Options
Disposable incomes rise for the poorest fifth of households
![[Deleted User]](https://w7.vanillicon.com/v2/7fe2f5931e4917df5e5dccbfee4638e2.svg)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 9,720 Forum Member
✭
According to the Office for National Statistics...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/tax/10929370/More-than-half-of-homes-take-more-than-they-contribute.html
Which contradicts everything Labour has said about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.
The figures also show middle class families have seen the steepest fall in living standards since the financial crisis.
The wealthiest fifth of households have seen their disposable income fall by 5.2 per cent since 2007, while for the poorest fifth it has risen by 3.5 per cent.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/tax/10929370/More-than-half-of-homes-take-more-than-they-contribute.html
Which contradicts everything Labour has said about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.
0
Comments
Does the article go on to explain why every week three new food banks are opening when disposable incomes for the poor are apparently rising, or can we expect these figures to be revised in the near future? it does happen quite often.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/surprise-surprise-real-wages-have-gone-nowhere-people-should-have-listened-to-the-real-experts-9538549.html
...and we're up and running....
the top 20% wealthiest households would hardly notice a drop of 5%
the poorest 20% will have so little disposable income after paying bills that an increase of 3% probably amounts to a couple of pound a month if anything
not really sure how the ONS can say this impacts the middle classes as well as surely by definition the middle classes are not part of the top 20% or the bottom 20% ?
Well that's a bit silly isn't it. Removing Government Policies so you get a result to match your views on the current Government.
I didn't mention the current govt. Other posters are bringing Labour into the discussion.
Am I mistaken in thinking that the purpose of this thread was not to thank the Libdems for the tax free £10k + ??
Maybe not,
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jun/27/top-lowest-earners-inequality-ons
Britain's top earners have pulled away from all other income groups, with the top 20% of households increasing their disposable incomes last year while all others fell.
The top fifth of earners saw their annual disposable income rise by £940, while the bottom fifth lost £381 and all other groups lost around £250.
Figures from the ONS covering the six years to 2013 show the richest fifth of households saw a 5.2% drop in income and the average income for the poorest fifth grew by 3.5%.
But most of the drop in top pay over the six years came from a collapse in bonuses early in the last recession, when a sharp rise in tax credit and other benefit payments protected the incomes of the poorest.
However, the better than expected mean average figures shown by the ONS for all households, especially for the low paid, is skewed by the over 65s, who are the biggest winners over the six years from 2007/8 to 2012/13.
The average disposable incomes of retired households has jumped 7.9% in real terms, or £1,700, since 2007/08 and the largest rise – 14% – was among the bottom fifth.
This provides much of the boost to the average for all low income households.
To emphasise the point, the ONS figures show that excluding retired households, disposable incomes fell overall by 6.3% on average, or £2,100, much further han the £1,200 fall for all households. The bottom fifth of non-retired households saw a 2% fall in incomes in contrast to the 3.5% rise.
It needs to be remembered that the top 20% of income earners starts just below $70,000 p.a. How well the top 1%, or top 5%, have done in recent years would be interesting.
I can't believe it's all down to the increase in tax thresholds, that is a few hundred per year and essentials such as housing, energy and even food has risen steadily.
why? do that and we are talking about a hypothetical situation, rather than real figures. or do you want to do that to suit your argument?
yes you are mistaken. are you not happy re the OP figures?
It is a good thing that the poorest, on the lowest incomes, have been given a small cushion against the effects of austerity. Period. A Good Thing. If you wish we can discuss the reality of that small improvement.
After that we move on to Politics. We can't avoid that - the GE is a few months away.
The credit for this small cushion must be given to the party responsible. But there are two aspects to this. One positive, one negative.
Nick Clegg is going to tell us, at every opportunity that it was a LibDem Policy to take millions of poor people out of Income Tax. Each time he tells us this, it will be a reminder that David Cameron told us that the policy is unaffordable and not possible. We will all then ponder what the impact would have been on the poorest, under Tory policy as opposed to Coalition policy.
Strip out this over-65 group and people in the "poorest fifth" are of course doing very badly.
In other words the reality is exactly what we would expect, poorer pensioners have been more protected by this government while the rest of the poor have been dumped on.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jun/27/top-lowest-earners-inequality-ons
Probably do you good to cut down on food.
...
To emphasise the point, the ONS figures show that excluding retired households, disposable incomes fell overall by 6.3% on average, or £2,100, much further han the £1,200 fall for all households. The bottom fifth of non-retired households saw a 2% fall in incomes in contrast to the 3.5% rise.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jun/27/top-lowest-earners-inequality-ons
So poorer pensioners ring-fenced, poorer-everyone-else are not. And everyone else is down, not up.
Averages.
Pah.
I don't see the current government (or the opposition, for that matter) being able to resolve that any time soon.
OK Mr multi Millionaire how about we do a swap?
I will swap you 100% of everything in my bank account for 0.2% of what's in yours, come ON that's a fantastic deal I am sure you would agree, after all 'apparently' I have more 'disposable income' than you and apparently MY 'disposable income' has grown and is growing faster than yours, you would be crazy to turn down my offer,
1/ the evidence quite clearly shows that genuine cases certainly DO have everything to fear,
2/ yeah right, said just before the top earners got given a huge income boost while the poor got another kicking,
3/ the biggest LIE of all, if holding the in work benefits for hundreds of thousands of low paid "hard workers" to below inflation rises for three years (a pay cut in real terms) not to mention on top of that there are scores of thousands of low paid "hard workers" who have not only had a Tory imposed 3 year pay cut but they are also guilty of spare room crime and have had another chunk of their income removed,
is an example of Tory "support" then they can shove it up their Osborne.
More Tory lies? oh there are plenty more,
Source,
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jan/07/politicians-lie-david-cameron-mendacity-expenses
Labour are indeed guilty of telling lies, but the Tories are the masters at it,
"....working families still have to take more from the public purse than they contribute. "
That isn't possible, since the entire wealth of the nation is derived from people doing the work.
You perhaps mean contribute in income tax. But income tax is just one small part of what people contribute from their work. When a person works for a company that company derives benefit from that work as well, a far greater benefit in fact.
You cannot compare a persons wage with their "contribution". Wages rarely reflect anything like a persons real contribution.