A new report from the Education Policy Institute (EPI) has highlighted that a quarter of children under four are experiencing food poverty. The EPI also found that children under five are 25% more likely to experience food poverty than other children.
Cost of living crisis – Labour is making it worse
The authors noted that the cost of living crisis has exacerbated issues for low-income families, with food prices generally up 19% from March 2022 until March 2023. But some key foods such as pasta and vegetable oil are up by at least 60%. Indeed, in 2023, 61% of the poorest fifth of households reported cutting back on food.
And it looks like the crisis isn’t going anywhere. Research from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) shows that Labour’s budget will leave the majority of people worse off.
Nick Harrison, chief executive of the Sutton Trust, said:
It’s a national disgrace that a quarter of families with children under four are experiencing food poverty. The UK is one of the world’s richest nations so there’s no excuse for allowing any child to go hungry, let alone those who are at such a crucial stage of their growth and development.
In 2022, the Food Foundation found that the cost of healthy food is more than three times that of unhealthy food. This further impacts negative outcomes for low income families.
Shocking choices from the government
EPI further noted in the report that families with young children are more likely to experience food poverty partly because they are less likely to have both parents in full time work and partly because of cuts to benefits, like the two child cap.
In July, only seven of Labour’s 411 MPs voted against the Conservative-issued cap. Not only that, but Keir Starmer suspended the seven MPs who did so. The Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) says removing the cap would lift 300,000 children out of poverty. This is a figure that is steadily rising.
The EPI authors also 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.
Labour could address food insecurity through introducing price controls to curb corporate profiteering on essentials. Switzerland shields itself from high inflation levels in food and beyond through price controls on 30% of goods and services. The EPI report, meanwhile, recommends an ‘Essentials Guarantee’ to ensure families on social security have sufficient income.
Food poverty: an ongoing scourge
Dr Kerris Cooper, senior researcher in early years and inequalities at the EPI, said:
This research highlights the urgency of addressing food poverty for children under five. We know that the first five years is a critical period of development, yet we also know that children of this age are more likely to experience food poverty.
The evidence is clear on how damaging food poverty is for young children’s outcomes. For the government to achieve its mission of breaking down barriers to opportunity it needs to take action to reduce food poverty for under-fives.
We have an opportunity with the upcoming child poverty strategy to address the disadvantage faced by the youngest children who have been overlooked in food poverty policy and debate.
Before November 5th, millions of us were already struggling with poverty, extreme storms, immigration nightmares, anti-trans bills, criminalized reproductive health, the demolition of homeless encampments, the silencing of freedom of speech on campuses… and, of course, the list only goes on and on. Since Donald Trump and J.D. Vance were elected, more of us find ourselves in a state of fear and…
Despite numerous promises from successive governments, the poverty rate in 2022/23 has climbed to 24% – the highest recorded this century. This equates to 16 million people, including 5.2 million children, living in poverty.
These figures underscore a national failure to address structural issues within capitalism that perpetuate inequality and deprivation.
However, it also shows institutional neglect and persecution by governments of chronically ill and disabled people, Black and brown people, and those living in social housing. Because it it those groups which have been some of the hardest hit. Yet the limited corporate media coverage – namely by the Guardian – of the Social Metrics Commission report failed to recognise this.
Disabled people once again hit hardest by poverty
Over the last two decades, poverty in the UK has stubbornly hovered above 21%, and the recent surge to 24% reveals a worsening crisis. This means an additional 2.4 million people now live in poverty compared to pre-pandemic levels.
The situation is even more dire for children, with over one-third (36%) living in poverty, a 5% increase since 2019/20.
However, disabled people and their families bear the brunt of this crisis. The report reveals that 8.7 million people in poverty are disabled or live with someone who is. This demographic now accounts for a staggering 54% of all those in poverty. This is up from 6.9 million in 2019/20 – representing a 26% increase.
Meanwhile, poverty rates for working-age adults have risen to 23%, and pensioners, traditionally more shielded, are not immune: 13% of pension-age adults are now impoverished.
Black and brown people thrown under the bus
The Social Metrics Commission’s 2024 report highlights severe and disproportionate levels of poverty faced by Black, Brown, and dual heritage communities in the UK. The data reveals that institutional and systemic racism has entrenched poverty within these groups, despite the overall wealth of the nation.
Among families where the head of the household identifies as Black, African, Caribbean, or Black British, a staggering 42% live in poverty. This is more than double the rate for families with a white head of household, where the poverty rate stands at 20%.
Similarly, Asian or Asian British households face a 38% poverty rate, while families from mixed or multiple ethnic groups report a 29% rate. These disparities underline deep systemic failures to address income inequality and access to resources.
Notably, families led by individuals from “other ethnic groups” experience the highest poverty rate, at 43%. This statistic encapsulates the experiences of various minority groups, further emphasizing the challenges they face in accessing economic stability.
Poverty among minority groups has been a persistent issue. While poverty rates for White-headed households have remained stable at around 20% since 2014/15, minority groups have consistently recorded significantly higher rates. For example, Black households saw a slight increase from 40% in 2021/22 to 42% in 2022/23, while Asian households experienced a rise from 36% to 38% over the same period.
A tale of two nations
The geographical distribution of poverty is a damning reflection of systemic neglect. In London and the West Midlands, poverty rates stand at 27%, contrasting sharply with the 17% rate in the East of England. Wales has the highest poverty rate among the UK nations at 24%, with Northern Ireland and Scotland faring slightly better at 21%.
Children remain the most vulnerable across all regions, with 43% of children in the West Midlands and 42% in the North West living in poverty. Such disparities highlight the failure of national strategies to address regional inequality effectively.
The narrative that employment is a guaranteed escape from poverty is increasingly debunked. While the poverty rate among families with full-time workers has remained steady at 9%, part-time workers face a poverty rate of 58%. Alarmingly, 75% of individuals in workless families live in poverty, a seven-percentage-point increase since 2019/20.
This shift also highlights a disturbing trend: 62% of people in poverty now live in families where at least one member works. This figure exposes the inadequacy of wages and the rising cost of living, particularly in housing and childcare.
Deep poverty and persistent challenges
While overall poverty rates have risen, there is a slight reprieve in deep poverty – defined as those living on less than 50% of the poverty line. The number of individuals in deep poverty decreased marginally by 100,000 since the pandemic. Yet, deep poverty levels remain alarmingly high, with 4.1 million people enduring this severe deprivation.
Persistent poverty, another crucial metric, has risen slightly to affect 57% of those in poverty. This means a majority face prolonged struggles, making upward mobility nearly impossible without significant policy intervention.
While the data paints a grim picture, individual experiences reveal the human cost of governmental failure.
A disabled single mother shared her harrowing account of juggling part-time work while relying on food banks to feed her children. Despite her efforts, she remains trapped in poverty due to soaring rent and childcare costs.
Her story is emblematic of a broader issue: the inability of social safety nets to adapt to the realities of modern life. Inadequate disability support and childcare subsidies have left millions in a cycle of dependency and despair.
Housing, education, and social isolation
Housing remains a significant determinant of poverty. The report finds that 68% of people in poverty live in either social or private-rented accommodations. Poverty rates for these groups are markedly higher, with 56% in social housing and 38% in private rentals affected.
The data also reveal a worrying trend: the proportion of people in poverty living in privately rented homes has doubled since 2000/01, from 15% to 31%. This shift reflects both rising rental costs and the failure of successive governments to address the housing crisis.
The cascading effects of poverty extend beyond finances. Educationally, families in poverty are more likely to lack formal qualifications, with 16% of impoverished households reporting no qualifications compared to 5% of non-impoverished families. Health outcomes are similarly bleak, as families in poverty report higher rates of poor mental health (33%) and smoking (35%).
Social isolation compounds these challenges. Nearly half (45%) of people in poverty live in single-adult households, compared to 29% of those not in poverty. Additionally, 62% of impoverished families lack organisational memberships, highlighting reduced access to communal support networks.
