Wednesday, Jan 27, 2010
Labour's Legacy
BBC News: Rich-poor divide 'wider than 40 years ago'
The gap between rich and poor in the UK is wider now than 40 years ago, a government-commissioned report says.
Posted by need-a-crash @ 09:24 AM (1526 views) Add Comment
39 Comments
- If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
- If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
- Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
- Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
- Please adhere to the Guidelines
1. inbreda said...
The "property haves" and the "property have nots that have to be taxed in order to bail out the irresponsible speculation of the property haves".
All seems like a failr labour legacy. Along with an illegal war. hundreds of thousands dead. and the dome. and expenses scandals.
Do you think they're proud of what they've achieved?
2. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.
3. matt_the_hat said...
We must be one of the first generation where the knowledge of our elders is irrelivent in this modern technological world. Generation x has little to learn from generation babyboomer and if we decide not to take their paper then we will see who has the real 'wealth' in this new world.
4. letthemfall said...
matt
You sound like a teenager when you talk like that.
The most profound conclusion from this report (taking a quick look) is that the differences within groups are greater than between. That highlights starkly the disparities in wealth, independent of qualifications, ability and all that stuff. We've seen the kinds of ridiculous earnings certain parts of the population receive, notably the bankers. Assuming one cannot legislate to limit salaries, the answer is to adjust the tax system to break this steady transfer of wealth into the hands of a shrinking minority - who incidentally are not all baby boomers.
5. mark wadsworth said...
LTF "Assuming one cannot legislate to limit salaries, the answer is to adjust the tax system to break this steady transfer of wealth into the hands of a shrinking minority - who incidentally are not all baby boomers."
Sounds like a job for Land Value Tax Man :)
6. mr g said...
A large percentage of people in this country are taken in by the cult of celebrity thus allowing talentless individuals to earn fortunes, rather like bankers, now I think about it.
Whilst I have no issue with people making money and prospering by legitimate and genuinely productive methods, these parasites simply line their own pockets whist widening the gap between rich and poor.
7. the number cruncher said...
Labour have sold themselves to the Devil. Tony Blair made a pact with the very wealthy that they could hold on to their wealth and expand it - they have put up income tax so they can decrease the taxes of capital gains for the very rich. And all the time benefited from increasing borrowing to expand the economy to fund social spending.
As Mark tells us what we should be doing is taxing the wealth of mother nature not the work of man(Land Value Tax and direct tax on fuel and minerals) to fund social and infrastructural spending
We have followed American economic policy in this process and I have less faith that the Tories will be doing anything different, if anything they will make the poor and middle income earners pay during this recession by cutting support to the very poorest in society and increasing taxes on the middle income earners even more than labour will do. The Tories will complete the cycle so that the very wealthy can profit from the boom, but it is the poor and middle earners who pay for the bust. Heads they win and tales we loose
Just because you hate Labour's policies do not fool yourselves that the Tories are the antidote to the problems that labour created. The other political options of the future are even more unpalatable especially with the growing National Socialist and economic libertarian pact (often disguising themselves under a banner of anti Europe Union movements) gaining support from the angry and disaffected.
I see fascism rising and the trojan horse the fascists are using will be a referendum on European membership as a solution to our economic crisis. This will be well funded by transatlantic financial interests to disguise their role in the economic problems we face.
8. letthemfall said...
Pretty much agree with mark w, mr g and number cruncher
However, I do think there should be progressive income tax too. The question of how one values an individual's work is not easy, but I cannot see how these very large incomes are justified, even when they are not bankers, footballers and all the other overpaid flotsam of our age. Some people get fabulously rich by floating businesses, handing themselves a fat wad of shares in the company and selling them off. Now the argument is that they have created this wealth, but that is only partly true: so have those others who worked for the business. Enterprise and risk does merit reward, but not arbitrarily large rewards. Progressive taxation can restrict this.
There are off course further arguments over the intrinsic value of any enterprise. How much value did some of those web entrepreneurs really create for the long term, especially when compared against, say, teachers?
9. tenant super said...
