UK faces the highest inequality levels for 40 years

[Atlas14]

Do some googling on the level of British debt at current, then see why even mroe debt isn't a good idea.

I would be willing to bet US debt is pretty dang bad as well.

Besides, no one should have to 'live on essential poverty'.

Why not? If it is temporary and necessary in order for you to save a few bucks, then I see no reason someone should shun having to live down a class for a few years while they establish themselves.

When I leave college I don't expect to have internet access, a current-model TV, or anything really more than what I need. If I don't have some basic luxuries 5 years down the road from then, I might see a problem. I don't like the view that people are entitled to anything they want, and that is the impression I get when people moan and complain about having to live down a class for a few years.

 

[Godwynn]

U.K. Debt:

£437.4 billion
The UK population was 60.2 million, leading to a calculation that each British citizen has a share of that debt of £7,265.78


U.S. Debt:

$8.882 trillion
The estimated population of the United States is 302,454,061
so each citizen's share of this debt is $29,368.80.

 

[Rambuchan]

For the sake of the thread and those wondering, the UK government's 2006 official poverty line was (and still is afaik):

"A household living on less than 60% of median earnings." Source.

Interestingly, it moved since their first term, but I'm not sure when exactly it changed. Previously it was: "A household living on less than 60% of average earnings."

Isn't the real issue mobility rather than income disparities?

Yes it is. At least for me. And the two are intertwined, as I pointed at in previous posts.

 

[skadistic]

Look - firstly, it's really expensive for a first time buyer in the UK. Go do some gooelisng if you want to know more. It's also very expensive to rent...believe me I still live at home because I know I can't afford to move out with my current job, and not wanting to give that up at the momement and commit to anythign I have to stay at home.

Secondly there's the whole issue of high costs forcing people out of the place they've grown up.

Firstly I know its expensive. Its expensive in the US too. I know its expensive to rent just like in the US. If you wanted to rent my condo you'd have to fork over $1800 a month not including utilities or the $200 a month condo fee.

As for the second part of your post your saying you don't want to move up the employment ladder because you don't want to commit to anything? So you have to stay home because your current job is good enough to stay at home with your parents? You stay at home not because you have to but because you want to?


Where is it writen people have to stay where they grew up? And how is that an argument for anything? You live where you can afford. What to stay where you grew up make more money. Work 2 jobs. Sublet.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

@skad

I was trying to avoid a potential trap, didn't know where you were going

No it really doesn't

If you can only afford rent and food, how do you travel on cheap public transport?

Or walk to grandma living 10 miles away. Come one kids, it's 5am, time to start walking.

.

 

[skadistic]

If you can only afford rent and food, how do you travel on cheap public transport?

If you can't swing a few dollars a day to take the bus to a better paying job. You deserve to be stuck in perpetual poverty. If you really wanted to better your life you'd find a way. Instead of name brand food use store brand. Clip coupons. There are plenty of ways to scrimp and save but it takes ............. effort.

 

[Whomp]

Yes it is. At least for me. And the two are intertwined, as I pointed at in previous posts.

Instinctively, some would say redistribution policies will be the answer however my thinking is even if you adjust things the less skilled will continue to be less skilled.

To me, trying to adjust for income disparities is a bit of a logical fallacy.
Consider the US states with the highest progressive state (even local) tax rates (see New York and California) and highest minimum wage levels also tends to be the states with the biggest income gaps. Why?

The other problem is income comparisons are very sensitive to where people are in their life cycle. IE the people in the bottom quintile twenty years ago are not there today (75% in the US iirc) and some in the 2nd quintile today will likely fall to the bottom over the next twenty years as they retire. There will always be disenfranchised and there's nothing I can see that will help that.

One last thing...isn't it interesting that in Germany as pay closed the gap on versus being on the dole their unemployment figures have shown big improvment.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

If you can't swing a few dollars a day to take the bus to a better paying job. You deserve to be stuck in perpetual poverty. If you really wanted to better your life you'd find a way. Instead of name brand food use store brand. Clip coupons. There are plenty of ways to scrimp and save but it takes ............. effort.

I bolded a word there for you.

I'm glad we at least agree on that, or do you reason that people living in poverty aren't poor?

 

[MobBoss]

Low and middle earners form the backbone of the economy that high earners get rich off.

This isnt fuedalism. The rich get rich off of their investments; not because of some largesse gleaned off the backs of the lower class.

Also, the rich keep the economy going for the simple reason they invest their money into the economy...its not like they bury their wealth in the back yard.

As posted earlier on the first page of this thread, many high earners exploit loopholes etc so that they actually end up paying very little tax.

Thats not going to change. If you change the rules, you will just make them hire more lawyers to find new loopholes.

Besides this high earners also pay proportionately less tax than low/middle earners. Given that the services these taxes pay for benifit everyone, it's thus unfair that high earners pay a proportionately less amount.

But the study that I linked too proves that the high earners take far, far less advantage of those social welfare programs provided by the state. If they use those services far, far less, then why is it unfair that they pay a less amount?