Government responses show institutional failure
The SMC’s findings underscore the chronic failure of successive governments to implement effective poverty reduction strategies. Promises to “level up” and invest in the nation’s most vulnerable have repeatedly fallen short. The persistence of poverty rates above 21% for two decades reveals a systemic unwillingness to tackle the root causes of inequality.
The report even lauds the potential of the Department for Work and Pension’s (DWP) ‘Below Average Resources’ measure to provide more accurate poverty statistics. However, accurate measurement alone is insufficient without decisive action. The absence of comprehensive childcare reforms, adequate disability benefits, and living wages reflects a lack of political will to address poverty’s structural causes.
To reverse these trends, bold policy interventions are essential. Expanding social housing, reforming Universal Credit, scrapping the two-child benefit cap, uprating disabled people’s benefits, and implementing a robust real living wage are critical first steps.
Additionally, targeted support for disabled individuals and single-parent families could alleviate the disproportionate burden borne by these groups.
A damning report on poverty
The Social Metrics Commission’s 2024 report serves as a stark reminder of the ongoing poverty crisis in the UK. Despite years of rhetoric, the failure of successive governments to address structural inequality has left millions trapped in poverty.
The cost-of-living crisis, coupled with inadequate policy responses and capitalism’s in-built inequality and racism have exacerbated vulnerabilities, particularly for children, disabled people, Black and brown people, and renters.
Without immediate and transformative action, the UK risks cementing a legacy of neglect and inequality. The statistics demand more than acknowledgment – they demand change. Until then, the poorest in society and those that are systemically marginalised will continue to pay the price for political inaction and capitalism’s failures.
110,000 people died in poverty last year, according to a report from end of life charity Marie Curie, with research from Loughborough University. That’s up 19% from 2019 where the dying in poverty figure stood at 93,000.
18% of the total people who died in 2023 did so in poverty. That’s 300 people every day. It’s a ‘cost of dying crisis’, as the charity suggests.
Shocking stats
In fact, working age people are proportionately much more likely to die in poverty than pensioners. 28% of working age people who died did so in poverty, compared to 16% of pensioners. This suggests that inequality is leading to particularly premature death in the UK, where 1% of the population own more wealth than 70% of people.
The charity points out that this difference is likely because the poverty rate among working age people is generally higher at 21.8%, compared to that of over 65s at 13.2%. This disparity is potentially an outcome of how we’ve gone backwards since today’s pensioners earned most their living. That’s through austerity, privatisation of essential services (higher bills) and student debt along with the housing bubble and renting crisis. The Labour Party isn’t committed to delivering the “change” it promised, at present.
It’s also the case that working age people who fall ill can lose their income and the benefits available aren’t as sufficient as a pension.
Further, there are startling differences when it comes to ethnicity and dying in poverty. Compared to 25% of white people between the ages 20 and 64 who died doing so in poverty, it’s 47% of black people and 43% of Asian people. Regional differences are also acute with people in the north more like to die in poverty, for example at 44.5% in Middlesborough and 42.3% in Manchester.
Dying in poverty – an example
The report highlights individual stories such as that of Simona and her late husband David. He died in June 2024 from a stage four glioblastoma, six months after he was diagnosed.
She said:
David had to stop working straight away after his diagnosis, because he couldn’t walk or move. And I had to stop work to be his full-time carer. The amount of money we had through state benefits was barely enough to get us to the end of the month.
His condition meant that he was constantly cold, so we had to keep the heating on all the time. We discussed this with our energy companies, and the only things they provided was an electric blanket and a discount of £200 – it wasn’t enough.
All the medical equipment David needed was electric. It really raised the cost of our energy bills, and I still have an outstanding bill of £5,000 from the energy company.
When David was on oxygen towards the end of his life, I spoke to the provider as the oxygen machine needed to be on all the time. They told me they would refund the cost of running the equipment, and later I had a cheque through the post from them for £13.
Marie Curie’s solutions
Marie Curie argues that providing end of life social security would be a solution to people dying in poverty. The charity is calling on the Labour government to provide pension level welfare for people who have less than a year to live. It’s also calling for a social tariff that halves energy bills for people with a terminal illness. The report calculates this tariff could lift p36 54,000 dying people out of fuel poverty and alleviate it for many more.
Dr Juliet Stone, Research Fellow from the Centre for Research in Social Policy at Loughborough University, said:
The sharp rise in poverty at the end of life reflects the increasingly difficult financial circumstances faced by low-income households over the past four years.
It is clear that poverty at the end of life cannot be fully tackled without efforts to address poverty more generally, but people in the last year of life face additional obstacles to achieving an adequate standard of living.
Changes to the social security system, especially addressing the inadequacy of state benefits for people working age with a terminal illness, could go some way to reducing the risk of poverty at the end of life.
But there is also a need to address the additional costs that people face when diagnosed with a terminal illness.
We know that disability benefits regularly fall far short of covering these additional costs. But broader policy reform, including improvements to the availability of affordable services, including those related to social care, could help to bridge this gap, and allow for a dignified death without the additional burden of financial hardship.
If you’ve ever questioned whether our country has an inequality problem, this election should provide all the evidence you need. As billionaires used their financial firepower to throw support their preferred candidates’ way, Americans who’ve been left behind took out their frustrations at the ballot box. How do we get started on this next chapter in the fight to reverse extreme inequality?
The poorest 10% of people will see their tax burden increase by £600 a year as a consequence of the Labour Party chancellor Rachel Reeves’ Budget freeze of the personal tax thresholds until April 2028, according to the latest quarterly UK economic outlook by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR).
Labour’s Budget: hitting the poorest households
While the NIESR expects aggregate real personal disposable income to grow in 2024-25 and 2025-26, living standards for average UK households will not return to pre-2022 levels before the end of 2025-26.
The hit to living standards is already being felt, with households in the bottom-income decile worse off by around 20% this year compared with the year before the cost-of-living crisis, which amounts to approximately £2,500.
And, whilst the NIESR expects real wage growth to remain strong at around 2.2% in 2025, the effect on the living standards for the bottom 40% of households will be smaller because the costs of rents and mortgages largely cancel out any gains from the real wage growth:
Inflation is likely to exceed 3% at the beginning of 2025 and remain above target throughout the first half of the year before coming down again. Looking further ahead, the NIESR expects CPI inflation to be volatile but to stay close to the Bank of England’s target of 2%.
In light of this, the NIESR anticipates a slightly slower unwinding of monetary policy, and forecast a further cut of 25 basis points in November this year, followed by three additional rate cuts in 2025 of equal magnitude. Over the medium run the base rate may settle at around 3.25%.
As for economic growth, despite a strong start in the first half of the year we expect GDP growth to remain around its trend rate of 1% over 2024 as a whole. Looking ahead, the NIESR anticipates growth of 1.2% in 2025 and 1.4% in 2026 as the spending measures announced in the budget lead to an expansion of demand.
Rachel Reeves should have taxed the richest, more
Professor Stephen Millard, deputy director for Macroeconomic Modelling and Forecasting, said:
Last week’s landmark budget – the first by a Labour Chancellor in 14 years – will boost demand over the next couple of years implying higher GDP growth and inflation, as well as slow down the fall in interest rates. And the rise in the employer rate of National Insurance Contributions will act to reduce job creation over the coming years, which will lead to greater unemployment.
More positively, the change in debt target has allowed some increase in public investment, which should help growth. But exactly when and by how much remains to be seen. My hunch is that more needs to be done.
Professor Adrian Pabst, Deputy Director for Public Policy, said:
The government’s focus on faster growth through greater investment is welcome, but some of the tax decisions risk discouraging more business investment while penalising low-income households. Keeping the personal tax thresholds frozen for another 3 and a half years will make the bottom 10 per cent of earners about £600 per year worse off.
It would be better for the living standards of those households that have been hit hardest by the shocks over the past few years if the government raised income tax for top earners while unfreezing the thresholds. It’s time to throw off the self-imposed fiscal straitjacket and do the right thing for the economy and society.
