteering from an essential service.
As well as cheaper bills, research suggests renewables with a level of public control delivers lower inflation. A report from Positive Money, entitled ‘Inflation as an Ecological Phenomenon’, has found that countries with high energy security and strong price controls had relatively low levels of inflation during the global crises of recent years.
Gas guzzling rich people and corporations should not be given a break from the EV mandate. Yet again, that shows this government’s priorities.
Featured image via the Canary
By James Wright
This post was originally published on Canary.
An alarming new interactive map has revealed the extent of ‘fuel poverty’ in England, exposing a grim reality for many households across the country. The research indicates that almost three-quarters of homes in some of the country’s most deprived neighbourhoods are falling below the fuel poverty threshold, highlighting the pressing crisis affecting millions.
As of 2024, 2.73 million households, or approximately one in ten, are classified as living in fuel poverty. This is defined by officials as homes that possess a poor energy efficiency rating of band D or below, where the disposable income after housing and fuel costs is less than around £20,700. Birmingham has been identified as a particularly hard-hit area, with significant concentrations of fuel poverty.
This dire situation is exacerbated by the ongoing cost-of-living crisis, where families are facing relentless increases in utility bills, making already struggling households even more vulnerable. Recent estimates suggested that ‘Awful April’ could see a staggering £233 increase in water and energy bills on average, adding to the financial strain.
Simon Francis, co-ordinator of the End Fuel Poverty Coalition, emphasised the human impact of these statistics, noting that many individuals will be suffering without even realising they are in fuel poverty:
This shows just how devastating the ongoing cost of living crisis is,” he said in his remarks to the Daily Mail. “The sad reality is that, behind these figures, many people will be suffering in fuel poverty and won’t even know it.
An analysis breakdown revealed that 3.17 million households spend more than 10% of their income on energy bills, which is a metric used by the National Energy Action (NEA) charity to assess fuel poverty in contrast to the government’s definition.
Astonishingly, seven of the ten worst-affected areas are located within Birmingham, specifically in the Bournbrook and Selly Park ward, where a shocking 71.2% and 63.5% of households respectively fall below the fuel poverty line.
This area has a high student population, raising concerns about the struggles faced even by younger generations.
The wider West Midlands region is the hardest hit, with 19 of the top 20 areas for fuel poverty clustered there. Stoke-On-Trent’s Hanley Park, Joiner’s Square & Shelton region follows closely, with 70.7% of its households struggling to meet fuel costs.
In light of these findings, Francis urged action from the chancellor to reform energy markets and provide immediate assistance to those in fuel poverty:
We need a government willing to invest in the long-term solutions to the cost of living crisis – and the future of the country.
The Labour Party government’s track record on addressing fuel poverty has been scrutinised, with Adam Scorer, the NEA chief executive, highlighting a lack of progress under the previous administration:
These statistics show little progress was being made by the previous government to reduce the numbers in fuel poverty and therefore to meet its legal obligations.
Scorer added that solutions need to address both immediate support and long-term prevention.
Despite numerous households already feeling the impact of rising bills, the government will soon be unveiling a new fuel poverty strategy for England, alongside its Warm Homes Plan, reviewing how energy bill support can be managed in the winter.
Criticism of Chancellor Rachel Reeves is mounting due to perceived punitive energy cost increases.
Reports show that households on variable tariffs are facing a 6.4% increase in their annual energy bills from April 2025, which translates to an average rise of £111 a year, pushing the average household bill to £1,849. This rise is attributed to recent surges in wholesale prices as monitored by energy regulator Ofgem.
Importantly, these concerns over rising energy costs have not affected leading political figures like the chancellor and prime minister Sir Keir Starmer, who only pay a small portion of their utility costs from their salaries. The fixed caps on their ministerial expenses mean they are insulated from the financial strain felt by ordinary citizens as energy prices continue to rise.
Moreover, all this is against the backdrop of Labour cutting winter fuel payments for millions of older people. It also comes as public anger around standing charges grows.
As the government prepares to address fuel poverty with its new strategies, questions remain about whether these measures will adequately tackle the urgent needs of those most affected.
With many households left to navigate the harsh realities of fuel poverty, the unfolding situation calls for a robust response to alleviate this growing burden on the nation’s vulnerable citizens.
Featured image via the Canary
By Steve Topple
This post was originally published on Canary.
Browsing the corporate and social media, you’d be forgiven for thinking chronically ill, disabled, and non-working people were as sunny as the current British weather. Because apparently, they’ve all got (to quote the Sun) a “pay rise”. Of course, in reality what the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has actually given them is a real-terms pay cut – not a benefits increase
As BBC News reported, the DWP on the face of it has put in place a benefits increase:
The standard allowance of universal credit, the most common benefit, for a single person aged under 25 has gone up by £5.30 a month to about £317.
For a couple aged over 25, the rise is £10.50 to £628 a month.
Other benefits rising by 1.7% include all the main disability benefits, such as personal independence payment, attendance allowance and disability living allowance, as well as carer’s allowance.
However, is this really the case?
Of course it isn’t. As the House of Commons noted, “benefits increase lag behind real-time inflation figures, with the CPI rate of inflation rising by 2.8% in the 12 months to February 2025“. This is because the government sets the April DWP benefits increase at the rate of inflation (how much prices of things increase by) from the previous September. So, in the six months between those two points anything can happen with inflation; it actually just has, and often does, too.
The House of Commons showed that actually, chronically ill, disabled, and non-working people will be at least £4.68 a month worse off from today:
Moreover, with so many other bills having just gone up – the benefits increases are more than cancelled out.
As the Canary previously reported, from 1 April households saw a noticeable hike in several key areas:
Energy Costs: The energy price cap, regulated by Ofgem, has increased, which translates to an added £9.25 monthly, or £111 annually, for the average household relying on direct debit payments. The cost of gas has surged from 6.34 pence per kilowatt-hour to 6.99 pence, while electricity has jumped from 24.86 pence to 27.03 pence per kilowatt-hour. With energy bills already reaching an average of £1,738, these increases will contribute significantly to the financial strain many families face.
Or, as Dr Jay Watts put it regarding the benefits increase:
Disability benefits are generous in the UK, are they?
This week: PIP daily living rose by £1.25 (standard) or £1.85 (enhanced). That’s 1.7%.
Today: energy bills rose 6.4%.
That’s not generosity. It’s abandonment.#DisabilityBenefits #WelfareNotWorkfare— Dr Jay Watts (@Shrink_at_Large) April 1, 2025
Water Bills: In what has been described as “extortionate” by concerned advocacy groups, households across England and Wales can expect their water bills to increase by an average of £86 in just the next year—a staggering rise of 20%. Companies like Southern Water and Severn Trent will see increases soaring upwards of 47%, pushing many families deeper into financial difficulty.
Council Tax: The anticipated surge in council tax will leave millions of households grappling with an increase. The projected new annual figure for a typical Band D property is set to reach £2,280. All councils across Merseyside, for instance, are imposing the maximum allowed increase. Families are encouraged to investigate any available support options from their local councils to help mitigate this financial hit.
Mobile and Broadband: Added to the financial burden, broadband and mobile contracts are also seeing price hikes, with average increases of £21.99 and £15.90 respectively. Households that are locked into inflation-link contracts could be particularly affected, witnessing bills rise significantly without warning. There are suggestions that consumers should actively check their contracts to explore potential savings through switching providers.
TV Licence Fee: In today’s increases, the standard price of a TV licence has risen by £5 to £174.50, further impacting household budgets. It remains crucial for eligible claimants, particularly those over the age of 75, to remember that they can still apply for exemptions under specific conditions, ensuring they do not miss out on necessary financial support.
Car Tax: Lastly, an increase in car tax adds to the woes. New standard rate taxes for cars registered post-April 2017 will go up by £5, while owners of electric vehicles will no longer enjoy exemption from car tax. This is a notable shift, especially for those who switched to electric cars with the promise of being free from tax burdens.
Citizens Advice has issued a stark warning, stating that even prior to these changes, individuals and families with the lowest incomes were already spending around 41% of their earnings on essential bills including water, energy, broadband, and car insurance.
In contrast, those in the middle-income bracket were spending only 11%, and the wealthiest households a mere 5%.
So, no – a 1.7% benefits increase is not going to make any difference to anyone claiming these – regardless of what the corporate media say.
Featured image via the Canary
By Steve Topple
This post was originally published on Canary.
The Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) has raised urgent concerns about the devastating effects of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) two-child limit policy. But crucially, the group has also shown that by not cancelling the policy, the Labour Party government has already thrown a further 30,000 children into poverty since it took power in July 2024
The two-child limit, which came into effect on April 6, 2017, restricts households from claiming child tax credits or Universal Credit for more than two children, including those born after the policy’s introduction.
CPAG’s recent research outlines a disconcerting trend, indicating that 350,000 children could be lifted out of poverty immediately if the limit were to be abolished, at a projected cost of £2 billion. Furthermore, the study highlights that the policy is fostering an increase in family hardship, with an estimated 109 additional children being pulled into poverty daily as a direct consequence.
Another study put the figure nearer 600,000.
This policy does not operate in a vacuum; a so-called “rape clause” creates exemptions for children born as a result of non-consensual conception, a feature that has drawn considerable criticism and controversy since it was rolled into the policy. Critics argue that such provisions do little to alleviate the suffering caused by the overarching restrictions of the two-child limit.
The implications of the two-child limit are far-reaching, affecting families across all regions of the UK. The policy will continue to impact an increasing number of families until 2035 when the first children born under its restrictions will reach adulthood. Yet Labour has maintained it – even expelling MPs who voted against keeping it.
Meanwhile, the Scottish government has vowed to bring an end to the two-child limit by April 2026, aiming to mitigate its adverse effects on families in Scotland.
Despite the overwhelming evidence presented by CPAG, the Labour government has opted to retain the controversial policy It was initially introduced by former Tory chancellor George Osborne.
In 2020, Starmer had previously called for its abolition, labelling it a critical gesture towards combatting child poverty. However, more recently, he has described the scrapping of the two-child cap as insufficient alone to resolve the broader issue of child poverty, suggesting a lack of urgency in addressing the immediate needs of families affected by this policy.
CPAG’s chief executive Alison Garnham said:
The government’s child poverty strategy will fall flat on its face unless it scraps the two-child limit. Every day, the policy forces families to go hungry and damages the life chances of children up and down the country.
She asserts that while reducing child poverty requires multi-faceted strategies, abolishing the two-child limit is a necessary first step.
