Poverty in UK

A brief, but none the less interesting article from LSE which demonstrates inequality.

blogs.lse.ac.uk

To grasp the extent of inequality, look at the relatively well-off | British Politics and Policy at LSE

Drawing on their new book, Gerry Mitchell and Marcos González Hernando set out why perceptions matter to understand inequality in the UK today.
blogs.lse.ac.uk blogs.lse.ac.uk

The thing that stands out is people always talk about the top 10% or even 5% in the UK. Yet even if you are in the top 3% (£104k) your income is still closer to the median of £26k than what it is to that of the top 1% and even at that salary, depending where you live in the UK, you may still be far from comfortable.
 
Tuearts right boot said:
or you could spend your life complaining and banging on about how bad things are.
Click to expand...
Or you could campaign for a system that distributes wealth a little more evenly and rewards hard work in all its forms, rather than allowing those who aquire a degree of wealth (by whatever means) to then build that wealth exponentially by allowing them to exploite a system which is currently geared very much in their favour.

It was a system that seemed to work well enough for around 50 years post ww2.
 
Its not the poverty that boothers me as much, its this aamericanisaation of the UK. Money is everything, less charity more greed, along with the justification from the greediest or smuggiest of us that everyoone has the same chance which is clearly bollocks. I was still coping with an allcoholic mum at 16, m8s I have had it even worse with drug addict parents, its the start in life that we get that defines us the most and if its good then you;re ok. Though some would tell you its alll about their own achievements, not the head start some of us get.
 
Gorton_Tubster said:
Its not the poverty that boothers me as much, its this aamericanisaation of the UK. Money is everything, less charity more greed, along with the justification from the greediest or smuggiest of us that everyoone has the same chance which is clearly bollocks. I was still coping with an allcoholic mum at 16, m8s I have had it even worse with drug addict parents, its the start in life that we get that defines us the most and if its good then you;re ok. Though some would tell you its alll about their own achievements, not the head start some of us get.
Click to expand...
You make a good point re upbringing, the most important thing for any child to be successful is not wealth but to have a stable homelife. Without that its one hell of an uphill struggle.
 
Tuearts right boot said:
or you could spend your life complaining and banging on about how bad things are.
Click to expand...

I think the post in question is pointing out some facts about structural change that have taken place in this country that has made it much more inequitable. Whether or not that is legitimate cause for complaint I suppose depends on what your vision for the country is.

Most societies tend to either the highly individualistic or very collectivist but Britain's modern history till recently has been this weird hybrid you don't see that much. In my view this broadly stood us in good stead and in many ways was a cause to be grateful for the luck of being British; but we have sleepwalked into a form of individualism that is shafting many people for the benefit of the few.

My small business took an investment risk on doing something innovative to grow but is struggling at the moment; but what's interesting is the number of people who have said to me why didn't you just pile the money into property and buy to lets it's a much safer bet? When I say I didn't want to because I think it exacerbates the housing problem they look at me like I'm a nutter. My sister in law genuinely can't fathom why I didn't just do the same as her and her husband and I think feels a bit sorry for me being feeble minded.

Unless your view is I'm only interested in my immediate family and screw everyone else (no law against it but short sighted in my view) then it's entirely legitimate to call out the road we are going down as a country cause it's just making us a more brutal, nastier place and people. I suspect that sounds naive but I don't give a fuck because I'm sick of the implied narrative that 'that's how it is' when everyday I see loads of people who don't think like that and are up for helping each other and giving a toss about their neighbour. It's only 'how it is' because a small proportion of people need to ram that narrative down our throat to try and protect their interests.

Sorry for randomly using your post for a bit of a rant !
 
Last edited:
metalblue said:
Who would be their landlord otherwise? Probably a corporation or pension fund.
Click to expand...
Who would have bought it rather than having been awarded it by royal decree or an Enclosure Act. Quite a difference to the previous owner and the local economy.
 
Last edited:
metalblue said:
If you’re being serious, what is your value proposition for local authorities owning all this farming and parkland? Ie how would we, the taxpayers, benefit?

Or is it just to appease some sort of sense of injustice you feel that the aristocracy own huge swaths of this country?
Click to expand...

Well local authorities already do own farmland. How do other taxpayers benefit from a small percentage of the population having access to social housing?

They owned more until they started selling it off to manage dwindling budgets.

Why is it any different from any other other commercial investment e.g. commercial property in offices and shopping centres?
 
metalblue said:
If you’re being serious, what is your value proposition for local authorities owning all this farming and parkland? Ie how would we, the taxpayers, benefit?

