Wealth and income extremes hurt us all in the end

[la gran siete]

pretty much says it all for me

The cost of inequality: How Wealth and Income Extremes Hurt Us All

 

[Phil57]

Not hurting me, l'm happy with my lot, though I could always make use of more.

 

[captainarchive]

Not hurting me, l'm happy with my lot, though I could always make use of more.

It is hurting you you just don't realise it.

 

[Ste7en]

Well, I guess they have to justify all the spam emails and pirate attacks

 

[Deleted member 13294]

How would I be hurt if someone else is earning 10x what I do?

In any case, the article is simply wrong with statements like this. " In the UK inequality is rapidly returning to levels not seen since the time of Charles Dickens."

In fact inequality has fallen at its fastest ever level under the coalition government.

Not that LGS cares about facts though.

 

[Deleted member 293381]

Facts?

Britain is now one of the most unequal countries in the 'developed' world as far as income is concerned and the inequality gets worse as time moves on.

Average pay for a CEO of a large company is about £4.5 million while the average pay for a worker is about £27,000. To break the average pay income down further:

Top 0.1% = £1 million
Top 1% = £275,000
Top 10% = £80,000
The rest (90%) = £13,000

Big difference.

 

[la gran siete]

neither am i but then my name isn't Jack either

 

[Greg Hook]

I wonder how many thousands of pounds of people's donations Oxfam spent doing that.

 

[Deleted member 13294]

Facts?

Britain is now one of the most unequal countries in the 'developed' world as far as income is concerned and the inequality gets worse as time moves on.

Simply untrue Alan.

It's official: The rich are getting poorer and inequality is falling
The gap between the rich and the poor is falling due to changes in taxes and benefits, official figures have revealed.

The Office of National Statistics (ONS) report confirms George Osborne's assurances that he is hitting the rich as hard as the poor, but it may prove difficult for left-wing campaigners to accept.

The report found a fall in income inequality between 2010 and 2012, driven in part by falling earnings among higher income households and changes in tax and benefits.

An increase in the income tax personal allowance and changes to national insurance contributions and child tax credits appeared to close the gap between the top and bottom fifths of the population.

Backed up by the internationally accepted GINI coefficient showing that inequality has fallen at its fastest ever level.

You can point to exceptions such as the uber-rich all you like, but those are accounted for in the GINI coefficient and it still shows inequality falling.

 

[Phil57]

neither am i but then my name isn't Jack Either

Who's Jack Either?

 

[captainarchive]

Simply untrue Alan.

It's official: The rich are getting poorer and inequality is falling
The gap between the rich and the poor is falling due to changes in taxes and benefits, official figures have revealed.

The Office of National Statistics (ONS) report confirms George Osborne's assurances that he is hitting the rich as hard as the poor, but it may prove difficult for left-wing campaigners to accept.

The report found a fall in income inequality between 2010 and 2012, driven in part by falling earnings among higher income households and changes in tax and benefits.

An increase in the income tax personal allowance and changes to national insurance contributions and child tax credits appeared to close the gap between the top and bottom fifths of the population.

Backed up by the internationally accepted GINI coefficient showing that inequality has fallen at its fastest ever level.

You can point to exceptions such as the uber-rich all you like, but those are accounted for in the GINI coefficient and it still shows inequality falling.

Although that report talks about the gap falling, there is still a gap and it's much more pronounced than it used to be. The report also says the fall will be reversed by 2017.

 

[hippo99]

Although that report talks about the gap falling, there is still a gap and it's much more pronounced than it used to be. The report also says the fall will be reversed by 2017.

Also says, surprise surprise, the poorest pay more tax overall than the rich

That's not an inequality is it?

 

[Deleted member 13294]

Although that report talks about the gap falling, there is still a gap and it's much more pronounced than it used to be. The report also says the fall will be reversed by 2017.

You can't see the contradiction in your own statement?

It is falling, but is much more pronounced?

How can these two statements be reconciled?

 

[captainarchive]

You can't see the contradiction in your own statement?

It is falling, but is much more pronounced?

How can these two statements be reconciled?

The gap is wider today than it used to be in the 1960's. That good enough?

 

[Deleted member 13294]

The gap is wider today than it used to be in the 1960's. That good enough?

Nope.

It has fallen over the last few years, and is continuing to fall. And at its fastest ever level too.

The OP was saying that wealth extremes hurt us (although I disagree with that premise). Even if it is true, what more can we ask for than equality to be falling faster than it ever has?

 

[hippo99]

You can't see the contradiction in your own statement?

It is falling, but is much more pronounced?

How can these two statements be reconciled?

Eg gap in 1960s between rich & poor was £1m.
Gap in 2010 was £200m.
Gap in 2014 is £195m

The gap is falling but much more pronounced than in the 1960s (these are made up numbers btw).

Does this reconcile the statement for you?

We can ask for the gap to continue falling, unfortunately the report also says the trend will reverse in 2017, ie the gap will start increasing again.

 

[Deleted member 13294]

Eg gap in 1960s between rich & poor was £1m.
Gap in 2010 was £200m.
Gap in 2014 is £195m

The gap is falling but much more pronounced than in the 1960s (these are made up numbers btw).

Does this reconcile the statement for you?

Report also says the trend will reverse in 2017, ie the gap will start increasing again.

But the gap is much less than it was in 1586, so you are wrong. See what adding a completely irrelevant timescale does to your post?

See my previous post about the relevance of the figure now vs the 60s. I don't care what the gap was 50 years ago. Even if I did, it is an absolute and incontrovertible fact that the poorest 20% today are much, much better off in pretty much every way you can measure than the poorest 20% of the mid 60s.