MW,
'Sounds like a job for Land Value Tax Man'
Being increasingly convinced by your arguments for LVT and moving to (thanks to shipbuilder) the Geo-libertarian position, what do you think the chances are of LVT being implemented in the foreseeable future? Be honest!
Before examining the LVT and geo-lib position, my answer to the failings of property theory when applied to a limited resource like land was high inheritance tax (seeing as the dead cannot be aggressed against) on land/ property assets but look at how politically unpopular this is.
My fear with LVT would be the corresponding reduction in other tax you suggest on your blog, would gradually creep back up again and average people will end up with a tax burden worse than ever before. My second fear is in respect of your argument that it will be in the council's interest to boost values by increasing policing, maintaining a pleasant environment etc. However, I disagree this will work in urban areas. If the local government has the brains to link resource allocation to better tax revenue (which in itself I doubt) they will concentrate on areas with the best potential to be improved, not those areas which most need it. Take Southwark. Dulwich village will always be affluent due to the demography. They would write Peckham and Walworth off as beyond redemption and given the level of worklessness and tax exemption would withdraw resources even further to put them in places like East Dulwich, Borough and Nunhead which are undergoing gentrification. It is like the teacher told to concentrate on the C/D borderline students as this is what affects the league tables. A grade Students like Dulwich don't need help and E grade students like Peckham are beyond help!
10. Crunchy said...
BBC News: Rich-poor divide 'wider than 40 years ago'
That's what happens when you rob a generation to prop up another.
BBC, you played a large part in this heist.
11. doggett said...
The title of this thread would seem to indicate a certain political bias, not to say a self-deluding naivety, on the part of the original poster.
Thirty years ago the Right came to power in the UK and set about governing according to their beliefs. And when they got booted out we then ended up with Blair and his lads, who carried on in much the same vein (they don't call it 'Blatcherism' for nothing), although admittedly with their own unique brand of incompetence.
So what we got was what right-wing policies are designed to allow, inequality.
If that's your political persuasion then what's your problem? And if you don't like the results, then deal with it by re-examining your politics, not by trying to shoehorn reality into a distorted vision of the world that you're more comfortable with.
12. Neilb said...
@matt I agree. The best way to kick the boomers in the b**s is to not buy their massively over priced properties. They only have capital as long as someone is daft enough to buy the house off them.
13. tenant super said...
Doggett,
There was an interesting article in yesterday's Telegraph entitled ' Britain has grown more conservative under Labour'
Britain has become a more conservative country in the past two decades, both politically and socially, an official study of public attitudes shows. For the first time in 20 years more members of the public consider themselves Tory voters than Labour, according to the NatCen British Social Attitudes survey, which has been conducted annually since 1983. The study concludes that Britons have become more conservative in their views towards welfare and benefits since Labour was elected in 1997, with a majority believing that the poor should do more to look after themselves. The public has concluded "enough is enough" for increased taxation and raised spending on key services such as health and education, with support at its lowest for almost three decades. "
I think the participants on this site cover a fairly wide range of the political spectrum. What is interesting that whilst there is disagreement about wealth redistribution per se, most are in agreement about needing to remove the distortions in the housing market and let it correct as is happening in other countries around the world.
14. mark wadsworth said...
Tenant: "Being increasingly convinced by your arguments for LVT and moving to (thanks to shipbuilder) the Geo-libertarian position, what do you think the chances are of LVT being implemented in the foreseeable future? Be honest!"
In the real world, nil, because most parties are chasing the Home-Owner-ist vote (60% of the electorate). If one party managed to unite the Geo-Libertarian vote (i.e. most of the other 40%) then they'd be in with a fighting chance; seeing as the 60% HO vote is split three or four ways. In my last Fun Online Poll, eighty per cent voted to replace Council Tax, Stamp Duty, Inheritance Tax etc with a flat 1% property value tax (a bit like old Domestic Rates), which is a good start, I suppose.
15. matt_the_hat said...
8. letthemfall - "The question of how one values an individual's work is not easy, but I cannot see how these very large incomes are justified, even when they are not bankers, footballers and all the other overpaid flotsam of our age".
