Extreme Inequality in UK

[wulbert]

Some staggering findings in this analysis of the Sunday Times Rich List. Surely this can't go on without grave societal consequences? (Shared under Creative Commons license)

Policy Brief
The good life at the top
Analysing The Sunday Times Rich List 1989-2023
Ben Tippet* and Rafael Wildauer* *University of Greenwich

Key Findings

1. Wealth in the UK in 2023 is extremely concentrated: the richest 50 families in the UK have more wealth than the bottom half of the UK population (33.5 million people): both groups own £466 billion.
   
2. Since the first rich list was published in 1989, wealth inequality has been on the rise: in 1989 a rich person had 6000 times the average person. Today it is 18,000 times.
   
3. COVID-19 and the cost-of-living crisis has not stopped rising wealth inequality: since the beginning of Covid-19, the wealthiest 200 families have seen their wealth increase in real terms by 22%. This increase alone is enough to give every family in the UK £9000.
   
4. While the super-rich of the STRL have never been wealthier, the UK government is poorer than at any time over the last 30 years. Privatisation, lowrelatively low public investment spending and financial sector and COVID-19 bailouts have pushed the UK government’s liabilities to exceed its assets by £1.25 trillion in 2023.
   
5. Wealth inequality is likely to continue to grow into the future if nothing is done: if we continue at the current rates, the wealth of the richest 200 families will be larger than whole UK economy (GDP) by 2035.1
   
6. An increasingly popular solution is to raise taxes on the wealthy: taxing just half of the increase in the wealth of the richest 50 families each year would raise enough to give all public sector workers (5.5 million people) a standard of living preserving pay rise of 10.5%.
   

 

[kensalriser]

So far it seems to have delivered Brexit and the most unpleasant authoritarian croneyist right wing government in living memory.

 

[Caliente]

Does anyone recall Tony Benn suggesting a wealth earnings cap of £10,000 pa - from memory, this would have been in 1974 - how things have moved on but in totally the wrong direction - at lunchtime today there was a story today on Sky News regarding RAF personnel having to make use of an unofficial foodbank, that had in fact initially been established for the civilian workers on the RAF base (not cited). We seem to be rapidly heading toward a society that Dickens highlighted>

 

[stevec67]

So far it seems to have delivered Brexit and the most unpleasant authoritarian croneyist right wing government in living memory.

Certainly does, and the turkeys keep on voting for Christmas.

 

[Bob McC]

https://news.sky.com/video/exclusive-raf-personnel-forced-to-used-food-banks-12900750

 

[ks.234]

Some staggering findings in this analysis of the Sunday Times Rich List. Surely this can't go on without grave societal consequences? (Shared under Creative Commons license)

Policy Brief
The good life at the top
Analysing The Sunday Times Rich List 1989-2023
Ben Tippet* and Rafael Wildauer* *University of Greenwich

Key Findings

1. Wealth in the UK in 2023 is extremely concentrated: the richest 50 families in the UK have more wealth than the bottom half of the UK population (33.5 million people): both groups own £466 billion.
2. Since the first rich list was published in 1989, wealth inequality has been on the rise: in 1989 a rich person had 6000 times the average person. Today it is 18,000 times.
3. COVID-19 and the cost-of-living crisis has not stopped rising wealth inequality: since the beginning of Covid-19, the wealthiest 200 families have seen their wealth increase in real terms by 22%. This increase alone is enough to give every family in the UK £9000.
4. While the super-rich of the STRL have never been wealthier, the UK government is poorer than at any time over the last 30 years. Privatisation, lowrelatively low public investment spending and financial sector and COVID-19 bailouts have pushed the UK government’s liabilities to exceed its assets by £1.25 trillion in 2023.
5. Wealth inequality is likely to continue to grow into the future if nothing is done: if we continue at the current rates, the wealth of the richest 200 families will be larger than whole UK economy (GDP) by 2035.1
6. An increasingly popular solution is to raise taxes on the wealthy: taxing just half of the increase in the wealth of the richest 50 families each year would raise enough to give all public sector workers (5.5 million people) a standard of living preserving pay rise of 10.5%.

