UK faces the highest inequality levels for 40 years

[MobBoss]

See, it's reports like this which make me back the Lib Dem proposals which I made my thread about.

As I said in that thread, low and middle earners are effectively paying for high earners lifestyles.

But they are not. The rich pay for their own lifestyles and pay their own taxes too thankyouverymuch.

 

[Merkinball]

The main thing here is exactly what you described and the main problem comes from that fact. People have just miscalculations where it leads to.
Improvement of the poor should be compared to the national average of living not only to where they have been before.
Accumulation of wealth to particular folks and it's multiplying effects into several social issues is the most difficult spell to break. CG

Why would you gage the improvement of the poverty class against the middlelest class? If the UK is on par with the US, then the middlest class is investing, they have 401K's, some stock. They own houses. The poorest class is living pay check to pay check at this point. If in the capitalist society the poor have their needs taken care of, then there's no need for artificial measure's to make sure that everyone from the middle guy down is improving at the same pace.

The idea that the UK should be alarmed that the poor people don't have things that "other people enjoy" is ridiculous. That's classism at its finest, and doesn't foster a positive attitude for those living in the lower class to improve themselves. When cries for social welfare include providing wants and enjoyments, then your social welfare complex has gone beyond helping the poor out of poverty. Now you're just growing to the social welfare system for the sake of growing the social welfare system.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

If there was no high earning people (I'm glad you now admit that they earn that money) in the UK, what do you think the condition of the lower and middle income classes would be?

If there were no lower and middle income classes, what do you think the condition of the high earning people would be?

 

[amaterasu]

What Socialists seem to be always forgetting is that under Capitalism everybody gets richer, some people just get richer faster (hence the increasing gap). If they had their way the gap would be smaller, but everybody would be poor.

Erm, try plotting incomes aginst inflation and the cost of living, example, housing, the cost of housing increased ~250% on average in the UK< incomes did not match that nearly.

 

[Atlas14]

Who gives a crap about the economic divide, theres always the superior health care system to brag about.

 

[Urederra]

<snip> a relative poverty line, <snip>

What is that?




Relative to what?

 

[ComradeDavo]

If there was no high earning people (I'm glad you now admit that they earn that money) in the UK, what do you think the condition of the lower and middle income classes would be?

No one here is saying that there should be no high earners.

I have no problem with high earners if they pay a fair amount of tax, which at current they don't.

But they are not. The rich pay for their own lifestyles and pay their own taxes too thankyouverymuch.

It's official: MobBoss thinks money grows on trees!

I mean if he didn't think that then how else does he think people earn money?

 

[Atlas14]

No one here is saying that there should be no high earners.

I have no problem with high earners if they pay a fair amount of tax, which at current they don't.

Why should high earners be paying so much more tax than everyone else?

 

[ComradeDavo]

Why should high earners be paying so much more tax than everyone else?

Tax should be proportionate to earnings. At current low and middle class workers pay proportionatly more tax than high earners do.

Hence why I back a tax rise for high earners and a tax cut for everyone else.

 

[Atlas14]

Tax should be proportionate to earnings. At current low and middle class workers pay proportionatly more tax than high earners do.

Hence why I back a tax rise for high earners and a tax cut for everyone else.

I always thought it was structured to be proportionate to earnings At least here in US they do it by salary/family combined salaries.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Rambuchan listed a couple of very clear reasons.

Being poor is no longer defined as not being able to buy food and simple keeping yourself alive, but it's also being defined as not being able to develop yourself as a human being.

 

[Rambuchan]

Improvement of the poor should be compared to the national average of living not only to where they have been before.

I tend to agree, especially when technological change (and resulting standards of living) moves so rapidly these days.

To exaggerate the point, somewhat ridiculously, but to highlight the effect:

"Well you used to walk without any shoes. Now you've got shoes and a donkey to ride on. What are you whining about?" *drives off in gleaming ferrari*

Rambuchan, I don't believe this reflects anything more but bigger trend in way of living coming to current millenium and that most of the policies are completely inequal in competition towards the free market principles and also severely non-resistant to the meme I talk about below.

Aye, it's not really surprising. Whilst the economy here in general continues to grow, we shouldn't get complacent and lose sight of the consequences that will come alongside such a wealth divide. Namely, those you mention below and those I've highlighted from the report.

As long as we remain with this current global system, we shall need tempering of the extreme economic policies on either side of the debate.

The problem isn't with success but that the continuos success of particular group of people will lead into elitist society. Nobody is expecting superior equality but the effect over time like is that some people lose the chance of being succesful or it turns into matter of lottery ticket.