 

[Rambuchan]

Instinctively, some would say redistribution policies will be the answer however my thinking is even if you adjust things the less skilled will continue to be less skilled.

To me, trying to adjust for income disparities is a bit of a logical fallacy.
Consider the US states with the highest progressive state (even local) tax rates (see New York and California) and highest minimum wage levels also tends to be the state with the biggest income gaps. Why?

Which is why I said and say that education and housing are to be addressed. In short, opportunities.

We presently have this new and quite atrocious 'postcode lottery' in effect with schooling. This means your location (along with siblings and special needs) dictates the school your kid goes to. Bear that in mind while reading the next bit.

Then there's the state of the housing market here. There's a shortage of affordable housing. The market is swamped and inflated by wealthy buy-to-letters, and stupidly wealthy foreign buyers, who purchase for the same reasons and simply as investments and holiday homes. And there aren't enough homes being built to meet both their demand and that of those seeking to get on. This means those attempting to climb up the social ladder are simply priced out.

Put the two together and - Cue the ghettos and social exclusion, which the report refers to.

Fortunately, our new Prime Minister has pledged (note: "pledged") to build more homes, and he is also cajoling lenders into offering longer fixed rate mortgages. It remains to be seen whether the home building volume will be enough and whether the lenders will bite (whilst the Bank of England keeps raising interest rates).

Funky situation no?

(There's also the fact that Britain has cheerfully thrown its doors open to plenty of immigrant labour, which I'm sure is skewing the figures too.)

The other problem is income comparisons are very sensitive to where people are in their life cycle. IE the people in the bottom quintile twenty years ago are not there today (75% in the US iirc) and some in the 2nd quintile today will likely fall to the bottom over the next twenty years as they retire. There will always be disenfranchised and there's nothing I can see that will help that.

One last thing...isn't it interesting that in Germany as pay closed the gap on versus being on the dole their unemployment figures have shown big improvment.

I hope to get back to these, pushed for time and attention.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Also, the rich keep the economy going for the simple reason they invest their money into the economy...its not like they bury their wealth in the back yard.

What's the difference between 3 poor families spending 100 dollars extra and some rich guy spending 100 dollars extra?

 

[MobBoss]

What's the difference between 3 poor families spending 100 dollars extra and some rich guy spending 100 dollars extra?

Well, its more like the 3 poor families spending 100 dollars extra...and the rich guy spending 10,000 dollares extra.

Which helps the economy more?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Well, its more like the 3 poor families spending 100 dollars extra...and the rich guy spending 10,000 dollares extra.

Not really.

Amount X goes from the rich to the poor. Instead of 10.000, the rich get to spend 9.900. 100 Dollars difference. These go to the poor.

What's the difference between 3 poor families spending that 100 dollars and some rich guy spending that 100 dollars?

 

[Urederra]

For the sake of the thread and those wondering, the UK government's 2006 official poverty line was (and still is afaik):

"A household living on less than 60% of median earnings." Source.

Interestingly, it moved since their first term, but I'm not sure when exactly it changed. Previously it was: "A household living on less than 60% of average earnings."

Yes it is. At least for me. And the two are intertwined, as I pointed at in previous posts.

Oh. I see. So it moves with population, and since population grows, the number of poor people is bound to grow, just because poverty line is defined on a percentage of earnings over the total population, average or median, it doesn't matter. More people = more poor, but that doesn't mean that the average poor person nowadays had equal acquisitive power as the average poor person in 1980.

I bet that many people under that definition of poor has more acquisitive power than the average 'rich' person on a third world country.

Misleading definition, IMHO, since it is relative to the earnings of the total population.

 

[Urederra]

Instinctively, some would say redistribution policies will be the answer however my thinking is even if you adjust things the less skilled will continue to be less skilled.

Uh? the answer for what?

Even if you redistribute, the average or earnings is gonna be the same, so the number of poor people won't change with redistribution. The poor will have more acquisitive power, but they still will be called poor.

 

[MobBoss]

Not really.

Amount X goes from the rich to the poor. Instead of 10.000, the rich get to spend 9.900. 100 Dollars difference. These go to the poor.

What's the difference between 3 poor families spending that 100 dollars and some rich guy spending that 100 dollars?

It could mean the difference in the rich guy having someone as an employee or not. Are three poor families going to have an employee? No. But if the rich person has to fire a worker because he is now taxed too much to pay that employee, then that makes a big difference to the guy out of work.

Also, the poor families would most likely spend the money on themselves as opposed to investing it to grow......business rely on investors for start up capitol....if that capitol is not being used to start business' then wouldnt that slow down your economy?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

No they might spend it in a shop who then could make more profit so he can hire an extra worker. All these fantasy scenarios are fun, but don't make a good point.

Business relies on investors to finance their business and customers to prevent going out of business. Going out of business is also bad. People becoming unemployed and all.

I don't know which one is more important (allthough I suspect you might think you know ) but I don't think it makes a big difference. If you disagree, so be it.

 

[ComradeDavo]

I would be willing to bet US debt is pretty dang bad as well.

This is a thread about the UK, not the US.

Why not? If it is temporary and necessary in order for you to save a few bucks, then I see no reason someone should shun having to live down a class for a few years while they establish themselves.

When I leave college I don't expect to have internet access, a current-model TV, or anything really more than what I need. If I don't have some basic luxuries 5 years down the road from then, I might see a problem. I don't like the view that people are entitled to anything they want, and that is the impression I get when people moan and complain about having to live down a class for a few years.

We are not talking just about students, we are talking about the whole population. Besides, why should 'they live down a class' when it is not nessescary for them to do so and it is possiable to make them better off?

Firstly I know its expensive. Its expensive in the US too. I know its expensive to rent just like in the US. If you wanted to rent my condo you'd have to fork over $1800 a month not including utilities or the $200 a month condo fee.

As for the second part of your post your saying you don't want to move up the employment ladder because you don't want to commit to anything? So you have to stay home because your current job is good enough to stay at home with your parents? You stay at home not because you have to but because you want to?


Where is it writen people have to stay where they grew up? And how is that an argument for anything? You live where you can afford. What to stay where you grew up make more money. Work 2 jobs. Sublet.

Your mind is very one track - and that track is work, work, work. Ever occur to you that there's more to life than earning money? Or whats more, that if you do earn money then perhaps it would be nice to enjoy it rather tnan have the costs swallowed up by living expenses?

As for my personal situation, i've grown up with parents who ar every unhappy in their situation and realistically unable to change it without great sacrafice....i.e trapped by respponsiablity. Why trap myself with responsbility when i'm unsure of a careaer path?

And people like to stay near family and friends. It's unhealthy for society to let living costs force them away.

This isnt fuedalism. The rich get rich off of their investments; not because of some largesse gleaned off the backs of the lower class.

Also, the rich keep the economy going for the simple reason they invest their money into the economy...its not like they bury their wealth in the back yard.[/QUOeTE]You fail to understand that society is indviduals connected to one anothr, not individuals living seporetely with no connection.

Who do you think buy the products that enable the high earners to have that money? Didn't you have a government job? Who do think paid your salary?

Thats not going to change. If you change the rules, you will just make them hire more lawyers to find new loopholes.

A delebritely negative answer because you don't agree with the premise.

But the study that I linked too proves that the high earners take far, far less advantage of those social welfare programs provided by the state. If they use those services far, far less, then why is it unfair that they pay a less amount?

As I said, failure to udnerstand how a society works. High earners make their money of the people using those wealfare programmes. Without an educated, healthy society who have the money to spend, these high earners wouldn't have the lifestyle they do.

Besides, they do use the roads or the police and the military to name some examples. To name another example, if trapped in a burning building it would be national fireman and national heathcare servicemen and woman who'd be the ones saving them.

 

[skadistic]

Your mind is very one track - and that track is work, work, work. Ever occur to you that there's more to life than earning money? Or whats more, that if you do earn money then perhaps it would be nice to enjoy it rather tnan have the costs swallowed up by living expenses?

As for my personal situation, i've grown up with parents who ar every unhappy in their situation and realistically unable to change it without great sacrafice....i.e trapped by respponsiablity. Why trap myself with responsbility when i'm unsure of a careaer path?

And people like to stay near family and friends. It's unhealthy for society to let living costs force them away.

My work work work attitude is what affords me the leisure of race cars, trips around the world if I want and plenty of other hobbies not mention treating my friends and woman well above standard. Its also what kept me from staying poor. If you live within your means you don't have to spend that extra money on a more lavish life style. Just because I can afford a giant house doesn't mean I have to go buy one. I live well below my means and save alot of money. How is responsibility a trap? You can quit and change jobs. I had to move away from my friends and family. I made new friends. Then after I was sorted out I moved back. It is far better to spread yourself around then sit in one spot all your life. Take the risk, put in the effort, use the experience to grow.No one wants to do that anymore. Life has become stagnant for most people. A doldrum of mediocrity. Is there no hope left!!!!!!!


Those unwilling to sacrifice are undeserving of the reward.

 

[ComradeDavo]

My work work work attitude is what affords me the leisure of race cars, trips around the world if I want and plenty of other hobbies not mention treating my friends and woman well above standard. Its also what kept me from staying poor. If you live within your means you don't have to spend that extra money on a more lavish life style. Just because I can afford a giant house doesn't mean I have to go buy one. I live well below my means and save alot of money. How is responsibility a trap? You can quit and change jobs. I had to move away from my friends and family. I made new friends. Then after I was sorted out I moved back. It is far better to spread yourself around then sit in one spot all your life. Take the risk, put in the effort, use the experience to grow.No one wants to do that anymore. Life has become stagnant for most people. A doldrum of mediocrity. Is there no hope left!!!!!!!


Those unwilling to sacrifice are undeserving of the reward.

Everyone is different to one another, what one person wants and is willing to give up doesn't always apply to the next person.