Many think of the modern Royal Family as powerless figureheads who exist solely to attract tourist money. A new Royal exposé, however, has laid bare the “grubby & secretive earnings of the Royal Family” – secretive earnings which see them bleeding public services across the country:
EXCLUSIVE: King Charles and his eldest son make millions from feudal levies on schools, hospitals, homeowners and the very charities they represent, a joint investigation by The Sunday Times and @C4Dispatches reveals today https://t.co/Vno5Q348mG
We used the royal addresses to uncover how the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall are making millions of pounds by charging government departments, councils, businesses and the general public via a series of rents and feudal levies on land largely seized by medieval monarchs pic.twitter.com/PJQrkgTeeV
Two sentences stand out in this: “land largely seized by medieval monarchs” and “even parliament has been denied access”. This shatters the notion that Royal privilege is a thing of the past. In very real ways, the Royal Family is still living in the Medieval Ages, and we’re all paying the price.
In the investigation by Channel 4’s Dispatches and the Sunday Times, external, it is reported that the private estates of King Charles and Prince William have received millions of pounds of income from contracts with public bodies and charities.
Over the past year these deals with the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall have been worth almost £50 million, it has been claimed.
It adds:
The Duchy of Lancaster, established in 1399, and Prince William’s Duchy of Cornwall, established in 1337, both hold large amounts of land and commercial property in England and Wales.
And also:
The two private estates are separate to the Crown Estate.
Profits of the Crown Estate – a property business owned by the monarch but run independently – go to the Treasury. The level of profit made by the Crown Estate is used as a benchmark to calculate the funding given by the government to the Royal Family in the form of the Sovereign Grant.
The taxpayer-funded Sovereign Grant will rise to £132m next year, after profits from the Crown Estate increased to £1.1 billion.
That’s right, we’re paying these vultures three times through a series of on-the-record and off-the-record estates. This means we’re going to pay them billions over the next few decades on top of the billions they seem set to earn themselves (‘earn’ in the figurative sense; it’s clear they aren’t doing anything to literally deserve it):
They earn revenue from toll bridges, ferries, sewage pipes, churches, village halls, pubs, distilleries, gas pipelines, boat moorings, opencast and underground mines, car parks, rental homes and wind turbines pic.twitter.com/bwxgKPCVNA
This is not the Britain most people think they live in, and it’s no wonder they had to keep this secret:
The King has a deal with Guy’s and St Thomas’s NHS Trust in London that will charge the NHS more than £11 million over 15 years for the right to park ambulances in one of its warehouses https://t.co/6yZgtr1LJO
Charles and the family don’t want us to know, but the information is out there now, and over the coming weeks we’re going to develop a very precise idea of where battered services are being set up to fail by our greedy, unchecked monarch:
The Royal Navy pays the Duchy of Cornwall more than a million pounds to moor boats at the naval academy in Dartmouth and refuel warships at Devonport royal dockyard, Plymouth, the UK’s biggest naval base.
complies with all relevant UK legislation and regulatory standards applicable to its range of business activities
Yes, clearly this is all very above board, which is why they had to hide it from the public – had to hide it from the government.
“The very charities they represent”
Perhaps the biggest slap in the face is that the Royals are DRAINING MONEY FROM CHARITIES.
Now, we don’t know about you, but whenever we donate to a charity we don’t do so thinking ‘hopefully this money makes its way to those who need it the least‘.
As you might expect, this is the element of the sordid affair which is drawing the harshest criticism:
SHOCKING Sunday @thetimes & #Dispatches investigation into the grubby & secretive earnings of the Royal Family
Incl charging huge rents to Marie Curie & Macmillan charities WHICH THEY'RE PATRONS OF & which WE donate to. They get the money!
I thought the royal family deserves £500 million a year because they do so much for charity. Turns out they actually make some of those charities pay them rent. https://t.co/7haScYx4dm
— Alexis is sowing discord in the West (@ArchewellBaby) November 2, 2024
Read the full story of the 5410 properties owned by the monarch and the prince in @thetimes – and their cost to you, the taxpayer. pic.twitter.com/wgK47VjXUo
There was also plenty more criticism to go around:
The Royal Family embodies everything that's rotten about our society: class privilege, snobbery, deference, stasis, self-delusion. They are the keystone in a vast edifice of class privilege. Until we #abolishthemonarchy we will struggle to be a normal, decent society. #dispatchespic.twitter.com/ziPtijYbZK
I only just caught up with this explosive expose of royal finances. I’m shocked beyond belief. What utter parasites the Royal Family are. Leaches. Profiteers. How shallow and hypocritical they are, poncing around claiming to do “good works”, while they actually suck us dry. https://t.co/A5tBr89zgr
Even the most devout monarchist surely agrees that we shouldn’t be paying these people three times over.
This latest Royal exposé shows that everything the Royals do seems to ultimately lead to them enriching themselves. Are we going to carry on living in the Medieval Ages? Or are we going to turn into a normal country and take back the public good from this very private malignancy?
An average hour and a half in the lives of 50 of the world’s richest billionaires emits more carbon pollution than a normal income person does in their entire life time, according to a report from Oxfam.
The research, ‘Carbon Inequality Kills’, shows that the super rich not only dwarf people through their bank balances and assets but also through their carbon footprint. As well as driving us towards global and irreversible climate crisis catastrophe, these emissions are already damaging crop yields, global GDP, and causing excess deaths.
“Unbridled greed” and carbon pollution
Oxfam International executive director Amitabh Behar said:
The super-rich are treating our planet like their personal playground, setting it ablaze for pleasure and profit. Their dirty investments and luxury toys —private jets and yachts— aren’t just symbols of excess; they’re a direct threat to people and the planet
Oxfam’s research makes it painfully clear: the extreme emissions of the richest, from their luxury lifestyles and even more from their polluting investments, are fueling inequality, hunger and —make no mistake— threatening lives. It’s not just unfair that their reckless pollution and unbridled greed is fueling the very crisis threatening our collective future —it’s lethal
Oxfam highlighted the difference in emissions between workers and billionaire bosses.
Jeff Bezos has two private jets that spend around 25 days in the air over a 12 month period. During that time, he 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.
Elon Musk also has (at least) two private jets. Through these, Musk produces 5,497 tonnes of CO2 per year – more than the average person from the poorest 50% emits in 5,437 years.
Those investments
But Oxfam further points out that it’s the investments of the super-rich that are most shaping the disastrous future we are currently on course for. If people carry on as present, the total carbon budget (the amount of CO2 that can be emitted before we move beyond 1.5C of warming) will be depleted by 2029.
For each of the world’s richest 50 billionaires, their investments in dirty energy produce an average of 2.6 million tonnes of CO2. That’s the equivalent of 400,000 years of consumption from the average person or 2.6 million years of consumption from someone from the poorest 50% of the planet.
Many of these corporations billionaires are invested in not only produce sky high emissions, they also actively lobby against climate policy, Oxfam research found.
While billionaire emissions are particularly staggering, it’s also true that millionaires and those on high salaries have the highest emissions. The report notes that, globally, a whopping half of all emissions come from the richest 10% of people.
The real-world impact
The charity also analysed the destruction the emissions of the super rich have on global GDP. Oxfam found that in three decades of consumption emissions, the 1% have already caused worldwide economic output to drop by $2.9 trillion between 1990 and 2023. This has mainly impacted and continues to impact low income countries from the global south.
When it comes to causing hunger, the consumption emissions of the 1% in three decades have already led to crop losses that could feed 14.5 million people a year from 1990 to 2023.
Then there’s the excess deaths. Oxfam estimates that the consumption emissions of the super rich 1% in just four years (2015-2019) will cause 15,000 deaths per year through more extreme heat from 2020-2120.
The UK is doing pretty much sweet FA about billionaires’ carbon pollution
Oxfam argues for increased taxation on the super rich to address their rampant emissions.
In the budget, chancellor Rachel Reeves increased taxes for private jet passengers by 50%, but these fees are still next to nothing for the super rich.
Besides, prime minister Keir Starmer dropped his pledge for a £28bn investment in green energy. This was already not enough. Instead, he’s issuing £22bn for fossil fuel companies to conduct vanity carbon capture and storage projects that don’t even work.
