Rich-poor divide 'wider than 40 years ago'
Discussion
Rich-poor divide 'wider than 40 years ago'
I, regrettably, voted Labour in '97, not because I opposed Major, but because I felt like this was a problem that needed addressing.
"New Labour believes in a society where we do not simply pursue our own individual aims but where we hold many aims in common and work together to achieve them. How we build the industry and employment opportunities of the future; how we tackle the division and inequality in our society..." ~ 1997 Labour Manifesto
I, regrettably, voted Labour in '97, not because I opposed Major, but because I felt like this was a problem that needed addressing.
"New Labour believes in a society where we do not simply pursue our own individual aims but where we hold many aims in common and work together to achieve them. How we build the industry and employment opportunities of the future; how we tackle the division and inequality in our society..." ~ 1997 Labour Manifesto
Puggit said:
Sadly Labour's method for removing the gap, is to reduce the standing of those above the bottom rung.
Of course, they should be helping those on the bottom rung climb up the ladder...
Realistically how can they help the bottom without taking from those at the top? Ladders cost money.Of course, they should be helping those on the bottom rung climb up the ladder...
Who ever was interviewing Harriet Harman on this subject this morning on the Today programme gave her a ridiculously easy ride. Quiet how labour are still justifying the huge quantities of money thrown into projects with no appreciable benefit is beyond me; nor their ability still to blame the tories who havent been in power for 13 years...
Surely this is inevitable if a country grows. One bloke earns £10k a year and another £15k. They both get pay rises that work out to 100% over the years. Now one is on £20k a year and the other on £30k, a gap twice as large as it was before.
If this is true then Labour having been indirectly addressing the issue of the rich-poor divide. Their efforts over the last decade-and-a-bit might well see the gap close up a bit.
If this is true then Labour having been indirectly addressing the issue of the rich-poor divide. Their efforts over the last decade-and-a-bit might well see the gap close up a bit.
A two fold problem really both connected.
It is a failure of the education system and in the aspirations of many poor youngsters.
In education the problem is not money any more but in discipline. Labour's only contribution here has been to make the situation worse by making it harder for schools to exclude disruptive pupils and educating children unsuitable for 'normal' schools in them in the name of 'inclusion'.
As for aspiration, why would you see the value of improving yourself if the state subsidises so generously those who choose not to work as a life style choice?
It is a failure of the education system and in the aspirations of many poor youngsters.
In education the problem is not money any more but in discipline. Labour's only contribution here has been to make the situation worse by making it harder for schools to exclude disruptive pupils and educating children unsuitable for 'normal' schools in them in the name of 'inclusion'.
As for aspiration, why would you see the value of improving yourself if the state subsidises so generously those who choose not to work as a life style choice?
gingerpaul said:
Surely this is inevitable if a country grows. One bloke earns £10k a year and another £15k. They both get pay rises that work out to 100% over the years. Now one is on £20k a year and the other on £30k, a gap twice as large as it was before.
If this is true then Labour having been indirectly addressing the issue of the rich-poor divide. Their efforts over the last decade-and-a-bit might well see the gap close up a bit.
But the gap is also subject to inflation so the £10k is far less in real terms.If this is true then Labour having been indirectly addressing the issue of the rich-poor divide. Their efforts over the last decade-and-a-bit might well see the gap close up a bit.
The "inequality gap" is a socialist red herring. In a successful economy, where everyone is getting wealthier, the gap between rich and poor will get wider. That's just the way it is.
The only way to reduce this "inequality" is to take money from the rich and give it to the poor. This is sometimes referred to as "wealth distribution". You and I know it better as "high taxes".
High taxes for the "rich" reduce the willingness of the wealth creators (i.e. the bloody successful people in society!) to take risks, and we all get poorer. If that's what you want, vote socialist.
The only way to reduce this "inequality" is to take money from the rich and give it to the poor. This is sometimes referred to as "wealth distribution". You and I know it better as "high taxes".