 

[hippo99]

Ok forget about the 60s

2013
CEO £4.5m
Worker £27k

2014
CEO 4.45m
Worker £27k

It may be falling, but the CEO is still being paid 1,667 times more than his average worker. Is he really worth 1,667 times more than each of his workers?

Also, why are you ignoring (for the 3rd time) that your report says the inequality gap will increase again from 2017?

 

[Deleted member 13294]

Ok forget about the 60s

2013
CEO £4.5m
Worker £27k

2014
CEO 4.45m
Worker £27k

It may be falling, but the CEO is still being paid 1,667 times more than his average worker. Is he really worth 1,667 times more than each of his workers?

Also, why are you ignoring (for the 3rd time) that your report says the inequality gap will increase again from 2017?

Inequality is not just about the top 0.001% vs the rest. So I don't care what the CEO gets compared to his workers. The internationally accepted measure of inequality is much wider than that. The internationally accepted measure of poverty is also much wider (less than 60% of the average wage I think).

All these measures are bunkum. Relative measures simply do not work. In the recession poverty decreased because average wages fell behind. Does it make sense to anyone that the whole country getting poorer decreases poverty?

All I care about is absolute poverty and measures around that. And in that area, people today are much much better off than those from the 1960s.

I'm not ignoring anything about 2017. I simply think it is irrelevant as none of us know who will be in government then or what they may to do taxes and benefits. Let alone what will happen with the wider economy.

 

[Deleted member 13294]

What is it that you are failing to understand? You've provided a link to a two year old article that indicates a record fall in inequality. What is the state of income inequality today? There's a lot of articles around indicating the gap is widening.

Then find and quote them. I've provided the most recent official figures. Find some that show they are wrong.

Of course things will change at some point. It may be 2017, it may be happening right now.

When it does, I'll say again that I don't put much stock in any relative measures of poverty and I don't care one little bit about inequality. That really is the politics of envy as far as I'm concerned. If the chief exec of my employer makes 100s of times what I do, then good for him. If I work hard and do well, maybe I can cut that multiple.

If that multiple widens, then how does that hurt me? If his pay was reduced to zero, how does that help my pay packet?

 

[Sonic67]

Isn't this in the wrong forum? As the OP knows. Looks like once again a thread created after a bit of googling so he can sit back and watch.

 

[Orson]

Isn't this in the wrong forum? As the OP knows. Looks like once again a thread created after a bit of googling so he can sit back and watch.

As much as I wanted to shunt this to the political forum for it to die a slow death, I couldn't bring myself to call a poorly written article from a publication called 'The Somaliland Sun' politics.

And I'm sure the OP is a regular reader of such a well known and respected publication, and has obviously been considering the implications of the article for some time, given that it was published 16 months ago. That's the only reason I can think of to link to it now...

 

[Sonic67]

Perhaps the OP might find a ten year old article from the Central African Republic on socialism tomorrow?

 

[la gran siete]

As much as I wanted to shunt this to the political forum for it to die a slow death, I couldn't bring myself to call a poorly written article from a publication called 'The Somaliland Sun' politics.

And I'm sure the OP is a regular reader of such a well known and respected publication, and has obviously been considering the implications of the article for some time, given that it was published 16 months ago. That's the only reason I can think of to link to it now...

Its not how well it was written but the basic message, that matters and a 16 month gap is not long enough to make it irrelevant .Fact is there is a serious problem which kid affecting not only ourselves but several prominent nations and if it doesnt get addressed we will inevitably incur serious consequences , both social and economic. The last time there was such huge wealth gap as exists now was just before the great depression ,so i think that speaks for itself.
Too much wealth in too few pockets is a serious threat to democracy as well as multibillionaires with their excessive power seek to influence governments /political parties for their own ends.Is it any wonder that one of this governments major financial backers is also heavily involved in Wonga , the loan sharks with the outrageous interests rates often targeting the pokers amongst us .Easy credit hurts the poor and only favours the rich
i use the USA as a good example being as they are the foremost capitalist nation , but during the 20s the richest with their excessive wealth, were buying properties abroad and luxury goods precious little of which helped the USA economy . The fact of the matter ,and as Henry Ford once noted, its the lower to mid income group that tend to generate economies and create wealth through demand whereas the richest tend to invest,save, speculate on property or money. Obviously it doesn't take a genius to see that if the lower incomes groups earnings stagnate whilst the richest shove their money away in whichever tax haven ,then we have a problem that will inevitably affect all of us eventually
Between 1946 and 1980 the USA economy worked at its best because the lower income groups gained more wealth as result of government policy and effective unionisation.The rich also got richer but much slower.The neo conservative policies which have taken place since then, have effectively eroded the great American dream to the extent that it no longer exists for the majority of its people whilst bankers, the very people who create or make nothing, have gorged themselves to unprecedented levels

 

[captainarchive]

Then find and quote them. I've provided the most recent official figures. Find some that show they are wrong.

Of course things will change at some point. It may be 2017, it may be happening right now.

When it does, I'll say again that I don't put much stock in any relative measures of poverty and I don't care one little bit about inequality. That really is the politics of envy as far as I'm concerned. If the chief exec of my employer makes 100s of times what I do, then good for him. If I work hard and do well, maybe I can cut that multiple.

If that multiple widens, then how does that hurt me? If his pay was reduced to zero, how does that help my pay packet?

It's not about envy, if the wealthy continue to get wealthy it'll have an adverse effect on the economy. If the disparity between the rich and not rich becomes too great it'll be a disincentive for the rest of us to work hard becasue we'll never earn enough to progress and the wealthy won't want to work hard because they already own the Country's wealth. They will then have to force people to work and working people will become enslaved. It might not happen in our lifetime but at the rate the rich are accumulating wealth it could happen during our childrens lifetime.