It doesn't have to anything to do with hard work or being brainy that leads to success but more likely that you need nice lottery ticket of life to get anywhere in certain conditions. This is the "american dream"-illusion. Some people believe all their life their life will be better mainly because of these ideological ideas. I bet europeans in general are almost totally immune to this brainywashy meme and that is why they consider some social programs to be quite important in their society.

I don't see that it creates incentives for certain people to try anything since their chance of success is so small compared to other people. In turn they decide they are better just live in small ways or give up entirely. I look this as severe handicap not only to invidual but also to society itself in general since people aren't able to fulfill their possibly potential. Just like hardcore socialism, uber capitalism doesn't create enough incentives to live your life in your fullest potential and maximum benefit for certain folks.

The idea that uber competition (and widening of the gap) creates the most succesful society in general is the biggest baloney I have heard. You need always balance in order to create incentives also to the less fortunate in order to make them even try. This leads also to less social turmoil example when it comes to immigrates.

It's no wonder poor immigrants have high crime rates, the simple reason is that the chance of success in other ways is extremely small and their option limited. It's simple game theory really.

More or less a decent summary there.

 

[Godwynn]

It's official: MobBoss thinks money grows on trees!

I mean if he didn't think that then how else does he think people earn money?

I don't understand this. Do you think the low wage earners are subsidizing the rich?

 

[Urederra]

It's official: MobBoss thinks money grows on trees!

Well, money doesn't but fruit does. And the ones who manage to grow more trees and find better ways to make the trees grow more fruit and harvest fruit more efficiently end up having more fruit.

Rambuchan listed a couple of very clear reasons.

Being poor is no longer defined as not being able to buy food and simple keeping yourself alive, but it's also being defined as not being able to develop yourself as a human being.

Were you replying to me?

So, did they change the definition of poor so now it is much broader and a poor person can own a TV and a car?, you know, for developing yourself as a human being.

Where is the line now? The iPod?

 

[Whomp]

Sometimes I'm curious how much detail goes into these figures.
Isn't the real issue mobility rather than income disparities?

A few things tend to skew these numbers.

How many workers in a household? Look at how many households have two
wage earners versus one. Overwhelmingly, two full time wage earners are wealthier than one wage earner.

Immigration trends? Wealthy countries have more incoming poor than poor countries. A Mexican immigrant will earn 6x as much in the US as they would in Mexico (assuming they can find the same job in Mexico) however they would fall into the bottom quartile in the US. Should the US subsidize Mexico? My perception is the numbers are similar for African and Asian immigrants to the UK.

Average age of wealth--It's getting older and older and the older people tend to reach higher and higher income levels. Twenty years ago peak earnings were between 35-44 and took home 2x people between 20-24 and now they earn 3x as much. The good news for me is that peak earnings are now 55-65 as people are working longer due to better health.

Investing--It's no wonder the wealthy are getting richer money begets more money and we've had a bull trend working on 25 years with hardly a breather. That's quite string of huge returns for those taking risks.
What is it? The globe is experiencing it's 5th straight year of 5&#37; growth?
That goes a long way towards wealth creation and rewards for risk taking.

 

[CartesianFart]

Well, money doesn't but fruit does. And the ones who manage to grow more trees and find better ways to make the trees grow more fruit and harvest fruit more efficiently end up having more fruit.

Unless you live in a third-world country, it doesn't matter if you grow the better fruit.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Were you replying to me?

No

So, did they change the definition of poor so now it is much broader and a poor person can own a TV and a car?, you know, for developing yourself as a human being.

Where is the line now? The iPod?

Oh is that sarcasm I smell?

I think we live in a society where any family should be able to afford a tv and a car yes. If it cannot, I'd have no objections to calling that family poor. Is that very odd?

And no, I'm not talking about wide screen tv's and BMW's.

 

[skadistic]

No
Oh is that sarcasm I smell?

I think we live in a society where any family should be able to afford a tv and a car yes. If it cannot, I'd have no objections to calling that family poor. Is that very odd?

And no, I'm not talking about wide screen tv's and BMW's.

So poor is not having a car or a TV? Aren't those luxuries? What about cable? Cigarettes? Booze? Internet? Computer?

 

[ComradeDavo]

I don't understand this. Do you think the low wage earners are subsidizing the rich?

Low and middle earners form the backbone of the economy that high earners get rich off. For this economy to function we need all three groups, so it's onyl fair all three groups pay fairly towards ensuring this economy maintains itself and grows...which it does via the wealfare state that keeps this country going strong.

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.

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.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

So poor is not having a car or a TV?

Didn;t say that, read more carefully.

Aren't those luxuries?

Yes they are.

How would you define a familly who is not able to afford any luxuries? All their money is spend on food and rent.

What about cable? Cigarettes? Booze? Internet? Computer?

What about them?

How do you define poor?