Inequality in Britain

[david_carnell]

No...it's not OK. Which is exactly what I said. But I clarified it as being something that doesn't mean that equality isn't something to dismiss because of the actions of 3 ex-ministers. The morals of lobbying are something I could talk at some length about (having been a lobbyist) but it's for another thread.

Where have you read that those are the two biggest winners....or are you guessing?

On the basis that you're not, my proposal for an increase in the NMW would target those most in need in society. When your time and effort is taken up with feeding and clothing your family (see the Mamora Man experiment of last year) attempting to advance yourself is not easy. I believe a couple of extra pounds per hour could help that.

As one of the middle-class white collar public sector workers that you seem obsessed and dismayed about, can I ask, with some degree of anger, what the fuck your problem is? Are you saying my work isn't useful or that I'm overpaid because neither is true. You want this job - have it. I don't get paid a great deal and if I get a few extra days holiday and maybe a decent pension in 40 years then I bloody earned them.

And as for "patronising handouts" - you're just trying to wind me up now, right? So Working Tax Credits that top up people's income, allowing them the dignity of returning to work after long term unemployment, is patronising is it?! Do some research before recycling tired cliches about the benefits system.

[Ladymuck]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Without massively redistributing wealth and assets

> (which is anyway both impractical and wrong IMO)

> an equalistaion of 'income' just retains the

> status quo as it removes the capability of those

> without wealth to accumulate it and instead rely

> on the patronising handouts from middle class

> bureacrats

Blimey ????, this almost sounds as though you are saying that any attempt to address income inequality is futile...which, interestingly, is similar to one of the views which emerged from the National Equality Panel Report.

And how does, for example, introducing a decent living wage (or increasing the woefully inadequate current minimum wage) "remove the capability of those without wealth to accumulate it"? Similarly, how would an increase in the minimum wage equate to a "patronising hand-out"? I don't see it like that at all.

[Brendan]

Annoyance at the exorbitant wealth of white collar, middle class public sector workers is understandable for someone who has lived in this area for a while and seen how these bastards have steadily been pushed out by bankers, lawyers, advertisers and other people from hard done by, discriminated against industries.

[Brendan]

Well LM here are some ideas,

Under this government millions of people on low incomes are forced to pay hundreds of pounds in income tax every year, keeping pensioners on the breadline and meaning that for many people in low paid jobs work simply doesn?t pay. Even a person working full-time earning minimum wage has nearly ?1000 taken in income tax. At the same time we have a tax system that lets big business and the very rich treat tax as if it is optional.

Somebody needs to radically rebalance the tax system, cutting taxes for people on low and middle incomes which will be paid for by cutting reliefs and closing tax loopholes that benefit the wealthiest.

If you raised the threshold at which people start paying income tax from current levels to ?10,000, cutting the average working age person?s income tax bill by ?700 and cutting pensioner?s income tax bills by ?100. These plans will mean that almost 4 million people on low incomes will no longer have to pay any income tax at all.

Now if only there was a political party that had these ideas and published them online so that I could copy and paste them over here.

[????]

DC/LM - er, who has said they're opposed to a minimum wage or a decent standard of living for the poorest? I certainly haven't. I'm in support of greater mobility - and a minimum wage doesn't do much to address that nor does a equality of earnings whatever that is and however that works, doesn't mean I don't support a miniumum wage just don't think it addresses the big issue here. In a decent society the poorest are looked after and given real opportunity to 'better' themselves if they so wish to...... not just the first. As I said at an absolute level an equalistation of income deprives them of that opportunity and tends to preserve the social status quo and keep wealt/asset holdings where it is....and that generally isn't with the true working class people of this country.

Brendan some of us have seen those poor pushed out people push out the more working class populations that lived here and similar places before if we really want to start a hierachy of rich(er) than me bastards being at fault for everything.

DC - I may have some different views to you but I don't know what you do and there was no intention to dig you out. I guess as I've seen before any asking of question around the Public Sector tends to get an emotive response rather than debate both here and out there....mmmmm. You do make rather alot of assumptions about my views regarding benefits (I'm in favour of them and have used them myself ) national minumum wage (no problem with) etc etc.

[Brendan]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Brendan some of us have seen those poor pushed out

> people push out the more working class populations

> that lived here and similar places before if we

> really want to start a hierachy of rich(er) than

> me bastards being at fault for everything.

That's not really what I was getting at. I was using an example to illustrate a point.

I really don't see these massive financial rewards in the public sector that you imply seem to exists.

The current government may have created many more jobs within the sector but they are not particularly well paid.

[david_carnell]

Brendan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Well LM here are some ideas,

>

> Under this government millions of people on low

> incomes are forced to pay hundreds of pounds in

> income tax every year, keeping pensioners on the

> breadline and meaning that for many people in low

> paid jobs work simply doesn?t pay. Even a person

> working full-time earning minimum wage has nearly

> ?1000 taken in income tax. At the same time we

> have a tax system that lets big business and the

> very rich treat tax as if it is optional.