As the Labour government gears up to release its long-awaited child poverty strategy this June, pressure from charity groups and families continues to mount.
The End Child Poverty Coalition has expressed doubts about the effectiveness of the forthcoming plan unless it actively dismantles the two-child limit. Reports indicate potential shifts in the policy, with discussions about a change to a three-child limit appearing on the table, but notably, this has yet to be substantiated with firm commitments or timelines.
Research conducted by CPAG has revealed the stark financial reality behind potential alternatives to altering the two-child limit, indicating that addressing the same number of children at risk would be considerably more expensive.
To completely offset the impacts of the policy, the child element of Universal Credit would need to be increased by £17 per week, costing £3 billion. Alternatively, raising the standard allowance by £25 a week would escalate costs to £8 billion.
The issue remains pressing, as campaigners insist that the two-child limit must be abolished outright. They caution that allowing exemptions to some families could result in a fragmented approach that would keep vulnerable families trapped in poverty, struggling to find a way out.
In the government’s response, a spokesperson claimed:
No-one should be living in poverty, and we know that the best route out of poverty for struggling families is well-paid, secure work.
This statement, however, rings hollow for many families affected by stringent welfare policies. It underscores the disconnect between Labour rhetoric and the harsh realities faced by the nation’s most vulnerable children.
As the crisis persists, the two-child limit continues to be a source of pain, hardship, and increasing deprivation.
Featured image via the Canary
By Steve Topple
This post was originally published on Canary.
Forbes has released its annual World Billionaires list and a record 3,028 people control an ungodly amount of wealth. That’s 247 more billionaires than last year. In fact, they are worth £12.4 trillion – more than the GDP of every country in the world, other than the US and China (193 countries). And their net worth is £1.54 trillion more than a year ago.
That means, according to Oxfam figures, just 3,000 people (the 0.000036%) have more wealth than 99% of the planet – around eight billion people.
This set up is entirely undemocratic. One point to note is that most of a billionaires’ wealth is tied up in assets. For Elon Musk, his wealth largely derives from his ownership shares in companies like Tesla and SpaceX. At the same time, Musk can at any point sell such shares and literally have £262 billion in cash.
One way to address such grotesque inequality is for companies to transition to public-private partnerships. That’s once they reach a certain threshold of revenue and profit. Companies could reach different grades whereby once they become a certain size they have to meet certain social responsibility rules, they must pay all staff relative to profits and they must lower prices for consumers. This could keep a balance between social responsibility and the risk a company is taking. It would also mean that small businesses would still be viable as the scheme would not require them to pay staff as high wages.
A more radical way to address such inequality would be for much of the economy to be in the commons and to foster a culture where people work towards social good (while still being paid for their efforts). Figuring out what defines ‘social good’ in a world of different tastes might be more difficult to organise.
Still, like the publicly funded Research and Development (R&D) teams of the present, people could still work towards innovation and greater quality, but cooperatively rather than competitively. Or perhaps competitively between nations. An issue with that as an absolute is that some nations are a lot more resource rich than others. For example, while climate change demands we move away from oil, Saudi Arabia is the third richest country when it comes to resources. At the same time, it is the 48th largest country in terms of population.
Either way, it’s clear essentials like energy and water should be in public ownership. It’s a risk free investment for the government to make, because we know people will always need energy, water and other essentials. This delivers lower bills across the board for people and businesses. On top of that, the UK government in the 1960s and 70s made billions per year through its public utilities, which could then be reinvested.
Featured image via the Canary
By James Wright
This post was originally published on Canary.
In recent weeks, hundreds of foreign students in the U.S. have received emails from the Department of State informing them that they must leave the country. This “catch and revoke” program is being used to cancel the visas of students who have participated in forms of pro-Palestinian activism the government doesn’t approve of, which may include merely reading or posting certain kinds of content on…
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
In a striking revelation from the London School of Economics (LSE), a newly published analysis highlights significant disparities in child poverty between Scotland and the rest of the UK, sparking critical discussions about the government’s role in alleviating economic hardship. The findings come after recent announcements of Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) cuts by the UK government, which, according to their own impact assessment, are projected to exacerbate poverty levels.
The report, spearheaded by Professor Ruth Patrick and involving collaboration with experts from the University of York, urges a re-evaluation of the current approach to child poverty in the UK.
It posits that an investment strategy akin to Scotland’s could dramatically alter the landscape for families struggling with poverty. According to the analysis, implementing similar measures throughout the UK could lead to a reduction in child poverty rates by a staggering 700,000 children, essentially lifting them out of economic deprivation overnight.
Currently, the Scottish government’s proactive measures, including the Scottish Child Payment, stand in stark contrast to Westminster’s actions. The weekly payment of £26.70 per child provided to low-income families in Scotland translates to a substantial annual benefit.
For a family with three children, this could mean nearly £5,500 more in household income compared to families in England who do not receive similar levels of support.
As the report outlines, if the UK government were to match this investment, providing an equivalent of approximately £400 per child per year, the impact could be significant. The assessment suggests that this shift in policy could lower child poverty rates by an impressive five percentage points across the country.
The statistics reveal a troubling trend: not only is child poverty a pervasive issue, but the gulf between Scottish children’s poverty rates and those in the rest of the UK is widening.
The implications of this analysis could serve as a catalyst for change, compelling the UK government to reconsider its social security strategy and address the urgent needs of families with children living in hardship.
Speaking to the LSE, Professor Patrick emphasised the need for the UK government to adopt proactive measures aimed at families on low incomes, stating that “the current trajectory is failing children and families in poverty,” and calling for an “urgent reassessment” of policies to reflect a commitment to tackling poverty effectively.
While the Scottish government is lauded for its child support initiatives, critics argue that the UK government’s continued cuts to social security undermine these efforts and leave vulnerable families facing an uphill battle against poverty.
The outreach of these policies reaches individual lives, with parents left worrying about how to provide for their children due to the lack of adequate financial support mechanisms.
These developments serve to highlight the contrasting approaches between the two governments and raise questions about the extent of political will to combat poverty.
The ongoing analysis by the Changing Realities collaboration sheds light on a pressing social issue and calls into question the effectiveness of current government policies when the welfare of children hangs in the balance.
As the debate continues to unfold, this report could potentially reshape discussions around social security investment in the UK, pushing for a paradigm shift that prioritises the wellbeing of children—particularly those living in poverty—over budgetary cuts.
Featured image via the Canary
By The Canary
This post was originally published on Canary.
This story originally appeared in Labor Notes on Mar. 28, 2025. It is shared here with permission.
In his broadest attack on federal workers and their unions to date, President Donald Trump on Thursday announced an Executive Order that claimed to end collective bargaining rights for nearly the whole federal workforce. Early estimates have the move affecting 700,000 to 1 million federal workers, including at the Veterans Administration and the Departments of Defense, Energy, State, Interior, Justice, Treasury, Health and Human Services, and even Agriculture.
This gutting of federal worker rights has the potential to be a pivotal, existential moment for the labor movement. It is a step that recognizes that the Trump administration’s rampage against the federal government is hitting a roadblock: unions.
Much remains to be seen: How quickly will the government move to execute the order? How much of it will stand up to challenges in court? Members of the Federal Unionists Network (FUN), who have been protesting ongoing firings and cuts, are holding an emergency organizing call on Sunday, March 30.
The move echoes past attacks on federal and public sector unions, including President Ronald Reagan firing 11,000 striking air traffic controllers in 1981. Reagan’s move signaled “open season” on the labor movement, public and private sector alike.
The dubious mechanism that Trump is using to revoke these rights involves declaring wide swaths of the federal workforce to be too “sensitive” for union rights.
The Executive Order claims that workers across the government have “as a primary function intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative, or national security work.”
Historically the interpretation of this has been much narrower. While CIA operatives have not been eligible for collective bargaining, nurses at the Veterans Administration have. These rights have been law since the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act, and in various forms for years prior, starting with an executive order by President Kennedy in 1962.
For example, the Veterans Administration has the largest concentration of civilian workers in the federal government, with more than 486,000 workers. The Trump Executive Order declares all of them to be excluded from collective bargaining rights.
The order names 10 departments in part or in full, and eight other governmental bodies like agencies or commissions, ranging from all civilian employees at the Department of Defense and the Environmental Protection Agency to all workers at the Centers for Disease Control (a part of the Department of Health and Human Services) and the General Services Administration.
Federal unions immediately denounced the Executive Order, promising to challenge it in court. Everett Kelley, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, the largest federal union, said in a statement that AFGE “will fight relentlessly to protect our rights, our members, and all working Americans from these unprecedented attacks.”
It is unclear how quickly the federal government and its various agencies will act to nullify contracts and all that come with them.
At the Transportation Security Administration, where collective bargaining rights were axed in recent weeks, the impact was felt immediately: union representatives on union leave were called back to work, grievances were dropped, and contractual protections around scheduling were thrown out the window.
Some protests already in the works may become outlets for justified anger about the wholesale destruction of the federal labor movement.
Organizers with the FUN, a cross-union network of federal workers that has jumped into action as the crisis has deepened, are organizing local “Let Us Work” actions for federal workers impacted by layoffs and hosting the Sunday emergency organizing call March 30.
National mobilizations under the banner of “Hands Off” are also already planned for April 5.
This content originally appeared on The Real News Network and was authored by Joe DeManuelle-Hall.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
The ongoing debate over the UK government’s Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has reached a critical point, with increasing calls for the abolition of the controversial two-child limit and the overall benefit cap.
Since the Labour Party government took charge in summer 2024, pressure has been mounting to address the alarming rise of child poverty, which is being exacerbated by it and the DWP’s restrictive measures. As the Canary previously reported, child poverty has officially increased under Labour by 200,000 children.
At the heart of this discourse is a stark reality: families struggling to make ends meet are facing hurdles that many outside their situation find difficult to comprehend.
For millions of children across the UK, poverty is not just a statistic; it’s a lived experience impacting their everyday lives. The DWP two-child limit, which restricts Universal Credit support for families to only two children, has left many large families desperate for assistance.
This rule, introduced in 2017, effectively bars families from receiving necessary financial aid when they need it most, often leading them to choose between essential items such as food, clothing, and heating.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves has been under consistent fire. Critics argue that tinkering around the edges, such as proposing a DWP three-child limit or exemptions for younger children, is inadequate. Writing in the Conversation UK, researchers Kate Andersen and Kitty Stewart highlight the reality that such changes would continue to leave vulnerable families at a disadvantage, failing to address the core issue of child poverty enduringly embedded in the UK’s welfare framework.
