4 ms·

You’re looking at the wrong numbers. Wealth, not income. Wealth inequality is through the roof. Poverty is through the roof. More people using food banks than e

You’re looking at the wrong numbers. Wealth, not income. Wealth inequality is through the roof. Poverty is through the roof. More people using food banks than ever. More people on zero hours and low paid contracts. If you think the problem with the UK is that rich people are leaving, then you have no idea about the reality of living in the UK. Visiting some of the towns in this book would be a starting point.

chgs 2y ago
The problem in the U.K. is the availability of housing.
- arrowsmith 2y ago
  If only our problems could be reduced to a single "the".
  - chgs 2y ago
    Pretty much all other problems stem from that. Well there’s the weather I guess.
arrowsmith 2y ago
> Poverty is through the roof. More people using food banks than ever. More people on zero hours and low paid contracts. Is that supposed to prove me wrong? I said that everybody is getting poorer. > Wealth inequality is through the roof. Wealth inequality, while high, is still roughly where it was in 2007. (Source: https://equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-uk/ https://equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-uk/) > If you think the problem with the UK is that rich people are leaving I said it's a problem, not the problem. And it's not just the ultra-rich who are leaving, but vast swathes of the middle classes. Many poor people would leave too if they had the means. You and the other replier seem to think I'm defending the status quo. How on earth did I imply that? You think I think it's a good thing for the entire country to get poorer?
- a_dabbler 2y ago
  "Wealth inequality, while high, is still roughly where it was in 2007" This is not whats represented in the source you cited? In the graph titled "Top 10% and Bottom 50% Wealth Shares in The UK 1900-2020" you can clearly see the wealth owned by the top 10% increased from 54.4% in 2007 to 57% in 2020 and likely even higher now 5 years later.
  - arrowsmith 2y ago
    Yes, that's only a 2.6% increase. I don't think it's unfair to call that "roughly where it was". In fact, according to that chart wealth inequality today is much lower than it was in the 1970s, although it increased throughout the 1990s. The same link shows that the UK has unremarkable wealth inequality by the standards of developed countries: we're bang in the middle of the OECD, with lower levels of wealth inequality than Sweden, Denmark, Finland or Norway. (That's funny, I thought the Nordics were egalitarian utopias?) I'm not saying that wealth inequality is low, or that it's not a problem. I'm merely responding to the claim that "wealth inequality is through the roof", which I take to mean that wealth inequality has increased substantially in recent years. As far as I can tell that's not true. Personally I think we need more economic growth, not more taxes. We already have the highest taxes since WWII, soon to be the highest taxes in the entire history of the UK, and all it's doing is strangling the economy and making productive people flee.
    - disgruntledphd2 2y ago
      Look, I'm not gonna dispute that the tax system is messed up in the UK (Student loans, the cutting off of credits at 100k and the lack of a real property tax) but fundamentally as a society ye blew mineral wealth on tax cuts then removed yourselves from a giant trading bloc, so the lack of services and higher tax rates are unsurprising. Ultimately though, tax on income should be lowered and tax on property should be proportionately increased, given that property is the source of much wealth and is very difficult to hide or move.
  - stavros 2y ago
    Right, but the maximum is 92.7% and the minimum is 46%. A 3% difference seems small enough to be noise.

chgs 2y ago

The problem in the U.K. is the availability of housing.

arrowsmith 2y ago
If only our problems could be reduced to a single "the".
- chgs 2y ago
  Pretty much all other problems stem from that. Well there’s the weather I guess.

arrowsmith 2y ago

> Poverty is through the roof. More people using food banks than ever. More people on zero hours and low paid contracts. Is that supposed to prove me wrong? I said that everybody is getting poorer. > Wealth inequality is through the roof. Wealth inequality, while high, is still roughly where it was in 2007. (Source: https://equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-uk/ https://equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-uk/) > If you think the problem with the UK is that rich people are leaving I said it's a problem, not the problem. And it's not just the ultra-rich who are leaving, but vast swathes of the middle classes. Many poor people would leave too if they had the means. You and the other replier seem to think I'm defending the status quo. How on earth did I imply that? You think I think it's a good thing for the entire country to get poorer?

a_dabbler 2y ago
"Wealth inequality, while high, is still roughly where it was in 2007" This is not whats represented in the source you cited? In the graph titled "Top 10% and Bottom 50% Wealth Shares in The UK 1900-2020" you can clearly see the wealth owned by the top 10% increased from 54.4% in 2007 to 57% in 2020 and likely even higher now 5 years later.
- arrowsmith 2y ago
  Yes, that's only a 2.6% increase. I don't think it's unfair to call that "roughly where it was". In fact, according to that chart wealth inequality today is much lower than it was in the 1970s, although it increased throughout the 1990s. The same link shows that the UK has unremarkable wealth inequality by the standards of developed countries: we're bang in the middle of the OECD, with lower levels of wealth inequality than Sweden, Denmark, Finland or Norway. (That's funny, I thought the Nordics were egalitarian utopias?) I'm not saying that wealth inequality is low, or that it's not a problem. I'm merely responding to the claim that "wealth inequality is through the roof", which I take to mean that wealth inequality has increased substantially in recent years. As far as I can tell that's not true. Personally I think we need more economic growth, not more taxes. We already have the highest taxes since WWII, soon to be the highest taxes in the entire history of the UK, and all it's doing is strangling the economy and making productive people flee.
  - disgruntledphd2 2y ago
    Look, I'm not gonna dispute that the tax system is messed up in the UK (Student loans, the cutting off of credits at 100k and the lack of a real property tax) but fundamentally as a society ye blew mineral wealth on tax cuts then removed yourselves from a giant trading bloc, so the lack of services and higher tax rates are unsurprising. Ultimately though, tax on income should be lowered and tax on property should be proportionately increased, given that property is the source of much wealth and is very difficult to hide or move.
- stavros 2y ago
  Right, but the maximum is 92.7% and the minimum is 46%. A 3% difference seems small enough to be noise.