It is interesting to note the correlation between different occupations in terms of the direct link between the labour of an individual and the effect on a comapnies balance sheets. Bankers have a daily record of the profits they bring to their organistion, so too salesmen - accountants, lawyers, are normally assessed on the time 'booked' and their charge out rate. Footballers - goals scored/conceded merchandise sold, GP's contracts (to some degree). It is interesting to note that when the direct link is broken - bin men, shop assistants, engineers in large projects, doctors in casuality, receptionists, civil servants - the salaries do not reflect the individuals work.
Then when your parents told you to "reap what you sow", they didn't tell you to do so in a profession where the crops are clearly outlined as yours!
16. tenant super said...
If one party managed to unite the Geo-Libertarian vote...
Probably very difficult. Even if that 40% agree on ethics of land use and support a LVT the party still has to have policies about education, law and order, income tax etc. and there is likely to be enough unity in these areas. Most people (55%) support leaving the EU but UKIP won't win a general election. However, as increasing numbers of desperate young people have no housing solution, they may vote for a party who promised to resolve this even if they couldn't stomach some of their other policies.
If the limp dims listened to the enlightened words of Saint Vincent and introduced policies to pop the bubble, liberalise planning laws and introduce LVT, I'd vote for them even though most of their other fiscal policies are an absolutely abhorrent to me.
17. rumble said...
Sounds a bit like promising the hopefuls of a home for everyone, at the same time as increasing HPs for home owners. United voting.
18. rumble said...
I expect that until voting takes us as close as possible to ground zero, at which point there'll be no fear of upsetting the cart and losing votes, there will only be superficial tweaks.
19. letthemfall said...
mattthe: "...they didn't tell you to do so in a profession where the crops are clearly outlined as yours!"
Is this "What's my line?"
I would question the use of profits/turnover as a true measure of value. Those have much to do with economic rent - the amount society as a whole transfers to these occupations. This has little to do with value. One good thing about banking is that that activity has shown the irrelevance of value to reward. As for footballers, Bobby Charlton still outshines any of the current crop, and he only got paid £20 a week
20. tenant super said...
It is an interesting question about true value. I do not assign any value to an X Factor Singer but they have a good deal more money than I do. Paris Hilton's Diary sold more copies than the last book I bought on assisted suicide and euthanasia but the latter is clearly a more valuable contribution to knowledge. Zuckerburg hasn't changed the world but lots of people want to use his product. Similarly Farmville sells something that doesn't really exist (bits of data in the form of farmville cash) but there is some demand for it. Monetary value and intrinsic or cultural value are not directly linked because so much depends on demand.
Also, when calculating intrinsic value should we take into account the rarity of requisite ability for entering that profession. When it comes to teachers, the entry requirements are not particularly high (even though it is a demanding job) compared to say a neuro-radiologist, so it is right a neuro-radiologist earns more than a teacher. Teachers are actually fairly well paid, especially, as my sister (a deputy head) points out, they don't have childcare costs for after school and school holidays once the kids reach school age. I’ve only ever had 4 school teachers who provided significant ‘value’, the rest were rubbish.
If I would posit an equation about wealth it would contain L for luck, S for station of birth, A for ability and C for how much you care about acquiring money. I have chosen a path that gives me the most satisfaction not the most money. Part of that choice was forgoing another endeavour which may have had less inherent value but where I could have earned much more. I appreciate I am lucky to have had some choice.
Value is a slippy term. It can mean simply price, but it also means worth, importance, significance according to my thesaurus. But how do you define importance? Obviously Paris Hilton’s life is more important and more valuable than the ethics of euthanasia to several million people. I disagree with them but they are free to appropriate their money according to their values and buy her book.
21. matt_the_hat said...
20. tenant super - I assume you have a TV license QED
22. matt_the_hat said...
19. letthemfall - when exactly did you lose your job in the banking industry?
23. tenant super said...
Yes... a tax by another name that is forcing me to pay for something I don't value (the BBC). £12 per month is a lot to pay for re-runs of Poirot and Morse (both ITV and I have them on DVD anyway) and to run Mr TS's PS3 which are the only reasons I have a TV. The only thing we watch on BBC from time to time is countryfile!