The personal stories of those affected by these policies illustrate the profound impact on families.
Jessica, a single mother of four, has seen her situation worsen after losing her business during the pandemic. Her struggle to afford new school shoes for her daughter resulted in her being put into isolation for not complying with the school’s dress code.
“I got the phone call to say she had to go into isolation… it was kind of a bit public shaming her really, taking her away and putting her in isolation,” Jessica recounted, shedding light on the emotional toll these financial constraints can inflict on both parents and children alike.
Moreover, the emotional ramifications ripple throughout families, children included.
Christina, a mother grappling with the DWP two-child limit, explained how her son has internalised the family’s financial struggles:
He won’t say he needs new clothes and he won’t say his shoes don’t fit anymore… I think he’s got it into his head now that we can’t go out and spend or he can’t ask, and I feel so bad for that.
In a society where children should be encouraged to express their needs, this suppression of basic desires reflects a deeper societal issue tied to poverty and a lack of resources.
In tandem with the two-child limit, the benefit cap further compounds these families’ struggles by imposing a maximum limit on DWP benefits available to households with no working adults. This is the so-called benefit cap.
This DWP policy has effectively barred thousands of vulnerable families from receiving the support they need, leaving many trapped in a cycle of poverty that is difficult to escape. With nearly two-in-five larger families currently affected by the two-child limit, and projections suggesting this could rise to 61% in the near future, the need for substantial policy reform is increasingly urgent.
As the government hammers chronically ill, disabled, and poor people, people urge for a complete abolition of both the two-child limit and the benefit cap, asserting that half-measures will only prolong the suffering of low-income families and further entrench poverty.
Time continues to tick away as families are caught in the web of inadequacy, hoping for a shift in DWP policy that will allow them the dignity and support they deserve.
Waiting for a strategy to be developed by Labour is a luxury that vulnerable families no longer possess; the damage inflicted by these restrictive policies is already evident and growing by the day, affecting the lives of countless children across the nation.
Featured image via the Canary
By Steve Topple
This post was originally published on Canary.
Government figures released on 27 March show 200,000 more children were plunged into poverty from 2023-24. That’s an increase from 4.3m to 4.5m children in poverty.
It comes just as chancellor Rachel Reeves delivered a Spring Statement that will take the situation further backwards. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) admitted on 26 March that its own estimation shows that fresh government austerity will push 250,000 people, including 50,000 more children into poverty by 2029/30. That’s because of cuts to welfare including support for disabled people. The impact assessment found that 3.2m families will lose an average of £1,720 per year.
Yet the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) has challenged the government’s assessment and said that in fact 400,000 people would fall into poverty following the spring statement.
The official poverty statistics further showed that 28% of children experienced material deprivation in 2024, meaning they can’t afford the essentials for living. According to surveys, 300,000 more children were reliant on food banks compared to the year before.
In response to the figures, Save the Children took aim at successive governments:
These figures are a source of national shame. The rise in child poverty to 4.5 million is a direct consequence of political choices. Ministers may have inherited these figures from past UK Governments, but they must now take immediate action to ensure more children do not fall into poverty next year. If they don’t, this could be the first Labour Government that oversees a significant rise in child poverty – a record no one wants. The two-child limit and benefit cap must be scrapped, and child related benefits locked to rise in line with wages or average earnings, whichever of the two is higher.
Speaking on Sky News, Reeves ignored the estimations from JRF and even those from her own government. The word shameless springs to mind:
I came into politics, I joined the Labour party when I was at school because I wanted children from all backgrounds, including the poorest backgrounds, to have a good start in life. I didn’t see that happening under the Conservative government when I was at school or under the Conservative government of the last 14 years
Rachel Reeves: “I came into politics.. because I wanted children from all backgrounds, including the poorest backgrounds, to have a good start in life”
That’s why I’m forcing 50,000 more kids into poverty pic.twitter.com/nisgIQteNt
— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) March 27, 2025
Why is she continuing the Conservative legacy of austerity then?
In December, Keir Starmer relaunched his premiership with a focus on living standards. He claimed he will achieve:
Living standards raised, people better off, more cash in their pocket
But it looks like the opposite is the case. In response to the official figures, Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) said:
Today’s grim statistics are a stark warning that the government’s own commitment to reduce child poverty will crash and burn unless it takes urgent action. The government’s child poverty strategy must invest in children’s life chances, starting by scrapping the two-child limit.
CPAG previously found that, for the first time since research started in 2008, all families on low or modest incomes are unable to meet their costs or achieve a basic standard of living.
In July 2024, Starmer suspended seven Labour MPs for voting to scrap the two child limit that Tory George Osborne introduced. It’s worth remembering that Starmer purged left wing MPs ahead of the 2024 general election, instead surrounding himself with ‘yes men’ who will vote through his toxic agenda. This included pro-Starmer members of Labour’s ruling body (the NEC) simply selecting themselves as candidates, rather than a democratic process.
Clive Lewis MP made this point on Sky News, saying:
A lot of my colleagues have been chosen for loyalty
Featured image via the Canary
By James Wright
This post was originally published on Canary.
In a world where significant changes are unfolding, the situation for many remains dire, especially for the most vulnerable populations. The pressing issue of hunger and malnutrition is worsening, as important supports are being withdrawn, particularly for children.
The United Nations Children’s Fund (Unicef) has recently highlighted a concerning trend: declining financial aid from governments and other supporters for programs that tackle malnutrition and hunger in children. This reduction in funding is alarming, leading to what humanitarian organisations are describing as a global financing crisis for essential aid.
One stark example provided by Unicef’s Deputy Director, Kitty van der Heijden, addresses the severe conditions faced by children in Ethiopia and Nigeria. In these regions, 1.3 million children under the age of five are reportedly lacking access to necessary assistance, putting their lives at significant risk.
The unfurling crisis stems from multiple factors, including agricultural failures due to prolonged droughts that have plagued various regions, further jeopardising food security. Unicef has reported that over 213 million children are projected to require humanitarian aid this year directly as a result of these compounding issues.
The statistics are harrowing: 148 million children under five are currently malnourished, with 45 million suffering from acute starvation. Alarmingly, nearly a quarter of all children worldwide are classified as chronically undernourished. After seeing some improvements in past years, these numbers are again on the rise.
The situation is particularly pressing given the context of austerity measures and a noticeable indifference from wealthier nations, which have occasionally failed to support those facing dire circumstances.
As conditions deteriorate, the urgent need for aid and a reevaluation of support systems becomes increasingly clear amidst the ongoing global upheaval. This development raises questions about the responsibility of wealthier countries in addressing the root causes of hunger and malnutrition, particularly in the Global South, where the impacts are often most severe.
Featured image via the Canary
By The Canary
Around 300 people gathered outside the Treasury in London yesterday evening, ahead of chancellor Rachel Reeves’ controversial spring statement, to demand the government raises taxes on the wealth of the super-rich instead of slashing public spending.
The government sparked fury ahead of the budget, by announcing deep cuts in disability benefits and international aid spending, while boosting investment in the military.
Author and economist Gary Stevenson, Green Party co-leader Carla Denyer, and Labour peer Prem Sikka addressed the crowd, alongside the leaders of union, environmental groups, and anti-poverty organisations:
LISTEN UP
The UK government is slashing welfare payments by £5 billion while inequality is rising – & the wealth of the super-rich is skyrocketing.
We're outside the treasury ahead of the spring budget to say:
No more cuts to public services
#TaxtheSuperRich! pic.twitter.com/FnqPhQoNGo
— War on Want (@WarOnWant) March 25, 2025
“This is the only way to save the majority of the country from poverty” Stevenson told the crowd:
I know that we can win this one. But we don’t win it today, and we don’t win it tomorrow, and we don’t win it this week, and we don’t win it next year. We need to build this and build this and build this, because this is the issue that unites this country and people all over the world that are being squeezed out of a quality of life that their parents and their grandparents had.
The protest was organised by War on Want, Oxfam, Greenpeace, and others.
There have been mounting calls for the government to raise taxes on the assets of the super-rich. The Trades Union Congress endorsed one last summer, and in October, a dozen Labour MPs broke ranks to support the call.
Yesterday, Oxfam published research revealing that three quarters of Brits back a tax increase on the richest over cuts to public spending.
The richest 1% of Brits own more wealth than the poorest 70%, and the world could see multiple trillionaires within a decade. Levying even a 2.5% tax on assets over £10 million could raise £36bn annually, according to Greenpeace.
Nuri Syed Corser, Senior Economic Justice Campaigner at War on Want, said:
Inequality is soaring, the climate is collapsing, and public services are at breaking point. We need huge public investment to tackle these crises. But instead, the government is gearing up to deliver lethal cuts to welfare, international aid and green investment, claiming there is not enough money to fund these life-saving policies. Meanwhile, the obscene wealth of the super-rich is surging and going largely untaxed. It’s time to tax it.
Matilda Borgström, UK Campaigner at 350.org, said:
Rachel Reeves’ decision to slash welfare while refusing to tax the super-rich is both cruel and misguided. Instead of making billionaires like Jim Ratcliffe – who profits from fossil fuels that drive the climate crisis – pay what they owe, she is choosing to side with the ultra-wealthy at the expense of ordinary people. A wealth tax on billionaires could fund vital support for those struggling with the cost of living – accelerating the transition to renewable energy could slash energy bills, insulate homes and create future-proof jobs. Instead, Reeves is prioritising the interests of a handful of elites over the well-being of millions. This is not just an economic failure – it’s a moral one.
Hannah Dewhirst, Head of Campaigns at Positive Money, said:
Too many wealthy corporations and individuals have seen their riches rise because the last government failed to prevent profiteering during a cost of living crisis. This government must rectify the inequality caused by this by taxing back some of that wealth and using it to support the struggling households it was squeezed from.
Caitlin Boswell, Head of Advocacy at Tax Justice UK:
Across the country, inequality is soaring and people are being left behind, struggling to make ends meet and dealing with broken public services, all while the very richest get richer. Choosing to make cut after cut to the poorest and most marginalised, while leaving the vast resource of the extreme wealth of the super rich untouched, is immoral, harmful, and will not deliver for our communities or the economy. Instead, this government could choose to tax the wealth of the very richest people and corporations. This would raise tens of billions annually to address the cost of living crisis and deliver the long-term investment our country needs.