>

> Somebody needs to radically rebalance the tax

> system, cutting taxes for people on low and middle

> incomes which will be paid for by cutting reliefs

> and closing tax loopholes that benefit the

> wealthiest.

>

> If you raised the threshold at which people start

> paying income tax from current levels to ?10,000,

> cutting the average working age person?s income

> tax bill by ?700 and cutting pensioner?s income

> tax bills by ?100. These plans will mean that

> almost 4 million people on low incomes will no

> longer have to pay any income tax at all.

Seconded.

[Ladymuck]

And add to that:

- either increase the national minimum wage (or introduce a living wage) - say, ?7.50

- re-vamp the education system so that high quality education becomes accessible to all irrespective of means

- overhaul current tax legislation so as to limit the amount of tax avoidance which takes place amongst the biggest of Corporations

- scrap the personal allowance for very high earners

- (possibly) look into introducing a maximum wage

[SeanMacGabhann]

Leaving aside any party politics for a moment and talking about "social mobility" - is this ever possible? To go back to the binmen/heart surgeon comparison, we need compratively few of the latter and a lot of the former (as time of writing - technology advances may yet see that change)

Now, no matter how many schemes you implement to increase social mobility, the bottom line is that MOST people will end up performing what are fairly badly paid jobs at present, surely? Everyone can in theory race for the prize, but only a minority will get it. And that's sort of ok, that's how it works

But what would balance that out is a narrowing (not elemiination!) of the gap between the winners and losers - both financially and to rid ourselves of the idea that most people on badly paid jobs somehow deserve that because they weren't ambitious enough or there isn't enough social mobility in the system

[Brendan]

I summed up your last paragraph a few days ago in one succinct sentence but alas, it disappeared into the ether.

[The Chair]

I removed that post as it was deemed unbecoming of someone from Surrey.

[Ladymuck]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But what would balance that out is a narrowing

> (not elemiination!) of the gap between the winners

> and losers - both financially and to rid

> ourselves of the idea that most people on badly

> paid jobs somehow deserve that because they

> weren't ambitious enough or there isn't enough

> social mobility in the system

There is evidence to show that economic equality is better for everyone. I.e. if the rich were that little bit poorer and the poor that little bit richer we would all be happier and healthier. Kate Pickett in her book The Spirit Level argues that the gap between rich and poor has a profound effect on a whole range of health and social problems. I.e. it isn't just a matter of A having more income than B.

I recall attending a lecture at the National Theatre by Alain de Botton a few years ago. The talk followed on from his book Status Anxiety but I remember he hit on this issue of winners and losers. The gist of the message was that the bigger the inequality of income within a society, the more status competition this breeds. This leads to status anxiety, which in turn leads to unhappiness.

Unhappiness can lead to mental and physical health problems, as well as resentment and social ills such as crime. I cannot help but feel that if our society were more equal (which would mean some of us living more moderate lives) that, not only would we be happier, but that many of the social problems that plague us daily would be reduced. Naive? Perhaps. It's just my view.

[david_carnell]

I agree LM. The desire to consume is unrelenting in modern society.

It is no longer just about keeping up with "the Jones's" but about being made to feel like unless you own a Bentley, a designer wardrobe and a huge house you have somehow failed in life. It's incredibly unhealthy. De-Botton's "status anxiety" sums it up nicely.

When the role models of so many of the young are Premiership footballers and glamour models, what hope is there? Trying to teach children about equality when footballers get paid hundred's of thousands of pounds a week is like Canut trying to turn back the tide.

[Ladymuck]

Brendan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I summed up your last paragraph a few days ago in

> one succinct sentence but alas, it disappeared

> into the ether.

I caught it in time...Chair is quite correct...

However, on reading it I found myself not only laughing, but also thinking how true!

[SteveT]

Where did you see/hear that ????, please?

On radio 4 this lunch time.

[Ladymuck]

SteveT Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Where did you see/hear that ????, please?

>

> On radio 4 this lunch time.

Have since viewed articles on this (see above) - but thanks all the same SteveT.

[Ladymuck]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> DC/LM - er, who has said they're opposed to a

> minimum wage or a decent standard of living for

> the poorest? I certainly haven't.

I wasn't, for one minute, suggesting that you were opposed to a minimum wage etc. My apologies if that's how I came across.

>I'm in support

> of greater mobility - and a minimum wage doesn't

> do much to address that...

