In the UK and in most western nations we have a problem with re-offending rates of prisoners upon release.  Now lots of things have been tried and none of them have really worked, we still have a problem with 90% of those sent to prison in 2011 having had a previous conviction.  Watching Newsnight on Tuesday got me thinking about this.  Now I have previously blogged on prisons and how they should be used as a way of helping to treat offenders who are addicted to drugs, alcohol and other things.  Now I am sure that if you introduced that it would have some impact on re-offending rates. 

Now another thing came to me today while I was on my way home, I have helped a fair few prisoners through work, and I have noticed that a lot of them have problems with basic literacy and writing.  Now this has to play a large part in their choice they make in their life after prison.  As how can we expect someone who can’t read and right properly to hold down a job? 

So I have come up with a bit of a carrot and a stick idea to help reduce re-offending, firstly we give these people the skills that can help them to reform and become a helpful member of society and if that fails we have the stick.  Which would reduce re-offending rather significantly. 

Now the idea follows a similar path as my drug treatment plan, which was we deal with the addiction then the punishment starts and we release the prisoner addiction free back in to society.  Well I thought we could maybe do something similar with an education element.  Every prisoner would be tested to see what their reading, writing and literacy skills are and they are put on a compulsory scheme which will bring them up to a minimum A-level/NVQ standard.  This would allow them to get a job upon release that paid a reasonable amount to live off. 

Now we could make it a parole condition that until a person has achieved such a qualification then they would not be eligible for release.   Now some people would think this is barbaric keeping people in prison unless they achieve a set qualification.  But If we release them with the tools to be able to go out and work surely that has to be better than keeping them in a cell for a set period of time and then just kicking them out with no skills and have them arrested 6 months down the line for breaking the law again. 

Now the second part of my idea the stick part is not a new idea, it’s something that certain parts of the USA already use; which is the three strikes and you get life.  Now I wouldn’t go for just any three criminal acts like three speeding tickets and you get life in prison; as that would be a little harsh.  However I would have it set at three convictions of offences that were either an automatic indictable offence such as Grievous Bodily Harm with Intent or 3 conviction of an either way offence like Burglary or Theft. 

Now I am all for giving people a chance and a second chance, but I think we need to draw the line at some place, and I think 3 chances is a fair shot for breaking the law.  Especially when if you watch a criminal trial for burglary or alike when convicted they will normally ask for other offences to be considered, so it’s not like these people have only broken the law 3 times in most cases.  With a policy like this it would act as a deterrent to people not to commit crime.

However there is one big question as to how we would fund this, as undoubtedly we would be locking people up in prison for longer, and in a fair few cases for life.  It would be unfair to expect the tax payer to increase their contributions to help fund such a scheme.  So I thought we could utilise these large groups of people in a productive way.  Lots of prisons in the USA use prisoners to make things as it reduces the tedium of being locked up.

So I thought we could build factories within prisons that companies could use to manufacture their goods.  They would have to pay the prison service say minimum wage for each of the prisoners that they employed and in turn each of the prisoners would be paid the standard prison rate for a day’s work.   This way we are paying the prisoner for the work they do and funding the upkeep of prisons, so there could be no accusations of generating “slave” labour.

I think a combined approach of treating addiction and educating criminals should give them the skills and opportunities to lead a crime free life; with the threat there that if they don’t change their ways then we will come down very hard on them and remove them from society. 

One thing we hear a lot especially is that people should pay a fair amount of tax, this is something that is trotted out almost weekly by people like Owen Jones, Polly Toynbee, UKUncut amongst others.  However when you ask someone who holds this view what is a fair amount of tax for someone to pay the only answer you get is “the rich should pay more….” But they never say how much more or why they think they should pay more. 

So this got me thinking just how much tax do the rich pay a year.  Well I suppose we have to work out who the rich are.  Now I am assuming by the rich they mean this magical 1% of the population.  Now the 1% is about 300,000 people who all earn over £149,000 per year.  So someone on a wage of £149,000pa would pay a total in income tax and national insurance of £59,043.36.  An effective tax rate of 39.6% which is a fair whack of anyone’s wages to have to give to the tax man.  If the wage increases it goes up rather drastically;

• £200,000 gives an effective rate of 43%
• £300,000 gives an effective rate of 46%
• £500,000 gives an effective rate of 48%
• £1,000,000 gives an effective rate of 50%

As opposed to the average person on £20,000pa who has an effective rate of 20%.  Now looking at the effective tax rates of the “rich” I would say that anyone paying more than twice the effective tax rate of an average person is most defiantly paying their “fair” share; if not actually paying more than their fair share.

As if we look as where the tax income actually comes from the +300,000 people paying the top rate tax actually contribute £47bn a year to the treasury in tax, roughly about 30% of the total income from about 1% of the working population.  If we increase that to the top 10% of earners in the UK which is about 3million people that becomes about 65% of the total tax income paid by only 10% of the working adults in the UK. 

Now when you look at those figures it makes you wonder what these people mean by fair share.  As if anything I think the current tax system is grossly unfair, especially on those who earn large wages.  Why should Mr Smith pay 40% of his wages in tax when Mr Jones only pays 20%.  Now if Mr Smith paid effectively 20% then 20% of £150,000 is still more than 20% of £20,000. 

I can’t see any reason for increasing Mr Smith’s tax bill that would be remotely fair.  Arguing that he should pay more tax because he is rich; is well not an argument it’s an ideological left wing statement.  If these people wanted to have a properly fair tax system then the only logical tax system is a flat rate tax.  Where people pay the same percentage and those who earn more still pay more. 

So to those people who think that the rich should pay their fair share, I suggest you go and look up what fair actually means before you start using it; and stop using it as a disguise for what actually is the politics of envy and the fact you want to impose punitive taxes on those who work hard and earn a good wage.  In a properly fair society people would all have an equal tax rate and pay a fair proportionate of their wages to the tax man.  Not this unfair system we have now and most defiantly not your socialist ideas of penalising the rich simply because they are rich.