High taxes for the "rich" reduce the willingness of the wealth creators (i.e. the bloody successful people in society!) to take risks, and we all get poorer. If that's what you want, vote socialist.
The trouble is no journos (with the exception of the excellent More or Less) delve into why this is.
I would suspect that almost everyone is a lot richer than they were, but the richest have got much richer.
It's like when they talk about "ending poverty". Except that in the UK, poverty is defined as "household income below 60 percent of median income". Hence every time someone rich gets a pay rise, someone moves in to poverty. Kind of hard to end poverty judged by those criteria.
I would suspect that almost everyone is a lot richer than they were, but the richest have got much richer.
It's like when they talk about "ending poverty". Except that in the UK, poverty is defined as "household income below 60 percent of median income". Hence every time someone rich gets a pay rise, someone moves in to poverty. Kind of hard to end poverty judged by those criteria.
Johnnytheboy said:
It's like when they talk about "ending poverty". Except that in the UK, poverty is defined as "household income below 60 percent of median income". Hence every time someone rich gets a pay rise, someone moves in to poverty. Kind of hard to end poverty judged by those criteria.
I didn't know that was how it was defined! So ending poverty is impossible unless everyone is paid exactly the same then. Brilliant.gingerpaul said:
Johnnytheboy said:
It's like when they talk about "ending poverty". Except that in the UK, poverty is defined as "household income below 60 percent of median income". Hence every time someone rich gets a pay rise, someone moves in to poverty. Kind of hard to end poverty judged by those criteria.
I didn't know that was how it was defined! So ending poverty is impossible unless everyone is paid exactly the same then. Brilliant.I also believe the poverty gap is a red herring. The bottom of the rung do not live in poverty. They can live a lifestyle they are happy with, I.e. Can have sky tv, games consols, smoke, drink, a council house, education, enough food, dental care and health care without having to work.
These people will never move upwards from this 'poverty' lifestyle.
The people above poverty class on the otherhand, work harder and do get richer, more than the poverty class do.
The only way to decrease the gap from top to bottom, is make what is now classed as poverty class actually live in absolute poverty, then they will have to go out and bridge the gap themselves.
These people will never move upwards from this 'poverty' lifestyle.
The people above poverty class on the otherhand, work harder and do get richer, more than the poverty class do.
The only way to decrease the gap from top to bottom, is make what is now classed as poverty class actually live in absolute poverty, then they will have to go out and bridge the gap themselves.
Fittster said:
Puggit said:
Sadly Labour's method for removing the gap, is to reduce the standing of those above the bottom rung.
Of course, they should be helping those on the bottom rung climb up the ladder...
Realistically how can they help the bottom without taking from those at the top? Ladders cost money.Of course, they should be helping those on the bottom rung climb up the ladder...
Unfortunately, they spend a lot on ladder requirement defintiion committees, ladder procurement committees, equality ladder officers, etc etc etc -leaving f
k all to actually pay for the ladders.....Fittster said:
Puggit said:
Sadly Labour's method for removing the gap, is to reduce the standing of those above the bottom rung.
Of course, they should be helping those on the bottom rung climb up the ladder...
Realistically how can they help the bottom without taking from those at the top? Ladders cost money.Of course, they should be helping those on the bottom rung climb up the ladder...
If they put as much effort into helping people improve themselves as they do into thinking of ways of controlling people and taking money from the wealthy, we would be in a much better state now.
Harman et al bleat on about equality, and how they want a "truely meritocratic Britain", at the same time as preventing schools from selecting on ability and introducing tuition fees for universities. And worse, whilst indulging in the most appalling type of self-promotion through backstabbing and stting on anyone in their way. Merit? I doubt they can even spell it.
tting on anyone in their way. Merit? I doubt they can even spell it.Randy Winkman said:
Puggit said:
Sadly Labour's method for removing the gap, is to reduce the standing of those above the bottom rung.
Of course, they should be helping those on the bottom rung climb up the ladder...
It seems to me though that the wealthy have done very well since 1997.Of course, they should be helping those on the bottom rung climb up the ladder...
define 'done very well'.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff