Understanding disparity around us

Kim1965

I think disparity in the uk is huge and getting bigger. It seems the uk is no longer a land of opportunity or equal opportunity. 
 Take a child from a family on means tested benefits who wants to get on in life.. They go to uni and get saddled with a huge debt, there is no parental financial safety net. From the midlands  to the south of the country, trying to get on the property ladder without family help is a huge hurdle. They will never inherit money. 
 There will always be disparity in society, i am not sure that some contributers to this thread can grasp how difficult it could be to escape poverty. I dont think its entirely down to not being able to budget or being bothered to work, 
 Using Sea Shell as an example of someone who can live on 15/20k is amusing. She owns her own home for a start and for all I know probably has a roof full of pv panels to get her leccy bill down.
  Perhaps moving this thread to the benefits board will give a more balanced sample of opinions. 

RG2015

Kim1965 said:

I think disparity in the uk is huge and getting bigger. It seems the uk is no longer a land of opportunity or equal opportunity. 
 
  Perhaps moving this thread to the benefits board will give a more balanced sample of opinions. 

There is a disparity between people on this board and those on the benefits board.

One group has more than they need and the other has less than they need.

zagfles

Lastonestanding said:

zagfles said:

There's also been the massive expansion in the welfare state, particularly means tested benefits, which has resulted in disincentives to work, just look at the number of economically inactive working age adults in the UK and the number of vacancies all over the country which employers struggle to fill

When the government gives the figures on money spent on benefits, pension spending is included in that. With more old people living longer, that figure is for benefit spending is misleading.
If you study the figures for increasing of the economically inactive, the increase is down to more people that have learning difficulties, mental health issues and depression.

Having said that, I do agree, benefits are too high 

State pension is included, but that hasn't seen the biggest increase over the last few decades, it's stuff like family benefits (CTC etc). If you compare internationally, in the UK the state pension, and support for pensioners generally, is low compared with other OECD countries, whereas support for working age families is much higher.

Yes you're right about the economically inactive. The Scottish govt did a report a few years ago showing there are something like 6 times as many working age people claiming disability benefits in the UK compared even to the Nordic countries. It's something like 6% in the UK, 1% in Sweden, 0.3% in France from memory (there was a thread a while ago about this). It seems we have vastly different criteria for what "disabled" means.

zagfles

bostonerimus said:

I think years of New Labour and Conservative governments have destroyed public services, workers rights and many well paying jobs in the UK. I don't see anything in UK politics that will in anyway redistribute wealth or level up and I will encourage my grand niece and nephew to look beyond the UK for rewarding careers.

I think you're living on a different planet sometimes. Have you analysed how "well paid jobs" have changed over the last few decades? Do you think pay has gone up or down in real terms? Have you looked at how spending on the NHS has changed over the last few decades? NHS spending is massively higher now than a few decades ago, in real terms. Maybe look at some figures instead of reading doommongers on twitter etc.

Nebulous2

Inequality is a huge problem for all of society - not just the people at the sharp end.  House of commons report:- 

 Income inequality in the UK - House of Commons Library (parliament.uk)

For international comparisons the report says:- 

"OECD figures suggest that the UK has among the highest levels of income inequality in the European Union (as measured by the Gini coefficient), although income inequality is lower than in the United States."

Additional money for poorer people has a distinct local benefit. I remember some research (possibly professor Ashcroft)  showing that if poor people get more money they spend 70% of it within 3 miles of their home. That is money which goes directly into local communities and the local economy. When rich people get additional money they often don't spend it at all, or may spend it where the benefit goes elsewhere - foreign holidays, foreign cars etc. 

JohnWinder

I think the majority of people out there, if they actually sit down and assess their position, can probably find a way to weather the storm in an acceptable manner to them (living standards etc...), the big question will be... will they actually do that?

I think they would, as it is wise counsel. Leaving a potential 49% minority getting by in an unacceptable manner. Further suggestions welcome.

zagfles

Kim1965 said:

I think disparity in the uk is huge and getting bigger. It seems the uk is no longer a land of opportunity or equal opportunity. 
 Take a child from a family on means tested benefits who wants to get on in life.. They go to uni and get saddled with a huge debt, there is no parental financial safety net. From the midlands  to the south of the country, trying to get on the property ladder without family help is a huge hurdle. They will never inherit money. 
 There will always be disparity in society, i am not sure that some contributers to this thread can grasp how difficult it could be to escape poverty. I dont think its entirely down to not being able to budget or being bothered to work, 
 Using Sea Shell as an example of someone who can live on 15/20k is amusing. She owns her own home for a start and for all I know probably has a roof full of pv panels to get her leccy bill down.
  Perhaps moving this thread to the benefits board will give a more balanced sample of opinions. 

I spent many years on the benefits board and in real life helping people with tax credits and benefits. That's why I have a reasonably good understanding of issues faced by those on low incomes. Maybe some others here who say they have compassion for those on low incomes should try doing that instead of getting sanctimonious with those who point out that there are other issues than just purely income levels, or arguing against strawmen (has anyone said it's "easy to escape poverty"?).