This has not happened because of greed. Greed is not the cause.

This has not happened because of swivel-eyed economic madness. Swivel-eyed economic madness is not the cause.

This has not happened because of events. Events are not the cause.

The cause is calm, sane, philosophical, ennobled and considered thought. Thoughts that created events like inflation, economic collapse, massive and growing wealth inequality, the selling off of public assets to private pockets, food banks, insane house prices, schools in crisis, the NHS on its knees and increasing political corruption, the overthrow of democracies, and authoritarianism.

The cause is free market fundamentalism. An almost religious belief that the free market is self correcting, that it is guided by an invisible hand and is the deliverer of all that is good.

Free market fundamentalism has a certain religiosity about it.

That’s not to say that everything about the Free Market is wrong

Just as not everything is not wrong about, say, Christianity. Much of it is good, and true, and worth celebrating. However, Christian fundamentalism is not true, it is not good, and a lot of it is the cause of pain, division and war.

Likewise, not everything about the free market is wrong, some of it good and true and worth counting in our lives. But the free market fundamentalism of neoliberal ideology, is so wrong on so many counts and is itself the cause of not just greed and events, it is the cause of looming social, economic and environmental catastrophe, and war.

If we want to tackle events, we need to first identify the causes. And like Christianity, they start with the teachings of one man. Teachings selectively chosen and codified as the one truth faith by their followers.

 

[Mr_Sukebe]

The issue isn’t wealth generated by taxable earnings. It’s almost certainly because of the government facilitating the continued ability of the super rich to pay no tax at all with their wealth offshoring.

 

[Mike Hughes]

Struggling to see which part of the OP was news or unknown.

 

[Gingerbeard]

Point 6 is the only way we'll reduce the inequality. This won't sit well with the mega rich, but that's the reality. Will I see it happen in my lifetime, not a chance

 

[PaulMB]

The report compares 2022 to 1989, but then explains that new sources of data, or new parameters or something, have been introduced. So I wonder what that means exactly. Also, it is not clear when they are talking about personal income or wealth, family income or wealth, or corporate income or wealth that can be connected directly to an individual or family. And, is it only about UK citizens, or also foreign nationals with residence in the UK? So it all seems a bit vague.
What is undoubtedly true, of course, is that the gap between rich and poor has grown all over the world, not just the UK, in recent decades. It would be interesting to understand what is happening in the middle, in the vast space between, say, 1% of the population who can be defined as "Rich" and, say, 10 % who can be defined as "Poor." And what are the definitions.

 

[stevec67]

The report compares 2022 to 1989, but then explains that new sources of data, or new parameters or something, have been introduced. So I wonder what that means exactly. Also, it is not clear when they are talking about personal income or wealth, family income or wealth, or corporate income or wealth that can be connected directly to an individual or family. And, is it only about UK citizens, or also foreign nationals with residence in the UK? So it all seems a bit vague.
What is undoubtedly true, of course, is that the gap between rich and poor has grown all over the world, not just the UK, in recent decades. It would be interesting to understand what is happening in the middle, in the vast space between, say, 1% of the population who can be defined as "Rich" and, say, 10 % who can be defined as "Poor." And what are the definitions.

All this and more is available in stats including those from the ONS. What is clear is that there has been the creation of an elite who are an order of magnitude richer than even conventional ly well off people, and that in the middle there is a growing gulf between comfortably off and poor. What's equally clear is that there is little to no desire to change this because the public don't want to pay for it (yes, ks234, I know) and because the UK public hate the thought of anyone other than themselves getting anything for nothing to the point where they will put up with any draconian shxt just to make sure that those other bastards don't get a free lunch out of it. Because I've never had a free lunch, and so I'm damned if I'm going to pay for anyone else one.
That's why the reaction here is largely "yeah, we know. Nobody wants to change it. I would, but if nobody else would then sod it, I'm doing ok, fortunately, and by the time they've completely fxxed the country I'll be dead anyway."