Or is it just to appease some sort of sense of injustice you feel that the aristocracy own huge swaths of this country?
Click to expand...
How do we, the taxpayers, benefit from the current system?
 
metalblue said:
You’ve lost me with your last sentence.
Click to expand...
Under the original decree, both legal and beneficial ownership was transferred to the royal family without compensation to the original owners, unlike a commercial operation which would have paid for it. The same is true under the Enclosure Acts where common land was effectively transferred to the local aristocrat and the population lost their ancient grazing rights, again without compensation. Much poverty was caused by these actions.
If their landlord was the companies you suggested those landlords would have paid for the land benefitting both the holders and the economy.
Er….this is very basic economics, the circulation of money versus confiscation; and part of our history—the principle of a willing seller versus confiscation by the powerful.
See also, for example, the Dissolution of the Monasteries whose land was taken into the possession of the king and his aristocratic cronies.
 
Last edited:
Mr Kobayashi said:
Well local authorities already do own farmland. How do other taxpayers benefit from a small percentage of the population having access to social housing?

They owned more until they started selling it off to manage dwindling budgets.

Why is it any different from any other other commercial investment e.g. commercial property in offices and shopping centres?
Click to expand...

There are no parallels there. County farms are from a bygone era, the yields are horrendous.

It would cost the taxpayer around £160bn to buy the land a good portion of which isn’t arable and so has little to no rentable value, you’d be lucky to see yields of something like 0.75%. The council would get more money putting it in a savings account. There isn’t a compelling value case here.

Social housing and commercial offer far better yields, and in the case of social housing is the mark of a civilised society. A farmer being able to rent off the council or some member of the aristocracy isn’t - said farmer is still able to rent in either case. Councils owning commercial space to regenerate areas is a value proposition or the yields are a value proposition.
 
KS55 said:
Under the original decree, both legal and beneficial ownership was transferred to the royal family without compensation to the original owners, unlike a commercial operation which would have paid for it. The same is true under the Enclosure Acts where common land was effectively transferred to the local aristocrat and the population lost their ancient grazing rights, again without compensation. Much poverty was caused by these actions.
If their landlord was the companies you suggested those landlords would have paid for the land benefitting both the holders and the economy.
Er….this is very basic economics, the circulation of money versus confiscation; and part of our history—the principle of a willing seller versus confiscation by the powerful.
See also, for example, the Dissolution of the Monasteries whose land was taken into the possession of the king and his aristocratic cronies.
Click to expand...

The land in question is owned by the aristocracy. Aren’t these wealthy people not routinely criticised for not spending the money in the economy?

Now if someone wanted to file a legal claim from centuries ago then I’d be interested to see how that goes. In the absence of any other route it’s the aristocrats who will “benefit”. I’m not suggesting what happened was right but nor would the state taking ownership without compensation be right either.
 
metalblue said:
The land in question is owned by the aristocracy. Aren’t these wealthy people not routinely criticised for not spending the money in the economy?

Now if someone wanted to file a legal claim from centuries ago then I’d be interested to see how that goes. In the absence of any other route it’s the aristocrats who will “benefit”. I’m not suggesting what happened was right but nor would the state taking ownership without compensation be right either.
Click to expand...
It’s our old friend the Statute of Limitations that would frustrate any action.
You are right about wealthy people not always using it for local benefit but that is their right. The Duchy of Cornwall was sued a couple of years ago for failure to upkeep a water pipe and refusal to do anything about it. They lost.
 
Increasing poverty is not an accident, it is being done by design. The post WW2 social consensus, the creation of masses of Social housing, the NHS, the expansion of the welfare state, nationalisation and increased taxation all led to their being lower levels on inequality in society. Union power was at its zenith, political parties had enormous memberships and there were political giants striding the Parliament stage. We went from a situation where GDP was -256% to a country that was booming and built things, we were an industrial powerhouse, a country that built Concorde, had numerous car makers, steelworks, built ships and had prestige in the world.

What changed everything was Neo-Liberalism, Thatcher read a book at University by Hayek called The Road to Serfdom and it influenced her political thinking enormously. Hayek was a member of the Austrian school of economics which was heavily influenced by American libertarian thinkers such as Mises, they were viruently anti Socialist and believed in the freedom of markets. Keynes described Hayek's work "Prices and Production" as one of the most frightful muddles he had ever read with barely a sound proposition in it.