There’s an old saying that goes, “If you put 10 economists in a room, you’ll get 11 opinions.” The data, meanwhile, shows that if you ask U.S. voters how they feel about the economy, their opinions will largely fall along party lines: Democrats with a Democratic president are more likely to say the economy is good, and vice versa. Voters also rank the economy as their most important issue when…
The gap in absolute wealth between the poorest 10% and richest 10% of people in the UK increased by 48% between 2011 and 2019, according to a new report from the Fairness Foundation. That is, wealth inequality is out of control.
There’s also been a relative decline of the middle class through the neoliberal practices of government. The wealth gap between the middle 10% and the richest 10% rose by 49% over the same period.
Inequality: laid bare
In 2011, the richest 10% held £7.5 trillion in wealth and by 2019 that had increased to £11 trillion. The wealthiest 1% owns not far off half of this, in both cases. By contrast, the poorest 10% went from £12bn in debt to £11bn in debt during that time. ‘Trickle down’ economics has never been more of a joke, but we still carry on with the same policies.
The wealth of the middle 10% rose from £7.3bn to £10.8bn over the eight years. But that’s still dwarfed by the gains of the super rich. The wealth gap between middle earners and the top dramatically increased.
Unearned wealth
The Fairness Foundation notes that a lot of the wealth accumulation from the top 10% is through an increase in the value of assets, which is unearned income. It’s entirely not the case that they are working harder than those at the middle or bottom on the wealth scale. Indeed, the majority of private wealth is inherited – at 60%, according to the report.
Tax Justice Network made a similar point in their research arguing for a wealth tax and a balancing of income tax with capital gains tax so people aren’t contributing less from passive income. This could also address the rampant inequality.
Homes as assets – a driver of inequality
The Fairness Foundation also regards treating homes as constantly inflating assets as a key driver of inequality. That’s instead of delivering homes at cost price as a product of necessity. Disparity in home ownership also plays a decisive role in the wealth gap between minority ethnic households and their white British counterparts.
The report notes that since the 1980s (the premiership of Margaret Thatcher and the following capitulation of Labour under Tony Blair), home ownership has gone from a driver of distributed wealth to something that increases inequality. Millennials spend about 28% of their income on housing costs. Whereas, people of a similar age in the 60s and 70s spent around 5-10% of their income on housing.
Inequality limits the potential of society
Broadly, the poorest half of the UK owns just 9% of the wealth. The research challenges the idea that such stark inequality is good for society:
Contrary to the orthodox idea that inequality is necessary for a dynamic economy, growing evidence suggests that wealth concentration significantly undermines productivity and growth. A lack of wealth creates barriers that prevents people from fully participating in the economy. This limits the potential pool of talent and innovation that contributes to economic growth. It can especially limit entrepreneurship, since wealth allows people to take the risks that are an inevitable part of building a new business
The report offers a variety of solutions, including “sharing wealth”:
Sharing wealth is another approach. Wealth concentration in the UK has been facilitated by an economic system that often incentivises and rewards the extraction of value from existing financial and corporate wealth, rather than encouraging the creation of new economic value. Mechanisms to prevent this, such as public wealth funds, would ensure that income-generating assets are shared more equitably, allowing all citizens to benefit from economic development. These funds would provide access to excellent investment returns for everyone and mitigate the effects of differential returns, where the wealthy enjoy superior rates of return compared to average savers, exacerbating existing inequalities.
This year’s hurricane season has been devastating. Hurricane Helene left a trail of wreckage across the Southeast and Appalachia, where over 230 people have died so far. Barely two weeks later, Milton slammed into Florida, killing dozens more, destroying homes, and leaving over a million people without power. Insurers are predicting that losses from Milton could reach $60 billion.
Joe Vargas strapped a beach bag cradling his two small dogs, Peppe and Mama, around his torso before pushing his front door open to meet the wall of water head-on. It was late in the evening on September 26, and Hurricane Helene was just starting to thrash St. Petersburg, Florida with a storm surge that now engulfed him. Vargas, who is 63, will never forget how he felt in that moment…
Joe Vargas strapped a beach bag cradling his two small dogs, Peppe and Mama, around his torso before pushing his front door open to meet the wall of water head-on. It was late in the evening on September 26, and Hurricane Helene was just starting to thrash St. Petersburg, Florida with a storm surge that now engulfed him. Vargas, who is 63, will never forget how he felt in that moment…
This election season, there’s understandably been intense focus on ballot questions that will affect reproductive rights, but there’s been less discussion of the fact that multiple states will also be voting on whether to raise their minimum wage and grant workers paid sick time. Twenty-six states have an initiated constitutional amendment process, which allows citizens to place legislation…
A group of congressional Democrats and Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders on Friday highlighted dozens of profitable U.S. corporations that have paid their executives more than they’ve paid in federal income taxes in recent years, a problem that the lawmakers attributed in large part to former President Donald Trump’s massive tax-cut package that Republicans are working to extend.
The government is giving some of the wealthiest families in the country billions in inheritance tax breaks every year, according to data uncovered by Tax Justice UK. Closing down tax loopholes – which the wealthiest people and companies use to reduce the amount of tax they owe – could raise significant funds.
It would give the government billions to invest in the struggling services we all rely on like the NHS, schools and public infrastructure. Meanwhile, the chancellor would be able to keep the Labour Party’s promise to keep taxes on ordinary working people flat.
Inheritance tax: just for the rich?
The research shows that in 2022 just 275 families benefited from £2bn in tax breaks for agricultural and business assets handed on to the next generation. They each received at least £2.5m in tax relief. The cost of these tax breaks could pay for the annual salaries for more than 50,000 nurses. The data is based on responses to Freedom of Information requests to HMRC.
Robert Palmer, executive director at Tax Justice UK said:
Under the guise of protecting small family farms and businesses, the country’s wealthiest families are able to use inheritance tax breaks to pass their fortunes onto the next generation. There is no justification for this, particularly when people are struggling to afford the basics and key services like the NHS are and councils are crying out for funding. The tax system needs urgent reform to ensure the super-rich and wealthiest companies pay their fare share and the economy gets the investment it needs.
The value of Inheritance tax breaks has surged since Tax Justice UK exposed the problem in 2019 in the report In Stark Relief. Back then the total cost of agricultural and business property reliefs was £2.6bn. This has now swollen to a total cost of £4.4bn in 2021/22. The total revenue from inheritance tax was £6bn in 2021/22, and is due to rise to almost £10bn in 2029.
Key figures include:
Between 2017 and 2022 a total of £18.4bn was given away in tax breaks for agricultural and business assets handed on to the next generation, averaging £3.7bn a year.
£9.3bn or 51% of the £18.4bn total was given away to families receiving at least £2.5m in tax relief.
In the 2021/2022 financial year – the last with data available – just 275 families benefited from a collective £2bn tax break.
This is part of a larger problem that means that the wealthiest families can largely avoid paying inheritance tax. The bad design of inheritance tax, including that the richest families usually pay very little, exacerbates public dislike of inheritance tax as the think tank Demos has shown.
Reform is needed
To fix this, Tax Justice UK – alongside leading think tanks – argue that the government should place limits on the value of agricultural and business relief that can be claimed, as already happens in most other countries.
According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, limiting both agricultural and property reliefs to £500,000 per estate would raise £1.4 billion in 2024-25, rising to £1.8 billion in 2029–30. The government should also end the practice that shares listed on the alternative AIM market can be passed on free of inheritance tax.
Kristina Johansson, member of Patriotic Millionaires UK said:
It is unjust and wrong that the tax system disproportionately benefits the wealthiest people in the UK, particularly when passing on great fortunes to the next generation. Instead of neglecting the unfair tax breaks the very richest families currently benefit from, the chancellor should ensure that wealthy people pay what is fair and right. Billions could be raised every year from a small number of very rich people, like me, to invest in a fairer economy: one where everyone benefits from a better NHS and well funded public services. Failing to do so allows so much wealth to be unfairly concentrated and left unproductive while the country falls apart.