 

[ks.234]

So far it seems to have delivered Brexit and the most unpleasant authoritarian croneyist right wing government in living memory.

Of course it has. Authoritarianism and cronyism right wing government is the very purpose of free market fundamentalism.

 

[Salamander]

Those 50 richest families would give it all up..
-
-
-
for a little more

 

[ks.234]

All this and more is available in stats including those from the ONS. What is clear is that there has been the creation of an elite who are an order of magnitude richer than even conventional ly well off people, and that in the middle there is a growing gulf between comfortably off and poor. What's equally clear is that there is little to no desire to change this because the public don't want to pay for it (yes, ks234, I know) and because the UK public hate the thought of anyone other than themselves getting anything for nothing to the point where they will put up with any draconian shxt just to make sure that those other bastards don't get a free lunch out of it. Because I've never had a free lunch, and so I'm damned if I'm going to pay for anyone else one.
That's why the reaction here is largely "yeah, we know. Nobody wants to change it. I would, but if nobody else would then sod it, I'm doing ok, fortunately, and by the time they've completely fxxed the country I'll be dead anyway."

The problem is not that the public are selfish and vindictive. The problem is the myth that government has no money of its own.

The truth is that our government can never run out of money and can always afford to buy anything that is for sale in its own currency.

The reason we have growing inequality is the myth that there is no alternative, a myth sustained by the lie that government only spends tax revenue, therefore any public spending require tax rises.

It is this myth that creates scarcer and harder to come by public resources. It is the myth of scarce resources that creates competition amongst those most in need of those resources. It is this myth that is behind hatred and anger at the idea that someone else might be getting a hand on those resources.

In 1983 Margret Thatcher said

“Let us never forget this fundamental truth. The state has no source of money other than the money people earn themselves. If the state wishes to spend more, it can do so only by borrowing your savings or by taxing you more. There is no such thing as public money, there is only taxpayers’ money”.
​

This is a not a truth, fundamental or otherwise. It is a myth. It is the myth that creates and sustains inequality. That cuts public spending, that sells off public assets and that creates scarcity for the many and over abundance for the few.

The problem is not the people. The problem is Thatcher’s myth.

 

[stevec67]

The problem is not that the public are selfish and vindictive. The problem is the myth that government has no money of its own.

The truth is that our government can never run out of money and can always afford to buy anything that is for sale in its own currency.

The reason we have growing inequality is the myth that there is no alternative, a myth sustained by the lie that government only spends tax revenue, therefore any public spending require tax rises.

It is this myth that creates scarcer and harder to come by public resources. It is the myth of scarce resources that creates competition amongst those most in need of those resources. It is this myth that is behind hatred and anger at the idea that someone else might be getting a hand on those resources.

In 1983 Margret Thatcher said

“Let us never forget this fundamental truth. The state has no source of money other than the money people earn themselves. If the state wishes to spend more, it can do so only by borrowing your savings or by taxing you more. There is no such thing as public money, there is only taxpayers’ money”.
​

This is a not a truth, fundamental or otherwise. It is a myth. It is the myth that creates and sustains inequality. That cuts public spending, that sells off public assets and that creates scarcity for the many and over abundance for the few.

The problem is not the people. The problem is Thatcher’s myth.

No, the people are selfish and vindictive. That's why they keep voting for this sh*t. I hear it all the time, again and again, every factory, every office, every pub. Over and over and f**ing over. Thatcher's myth is an aside, even if it is your favourite hobby horse that gets trotted out every bloody day.

 

[ks.234]

No, the people are selfish and vindictive. That's why they keep voting for this sh*t. I hear it all the time, again and again, every factory, every office, every pub. Over and over and f**ing over. Thatcher's myth is an aside, even if it is your favourite hobby horse that gets trotted out every bloody day.

Shame you can’t discuss anything without instantly resorting to ad hom. No doubt you’ll blame someone else if you get some back.

The truth is that what you hear everyday is a consequence, not a cause.