Featured image and additional images via Andrea Domeniconi/War on Want
By The Canary
This post was originally published on Canary.
On the back of years of Tory austerity, the education sector is preparing for the “worst financial situation for a generation” after chancellor Rachel Reeves’ Spring Statement on 26 March. Headteachers have already warned that schools face “death by a thousand cuts” partly because the proposed pay increase for teachers is unfunded and the Labour Party government wants it to come out of the education budget.
The Times claims that education secretary Bridget Phillipson has “offered” to cut programmes like free period products, dance, music, and PE schemes. She has also reportedly floated a further £500m cut. At a time when the richest 1% hold more wealth than 70% of the country, this type of outlook is extraordinary from Labour. Additionally, the four richest Britons have more wealth that 20 million of us.
Under the Conservatives (and initially the Lib Dems), the education budget already faced a 9% cut from 2010-2020. This was drastic for school sixth forms that underwent cuts of 26%. The lack of funding forced 47 school sixth forms to close from 2016-2019. Funding for colleges, meanwhile, will still be 11% lower than in 2010.
While schools budgets often have more preservation (compared to sixth forms and universities), they are still in line for cuts in the spring statement.
One way to improve education would be to stop diverting resources to private schools that function to unfairly reproduce a ruling class. Research from University College London shows that private schools receive around three times the resources of the state school average. On top of that, private schools receive double the teachers with classes around half the size.
Lead author of the study Dr Morag Henderson said the “vastly superior resource gap at each stage” leads to “better university access and improved labour market rewards.” Indeed, the Sutton Trust found that while only 7% of the UK attends private school, those privately educated dominate the top jobs in society. 65% of senior judges, 44% of top actors, 39% of cabinet members, and 52% of diplomats were privately educated.
Another issue with private schooling is that it can lead to snobbery amongst those attending and a ‘mere commoner’ mindset for those not. This psychological divide could have a damaging impact on society. In fact, research has shown that private schools are full of “racism and classism” with pupils feeling like they are born to rule.
The role of nature (genetics) versus nurture (family, school) in educational outcomes is hard to estimate. That said, research from King’s College London suggests that 58% of a pupil’s performance in key subjects is to do with genetics. That leaves 42% of outcomes as an opportunity for improvement.
So we should not be diverting disproportionate resources and expertise to the privileged few and instead improve the system across the board. Labour has ended the VAT tax break for private schools. But with the public sector bracing for cuts, it looks like it’s predominantly taking us backwards.
Featured image via the Canary
By James Wright
Janine Jackson interviewed Rutgers University’s Eric Blanc about worker-to-worker organizing as a key force of resistance for the March 7, 2025, episode of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.
The New Republic (2/13/25)
Janine Jackson: The difficult and disturbing political moment is throwing some underlying fissures in US society into relief. Along with which side some folks turn out to be on, we’re learning what levers of power regular people actually have and how we can use them. And we’re reminded that the antidote to fear and confusion is one another, is community, including the particularly powerful form of community that is a labor union. Indeed, workers can wield power even shy of a union, though that’s not a story you will often read about in major media.
Eric Blanc is a longtime labor activist and organizer as well as assistant professor of labor studies at Rutgers University. He’s author of Red State Revolt: The Teacher Strike Wave and Working-Class Politics from Verso and, out this year, We Are the Union: How Worker-to-Worker Organizing Is Revitalizing Labor and Winning Big from UC Press. He also writes the newsletter laborpolitics.com. He joins us now by phone from here in town. Welcome to CounterSpin, Eric Blanc.
Eric Blanc: Thanks for having me on.
JJ: Well, let me ask you to start with federal workers, who are, as we see, a primary target of Trump and Musk, but you remind us federal workers are also a key force of resistance here. Tell us about that.
EB: It’s hard to exaggerate the stakes of the fight right now around federal workers. There’s a reason that Musk and Trump have started by trying to decimate federal services and decimate federal unions, and that’s because they understand that these are blockages on their attempt to have sort of full authoritarian control over the government and to be able to just impose their reactionary agenda irrespective of the law. And they know that they need to not just fire the heads of these agencies, but they need to be able to have a workforce that is so terrified of the administration that they’ll comply even when the law is being broken.
And so they have to go out after these unions and break them. And in turn, the stakes for, really, all progressive, all working people, anybody who has a stake in democracy, are very high because this is the first major battle of the new administration. And if they’re able to mass fire federal workers despite their legal protections to have job protections, despite the reality that millions of Americans depend on these services—Social Security, Medicaid, just basic environmental health and safety protections—if they’re able to destroy these services upon which so many people depend, this is going to set a basis for them to then go even harder on the rest of society. So think about immigrants and trans people and all of that. So the implications of this battle are very high. It is the case, fortunately, that federal workers are starting to resist, but there’s going to need to be a lot more to be able to push back.
JJ: Well, I grew up outside of DC. Both my parents worked at federal agencies. All of my summer jobs were at federal agencies, and anyone with direct experience knows that, with 0.0 illusions about perfection—but we understand that there are widespread misunderstandings and myths about government, generally, and about federal workers, specifically. Trump says, “We’re bloated, we’re sloppy. We have a lot of people that aren’t doing their job.” How do we push back against that narrative?
USA Facts (12/19/24)
EB: Yeah, I think the basic response is straightforward, which is to highlight just how important these services are and to note that, far from having a massively expanded bureaucracy, the federal services, like most public services, have actually been starved over the last 50 years. The percentage of the workforce that works for the federal government has continued to decline for the last four decades. And so it’s just not the case that there’s this massively expanding bureaucracy. And if anything, many of the inefficiencies and the problems in the sector are due to a lack of resources and then the lack of ability to really make these the robust programs that they can and should be, and oftentimes in the past were.
So it’s just not the case that either there’s a massively expanded bureaucracy or that these services are somehow not important. The reality is that the American people, in some ways, don’t see all of these services. They take them for granted. They’re somewhat invisible. So the fact that, up until recently, planes weren’t crashing, well, that’s because you have federal regulators and have well-trained federal air traffic controllers. And so when you start to destroy these services, then all of a sudden it becomes more visible. What will happen if you stop regulating companies on pollution, for instance? Well, companies can go back and do what they did a hundred years ago, which is to systematically dump toxins into the soil, into water, and all of these other things that we almost take for granted now that are unacceptable. Well, if there’s no checks and balances on corporations, who’s going to prevent them from doing all of this?
And so I do think that there’s just a lot of basic education that needs to be put out there to counter these lies, essentially, of the Trump administration. For instance, the vast majority of federal workers don’t live in DC. This idea that this is all sort of rich bureaucrats in DC—over 80% of federal workers live all across the country, outside of DC. And just monetarily, it’s not the case these are people making hundreds of thousands of dollars, they’re making decent working class wages. Overwhelmingly, you can look at the data.
So we need to, I think, be really clear both of the importance of these services, but then also just to say it’s a complete myth that the reason that ordinary working class people are suffering is due to federal workers. It’s a tiny part of the federal budget, first of all, the payroll of federal workers. And if you just compare the amount of money that goes to federal workers to, say, the wealth of Elon Musk, there’s no comparison. Elon Musk, richest man on earth, has over $400 billion net worth. That’s almost double what federal workers, 2.3 million federal workers as a whole, make every year. So you just see the actual inequality is not coming from federal workers, it’s coming from the richest in our country and the world.
JJ: Well, an arm we have, a lever we have, is worker organizing to push back against this, besides us at home being angry and throwing our shoes at the TV. We can work together and we have historical models, we have contemporary models and examples of how that can work and how that can play out.
I want to ask you to talk about the 2018 teacher strikes, because I see that you have lifted that up as a kind of analog, that there are lessons to be learned about places like West Virginia and Oklahoma, red states that in 2018 had this strike by teachers that, against all odds, one would say, were popular, connected with community, and were, in their measure, successful. I wonder what you think some of the tactical lessons were learned there. What did we learn from those strikes?
Jacobin (3/9/18)
EB: That’s a good question, and I think it’s important to start by just noting that these strikes are a good example of why we shouldn’t just succumb to despair now. There’s an overall sense of doom and gloom that nothing can be done because Trump’s in power, but I don’t think that’s true. I don’t think it’s accurate that nothing can be done. And the example of the red state strikes are a prime indicator that even when you have very conservative people in power, in government, workers have an ability to use their workplace leverage and their community leverage to win.
And so in 2018, hundreds of thousands of teachers in West Virginia, Oklahoma, Arizona and beyond went on strike. Even though those strikes were illegal, even though these were states in which the unions are very weak, right-to-work states, and even though the electorates in all of these states had voted for Donald Trump, nevertheless they got overwhelming support from the population because they had very simple, resonant demands, like more funding for schools, decent pay for teachers, make sure that there’s enough money so that students can get a decent education.
These things cut across partisan lines in a way that, similarly, I think that the defense of basic services like Social Security and Medicaid today really does cut across party lines. And the tactics, then, that they used were, well, first they had to get over the fear factor, because these were illegal strikes, so they had to find ways to start generating momentum amongst teachers. They did things like really basic escalating actions like asking people to wear red on one day. So they didn’t start by saying, “Let’s go on strike.” They said, “Can you do this one simple action together? Can we all wear the same color on a given day?” And then they asked the community to come in. They said, “Community members, can you meet us after school on this day? We’re going to talk about our issues together. We’re going to hold up some signs. We’re going to provide some information.”
So they built with escalating action towards eventually a mass strike. And they used a lot of social media because they couldn’t rely on the unions as much. Social media was very important for connecting workers across these states, for generating momentum. And eventually they were able to have extremely successful walkouts that, despite being illegal, nobody got retaliated against. They won, they forced the government to back down and to meet their demands. And so I do think that that is more or less the game plan for how we’re going to win around Musk and Trump. You have to essentially create enough of a backlash of working people, but then in conjunction with the community, that the politicians are forced to back down.
JJ: Well in worker-to-worker organizing, it seems like what you’re talking about here, I think a lot of us who have worked with organized labor or have that memory think of it as a top-down enterprise. And so worker-to-worker organizing is not just like a bright spot, something to look at, but a way forward, something that can be replicated. You direct something called the Worker to Worker Collaborative. Can you maybe just tell us a little bit about what worker-to-worker organizing is or how it’s different from a model that some folks may hold in their head?