Unfortunately for us we got Hayek, not Keynes. Hayek believed in smaller government, whereas Keynes thought that expanding state investment was the correct way to run the economy. Keynes thought a Government should be austere in times of boom, Hayek thought we should be austere in times of bust. The austerity this country has endured now since Cameron and Osborne times has led to a huge rise in inequality and yes to poverty. The ideological addiction to Hayek and the proliferation of RW think tanks espousing Hayekian dogma is now so normal in UK political thinking that even the Labour party tips a hat to Hayek. UK life once based around community is now based on individualism, Union power is diminished and the power of the owners of capital has increased expotentially. We live in a society where the running of a country is commonly compared to running a household, we have maxed out credit cards, we have magic money trees, and as Alexei Sayle put it, the banking crash was caused by there being too many libraries in Wolverhampton. This is all designed to further enrich those with capital at the expense of those whose only asset is their labour, hence we have wage stagnation yet an ever increasing amount of millionaires. Public services are virtually non existant, our transport system is third world level, schools are falling down, hospitals are understaffed, the care sector is woeful, you cant see a dentist or a doctor, but people can have jet skis and maseratis at their holiday homes. We have record numbers of children who do not have a book at home, teachers have to buy text books, yet we have tax cuts that benefit those with most and offer those with least not enough to buy a book. We have parents going hungry so their kids can eat, whilst we have a government who wanted to stop school dinners.

Those with least have the highest propensity to spend, those with most spend on luxury items and have a higher propensity to save, this affects economic growth, it sucks out spending from local shops etc whilst multi nationals get tax breaks.

We need a total rethink about how this country works, it should work for everyone not just a select few.
 
Rascal said:
Increasing poverty is not an accident, it is being done by design. The post WW2 social consensus, the creation of masses of Social housing, the NHS, the expansion of the welfare state, nationalisation and increased taxation all led to their being lower levels on inequality in society. Union power was at its zenith, political parties had enormous memberships and there were political giants striding the Parliament stage. We went from a situation where GDP was -256% to a country that was booming and built things, we were an industrial powerhouse, a country that built Concorde, had numerous car makers, steelworks, built ships and had prestige in the world.

What changed everything was Neo-Liberalism, Thatcher read a book at University by Hayek called The Road to Serfdom and it influenced her political thinking enormously. Hayek was a member of the Austrian school of economics which was heavily influenced by American libertarian thinkers such as Mises, they were viruently anti Socialist and believed in the freedom of markets. Keynes described Hayek's work "Prices and Production" as one of the most frightful muddles he had ever read with barely a sound proposition in it.

Unfortunately for us we got Hayek, not Keynes. Hayek believed in smaller government, whereas Keynes thought that expanding state investment was the correct way to run the economy. Keynes thought a Government should be austere in times of boom, Hayek thought we should be austere in times of bust. The austerity this country has endured now since Cameron and Osborne times has led to a huge rise in inequality and yes to poverty. The ideological addiction to Hayek and the proliferation of RW think tanks espousing Hayekian dogma is now so normal in UK political thinking that even the Labour party tips a hat to Hayek. UK life once based around community is now based on individualism, Union power is diminished and the power of the owners of capital has increased expotentially. We live in a society where the running of a country is commonly compared to running a household, we have maxed out credit cards, we have magic money trees, and as Alexei Sayle put it, the banking crash was caused by there being too many libraries in Wolverhampton. This is all designed to further enrich those with capital at the expense of those whose only asset is their labour, hence we have wage stagnation yet an ever increasing amount of millionaires. Public services are virtually non existant, our transport system is third world level, schools are falling down, hospitals are understaffed, the care sector is woeful, you cant see a dentist or a doctor, but people can have jet skis and maseratis at their holiday homes. We have record numbers of children who do not have a book at home, teachers have to buy text books, yet we have tax cuts that benefit those with most and offer those with least not enough to buy a book. We have parents going hungry so their kids can eat, whilst we have a government who wanted to stop school dinners.

Those with least have the highest propensity to spend, those with most spend on luxury items and have a higher propensity to save, this affects economic growth, it sucks out spending from local shops etc whilst multi nationals get tax breaks.

We need a total rethink about how this country works, it should work for everyone not just a select few.
Click to expand...


Why would the ''select few'' want that ?
 
KS55 said:
It’s our old friend the Statute of Limitations that would frustrate any action.
You are right about wealthy people not always using it for local benefit but that is their right. The Duchy of Cornwall was sued a couple of years ago for failure to upkeep a water pipe and refusal to do anything about it. They lost.
Click to expand...

Is this statute of limitations why are museums aren’t empty?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top