What by pretending income inequality is not a growing problem by focusing on a temporary blip of falling income inequaity and disregarding the causes for that blip and that the trend is rising income inequality which going forward is expected to carry on increasing. And by viewing the increasing absolute poverty of working age people which is also expected to carry on increasing going forward, and the growing inequality in accumalated weath, as not being worthy of discussion.
.
Who's pretending? There's been zero discussion about the future. I made a simple remark that income inequality was falling which I was challenged on and which you then confirmed. Thanks.
I also gave a massive hint to another poster that if he really wanted to argue the toss on this issue to look at why income inequality was falling - which you, and for reasons that in themselves speak volumes - only you, did.
As for your final para, I've never said that accumulated wealth is not worthy of discussion. I've simply said (repeatedly) that it's not the way that inequality is most commonly measured. And you ('cos you're obviously intelligent), will know why. Unlike income inequality, it's staggeringly difficult to measure. It's also boringly predictable to the point of being almost redundant. You could have income growing 5 times faster at the bottom than the top and it would still be decades, if not centuries, before wealth inequality would be reversed. For those who like to know how wealth is distributed - it's useful. For those who like to know who, comparatively, is doing better - it's not.
For me, the real question (the one that never gets asked) about accumulated wealth is what is all that money doing?
While the recession caused a drop in inequality the expectation going forward is rising inequality and increasing numbers of working age people in absolute poverty.
If someone earning two hundred thousand pounds a year loses twenty-five per cent of their income, they are still left with one hundred and fifty thousand a year. More than sufficient to pay for their daily foie gras and caviar sandwiches, but if someone on minimum wage loses twenty-five per cent of their wages, it will mean the difference between homelessness and somewhere to live.
You keep banging on about income inequality, but you haven't addressed the fact that people more and more people are having to rely on the state to support them. People are not able to earn enough to put food on their tables, a roof over their families' heads and keep themselves warm in the winter, without the state having to subsidise the profits of their employers. Whilst the collective wealth, of the top one per cent, has double since the financial crisis.
Because we haven't even been talking about it. The last time I spoke to you, you still hadn't agreed that under the general defintions of inequality, the gap between the poor and the rich had been falling.
The point you keep missing is that those discussions focus on different measures of Income Inequality NOT Wealth Inequality.
One more time - From the IFS.
Can you see the phrase "Wealth Inequality" anywhere in that section? No, me neither. In fact, in the 137 page report on Living standards, poverty and Inequality in the UK: 2012 (supported by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation), the phrase "Wealth Inequality" isn't mentioned at all. Not once. By contrast there is an entire chapter devoted to Income Inequality.
Which is why I asked the poster to prove that "wealth" inequality is a more widely accepted measure of Inequality (i.e. "the gap between the rich and the poor") than various measures of Income inequality. In other words, to prove that the approach the IFS (and by dint, the JRF and all those out there using the "most widely used" Gini Coefficient) are adopting is wrong and that we shouldn't be measuring inequality in terms of income, but wealth. I'm still looking forward to the reply...
You really ought to read the quotes you post:
Chapter 3 – Income Inequality Most people would define inequality as the gap between rich and poor. However, it is remarkably difficult to define precise measures of inequality that everyone can agree on. For this reason, we have always stressed the importance of looking at a range of inequality measures. The most widely used measure of income inequality is the Gini coefficient, which ranges from 0 to 1 with higher levels indicating higher levels of inequality.
...the gap between rich and poor.... kind of implies that it is alluding to the difference between people who have lots of money, i.e. the rich and people who have little or none, i.e. the poor.
If someone earning two hundred thousand pounds a year loses twenty-five per cent of their income, they are still left with one hundred and fifty thousand a year. More than sufficient to pay for their daily foie gras and caviar sandwiches, but if someone on minimum wage loses twenty-five per cent of their wages, it will mean the difference between homelessness and somewhere to live.
But that £50,000 cut in income would mean a £24,000 less paid in tax.
But that £50,000 cut in income would mean a £24,000 less paid in tax.
How does that affect the gap between rich and poor? I was debating the difference between how much a rich person gets paid and how much a poor person earns and what the effect of losing equal proportions of their income would have on their lives.
FYI, The loss in income tax would be £22,500 not £24,000. ;-)
How does that affect the gap between rich and poor? I was debating the difference between how much a rich person gets paid and how much a poor person earns and what the effect of losing equal proportions of their income would have on their lives.
FYI, The loss in income tax would be £22,500 not £24,000. ;-)
I was also including NI. And rounding a bit. Plus there would be the loss of VAT an other taxes that they would have paid on that lost £50,000.
In your example the "gap" between rich and poor may have come down but the country as a whole would be worse off. If we were all equally poor then there would be no gap at all but would that be a good thing?
Comments
Who's pretending? There's been zero discussion about the future. I made a simple remark that income inequality was falling which I was challenged on and which you then confirmed. Thanks.
I also gave a massive hint to another poster that if he really wanted to argue the toss on this issue to look at why income inequality was falling - which you, and for reasons that in themselves speak volumes - only you, did.
As for your final para, I've never said that accumulated wealth is not worthy of discussion. I've simply said (repeatedly) that it's not the way that inequality is most commonly measured. And you ('cos you're obviously intelligent), will know why. Unlike income inequality, it's staggeringly difficult to measure. It's also boringly predictable to the point of being almost redundant. You could have income growing 5 times faster at the bottom than the top and it would still be decades, if not centuries, before wealth inequality would be reversed. For those who like to know how wealth is distributed - it's useful. For those who like to know who, comparatively, is doing better - it's not.
For me, the real question (the one that never gets asked) about accumulated wealth is what is all that money doing?
If someone earning two hundred thousand pounds a year loses twenty-five per cent of their income, they are still left with one hundred and fifty thousand a year. More than sufficient to pay for their daily foie gras and caviar sandwiches, but if someone on minimum wage loses twenty-five per cent of their wages, it will mean the difference between homelessness and somewhere to live.
Because we haven't even been talking about it. The last time I spoke to you, you still hadn't agreed that under the general defintions of inequality, the gap between the poor and the rich had been falling.
One thing at a time - eh?
You really ought to read the quotes you post:
...the gap between rich and poor.... kind of implies that it is alluding to the difference between people who have lots of money, i.e. the rich and people who have little or none, i.e. the poor.
Err, no......no he hasn't.
I think you're concerned Labour will get in next year. I can't think of another reason for this claptrap.
But that £50,000 cut in income would mean a £24,000 less paid in tax.
How does that affect the gap between rich and poor? I was debating the difference between how much a rich person gets paid and how much a poor person earns and what the effect of losing equal proportions of their income would have on their lives.
FYI, The loss in income tax would be £22,500 not £24,000. ;-)
I was also including NI. And rounding a bit. Plus there would be the loss of VAT an other taxes that they would have paid on that lost £50,000.
In your example the "gap" between rich and poor may have come down but the country as a whole would be worse off. If we were all equally poor then there would be no gap at all but would that be a good thing?
1/ Neo-Liberalism.
1. They're Tories.
2. They all love Thatcher.
3. David Cameron.
4. Rampant Homophobia.
5. They don't care about the working class.
That sums up all parties in a nutshell.