Tax Justice UK has set out ten further tax reforms that could raise £60bn a year. We will have to wait and see if the Labour Party government listens.
Buried in the latest Office for National Statistics (ONS) housing figures is a damning fact about the current state of private renting for those on benefits. It shows that so far, the Labour Party government is doing nothing to address the housing crisis facing these people, thanks to the Local Housing Allowance. So, think tank the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) says it must do more.
Soaring private renting prices
The latest ONS figures on private rent inflation show that:
Private rental prices continue to rise across the country, up by 8.4% across the UK between August 2023 and August 2024.
Average rents increased to £1,327 (8.5%) in England, £752 (8.5%) in Wales and £969 (7.6%) in Scotland in the 12 months to August 2024.
While Local Housing Allowance rates were unfrozen and realigned to the cheapest 30% of local rents in the final Budget of the Conservative government in April 2024, these were based on rental figures from September 2023. Since then, on average rents have increased by £92 per month in Great Britain and by £174 in London.
Considering these private rent inflation figures, JRF is calling on the government to urgently assess Local Housing Allowance’s inadequacy and volatility. The current system of freezing and unfreezing LHA is driving hardship and uncertainty as support becomes untethered from the reality of rising rents until the government is forced to step in.
What is Local Housing Allowance?
Local Housing Allowance (LHA) is the rate used to calculate Housing Benefit (and the equivalent in Universal Credit) for private renters. Housing Benefit is designed to help people pay their rent if they’re on a low income or claiming benefits.
In April 2024, LHA was increased to reflect the cheapest 30% of local rents using rental figures from September 2023. Prior to that, LHA had been frozen for four years at September 2019 levels.
Since September 2023, rent increases in the private rented sector mean that LHA is already lagging behind the actual cost of private rents and covering a smaller percentage of the available homes to rent for people on the lowest incomes.
As things stand LHA will remain frozen at the current level from 2025, unless the government makes an active choice to unfreeze it.
The cycle of freezing and unfreezing LHA is detrimental to private renters and to government finances.
Why is it a problem for private renters?
Private renters face an increasingly limited supply of affordable rental properties, especially in places with high housing demand like London or the South East. Because Local Housing Allowance (LHA) doesn’t cover the majority of homes available to rent in these areas, tenants often find it difficult to find homes that are within their budget.
People who need to rent privately can be confronted with the choice between living in unsuitable homes away from where they need to be, or to make up a shortfall in rent that leaves them unable to buy other essentials items.
Added to this is the increase in private rents. Freezing LHA means that private renters need to make up for the shortfall in the support they receive and the higher rents they must pay, which is driving hardship.
Freezing LHA also leaves renters without any security. Not knowing whether the support they receive will reflect the rent they have to pay leaves renters to rely on Discretionary Housing Payments or the Household Support Fund, at a significant cost to local councils, or to go without other essentials to pay their rent.
Why is it a problem for the government?
Any increase to Local Housing Allowance (LHA) that would bring it closer to the cheapest 30% of private rents has not been factored into the Treasury’s spending plans. Freezing LHA leads to soaring numbers of people being made homeless and living in temporary accommodation leading to greater costs for councils until the government is inevitably forced to act when the gap between LHA rates and rents grows too large. Meanwhile, renters are forced to pick up that shortfall.
The government must be open and transparent about its spending plans and should acknowledge that LHA will increase in line with the cheapest 30% of local private rents every year permanently.
To prevent private renters on low incomes experiencing further hardship and going without essentials, the government also needs to take broader urgent action on hardship.
One quick and relatively low-cost action would be to implement a protected minimum floor beneath Universal Credit’s standard allowance. This would limit the deepest hardship caused by debt deductions and the benefit cap, which often affects people facing expensive rents and reduces the amount of their Universal Credit or Housing Benefit.
Local Housing Allowance must be unfrozen and fixed
Rachelle Earwaker, senior economist at the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, said of Local Housing Allowance:
The Budget is the perfect opportunity for the government to do the right thing and unfreeze LHA not just for 2025/26, but also to commit to the rate always aligning with rents so that explicit decisions don’t need to be made each year.
The current system leaves millions of low-income private renters living in uncertainty about whether they will be able to afford to pay rent in the immediate future, affecting their ability to plan, to put down roots and make where they live a home.
Around 80% of low-income private renting households on Universal Credit or who receive Housing Benefit reported going without essentials like food and heating in the six months to May 2024. A commitment to permanently tying LHA to the cheapest 30% of private rents would be a crucial first step to alleviating the hardship many in the private rental sector are exposed to.
More than one in four parents of children aged 18 or under in Scotland have struggled to provide sufficient food for their children in the past 12 months due to the ongoing cost-of-living crisis. That’s according to research from Barnardo’s. Meanwhile, both Westminster and Holyrood governments refuse to lift the notorious two-child benefit cap.
Barnardo’s: child poverty is a scourge that must be ended
This grim finding has been revealed by Barnardo’s after the leading charity commissioned a Scotland-wide survey by pollsters YouGov. This is a rise of 8% since October 2022 when parents were surveyed for Barnardo’s by YouGov, suggesting the impact of the cost-of-living crisis continues to hit families who are struggling to afford to keep the power on and the fridge stocked.
As well as 27% of Scottish parents of children aged 18 or under revealing to struggles with providing food for their children, 54% of the same group claimed that they had to reduce their spending on food costs to save money over the same period. Meanwhile, 7% of parents claim to having to use a food bank in the past year, as a direct result of cost-of-living challenges.
Today, Barnardo’s in Scotland exposes a shameful picture as the colder weather and long nights approach with many families unable to afford to put enough food on the table or keep the electricity meter topped up. The charity is calling on government to act urgently to end child poverty – starting with lifting the two-child benefit cap.
For too many children this winter, they and their families will be struggling to get by. It means worrying about being able to put the lights or heating on, having hot meals or being able to contact their friends. It means worrying about where the next meal will come from and what the future holds.
Every year, Barnardo’s supports thousands of children and families across the country who are struggling; struggling to help them keep the power on and the fridge stocked so they feel safer, happier, healthier and more hopeful. But charities such as ours cannot eradicate child poverty alone – the governments in Westminster and Holyrood must commit to ending the blight of child poverty.
Martin Crewe added:
It was extremely disappointing that the latest Programme for Government rows back on the commitment to expand free school meals to all Primary 6 and 7 pupils, and failed to further increase the Scottish Child Payment. Without this crucial assistance, we know that the child poverty reduction targets will be much harder to meet.
“Things were so hard”
One such family that has been supported by Barnardo’s is mother and daughter Zara and Gemma(not their real names) from North Ayrshire. The family came to the charity’s attention because Gemma, 17, was missing school, so she found support from the Barnardo’s Works service to undertake a ‘Fit for Work’ programme and then a work placement.
However, it soon became clear that the family needed more than just employment support, as Zara, 49, explains:
We were struggling with the cost-of-living crisis and trying to buy food and keep paying for the gas. Things were really difficult, so I reached out for help. I suffered from anxiety and depression and things were so hard because I felt that I couldn’t provide for my family. From Barnardo’s, we got help with food and clothes and help to pay the gas bill.
It was also discovered that Zara and Gemma were struggling to sleep at night due to old beds that were no longer fit for purpose. Zara adds:
My daughter was sleeping in two old single beds pushed together that were broken, the springs were popping through, they were burst and dirty. It was embarrassing to me that I couldn’t provide for my daughter, and I felt as if I was a failure.
I was also sleeping in a bed that was broken at the top, so I was sinking into it. The mattress was burst and the springs were horrendous to sleep on. It wasn’t doing my back or my health any good, but Barnardo’s also managed to get us new beds, which I am very, very grateful for. When we got them, it was fantastic. I felt like I was in a nice hotel; not that I’ve stayed in a hotel before! We are both very grateful.
Barnardo’s can help
Zara has good advice for others who might be in search of a little support:
A lot of people don’t know that Barnardo’s can help single parents like me, but they were really good and they supported me and my daughter very well. It was a good help. If Gemma had not been referred to Barnardo’s, I wouldn’t have had a clue that help and support would have been there for my daughter and me. We are getting there, slowly, but surely, but life is an ongoing struggle.