But SS is a good example as her spending is around or below the AHC "poverty line" for a pensioner couple, and not through necessity. So the mortgage being paid off is accounted for.

But yes the cost of buying a house is a massive issue, something I've frequently ranted on about here, and something successive govt policies have made worse. Student finance isn't an issue. If you don't get a well paid job, you'll never pay it back. If you do, it was a good investment. While at uni, the people who struggle are those from higher income households where the "hidden parental contribution", as Martin puts it, isn't being paid. Those from low income household get the full loan plus bursaries on top.

Anyway, if anyone wants to respond to points actually made rather than sanctimonious side swipes against strawmen, feel free. I'll let those arguing against strawmen continue to argue against them, I'll respond to arguments against points I raise.

Altior

I don't think anyone has even mentioned that catastrophic lockdown policies, that help to add something like £500bn to the national debt, and rampant inflation. The rampant inflation that many people on the side lines said would be inevitable if they pursued a policy of generously paying healthy people to be unproductive, and giving £50K loans to anyone who had the wherewithal to start a new business five minutes earlier.

Unsurprisingly, now nobody wants to make the inevitable sacrifices that ludicrous strategy brought about. 

We also have this rather odd sanctions policy, which as far as I can tell is harming everyone apart from the intended target. I won't go into the politics of that here, but if that policy is accepted then we have to accept massive increases in the costs of energy and associated production. 

Social media has helped to bring a level of entitlement now that won't be reversed in the foreseeable future. The trend is that people who are teenagers and then adults want everything, and they want it now. Keeping up with the Jones' used to be your local neighbours and fellow schoolkids, now it's anyone in the world with a camera phone and internet connection.

People who are of that age genuinely appear to think that anyone my age was just given a house if they wanted one! I would say it's easier to get on the property ladder now than it was when I was in my 20s. Loads of incentives (LISA HtB etc), extended mortgages, low interest rates, new builds everywhere. There are affordable places in the country, and now many people can work remotely. 

As others have alluded to, the stories constantly running through the media are vastly exaggerated. Of course there's a pinch, as I've outlined above, it was inevitable after lockdown became a concept. I'm going to have to renew my domestic energy contract, and with it my monthly budget will have to adapt. For all the moaning that the BBC womans hour and guardianista types do however, there is a massive safety net via the vast welfare state and NGO/charity sector. Councils are there as a last resort. 

ZeroSum

zagfles said:

bostonerimus said:

I think years of New Labour and Conservative governments have destroyed public services, workers rights and many well paying jobs in the UK. I don't see anything in UK politics that will in anyway redistribute wealth or level up and I will encourage my grand niece and nephew to look beyond the UK for rewarding careers.

I think you're living on a different planet sometimes. Have you analysed how "well paid jobs" have changed over the last few decades? Do you think pay has gone up or down in real terms? Have you looked at how spending on the NHS has changed over the last few decades? NHS spending is massively higher now than a few decades ago, in real terms. Maybe look at some figures instead of reading doommongers on twitter etc.

Regarding NHS spending, when you factor in population increase & life expectancy increases, the health budget needs to increase in real terms just to stand still.

zagfles

Nebulous2 said:

Inequality is a huge problem for all of society - not just the people at the sharp end.  House of commons report:- 

 Income inequality in the UK - House of Commons Library (parliament.uk)

For international comparisons the report says:- 

"OECD figures suggest that the UK has among the highest levels of income inequality in the European Union (as measured by the Gini coefficient), although income inequality is lower than in the United States."

Additional money for poorer people has a distinct local benefit. I remember some research (possibly professor Ashcroft)  showing that if poor people get more money they spend 70% of it within 3 miles of their home. That is money which goes directly into local communities and the local economy. When rich people get additional money they often don't spend it at all, or may spend it where the benefit goes elsewhere - foreign holidays, foreign cars etc. 

A problem you need to be aware of, as mentioned by a few people here, is the "poverty trap", where it's hard to escape poverty if there's no significant benefit in trying to improve your circumstances. So if you try to reduce the gap between those at the bottom and those in the middle (which is what the poverty measures do), you basically create a poverty trap. 

For eg a family with 2 kids, income inequality between one with a single earner on average wage or even one with both on min wage when you account for childcare costs, and one where no-one works, is quite small, so that reduces incentives. Sometimes too little "income inequality" is a bad thing - it creates poverty traps and means people don't escape poverty.

For those on higher incomes, it's a different story. The gap between the middle and the top is massive. This is where govts have been going wrong - they've been targetting the gap between the middle and bottom, not the gap between the top and bottom, or the gap between the bottom and the average (mean). They've been hitting middle income people, not high income people.

Personally I favour a "citizen's income" where effectively benefit withdrawal gets incorporated into taxation. That would remove disincentives at the lower end, and would be more redistrubuting between high and middle income people.

But having said all that, the wealth inequalities are what make things far worse particularly for the young, particularly the cost of housing. But taht's a whole separate debate which we've had here loads of times...