We Are the Union (UC Press, 2025)
EB: Yeah. The basic problem with more traditional, staff-intensive unionism is that it’s just too expensive. It’s too costly, both in terms of money and time, to win big, to organize millions of workers. And whether it’s on offensive battles like unionizing Starbucks or Amazon, or whether it’s defensive battles right now, like defending federal workers, if you’re going to organize enough workers to fight back, there’s just not enough staff to be able to do that. And so part of the problem with the traditional method is that you just can’t win widely enough. You can’t win big enough.
Worker-to-worker organizing is essentially the form of organizing in which the types of roles that staff normally do are taken on by workers themselves. So strategizing, training and coaching other workers, initiating campaigns—these are things that then become the task and responsibility of workers themselves with coaching and with support, and oftentimes in conjunction with bigger unions. But workers just take on a higher degree of responsibility, and that has been shown to work. The biggest successes we’ve had in the labor movement in recent years, from the teacher strikes, which we talked about, to Starbucks, which has organized now over 560 stores, forced one of the biggest companies in the world to the bargaining table. We’ve seen that it works.
And it’s just a question now of the rest of the labor movement really investing in this type of bottom-up organizing. And frankly, there is no alternative. The idea that so many in the labor leadership have, that we’re just going to elect Democrats and then they’ll turn it around—well, Democrats are sort of missing in action, and who knows when they’re going to come back into power. And so it’s really incumbent on the labor movement to stop looking from above and start looking, really, to its own rank and say, “Okay, if we’re going to save ourselves, that’s the only possible way. No one’s going to come save us from above.”
JJ: And it seems that it develops also with just a more organic, if I could say, understanding of what the issues are because it’s workers themselves formulating that message rather than leadership saying, “We think this is what will sell, or we think this is what we can get across.” It seems more likely to actually reflect workers’ real concerns.
In These Times, 11/22/24
EB: Yeah, that’s right. I mean, workers are best placed to understand each other’s issues. They’re also the best placed to convince other workers to get on board. One of the things bosses always say whenever there’s a union drive or union fight is, “Oh, the union is this outside third party.” And sometimes there’s a little bit of truth to that. I don’t want to exaggerate the point, but there could be an aspect of the labor movement that can feel a little bit divorced from the direct ownership and experiences of workers. But when workers themselves are organizing, oftentimes in conjunction with unions, but if they really are the people in the lead, then it becomes much harder for the bosses to third-party the union because it’s clear the union is the workers.
JJ: Right, right. Well, how much does it matter, for this kind of bottom-up organizing, whatever it is that’s happening at the NLRB [National Labor Relations Board]? What role—I don’t even actually know what’s happening, it’s in flux as is everything. But you think that maybe not that we shouldn’t worry about it, not that we shouldn’t think about it, but we shouldn’t over-worry about machinations at the NLRB, yeah?
EB: Well, I do think that the Biden NLRB was very good and it helped workers unionize. So the fact that we don’t have that NLRB anymore is a blow to the labor movement. I think we just have to acknowledge that. That being said, it’s still possible to unionize. You don’t need the NLRB to unionize. The labor movement grew and fought for many years before labor law was passed. And even today it’s very ambiguous. The NLRB is sort of paralyzed on a national level, but on a local level you can still run elections. And so it’s not even completely defunct. And I think it’s probably still possible to use it to a certain extent.
But the reality is that the legal terrain is harder than it was. On the other hand, the urgency is even higher, and you still see workers fighting back and organizing in record numbers. I’ve been really heartened by, despite the fact that the legal regime is harder, you’ve had some major union victories just in the last few weeks under Trump. For instance, in Philadelphia, Whole Foods workers unionized despite Trump, despite an intense union busting campaign coming straight on down from Jeff Bezos. This was only the second time Amazon—because Amazon’s the owner of Whole Foods now—has lost a union election, and that was just a few weeks ago in Philadelphia.
And so it shows that there is this real anger from below. And I think that there’s something, actually, about the Trump administration, that because it’s so fused to some of the richest people on earth with the administration in an oligarchic manner, but then unionization itself becomes almost a direct way to challenge the Trump regime. Because you’re going up against both their destruction of labor rights, and then also, frankly, it’s just the same people are up top. The bosses and the administration are almost indistinguishable at this point.
JJ: And I feel like entities like Amazon, like Whole Foods, have presented themselves as sort of the future of business, the future of the way we do things. And so I think labor actions, first of all, recognizing that it’s still workers doing this and it’s not happening in a lab somewhere, they just seem like especially important places to call attention to in terms of labor activity.
Eric Blanc: “ I think that the Achilles heel of Trump and his whole movement is that it claims to be populist and it appeals to working class people, but in reality is beholden to the richest people on the planet. So the best way to expose that is by waging battles around economic dignity.”
EB: Yeah. And I think that the Achilles heel of Trump and his whole movement is that it claims to be populist and it appeals to working class people, but in reality is beholden to the richest people on the planet. So the best way to expose that is by waging battles around economic dignity, right? And the labor movement is the number one force that can do that, and force the politicians to show which side they’re on. Are you on the side of Jeff Bezos or are you on the side of low wage workers who are fighting back? Waging more and more of those battles, even if it’s harder because of the legal regime, I think is going to be one of the most crucial ways we have to undermine the support of MAGA amongst working people of all backgrounds.
JJ: Well, and we need one another for that support as we go forward. Well, finally, unless you’re living in a hole or unless you actually like what’s happening, it’s very clear that business as usual isn’t going to do, kind of wherever you’re walking in life, we need to be doing something bigger, bolder. But we know that there are people, to put it crudely, who are more afraid of disruption than they are of suffering. Disruption sounds very scary, doing things the way they haven’t been done yesterday, even though we do have history that we can point to, is scary.
And I think that makes the stories we tell one another and the stories we tell ourselves so important, the coherence of the vision of the future that we’re able to put out there is so crucial. And of course, that brings me back to media. You mentioned the importance of social media, independent media, just the stories that we tell, the stories that we lift up, the people that we lift up. It seems so important to this fight. It’s not meta phenomena. So I just wonder, finally, what you see as a role for different kinds of media going forward?
EB: Okay. I think it’s absolutely crucial. One of the reasons why the right has made the inroads it has is that it’s been better at getting its story out there and waging the battles of ideas through the media, through social media, and through more mainstream media. And frankly, our side has trailed. Maybe it’s because we don’t have the same resources, but I think it’s also there’s an underestimation of how important it is to explain what is going on in the world, to name who the real enemies are, and to provide an explanation for people’s real anger and their real anxiety about what’s happening. So yeah, I think it’s absolutely crucial. And I think we need to, as a labor movement, as progressives, as left, really push back and provide an alternative explanation that all of these problems are rooted in the power of billionaires. It’s not rooted because of the immigrants, not because of the federal workers, not because of trans kids.
And I’ll just say that one of the things I find to be hopeful is that social media is being used pretty effectively now by this new federal workers movement, and I’ll give you one plug, which is that they have a new website, go.savepublicservices.com, through which anybody can sign up to get involved in the local actions happening nearby. It’s going to be a rapid response network to stop all of the layoffs that happen locally, wherever you live, and to save the services on which we depend. So people can go to that website, go.savepublicservices.com, and take advantage of that media opportunity to get involved locally.
JJ: Alright then, we’ll end on that note. We’ve been speaking with Eric Blanc. The new book is We Are the Union: How Worker-to-Worker Organizing Is Revitalizing Labor and Winning Big That’s out now from UC Press, and you can follow his work at laborpolitics.com. Thank you so much, Eric Blanc, for joining us this week on CounterSpin.
EB: Thanks for having me on.
This post was originally published on FAIR.
Private equity has a well-deserved reputation as a ruthless industry that specializes in stripping and flipping companies to extract profits for wealthy investors and enrich its own billionaire CEOs. It’s an industry that increasingly dominates our lives. Private equity’s tentacles stretch across nearly every sector, including housing, hospitals, energy, prisons, retail and sports.
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
Janine Jackson interviewed Color of Change’s Portia Allen-Kyle about predatory tax preparers for the February 21, 2025, episode of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.
ProPublica (10/17/19)
Janine Jackson: April is nominally tax season, but right about now is when many people start worrying about it. That’s why TurboTax paid a heck of a lot of money for Super Bowl ads to hard-sell the idea that people could use its service for free—if they hadn’t used it last year, or if they filed by a certain date.
But if free, easy tax-filing is possible, should it be a gift to taxpayers from a for-profit corporation, from a corporation that has already been fined for unfairly charging lower-income Americans, from a corporation that has aggressively lobbied for decades to prevent making tax filing free and/or easy?
Our next guest has looked into not just the top-down inequities of the tax preparation industry—described by one observer as the “wild, wild West”—but how those problems fall hard on Black and brown and low-income communities.
Portia Allen-Kyle is interim executive director at Color of Change. She joins us now by phone. Welcome to CounterSpin, Portia Allen-Kyle.
Portia Allen-Kyle: Thank you so much. Happy to be here.
Color of Change/Better IRS (3/24)
JJ: I want to ask you about the report you authored, called “Preying Preparers.” I believe that many, if not enough, people have a sense that poor, low-income folks are at the sharp end of tax policy generally, and tax-filing specifically—that rich people get to keep, not just more money, but a higher fraction of money than low-income folks, who have less money and who need every nickel of it.
But I’m not sure that people understand, that isn’t just the capitalism chips falling where they may. Your report says, “Exploiting low-income taxpayers is core to the business model of tax prep companies.” Tell us what we might not know about that.
PAK: Doing that report was so eye-opening for so many different reasons, both personally and professionally, at Color of Change, in our advocacy. I remember years ago, when I discovered after going to H&R Block, and paying more than $300 for a fairly simple return, and finding out that the person who filed my return wasn’t even an accountant. And I remember how ripped off I felt.
So fast forward, being in this role and doing this work, and this report in particular, just going into how much of a scam the tax preparation industry is, both the storefront tax prep companies—so your H&R Block, your Liberty Tax, your Jackson Hewitts of the world—as well as large corporations, such as Intuit and other software providers, that provide these tax-filing services.
And the reality of the situation is that you have an industry that has spent hundreds of millions of dollars preventing people from being able to either pay the government what they owe or, in many cases, receive money back from the government that is technically already theirs. They have earned it, the government has kept more of it than they were perhaps entitled to, and now people are in the position for a refund.