Martin Crewe added:
Too many children are going to school hungry and returning to a cold home. Their physical and mental health suffers, they’re missing out on a good childhood, and it affects their chances in later life. We are calling on the public to join us in standing up for every child living in poverty to show them that they haven’t been forgotten and that they belong.
In the past year, Barnardo’s has provided essential support to more than 11,500 children, young people, parents and carers in Scotland through 150-plus specialised community-based services and partnerships across the country.
The charity works to ensure that every child has the best possible start in life. Over the course of the financial year 2023-24, more than 16,000 people volunteered for Barnardo’s across the UK – a total of 1.7 million hours of their time.
If Republicans were to win the White House and Congress, their fiscal agenda would increase poverty and hardship nationwide in order to provide deep tax breaks for corporations and wealthy families, according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), a liberal-leaning think tank. In a new report, the group analyzes the House GOP’s legislative wish list alongside Project 2025…
Move over, first class passengers on the Titanic! America has a new class of doomed elites! Extreme income inequality threatens our democracy and the security of the world, but unions are fighting back, showing our path forward for the safety of everyone.
C.E.O.s and billionaires celebrate record-breaking profits, but for everyday workers, wages have remained stagnant, not keeping pace with the rising cost of living. The result? The American Dream is increasingly resembling a Neoliberal Ponzi Scheme, where the promise of prosperity seems to be reserved for nepo-babies.
Beyond the obvious moral implications, income inequality has profound consequences for our society. It undermines trust in institutions, worsens political instability, and contributes to declining life expectancy—a stark reality in America today. When the rich get richer and the rest of us get left behind, it doesn’t just create social rifts; it destabilizes the United States, and therefore the world.
How do we overcome this crisis? The renaissance of unions will strengthen our economy for all and protect our democracy. This week’s guest Michael Podhorzer has been on the frontlines of this fight for decades, as the former longtime political director of the AFL-CIO – the largest federation of unions in the United States. Podhorzer is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, the chair of the Analyst Institute, the Research Collaborative and the Defend Democracy Project, and writes the Substack Weekend Reading.
A 2021 TIME article described Podhorzer as the architect of a broad movement that helped protect the integrity of our vote in the 2020 election. This week’s bonus show, available to subscribers at the Truth-teller level ($5/month) and higher, includes Podhorzer’s insights on how to protect the 2024 election, in an excerpt available to all. Exclusive to our Patreon supporters, this week’s bonus show also includes a deep-dive examination of the recent arrest of Telegram’s C.E.O. Pavel Durov and what that might mean for Russia’s global war on democracy. Subscribe today at Patreon.com/Gaslit to help support our independent journalism!
*
Big Announcement! If the election cycle has left you feeling overwhelmed, we’re here to help. Join our new weekly political salon every Monday at 4 PM ET via Zoom. This space is designed for you to vent, ask questions, seek support, and contribute to discussions that shape Gaslit Nation. Everyone is welcome—our goal is to foster coalition-building and collective healing.
Starting next Monday, our first ever salon will be recorded and shared on Patreon to support our community. If these sessions resonate with you, they may continue beyond the election. To join, support us at the Truth-teller level or higher on Patreon at patreon.com/Gaslit where you’ll find the Zoom link every Monday afternoon.
On September 10th: Join the Gaslit Nation Debate Watch Party in the “Victory Chat” community chatroom on Patreon. A debate between democracy vs. dictatorship! (Convicted felon Trump belongs in prison, not a debate stage).
On September 16 at 7:00 PM ET: If you’re in NYC, join our in-person live taping with at the Ukrainian Institute of America in NYC. Celebrate the release of In the Shadow of Stalin, the graphic novel adaptation of my film Mr. Jones, directed by Agnieszka Holland. Gaslit Nation Patreon supporters get in free – so message us on Patreon to be added to the guest list. I will be joined by the journalist Terrell Starr, to talk about his latest trip to Ukraine.
On September 17 at 12:00 PM ET: Join our virtual live taping with investigative journalist Stephanie Baker, author of Punishing Putin: Inside the Global Economic War to Bring Down Russia. Her book has been highly praised by Bill Browder, the advocate behind the Magnitsky Act to combat Russian corruption.
On September 24 at 12:00 PM ET: Join our virtual live taping with David Pepper, author of Saving Democracy. Join us as David discusses his new art project based on Project 2025.
All of those events, becoming a member of our Victory chat, bonus shows, all shows ad free, and more, come with your subscription on Patreon.com/Gaslit! Thank you to everyone who supports the show – we could not make Gaslit Nation without you!
Listen to our interview with Starbucks union organizer Jasmine Leli on how to start a union https://www.gaslitnationpod.com/episodes-transcripts-20/2023/11/08/end-human-sacrifice-union-jasmine-leli
This content originally appeared on Gaslit Nation and was authored by Andrea Chalupa.
The UK government has recently made the contentious decision to cut winter fuel payments for a significant portion of older people. This move has sparked widespread criticism and concern, particularly as the country grapples with the continuing cost of living crisis and rising energy prices. At the same time, the government has launched a campaign to encourage around 880,000 older people to claim Department for Work and Pensions (DWP)Pension Credits. It’s a benefit that many are either unaware of or not claiming. However, all this still leaves countless older people at risk this winter. And moreover, the Labour Party government’s sums really don’t add up.
The cut in Winter Fuel Payments: a blow to older people
Winter fuel payments have traditionally been a vital lifeline for older people during the colder months. These payments help pensioners cover the increased costs of heating their homes, which is particularly important given that many older people live on fixed incomes and are more vulnerable to the effects of cold weather.
The decision to reduce these payments comes at a time when energy costs are soaring, making the cut especially harsh. Also, now only people receiving DWP Pension Credits will get the payment – meaning currently only around 1.5 million people will be entitled to it.
The government argues that the cuts are part of a broader strategy to balance public finances and ensure that welfare spending is sustainable. It says restricting winter fuel payments will save £1.4bn this financial year. However, critics argue that this approach disproportionately affects the most vulnerable, particularly those who are already struggling to make ends meet.
The reduction in winter fuel payments is seen by many as a short-sighted measure that fails to account for the real and immediate needs of older people during the winter months.
Real-world impacts of cuts
The decision to cut winter fuel payments has been met with strong opposition from advocacy groups and charities that work with older people. Many argue that the cuts could have serious consequences for people’s health and well-being.
Cold weather is known to exacerbate a range of health conditions. So, without adequate heating, the risks of respiratory infections, hypothermia, and other cold-related illnesses increase significantly.
Moreover, the cuts are expected to push more pensioners into fuel poverty. This is a situation where households are unable to afford to keep their homes adequately warm. It is particularly concerning given that older people are already disproportionately represented among those living in fuel poverty.
The government’s decision has been criticised as both insensitive and counterproductive, especially in the context of its broader public health goals.
DWP Pension Credits campaign: a mixed message?
In parallel with the cuts to winter fuel payments, the UK government has launched a campaign to raise awareness about DWP Pension Credits. Pension Credits is a means-tested benefit designed to top up the income of the poorest older people.
It is estimated that up to a 880,000 eligible pensioners are not claiming the benefit. This either because they are unaware of it or because of the complexity of the application process – which has over 240 questions.
The government’s push to increase the uptake of pension credits is a welcome initiative. It aims to provide additional support to those who need it most. However, the timing of this campaign, coming alongside cuts to winter fuel payments, has led to criticism that the government is giving with one hand while taking away with the other.
Critics argue that while pension credits can help alleviate some financial pressure, they do not address the immediate need for support during the winter months.
What is Labour thinking?
The decision to cut winter fuel payments has been widely condemned by opposition parties, charities, and the general public. Many view it as a misguided and unfair policy that will disproportionately impact those who are already struggling.
This is because DWP Pension Credits only tops up people’s income to that of the new state pension for single older people. This means that if a person already receives the new state pension amount of £221.20 a week, then they’re not entitled to DWP Pension Credits – as the cut off for eligibility is £218.14. If you’re in a couple, the cut off is £332.94 of income – anything below that and you may get the benefit.
