Enlightened selfishness

A simple idea, but governments have either been against the idea of higher taxes to pay for better health or afraid to implement it. Put quite brutally the last two decades and more, have been characterised by a me, myself and I attitude across Britain.

If it makes you feel any less guilty I too have shamefully subscribed to this insular view on more occasions than I'd like to remember. Year after year I'd await the budget news: How much more mortgage tax relief his he going to take? What price petrol? How much more will my dragon stout cost?

So selfish was I, as a non-smoker I couldn't give two hoots if the Chancellor raised the price of fags to fifty pounds a packet. The hypocrisy was, of course, that like most people I wanted society to be a better place, but not, I would quietly add, at my expense.

So does this budget mark the beginning of a more caring sharing age? Are we at last prepared to invest in society as a whole? Sadly, I doubt it. But what appears to be different now, than lets say, the 'loadsa money' eighties is the school of thought that recognises, even in a selfish society like ours, you have to give to get back.

Credit unions are a good example of this 'give to get' philosophy and Caribbean countries have a proud history of using this method to raise money. Back in the 60's and 70's it was the credit unions to which Caribbeans turned as their only opportunity to acquire the money to purchase houses in racist Britain.

The way they work is fairly simple: Everyone pools their money together and then each person or family is then assisted as and when they need sufficient funds for a deposit to buy a home. Everyone who saves with the union has an equal share in the company. The individual's success is therefore, very much bond-up in the success of the larger group.

Cruder but similar forms of raising money are the cash investment pyramid schemes: you put your money in, recruit others to do likewise and each person in turn collects a lump sum. These schemes are not new, very recently, for example, a white friend of mine got her fingers burnt losing her savings of two thousand pounds on a similar 'get rich quick' scheme.

So when another friend from a Black business network suggested she was doing likewise I vociferously tried to persuade her against it. She would have none it, and engaged in the project with her usual whirlwind energy. To my surprise she's made a success of it, accumulating her original investment six fold.

Why then was she successful and the other woman wasn't? I think that my friend from the Black business network recognised, as did Jamaicans and other Caribbean's back in the 60's and 70's that she could only be successful if others were supported to be successful too. Unlike my white friend, she recruited others, held drinks parties, dinners, and business talks on the subject for the group. In other words, she helped others in order to help herself.

Even after her success I still don't think I'd sign up to my friends cash initiatives, but I understand the 'give to get' philosophy behind it. In fact I argue the same points to the major political parties and the hundreds of all white decision making institutions that continue to ignore Black talent: Give the country's Black talent seats at the decision making table and everyone benefits.

The blind selfish will never understand this concept and therefore will have to have power wrenched away from them. But those like the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown and other senior politicians from all sides of the house who now seem to realise that their success and survival is dependent on us beginning to fulfil our true potential.

What I like, most of all, about the proposition of 'give to get' is that it's not governed by charity or pity but rather, as one my business friends put it - enlightened selfishness.