And these businesses, especially for Black taxpayers, for low-income taxpayers, have found ways to profit off of people’s already-earned money, by inserting themselves as these corporate middlemen in the tax preparation game, where their sole role is to fleece people’s pockets, either from the money that folks have already earned and they are due as a refund, or by upcharging, upselling and preying upon folks who are eligible for certain tax credits, such as the earned income tax credit or the child tax credit, and have made businesses off of selling the equivalent of payday loan products to these taxpayers, where they take a part of their refund and just give people the rest, under the guise of giving them a same-day advance or same-day loan. And so no matter what the angle is, it is all unnecessary and all a scam. And it’s why government products like IRS Direct File are so important to both our democracy, how government works, and how people receive and keep their money.
JJ: A key fact in your report is that the tax preparation industry has these basic competency problems: Tax laws change all the time. You’re looking for someone who can make sure you pay what you’re supposed to, and look for any benefits you’re entitled to. And, of course, throughout this is that the most vulnerable people are the most in need of this help. But an unacceptable number, if we could say, of these tax preparers are not required to really prove that they know how to do it. That’s an industry-wide failing.
PAK: Oh, absolutely. There are no real requirements for tax preparers in these companies. Whereas if you go to an accountant, accountants have professional standards, they have training requirements. Not anybody can hang up a shingle and say, “I am an accountant,” in the same way that not anyone can walk into a hospital, put on a white coat and say, “I am a doctor.” But what we have is an entire industry of people that are able to say, “I am a tax preparer, because I have applied for a job, maybe taken an internal training to these companies, and am now in the business of selling tax preparation.”
JJ: But not to everyone, because let’s underscore that, the fact that these systemic problems, this is a regulatory problem, clearly, but it doesn’t land on everyone equally, and it’s not designed to. And so in this case, you see that these unregulated tax preparers are taking advantage of, well, the people that it’s easiest to take advantage of. Talk a little bit more about the impacts of that particular kind of predation.
Portia Allen-Kyle: “It’s these tax-lobbying corporations that have fought so hard to keep taxes complicated and confusing for the rest of us.”
PAK: One of the ways in which especially storefront preparers are able to prey on communities is simply by location. And so many of these franchise operations, some of them maintain year-long locations, many of them do not, but they pop up, kind of like Spirit Halloween, often around tax season, in neighborhoods that are disproportionately Black or communities of color, disproportionately lower income, disproportionately taxpayers and residents who are eligible for what are expected to be larger refunds, so those who are eligible for the earned income tax credit, those who are eligible for the child tax credit, and really prey upon those folks in selling tax preparation services.
And the key here is selling tax preparation services, because what they really are are salespeople. They have sales goals, it’s why they’re incentivized to upsell products, some of the products that they’re also selling are refund anticipation loans. So they may lure you in and say, “Get a portion of your refund today,” or “Get an advance upfront.” That’s an unregulated bank product. So you have an unregulated tax preparer now selling you an unregulated loan product, that often sometimes reach interest rates of over 30%. And they know what they’re doing, because that is where they make their money, in the selling of product.
And we see that in the data, that free programs such as VITA, the Volunteer Income Tax Assistance program, disproportionately prepares the taxes of filers who don’t have children, and aren’t eligible for EITC. So many of these companies will refer out other folks, for whom they find that it is not worth it to prepare their taxes, prey on folks that they think they’re getting big refunds, but more importantly, what really illustrates the difference in tax preparation and expectations: the wealthy millionaires, billionaires, corporations, they’re not going to H&R Block. Mark Cuban is not walking into H&R Block to file his taxes, right?
Folks on the other end of the income and wealth spectrum are relying on accountants, are relying on folks who are not just preparing a service in the moment, but who are providing year-round advice on how to make the system work for them.
And so there’s a service and an additional amount of financial insight and oversight that they are getting, that an entire segment of the market is not, when tax prep is handled in this way. Because, at the end of the day, it’s these tax-lobbying corporations that have fought so hard to keep taxes complicated and confusing for the rest of us, doing this while providing services that they know are subpar in quality, and deliver questionable outcomes. I mean, demonstrated in the report, the error rate of those who prepare taxes for companies like H&R Block, Liberty Tax, Jackson Hewitt and other companies is extremely high, sometimes upwards of 60%. So you have a scenario where you have a portion of taxpayers who disproportionately have their returns prepared by preparers who are unqualified and unregulated, and essentially increases their risk of an audit.
NPR (3/16/23)
And then, when they are audited—it was found that the IRS disproportionately has audited Black taxpayers, and particularly those who are eligible for EITC, etc. And that is not unrelated to the way that it is structured, and the predation of the corporate tax lobby in the first place.
And while it sounds like, when you see advertisements from H&R Block or Intuit about how they stand by and guarantee their services, they’ll defend you in an audit. Well, they need to defend you in an audit. It’s not altruistic. You’ll need that protection, because they’re going to mess it up, and have messed it up, for so many people.
And that part of the story is not often talked about, when we talk about the disproportionate audit rate. It often is not always included how those folks had their returns prepared. And that’s often by these same companies that are presenting and fighting against things like direct file, which is essentially the public option for taxes, in the same way that the Affordable Care Act is the public option for healthcare.
JJ: What is direct file, and why can we expect to hear in the media a lot of folks saying, “Oh, well, you might think direct file is good, but actually…”? What should we know about it?
PAK: What we should know about it is, as I mentioned, direct file is the public option for taxes. And it’s important, because it allows people to file returns, simple returns, directly with the IRS. So last year, the pilot program was only available in 12 states. This year, the program is open to folks living in 25 states. We hope to see and are fighting for the expansion after this season into all 50 states, and recognize the tough road ahead for that.
But it is a program that, in its first year, saved over, I believe it was 130,000 taxpayers, millions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of hours in tax preparation. And already we’ve seen folks flock this season to the direct file system. And in the first two weeks, Color of Change has been doing a lot of advocacy; we are the top referrer of traffic to direct file. And so we’re already saving hundreds of thousands of dollars, and thousands of hours, which is a real benefit to community. This is a system that is government working for you.
It’s also important, because the other thing that private companies have really invested in, and fought so hard about, is that even when you file with H&R Block, when you file with Intuit or TurboTax, when you file with Liberty Tax, that information is still going to the government, to the IRS. But now it also is housed in this private corporation that essentially uses it as a part of their business model, to sell other products to you and prey on you in other ways.
And so it’s not a coincidence that a company like Intuit owns TurboTax, which is a software platform that will take up your data. They also own QuickBooks, so they have a bunch of data on small businesses that keep their accounting in that way. They own MailChimp, and so they have information of millions of folks who join direct marketing email campaigns, and so they can link data in that way. And then they also own Credit Karma. And so for those who are looking to improve their credit scores, for example, they also then have information about Americans in that level. And match this to essentially prey in different ways, with different types of tax products and other banking products.
And we’ve seen this in the expansion of fintech tax product loans that has been going crazy. When Cash App, for example, is telling you that you can file your taxes for free, you should assume that you are the product. And cutting out that corporate middleman is critical and essential, for not just ensuring that families keep money in their pockets, save time, that they are able to put back, spend with their kids, spend with their families, spend pursuing other things, but also is a data protection strategy as well.
JJ: We’ve been speaking with Portia Allen-Kyle, interim executive director at Color of Change. The report, “Preying Preparers: How Storefront Tax Preparation Companies Target Low-Income Black and Brown Communities,” can be found at ColorOfChange.org. Portia Allen-Kyle, thank you so much for joining us this week on CounterSpin.
PAK: Thanks for having me.
This post was originally published on FAIR.
In all his sovereign ruling magnanimity, king Charles has come to the “royal rescue” of the shivering proletariat pensioner masses this winter. Sausage-fingered chinless wonder Charlie-boy raised the portcullis of his Highgrove House former residence (one of seven palaces, 10 castles, 12 homes, 56 cottages) to his freezing, starving subjects for a well-mannered “Winter Warmer”, replete with resplendent regal luncheon from the Royal chefs. We’re sure there was plenty of gamey grouse and partridge from the king’s gruesome hunting grounds to go around.
When did the Royal family start employing the court jester at its public relations office? Because it is, of course, the biggest piss-take from the taxpayer-funded, tax exempt, most pompous parasitic pricks the world has ever known.
Good Morning Britain started the day with a grovelling show of mindless Monarchism:
King Charles is opening the doors of his Highgrove estate in Gloucestershire, inviting those in need to experience a little warmth this winter in what’s being hailed as a royal rescue.
Highgrove Director for @KingsFdn, Constantine Innemée speaks to @kategarraway and @adilray. pic.twitter.com/VOvWLXem26
— Good Morning Britain (@GMB) February 21, 2025
Charles’ charity The King’s Foundation – that he preemptively-minted in 1990, only a good three decades-plus before her royal highness and dear mummy croaked it – is hosting these “Winter Warmers” between January and March.
Separately, a nauseatingly grandstanding press release from it reads:
The King’s Foundation ‘Winter Warmers’ returned to Highgrove Gardens today, hosted in the Orchard Room. Our Winter Warmers initiative was first introduced in 2023 to combat social isolation in the local community during the winter months, and provide a warm and welcoming space to local residents including elderly and vulnerable people.
Nothing says “welcoming space” more than the grossly gilded dining room of a king’s former stately home. Safe to say, the populace of X were not amused:
Any Royal Charity is a distraction from Royals not paying their sodding taxes.
It’s a distraction from an institution supported by blood right superiority and feudal landlordism.
Abolish it, abolish the Monarchy. https://t.co/27CC96hmio
— Alexander Louis Sallons (@sallonsax) February 21, 2025
King Charles has invited people who are lonely or struggling to heat their homes to one of his many houses for the afternoon
Instead of PR events for the cameras how about the King pays the taxes everybody else has to pay? (e.g. his businesses are exempt from corporation tax) pic.twitter.com/JiAAgqLBsQ
— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) February 21, 2025
The generosity is staggering.
— Deborah Ellison (@dancefitdebs) February 21, 2025
Why not give over some of his many properties to help. Letting a few in to warm up and then go home to their cold homes it’s not really going to help
— Liz Dyra (@lizzied41) February 21, 2025
To keep his older guests toasty for a few hours in his royal ‘hind’-quarters (because, let’s be real, he’s not exactly laying down the drawbridge to one of his seven palaces now is he?), and his horses warm indefinitely:
Wood pellet, biomass boilers are used to heat Highgrove House, the Orchard Room, stables and offices.
Needless to say, the royal ass (oh wait, should one say, derriere?) is pulling a massive Nadhim Zahawi. By which we mean, plundering from the public’s pockets to heat his numerous palaces’ horse stables.