While the campaign to increase the uptake of DWP Pension Credits is a positive step, it does not mitigate the impact of the cuts to winter fuel payments.
Moreover, unless we’re missing something, it makes no economic sense either.
The average value of DWP Pension Credits is £3,900 a year. That means it will cost the DWP £3.4bn in the next 12 months – £2bn more than Labour is saving by restricting the winter fuel allowance.
Either the government has made a catastrophic miscalculation, or it will do some accounting sleight of hand to cover the loss. However, what’s more likely is that in chancellor Rachel Reeves’s Autumn Budget, she’ll make cuts to other people’s benefits to clear up this mess.
Whatever the outcome, countless older people will still be plunged into poverty this winter – and no amount of campaigning around DWP Pensions Credits will change that.
Research has long established strong links between neoliberal policies and increasing rates of inequality. Susan George, for instance, argued quite convincingly that increasing inequality stems from the neoliberal practices of placing public wealth into private hands, enforcing huge tax cuts for the rich and suppressing wages for average workers. And a recent study by psychology researchers shows…
Large corporations paying their employees the lowest wages among their peers have spent half a trillion dollars on stock buybacks over the past five years as inflation and corporate profits have soared, a new report finds. The Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) found in a report published Thursday that, between 2019 and 2023, the 100 companies in the S&P 500 that pay workers the lowest median…
Janine Jackson interviewed North Central College‘s Steve Macek about “dark money” campaign contributions for the August 23, 2024, episode of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.
Janine Jackson: If you use the word “democracy” unsarcastically, you likely think it has something to do with, not only every person living in a society having some say in the laws and policies that govern them, but also the idea that everyone should be able to know what’s going on, besides voting, that influences that critical decision-making.
“Dark money,” as it’s called, has become, in practical terms, business as usual, but it still represents the opposite of that transparency, that ability for even the unpowerful to know what’s happening, to know what’s affecting the rules that govern our lives. A press corps concerned with defending democracy, and not merely narrating the nightmare of crisis, would be talking about that every day, in every way.
Our guest has written about the gap between what we need and what we get, in terms of media. Steve Macek is professor and chair of communication and media studies, at North Central College in Illinois, a co-coordinator of Project Censored’s campus affiliate program, and co-editor and contributor to, most recently, Censorship, Digital Media and the Global Crackdown on Freedom of Expression, out this year from Peter Lang. He joins us now by phone from Naperville, Illinois. Welcome to CounterSpin, Steve Macek.
Steve Macek: Thanks for having me, Janine. I’m a big fan of the show.
JJ: Well, thank you. Let’s start with some definition. Dark money doesn’t mean funding for candidates or campaigns I don’t like, or from groups I don’t like. In your June piece for the Progressive, you spell out what it is, and where it can come from, and what we can know about it. Help us, if you would, understand just the rules around dark money.
SM: Sure. So dark money, and Anna Massoglia of OpenSecrets gave me, I think, a really nice, concise definition of dark money in the interview I did with her for this article. She called it “funding from undisclosed sources that goes to influence political outcomes, such as elections.” Now, thanks to the Supreme Court case in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010, and some other cases, it is now completely legal for corporations and very wealthy individuals to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence the outcomes of elections.
Not all of that “independent expenditure” on elections is dark money. Dark money is spending that comes from organizations that do not have to disclose their donors. One sort of organization, I’m sure your listeners are really familiar with, are Super PACs, or, what they’re more technically known as, IRS Code 527 organizations. It can take unlimited contributions, and spend unlimited amounts on influencing elections, but they have to disclose the names of their donors.
There’s this other sort of organization, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, which is sometimes known as a “social welfare nonprofit,” who can raise huge amounts of money, but they do not have to disclose the names of their donors, but they are prevented from spending the majority of their budget on political activity, which means that a lot of these 501(c)(4) organizations spend 49.999% of their budget attempting to influence the outcomes of elections, and the rest of it is spent on things like general political education, or research that might, in turn, guide the creation of political ads and so on.
JJ: When we talk about influencing the outcome of elections, it’s not that they are taking out an ad for or against a particular candidate. That doesn’t have to be involved at all.
SM: Right. So they can sometimes run issue ads. Sometimes these dark money groups, as long as they’re working within the parameters of the law, will run ads for or against a particular candidate.
But take, for example, Citizens for Sanity, the group that I talked about at the beginning of my Progressivearticle: This is a group that nobody knows very much about. It showed up back in 2022, and ran $40 million worth of ads in four battleground states. Many of the ads were general ads attacking the Democrats for wanting to erase the border, or over woke culture-war themes, but they’re spending $40+ million on ads, according to one estimate.
What we do know is the officials of the group are almost identical to America First Legal, which was made up by former Trump administration officials. America First Legal was founded by Stephen Miller, that xenophobic former advisor and sometimes speechwriter to Donald Trump. No one really knows exactly who is funding this organization, because it is a 501(c)(4) social welfare nonprofit, and so is not required by the IRS to disclose its donors.
It has been running this year, in Ohio and elsewhere, a whole bunch of digital ads, and putting up billboards, for example, attacking Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown for his stance on immigration policies, basically saying he wants to protect criminal illegals, and also running these general, very snarky anti-“woke” ads saying, basically, Democrats used to care about the middle class, now they only care about race and gender and DEI.
JJ: Right. Well, I think “rich people influence policy,” it’s almost like “dog bites man” at this point, right? Yeah, it’s bad, but that’s how the system works, and I think it’s important to lift up: If it didn’t matter for donors to obscure their support for this or that, well then they wouldn’t be trying to obscure it.
And the thing you’re writing about, these are down-ballot issues, where you might believe that Citizens for Sanity, in this case, or any other organization, you might think of this as like a grassroots group that’s scrambled together some money to take out ads. And so it is meaningful to know to connect these financial dots.
SM: Absolutely. It is meaningful. And since you made reference to down-ballot races, one of the things that I think is so nefarious about dark money, and these dark money organizations, is that they are spending a lot on races for things like school boards or, as I discussed in the article, state attorney generals races.
There is this organization, it was founded in 2014, called the Republican Attorneys General Association, or RAGA, which is a beautiful acronym, and they have been trying to elect extremely reactionary Republicans to the top law enforcement position in state after state. And in 2022, they spent something like $8.9 million trying to defeat Democratic state attorney generals candidates in the 2022 elections.
Now, they are a PAC of a kind, they’re a 527, so they have the same legal status as a Super PAC, so they have to disclose their donors. But the fact is, one of the major donors is a group called the Concord Fund, which has given them $17 million.
Concord Fund is a 501(c)(4) that was founded by Leonard Leo, the judicial activist affiliated with the Federalist Society, who is basically Donald Trump’s Supreme Court whisperer, who is largely responsible for the conservative takeover of the federal courts. His organization, this fund that he controls, gave $17 million to RAGA.
And we have no idea who contributed that money to the fund. We can make some educated guesses, but nobody really knows who’s funneling that money into trying to influence the election of the top law enforcement official in state after state around this country.
That’s alarming because, of course, some of these right-wing billionaires and corporations have a vested interest in who is sitting in that position. Because if it comes to enforcement of antitrust laws, or corruption laws, if they have a more friendly state attorney general in that position, it could mean millions of dollars for their bottom line.
JJ: And I think, from the point of view of the public, filtered through the point of view of the press, if you heard there’s this one macher, or this one rich person, and they’re pulling the strings and they’ve bought this judge, and they’ve paid for this policy and these ads, that would be one thing. But to have it filtered through a number of groups that are kind of opaque and you don’t really know, a minority point of view can be presented as a sort of groundswell of grassroots support.
SM: Exactly. It can create this sort of astroturfing effect where, “Oh, there are all these ads being run. It must be that there are lots of people who are really concerned or really opposed to this particular candidate,” when, in fact, it could be a single billionaire who is routing money for a number of different shells and front groups in an effort to influence the outcome of an election.