Really ????? You don't believe that an increase in the minimum wage from ?5.80 per hour to, say, ?7.50 per hour might go some way (even if only a little) to improving social mobility? If the gap between the richest and poorest were bridged (not eliminated - as SeanM pointed out) thus enabling the poorest to move up the economic ladder rather than remain at the bottom of the social heap to be continually exploited by ruthless employers, don't you think such a situation would lend itself more readily towards improving social mobility?

[????]

Well, the evidence suggests not Lady M, as Labour introduced a miniumum wage (rightly I think) but social mobility has declined under Labour.

Social mobility is achieved by empowerement and enablement not handing 'down' some money to ease middleclass guilt. The labour party has been good at the latter and yes minimum wage and Family tax credits have made a real and positive difference to the poorest families and people. But the Labour party has done very little to help the very poorest escape from that position.

[????]

Table 5 is good for seeing which party clearly represents a relatively narrow and pretty middleclass interest group....I can say no more as this isn't debatable in my experience. This is 2005 too I think the latest data is even more skewed

Background of MPs 2005

[Brendan]

The more I think about it the more I realise that this ?It?s not equality, it?s mobility? argument is a red herring. (Which is my drawing room way of saying, bollocks.)

The two things are one in the same or at least intrinsically inseparable. The reason there is limited mobility is because of the gross inequality.

But you won?t get many people to agree to that because it means they will actually have to be honest with themselves and (depending on how self absorbed/short sighted they are) admit that it isn?t all fine just because they?re fine or that they are holding onto an ideological position because of their own need/desire to feel superior to others.

[????]

Alright Brendan let's share everything,,,,go on you start, or you can just hold dear some self-assuring guilt reducing 'belief' that you're ok because you 'believe' in equality.

[Brendan]

I know it may seem that way but when making observations about people?s characters I am not making some sort of assertion about my own.

[Ladymuck]

Brendan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ...this ?It?s not equality, it?s mobility? argument

> is a red herring...The two things are one in the same or at least

> intrinsically inseparable. The reason there is

> limited mobility is because of the gross

> inequality...

Absolutely! See later post.

[????]

Well. Can someone tell me eaxctly what this 'equality' thing is please then? Or is it just a vague progressive concept that everyone decent says matters? "An equal Britain" ....what is that?

[Ladymuck]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Well, the evidence suggests not Lady M, as Labour

> introduced a miniumum wage (rightly I think) but

> social mobility has declined under Labour.

????, the fact that social mobility may have declined (or at least - stagnated) is not in dispute. However, you cannot ignore the fact that, the reason for this would have to have been as a direct consequence of the serious matter of inequality in Britain in that the gap between rich and poor is widening: the two are inextricably linked. Hence this thread's title: The National Equality Panel Report concludes that Britain has become more unequal since 1997. So do we agree on this at least?

I would take issue with your comment that social mobility has declined under Labour though. This is because, in order to measure social mobility we have to allow for generations to pass. Hence it is unfair to lay the blame at the door of Labour given that it would take at least some 32 or so years to determine how socially mobile society has become. So, if we wish to apportion blame (not that I believe that such an exercise is helpful) then we need to go back some 32 years or so which is when the Conservatives were in power. I found this article to be quite informative.

> Social mobility is achieved by empowerement and

> enablement not handing 'down' some money to ease

> middleclass guilt. The labour party has been good

> at the latter and yes minimum wage and Family tax

> credits have made a real and positive difference

> to the poorest families and people. But the Labour

> party has done very little to help the very

> poorest escape from that position.

I am a little confused by your statements. On the one hand you state: "Social mobility is achieved by empowerement and

enablement not handing 'down' some money to ease middleclass guilt". You then say: "...and yes minimum wage and Family tax credits have made a real and positive difference to the poorest families and people...". Unless I have completely missed something, these two statements conflict with one another.

I do not believe that fiscal measures by the Government are introduced in order to "ease middle class guilt". The commitment to extra resources is to assist the most financially deprived and to help make going to work pay. In the case of the National Minimum Wage, this was introduced to stem exploitation of vulnerable employees...and in that sense it has been a relative success. Notwithstanding this, ?5.73 per hour for an adult is (in my view) insufficient and further measures are required - one reason why I would push for a decent living wage (amongst other measures - as this by itself would not solve economic inequality and the subsequent social immobility attached to it). The document Beyond the minimum: A Briefing from the Scottish Living Wage Campaign, which although is specific to Scotland, makes interesting reading. This paragraph, in particular, struck a chord with me:

"Whilst low pay remains a persistent feature of the Scottish and UK economy, wealth and income inequalities have increased. A recent report highlighted that over the last 20 years incomes in the UK have become increasingly polarised. Some do not see this as a problem, as long as poverty is being tackled. However there is increasing evidence that greater levels of income inequality are harmful to society in general. Ensuring that more workers receive a living wage will not end income inequality, but it will provide some justice for those who work in essential jobs, ones that everyone relies on, but which few people value".