After all, the Crown is only planning to cash in £132m for the taxpayer-funded Sovereign Grant in 2025-26. It’s a whopping 53% increase on the already gargantuan £86.3m the public are footing for 2024-25. The machinations of mollycoddling monarchists George Osborne and David Cameron ensured the Royals’ cosmic handout has only risen in line with the Crown Estate’s soaring profits.
So that’s multi-millions of public money. And it’s all to pay for the maintenance of these insufferably pointless inbreds’ many haughty houses.
And those ludicrously princely sums have come from, you guessed it, ripping off the rest of us. That is, the Royal Family is charging the NHS, schools, charities, and public bodies for the lofty privilege of posting up on its land. Land “largely seized by medieval monarchs” by the way.
The Canary wrote on this exposé in November:
Turn the heating on? King Charles takes a cut.
Pay the rent? King Charles takes a cut.
Bury a loved one? King Charles takes a cut.
See the problem here? To stave off the pensioner deaths this winter, a handful can sit in Highgrove House for a whole lunch hour. At least, they can when the king sees fit to let them in, for a meagre few months of the year. The rest of the time, we’re forking out funds to the royal wanker when we heat our homes. Plus, every pensioner that Winter Fuel Payment cut, and unaffordably high energy bills put in a coffin this winter – straight to the Crown’s coffers too.
This staggering public money is of course, alongside the colossal land portfolio that lines king Charles’ pockets. His personal little “Privy Purse” might even pay for the wood pellets. Again though, it’s money the monstrously flush monarch hasn’t done anything to earn. This is a private income gifted to the king for the sole fact of his landed, lucked-out birth. Specifically, the king derives it purely from the land and commercial property revenue of the Duchy of Lancaster.
None of that is anything to speak of the wood pellets for the biomass boilers themselves. Not renewables, not green, not ethical, no matter how much the greenwashing king might try to wrangle it. There are huge climate and pollution costs – particularly for racially minoritised frontline communities. Don’t ever say the British Royal Family does nothing – because it’s all in a day’s work for the ghoulish living, breathing representation of violent colonialism.
However, this wasn’t even the half of it. While the plebs pay their taxes, the Royal clinger-on doesn’t even have to raise his podgy sausage finger to pay up for all his wealth and worth(lessness). His oh-so gracious highness does pay income tax voluntarily. But, he’s not obliged to like everyone else in this barely green, and deeply unpleasant land.
As for that pesky Inheritance Tax on the late Queen’s wealth, Charlie wasn’t going to be looking the legal loophole gift-horse in the mouth on that one. There’s a nice little clause courtesy of John Major’s government that let the loaded heir skip out on that 40% levy on assets over £325,000. Did we mention the Royals get a free pass on Capital Gains Tax as well?
Here’s an idea. If those jammy tax-dodgers stopped taking the biscuit and actually paid their fair share, pensioners might be able to afford to heat their own homes.
The king’s charity even has the bare-faced audacity to publicise its glorified warm-bank amidst its own rental scandals. Specifically, the Royal Family’s estate is renting out grotty properties that don’t meet Minimum Energy Standard (MES) regulations.
As the Mirror and Channel 4 Dispatches revealed in November:
Scores of rental properties owned by Prince William fail to meet the minimum legal energy efficiency standards for landlords, we can reveal.
We found some of his tenants are at risk of fuel poverty, living in hard to heat homes that are riddled with damp and black mould. Our investigation with Channel 4 Dispatches has found that as many as one in seven of William’s inherited Duchy of Cornwall’s residential rental properties have the lowest Energy Performance Certificate ratings of F or G.
That’s right, the billionaire bloodsuckers are raking in profits from moldy, damp, and freezing homes. The Royal fam reading the room like champs as usual then. Instead of showboating its ‘Winter Warmer’ little whimsy, it could maybe see about getting its rentals in order first.
And it’s Victorian squalor for the plebs, palace renovations for the Royals. That is, on top of *everything* else, the public is ALSO paying for £369m in refurbishments at Buckingham Palace. It’s for electrical cabling, plumbing, and heating no less.
The 108 metre long, by 120 metre deep, and 24 metre high 775-roomed royal residence a little too drafty for the septuagenarian sovereign?
There’s something enormously fucked up about people having to rely on warm banks in the first place to stay alive. No one in the UK in 2025 should be in fuel poverty and freezing to death in their homes. Of course, this isn’t ONLY down to tax-evading, freeloading con that is the Royal Family. Spineless energy ‘regulator’ Ofgem, Conservative governments in quick succession, and the current Labour government bear much of the blame for this.
However, it’s a kick in the teeth that this classist vestige of criminal colonial empire is using pensioners the Labour government has purposely poverty-stricken, to get a bit of good publicity for the Crown.
But, “keep calm, and carry on” am I right? FUCK that.
Featured image via the Canary
This post was originally published on Canary.
The basic funding for free primary school breakfasts the Labour Party is currently offering is just 60p per pupil. That has resulted in schools taking part in the pilot either pulling out or paying the rest from existing budgets.
Paul Bertram, a headteacher at Buxworth Primary School, said:
We discussed it as a governing body and we just couldn’t afford to run at a loss. If this is the best they can offer, they are going to struggle with putting the policy nationally across the whole of the country
Labour plans to roll out free school breakfasts for all pupils from April. Up to 750 schools are taking part in the pilot.
One school leader said the current scheme has funding “so poor it won’t cover food, let alone staff”.
The nutritional value of the free school breakfasts clubs is key. Presently, corporations are promoting unhealthy food in breakfast clubs. Greggs has opened at least 1,000 breakfast clubs in schools in the UK. Studies have shown Greggs food to be high in calories, saturated fats and low in nutrition. Kellogg’s has also sponsored school breakfast clubs for more than two decades. Its products are high in sugar.
In December, 38 doctors, researchers, and others signed a letter to the government calling for an end to the “stealth marketing” of unhealthy foods in schools via breakfast clubs.
It states that a
BMJ investigation shows that action urgently needs to be taken against stealth marketing by this industry that is rife in schools and early years settings—and yet such marketing falls outside the scope of the government’s advertising restriction plans. Unhealthy food and drink is one of the three biggest killers in the UK (alongside tobacco and alcohol). This industry is being permitted to target the youngest in our society, through breakfast clubs and so called “healthy eating” campaigns and “free” materials, in schools and early years settings. Evidence shows that exposure to unhealthy products increases consumption both directly, and via adversely affecting the social norms, cultural values, and beliefs that underpin food
behaviours.
A “policy development” charity, funded by companies including Coca Cola, Mars, Nestlé, and McDonald’s, is also influencing food provision and education in schools. Head of food policy at the Soil Association Rob Percival said:
Just in principle, an organisation sponsored by McDonald’s, Mars, and Nestlé shouldn’t be within 100 miles of children’s food education
The government isn’t currently providing any fully-funded free school breakfasts clubs as a legacy from the Conservative administration, although 12% of schools receive subsidies for the first meal of the day. But it only applies if 40% or more of the school’s pupils are facing income deprivation.
The scheme doesn’t promote a high standard of universalism for essentials nor does it account for the many less well off children who live in more affluent areas.
In the UK, nutrition issues begin before children start primary school. A December report from the Education Policy Institute (EPI) highlighted that a quarter of households with children under four are experiencing food poverty. That’s the number of households, not the number of children.
The EPI authors pointed out that food poverty has negative psychological and physiological outcomes. It can lead to obesity, tooth decay, and mental health issues for parents. They note than when children under five experience food poverty they are more likely to have worse educational outcomes.
In fact, research shows that children from the lowest income families are five times more likely to experience poor academic achievement.
In a meritocratic society, children should have reasonably equal external inputs for their development, whether that’s food, healthcare or education. The current system isn’t fit for purpose – and neither are Labour’s free school breakfasts.
Featured image via the Canary
By James Wright
This post was originally published on Canary.
What is behind the tariff war that Donald Trump has launched against Mexico, Canada and China, with a promise to extend the war to the world as a whole? Moving beyond the smoke and mirrors, we must step back and focus on three things. First, the tariff war is a response to the rapidly deepening crisis of global capitalism. Second, it is one component of a radical escalation of class warfare from…
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
On January 23, 2025, South Africa enacted an Expropriation Act, updating the methods for land expropriation for the first time in fifty years.
The new Act allows for land expropriation for public purposes and interests whilst introducing the possibility of zero compensation for expropriated land. Consequently, the Act’s scope has been broadened since its 1975 version. Land can still be expropriated for public purposes, such as constructing roads, an uncontroversial and universally accepted practice.
The expansion of the scope to include public interest, however, also enables the Act to address a long-standing issue of land reform.
The post South Africa’s Long Road To Land Reform appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.
This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.
About three score years ago, on a January Sunday afternoon in 1967, some of us gathered in college dorm basement lounges to watch pro football’s historic first “Super Bowl.” A good bit has changed since then — in football and America. The changes in pro football could hardly be more striking. Today’s players dwarf the size and strength of players back then. National Football League linemen…
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
Donald Trump’s first month in office has pummeled communities in the U.S. and across the globe with a whiplash-inducing set of illegal actions and rapid reversals. Trump’s latest about-face is on his long-promised tariffs. Shortly after announcing hefty new taxes on foreign imports, Trump placed the bulk of them on pause. For 30 days, the U.S. will delay implementing a 25 percent tariff on Mexico…
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
The Pacific Palisades, Eaton, Hurst, and other fires this winter have brought unfathomable loss to Los Angeles County and marred the new year for many — erasing seaside mansions in the well-heeled Palisades as eagerly as they did less opulent homes in the vibrant historically Black community of Altadena. Still, as attentions turn to rebuilding and recovery, all victims, as Angelenos made equal in…
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
Janine Jackson interviewed Americans for Tax Fairness’s David Kass about billionaire election-buying for the January 31, 2025, episode of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.
Americans for Tax Fairness (10/29/24)
Janine Jackson: In October of last year, our guest’s organization reported that 150 billionaire families had broken the record for billionaire campaign spending, putting some $1.9 billion in the coffers of presidential and congressional candidates, with the 10 biggest billionaire family contributors providing almost half of that total. This dystopian situation is an indication, not just of the spiraling power and wealth of the super rich, but of the relative weakness of the forces set up to countervail that power.
David Kass is executive director of Americans for Tax Fairness. He joins us now by phone. Welcome to CounterSpin, David Kass.
David Kass: Thank you so much. I’m really glad to be here.