So I think attorney generals races are one kind of down-ballot race where we’ve seen a lot of dark money spent. School board elections are another, and this is something that has been really evident in the past couple of years, where various different Super PACs and other dark money groups have spent millions of dollars, that are affiliated with advocates for charter schools, and advocates for school vouchers have been spending money trying to elect school board members that are pro-voucher and pro–charter school.
In 2023, City Fund, which is a national pro–charter school group, bankrolled in part by billionaire Reed Hastings, donated $1.75 million from its affiliated PAC to a 501(c)(4), Denver Families for Public Schools, to try to elect three “friendly” pro–charter school candidates for the city school board, and all three of the candidates won.
And I don’t know about you, but I don’t have children who went through the public system here in Naperville, I didn’t pay very close attention to who was running in those races, or who was backing those people. I just would read about it a couple days before the election. Most people don’t pay very close attention, unless they’re employees of the school district, or have children currently in school. They’re not paying that close attention to the school board elections. And so this influx of dark money could very well have tipped those races in the favor of the pro–charter school.
JJ: And name that group again, because it didn’t say “charter schools.”
SM: So the charter school group was City Fund, and it donated money to Denver Families for Public Schools….
JJ: : For “public schools….”
SM: Right, which is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit. Yes, and it’s got this Orwellian name, because it’s Denver Families for Public Schools. But what they wanted to do was, of course, create more charter schools.
JJ: It’s deep, and it’s confusing because it’s designed to be confusing, and it’s opaque because, you know….
And then, OK, so here come media. And we know that lots of people, including reporters, still imagine the US press corps as kind of like an old movie, with press cards in their hat band, or Woodward and Bernstein connecting dots, holding the powerful to account, and the chips are just falling where they may.
And you make the point in the Progressive piece that there have been excellent corporate news media exposés of the influence of dark money, connecting those dots. But you write that news media have “missed or minimized as many stories about dark money as they have covered.” What are you getting at there?
SM: I absolutely believe that. So it is true, as I say, that there have been some excellent reports about dark money. Here in Chicago, we had this reclusive billionaire industrialist, Barre Seide, who made what most people say is the largest political contribution in American history. He donated his company to a fund, Marble Freedom Fund, run by Leonard Leo, again, a conservative judicial activist.
The Marble Freedom Fund sold the company for $1.6 billion. It’s hard for the corporate media to ignore a political contribution of $1.6 billion. That’s a $1.6 billion trust fund that Leonard Leo, who engineered the conservative takeover of the US Supreme Court, is going to be able to use—he’s a very right-wing, conservative Catholic—to put his particular ideological stamp on American elections and on American culture. And so that got reported.
And, in fact, there have been some really excellent follow-up reports by ProPublica, among others, about how various Leonard Leo–affiliated organizations have influenced judicial appointments and have influenced judicial elections. So you have to give credit where credit’s due.
But the problem is that there are so many other cases where dark money is in play. Whether or not you can say it’s determining the outcome of elections or not is another story. But where dark money is playing a role, and it is simply not being talked about.
Steve Macek: “Outside forces who, in some cases, do not have to disclose the source of their funding can spend more on a race than the candidates themselves.”
Think about the last month of this current presidential election. There hasn’t been much discussion about the influence of dark money. And yet OpenSecrets just came out with an analysis where they say that contributions from dark money groups and shell organizations are outpacing all prior elections in this year, and might surpass the $660 million in contributions from dark money sources that flooded the 2020 elections. So they’re projecting that could be as much as a billion dollars. We haven’t heard very much about this.
I don’t think necessarily dark money is going to make a huge difference one way or the other in the presidential race, but it certainly can make a difference in congressional races and attorney generals races, school board races, city council races, that’s where it can make a huge difference.
And I do know that OpenSecrets, among others, have done research, and they found that there were cases where, over a hundred different congressional races, there was more outside spending on those races than were spent by either of the candidates. Which is a scandal, that outside forces who, in some cases, do not have to disclose the source of their funding can spend more on a race than the candidates themselves.
JJ: And it’s disheartening, the idea that, while you’re swimming in it, it’s too big of an issue to even lift out.
SM: And I think that’s also part of the reason why it’s accepted, sort of like the weather. And I think that’s part of the reason why there isn’t as much reporting in the corporate media as there ought to be about legal struggles over the regulation of dark money.
JJ: That’s exactly where I was going to lead you, for a final question, just because we know that reporters will say, well, they can’t cover what isn’t happening. But it is happening, that legal and community and policy pushback on this influence is happening. And so, finally, what should we know about that?
SM: State-level Republican lawmakers, and state legislatures across the country, are pushing legislation that would prohibit state officials and agencies from collecting or disclosing information about donors to nonprofits, including donors to those 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations that I spoke about, that spend money on politics. So they’re trying to pass laws to make dark money even darker, to make this obscure money influencing our elections even harder to track. And I will say there are Republicans in Congress who have introduced federal legislation that would do the same thing.
Now, the bills that are being pushed through state legislatures, not probably going to be a surprise to anybody who follows this, are based on a model bill that was developed by the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, which is a policy development organization that is funded by the Koch network of right-wing foundations, millionaires and billionaires. And they meet every year to develop model right-wing, libertarian legislation, that then is dutifully introduced into state legislatures around the country.
And since 2018, a number of states, including Alabama, Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia and West Virginia, have all adopted some version of this ALEC legislation that criminalizes disclosing donors to nonprofits that engage in political activity.
And in Arizona, where this conservative legislation was made into law, in 2022, there was a ballot referendum by the voters on the Voter’s Right to Know Act, Proposition 211, that would basically reverse the ALEC attempt to criminalize the disclosure of the names of donors. It would require PACs spending at least $50,000 on statewide campaigns to disclose all donors who have given more than $5,000—a direct reversal of the ALEC-inspired law.
Conservative dark money group spent a lot of money trying to defeat this, and yet they lost. And then they spent a lot of money challenging the new law, Proposition 211, in court. And it has gone to trial, I think, three times, and been defeated each time.
Now, the initial battle over Proposition 211 was covered to some degree in the corporate media, the New York Times, Jane Mayer at the New Yorker, who does excellent reporting on dark money issues, discussed it. But since then, we have gotten very little coverage of the court battles that continue to this day over this attempt to bring more transparency to campaign spending in the state of Arizona.
JJ: So, not to hammer it too hard home, but there are legal efforts, policy efforts around the country, to bring more transparency, to explode this idea of dark money, to connect the dots, and more media coverage of them would actually have an amplifying effect on that very transparency.
SM: Absolutely right. You would think that media organizations, whether they’re corporate or independent media, would have a vested interest in seeing more transparency in election spending. That would benefit their own reporting, and the reporters. And yet they really haven’t done a great job of covering it.
JJ: We’ve been speaking with Steve Macek. He’s professor and chair of communication and media studies at North Central College in Illinois, and a co-coordinator of Project Censored’s campus affiliate program. The piece we’re talking about, “Dark Money Uncovered,” can be found at TheProgressive.org. Steve Macek, thank you so much for joining us this week on CounterSpin.
The top 10 asset management firms now control $50 trillion of global wealth. They answer to no one but the ultrarich — the 0.05 percent — whose fortunes they continue to expand. The rest of us pay the price. Investing in everything from fossil fuel companies to private prisons to weapons manufacturers, they provide the economic lifeblood for some of the most destructive forces in the world.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) were keynote speakers at Progressive Central 2024, which took place on Sunday and Monday just blocks north of the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Illinois. Progressive Central 2024 is a conference hosted by Progressive Democrats of America (PDA). Several other progressive organizations partnered with PDA to…
EXCLUSIVE: King Charles and his eldest son make millions from feudal levies on schools, hospitals, homeowners and the very charities they represent, a joint investigation by The Sunday Times and 
(@woodgnomology) 
(@alexhallhall) 
Janine Jackson: If you use the word “democracy” unsarcastically, you likely think it has something to do with, not only every person living in a society having some say in the laws and policies that govern them, but also the idea that everyone should be able to know what’s going on, besides voting, that influences that critical decision-making.