Though I don't entirely get your point but might just be being a div in that respect.
24. letthemfall said...
matty
Never worked in banking - perish the thought - silly boy. I doubt I'd be quite so critical of them if I had.
25. letthemfall said...
TS
Actually there have been a few decent programmes on the BBC lately - and I get really annoyed with the rubbish they put on. Don't you find Countryfile a bit frilly nowadays? Blue Peter presenters get everywhere these days.
26. tenant super said...
LTF. Ah good.. something we agree on! It is well-known that programme makers are abandoning quality drama for 'reality' formats, chat shows and other studio based programmes which are much cheaper to make. Countryfile is getting frilly. Since it moved time slots, the format has got worse with bottom of the barrel presenters. Except for John Craven. I like John Craven. There coverage of Foot and Mouth and BSE was outstanding so it'll be good to see next time there is a major rural news item, whether they can do the same.
27. inbreda said...
at last a situation where I appear to be better off!!
We do get the BBC, but I don't watch it. But then, I don't pay the licence fee. They ask for it, but I don't pay it and there's nothing they can do. It's an english tax and therefore not applicable in the channel islands:
http://www.thisisguernsey.com/2010/01/27/tv-licence-is-a-tax-and-thats-why-george-will-not-pay-it/
28. rumble said...
An unnecessary yet compulsory public service. The thing should have been boycotted by the entire country a long time ago.
29. vacuouspolitician said...
"Labour's Legacy"
Surely 'New Labour and Conservative legacy'.
This country is crying out for REAL change not just see-saw politics.
Can the young mobilise themselves and make the change?
30. mr g said...
@29 "Can the young mobilise themselves and make the change?"
Young or old, most people in this country have their heads up their a*se or are so wrapped up in the celeb culture that couldn't organise a p*ss up in a brewery, let alone mobilise and change things.
31. rumble said...
What Vacuous and Mr G said! The labour/conservative see-saw/pendulum needs to be disrupted.
32. vacuouspolitician said...
Watch out you might suffer the wrath of the clique. You know you can't express views on here...it's just not the way of the London elite...it's just not cricket old chap! lol
33. mr g said...
VP@32 "Watch out you might suffer the wrath of the clique."
Could you expand on that please,
Do we agree that HPC is very similar to a gentleman's club or, if put another way, you don't belong to the magic, sorry inner circle, then your views don't count?
34. vacuouspolitician said...
There are still some decent people on this site. They've quite clearly seen through the fog which all governments seem to create. I also like the fact that everyone can still express a point of view. I used to read HPC in it's early days - mainly as a source of gathering info on the stupidity of rising house prices.
...however I can now see that there are a few deeply disturbing attitudes on this site. Some people 'telling' people what to think and what to say. Don't post this ...or that. Being rude and patronising. A clear favourite with the elite - "I think you are missing the point"!!! Labelling people Left, Right, Bulls, Bears, Libs, Labs, Cons, Socialists, Fascists...blah blah blah it's all b@llocks to pigeon-hole people. We are all individuals on this site - yet there seems to be a hierarchy developing. As somebody put it recently there are people on here who are rubbing their greedy mitts in the hope that they can pick up some bargains at knockdown prices...some people crowing about what they've got etc...people scoffing that average people are all suckers and that they are the chosen few. What these people don't realise is if we continue to get a breakdown of society there will be no place for them to hide unless they go and live on the moon. There is a nasty stench on this site...and it's no wonder someone as intelligent as Jonathan Davis walked away from this site.
35. rumble said...
Actually, Mr G, a few days ago a few of us mentioned a bank run - am I mistaken or has that thread vanished?
36. mr g said...
Rumble@35 re. bank run:
I'm still game for this but how do we organise it?
37. rumble said...
Well, not here if they censor such threads!
38. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.
39. rumble said...
Ok, so we're allowed to organise a bank run... cool... some fun at last! I think it's a civil form of protest to highlight who is really in control, both to those who think they are, and to those who don't realize they are.