JJ: Tell us a little bit more about what you found in this research on “billionaire clan,” as you call it, spending on the 2024 elections. It was an unprecedented amount of money, yes?
AP (1/20/25)
DK: It really is. So we did an analysis of how much billionaire families gave in political contributions to the election, and we found that $1.9 billion have been given in this cycle. And that is really just a shocking amount of money. It is unprecedented, it is a record amount.
And we see the impact of that. Just the inauguration, I think that picture where you had a number of these billionaires in front of the cabinet, you had Musk and Bezos and these other folks who made massive contributions to the campaign, and now they’re enjoying the fruits of that, which is really building this incredible amount of influence in this new administration.
JJ: We’re going to talk about that influence and that impact, but just some details. First of all, this billionaire spending, it’s very concentrated. It’s a relatively small group of super-wealthy folks we’re talking about, right?
DK: Yeah, exactly. There are 800 billionaires in the country, and we say 150 billionaire families. And really just a handful of folks gave an enormous amount of that money. So it really is incredibly concentrated.
JJ: Right. And it seems worth saying that this isn’t, I don’t know why I need to say this, but it isn’t families digging deep to show support for candidates they believe in, and putting all their resources towards them. The numbers are huge, but for these people, it’s like it’s a lunch tab.
DK: It really is. I mean, it’d be like you and I maybe getting something at Starbucks. And we found that the amount of the $1.9 billion, it’s $700 million more than we found in the entire 2020 campaign. So the escalation of the money, the amount of money the billionaires are giving, is going dramatically up.
JJ: It’s not just that the numbers are bigger because they’re richer. It does represent an intensified focus on campaign spending from these billionaires.
Common Dreams (11/21/24)
DK: That’s true. But they also are significantly richer, too. I mean, they really have even more money. The total billionaire wealth has surged by $3.8 trillion since the passage of the Trump tax law in 2017, and it surged even since the election. So they do have an incredible amount of money, and the money keeps going up.
JJ: It’s all intertwined, all of these things. But, again, if the question is the super wealthy’s ability to buy power, well, then, the corollary question is, why can’t we stop what we see happening? So I guess I would ask why, legally, are we where we are right now?
DK: No, that’s a great question. And the Supreme Court, unfortunately, in the Citizens United case, said that people could spend an unlimited amount of money, as long as it wasn’t, as they say, coordinated with the candidates. So that just opened the floodgates. And we’ve really seen this incredible flow of billionaire money, of corporate money, into campaigns because of it. And I think the solution there is to make sure that we change Citizens United, that there needs to be a constitutional amendment to really roll that back, so that we can make sure that: the richer you are, the bigger your voice is, that’s not democracy.
JJ: And lawmakers will always say, “Oh, well yeah, they gave me millions of dollars, but I still just vote the way I want to vote anyway.” And I think a lot of folks buy that narrative, unfortunately. But appearance of conflict of interest is itself a conflict of interest, isn’t it? I mean, there’s a reason to study these relationships, even as lawmakers are saying, “Oh, I don’t care who gives me money, I just vote what’s in my heart.”
DK: I wish it were true that everyone was so pure and did that, but we know that’s not the case, right? I mean, if you’re getting a huge amount of money from somebody, they’re going to have power over you. That is just the facts. And somebody like Elon Musk, who gave more than $250 million to Donald Trump in this past presidential election, you can see what that bought him, right? I mean, from his point of view, he’s the world’s richest man, and that’s a good investment. He’s buying access, because he has lots of government contracts, and this protects his interests, at the expense of everyday Americans.
JJ: I guess I would lift up here that, maybe people have assumed it, but still your research bore it out, that the majority of this billionaire spending went to Republicans and to Trump. We should just point that out.
DK: That is right.
JJ: Americans for Tax Fairness follows the money to its impacts, its already evident and its easily foreseeable impacts on public policy. So let’s move you on to what fallout can we expect to see, with not just the billionaire campaign spending, but then I know you’ve also worked on the billionaires now in and around the White House. They feel they’re buying something. So what can we regular folks expect?
Americans for Tax Fairness (1/17/25)
DK: I think what they expect is that these billionaires who are going to be having enormous influence are going to be enriching themselves and making decisions that benefit the wealthiest people. We did an analysis that looked at the Trump nominees, and people who are worth a billion or more, and the average worth of the Trump proposed economic policy aides is over $500 million. So half a billion dollars. I mean, the guy proposed for the commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick, is worth $2 billion. The guy who’s the treasury secretary is worth $1 billion.
You just have to ask yourself, are people who are that wealthy, are they going to really understand the everyday needs of that firefighter, of that single mom, of that teacher, of that plumber? It’s just such a rarefied, extraordinary wealth, and they’re not going to understand the needs of everyday people.
And they may have their own conflict of interest. For example, Lutnick, who’s the proposed commerce secretary, he has interests in cryptocurrency. Is he going to be able to promote his private business interests, or what’s really best for the American people? And I think we see these conflicts up and down the line of these people.
JJ: In terms of news media, it’s very rankling to me how, if the story is something like retail theft, we get alarm and outrage, folks boosting baby formula from the CVS is a public concern, and it’s maybe the reason that things cost so much. But then a story will blandly note that billionaires or billionaire corporations are getting “favorable tax policy,” as though there were no human harm in that, as though that were the natural order.
Where do you see the role of journalism? Are there things that you would like to see more or less of, in terms of reporting around this set of issues?
American Progress (3/27/23)
DK: Absolutely. I think the media really has a responsibility to help tie these pieces together. So what we see is the Republicans are proposing these massive cuts, trillions of dollars in cuts, in programs that families count on, healthcare, education, housing. So taking money, really, out of the pockets of families, to give huge tax cuts to the very wealthy. So giving millions to people who have billions.
And I think the media really has a responsibility to make sure that people understand that this isn’t just these cuts to get government more efficient. That’s, of course, what they say. The reality is that they’re cutting these programs to pay for tax cuts for billionaires. So I think that narrative is really important.
And I think the other thing is, there was a study done by the Center for American Progress that showed that 57% of the growth in the federal debt this century is due to the Trump and the Bush tax cuts passed by Republican congresses. So there’s this narrative that somehow spending by Democrats was out of control. Well, the truth is that the majority of the debt in this century is due to Trump and Bush tax cuts, which overwhelmingly benefit the rich. So what’s driving our debt is tax cuts for the very rich. That’s really the problem. And now they’re trying to make cuts to pay for this. If it weren’t true, it would almost be humorous.
JJ: Right. And I wish the storyline weren’t so simplistic, but we sometimes see elite news media present campaign finance reform or regulation or even just fair tax policies the same way that billionaires do: It’s kind of like it’s punishment for people who worked really hard, you guys. And it’s just such a silly storyline. And I feel like the fact that so many people are walking around thinking that the government only helps some people, and other people do it all on their own–that’s a failure of news media that also lets down public understanding, and that leads to inadequate public policy.
David Kass: “That’s the real problem here, is that workers pay taxes every two weeks and billionaires can basically never pay taxes.”
DK: I think that’s exactly right. And the truth is, and again, what the facts are, is that there are two tax codes. There’s one for workers. If you’re that firefighter, if you’re that teacher, you get a paycheck every two weeks, and you pay taxes on it. But if you’re a billionaire, if you’re super wealthy, basically you cannot pay taxes on almost any of it, because so much of your stuff is really these investments and stocks and things, which, if you don’t sell them, can never be taxed.
And that’s why the White House did a study showing that the wealthiest 400 billionaire families paid an average of 8.2% of their income, when you include their wealth that goes largely untaxed. But average Americans, they pay 13%, so close to double the rate of America’s 400 wealthiest families.
So that’s the real problem here, is that workers pay taxes every two weeks and billionaires can basically never pay taxes. And that’s crazy. For example, if you paid a single penny in taxes this year, you’ve paid more than Elon Musk did in 2018, or that Jeff Bezos did in 2007 or 2011. So that’s a crazy system that we really have to fix.
JJ: And let’s talk about fixing it. And I think it’s been made clear enough to listeners that your concern about billionaire campaign spending isn’t just, billionaires spend a lot of money. It’s that they are drowning out the voices and concerns of ordinary Americans. And that’s the point. If we have a so-called representative democracy, then this is a problem. So let me ask you, what can we do to change things?
DK: I think there’s a number of things. Obviously, people need to share their concerns with their representatives, and to talk about how we shouldn’t be cutting key programs that families rely on to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy. So right now, the Republicans are trying to pass this big tax bill, and they’re meeting at one of Trump’s fancy resorts in Florida to talk about what they’re going to do. So this thing is coming, we know it’s coming, and we really need to talk about that they’re going to spend $4 trillion, $4 trillion, for tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit the rich. And that is just crazy. That is really crazy.
JJ: Yeah. And are there policies, I mean, it seems like folks are saying, “Why can’t we bring back the world before Citizens United?” But maybe we just need a whole new vision. Is there anything in the works, legislatively or policy-wise, apart from vigilance and reporting, that we can look to to support?
ProPublica (2/28/22)
DK: There are really great things that we can do to make sure that your average family is treated fairly. So the first thing is to let these Trump tax cuts expire for people who are wealthy. I mean, just let this stuff go. They passed in 2017 and for the wealthy, they shouldn’t get any more tax cuts.
And then there’s lots of other things that we can do. President Biden, and also the top Democrat on the finance committee, Ron Wyden, had these proposals to make sure that we were taxing billionaires, so that their wealth, just like when you pay every two weeks, you pay taxes on your paycheck, that they would have to pay taxes on their wealth. And I think that would be a very important change to make sure that we had a much more fair tax system.
And I think the other part of this is, we’ve talked about, but it is just so undemocratic to have this extreme wealth gap, where billionaires can use this wealth to be able to make a much louder voice than your average American.
So those are some of the things. I think there are things we can do. We’ve got to stop this bill from passing. People thought when Trump came into office in 2017 that the ACA, Obamacare, was going to be gone, that Republicans would get rid of it, and they didn’t, weren’t able to. They tried, but because there was so much backlash, because so many people protested, they lost.
And this is an uphill battle, but we really have to work and organize and fight to show that more tax cuts for the wealthy coming out of the pockets of families is the wrong approach.
JJ: All right then, we’ll end on that note. We’ve been speaking with David Kass from Americans for Tax Fairness. Their work is online at AmericansForTaxFairness.org.
Thank you so much, David Kass, for joining us this week on CounterSpin.
DK: Thank you so much. It was great talking to you.
This post was originally published on FAIR.
