This relates to the BBC article [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66596790] which states “the UK should pay $24tn (£18.8tn) for its slavery involvement in 14 countries”.
The UK abolished slavery in 1833. That’s 190 years ago. So nobody alive today has a slave, and nobody alive today was a slave.
Dividing £18tn by the number of UK taxpayers (31.6m) gives £569 each. Why do I, who have never owned a slave, have to give £569 to someone who similarly is not a slave?
When I’ve paid my £569 is that the end of the matter forever or will it just open the floodgates of other similar claims?
Isn’t this just a country that isn’t doing too well, looking at the UK doing reasonably well (cost of living crisis excluded of course), and saying “oh there’s this historical thing that affects nobody alive today but you still have to give us trillions of Sterling”?
Shouldn’t payment of reparations be limited to those who still benefit from the slave trade today, and paid to those who still suffer from it?
(Please don’t flame me. This is NSQ. I genuinely don’t know why this is something I should have to pay. I agree slavery is terrible and condemn it in all its forms, and we were right to abolish it.)
There’s a couple of things to consider when thinking about this.
Firstly, dividing the total by the number of tax payers and concluding that everyone should pay £569 is misleading. Wealthy people pay far more tax than most people (still not enough IMHO!) and as such the per-person cost is wildly different for everyone too.
Secondly, consider your position - your chances of success, and the possible range of success, depends hugely on your parents’ circumstances and those of other close people in your life.
So we have this clear chain of success breeding success - wealthy people can afford to give their children the kind of start in life that us poor spuds can only dream of.
A huge number of wealthy families used slavery to amass and increase their wealth massively. These families are still wealthy, still benefitting from the leg-up they were given on the backs of slaves.
These families are the ones who, ultimately through tax, would end up contributing the most. Us plebs would be paying relatively little.
Even if your family didn’t own slaves, or exploit them directly, they’ll almost certainly have benefited from their existence. I live in a mill town north of Manchester - the very reason for this town’s existence is cotton, ultimately picked by slaves abroad. The money came from businesses and trade that relied on slavery.
Not sure how things work in the UK, but I don’t think this is true in the US.
By raw amount usually yes, by proportion of earnings/income usually no
If Warren Buffett is right, even in absolute terms, the wealthy don’t pay as much as their secretaries.