Your hobby horse that you trot out is that people are vindictive and shit. I have a more optimistic view of human nature. Politics is not an aside, it is fundamental and at present it is used to constrain anything that is good about human nature so that all that is left is survival instincts and desperation.

Thatcher’s myth is not an aside. It gets trotted out day after day in different and evolving forms by politicians and pundits. It is the cause of the inequality that is the topic of this thread.

Thatcher’s myth is foundational, it is causal, to all the social and economic distress suffered in this country today.

If you can’t see that….that’s up to you.

 

[stevec67]

Shame you can’t discuss anything without instantly resorting to ad hom. No doubt you’ll blame someone else if you get some back.

The truth is that what you hear everyday is a consequence, not a cause.

Your hobby horse that you trot out is that people are vindictive and shit. I have a more optimistic view of human nature. Politics is not an aside, it is fundamental and at present it is used to constrain anything that is good about human nature so that all that is left is survival instincts and desperation.

Thatcher’s myth is not an aside. It gets trotted out day after day in different and evolving forms by politicians and pundits. It is the cause of the inequality that is the topic of this thread.

Thatcher’s myth is foundational, it is causal, to all the social and economic distress suffered in this country today.

If you can’t see that….that’s up to you.

Where is the ad hom? I am commenting on your behaviour. That is not, ever, ad hom. If you think it is you need to do some more reading. Your behaviour is to trot out your old hobby horse. Every. Bloody. Thread. If you want to call out MY behaviour on here, be my guest. That's fair game. I'm not going to "blame" anyone. I'm hitting the post content, not the poster. If you want to hit my post content, bring it on.

If my hobby horse is that people are vindictive and shit, so be it. Large quantities of them are. I see it every day, from all walks of life, from min wage factory workers to managers, self employed businessmen and the man on the Clapham Omnibus. If you think that you are going to tackle this by educating 35 million voters in your version of Keynesian economics, you crack on. Good luck.

 

[ks.234]

Where is the ad hom? I am commenting on your behaviour. That is not, ever, ad hom.

It is the very definition of ad hom. Attack the post, not the poster

If you think it is you need to do some more reading. Your behaviour is to trot out your old hobby horse. Every. Bloody. Thread.

The very definition of ad hom

If you want to call out MY behaviour on here, be my guest. That's fair game. I'm not going to "blame" anyone.

you just have

I'm hitting the post content, not the poster.

No

If you want to hit my post content, bring it on.

You said that Thatcher’s myth is an aside. It is not. It is the cause of the inequality that is the topic of this thread. If you wish to argue that Thatcher’s ideology and the myths that sustain it are not the central cause of inequality, or that it isn’t a myth, then I look forward to hearing it

What is more, it is the fact that Thatcher’s myth is still believed to be true that sustains the politics of inequality

If my hobby horse is that people are vindictive and shit, so be it. Large quantities of them are. I see it every day, from all walks of life, from min wage factory workers to managers, self employed businessmen and the man on the Clapham Omnibus. If you think that you are going to tackle this by educating 35 million voters in your version of Keynesian economics, you crack on. Good luck.

Thatcher’s myth is my hobby horse. People being making poor moral choices are the consequences of Thatcher’s ideology,

 

[stevec67]

It is the very definition of ad hom. Attack the post, not the poster The very definition of ad hom you just have
No

You said that Thatcher’s myth is an aside. It is not. It is the cause of the inequality that is the topic of this thread.

What is more, it is the fact that Thatcher’s myth is still believed to be true that sustains the politics of inequality

Thatcher’s myth is my hobby horse. People being making poor moral choices are the consequences of Thatcher’s ideology, they did not cause it.

I AM attacking the post. FFS.
"KS, you are a tosser". That's ad hom. I'm attacking the individual.
"KS, you always post the same stuff, and this post is no different". Not ad hom, I'm attacking the individual's behaviour and the post.
It really isn't hard. I did the latter, not the former.

 

[stevec67]

You said that Thatcher’s myth is an aside. It is not. It is the cause of the inequality that is the topic of this thread.

Let's go back 40 years for the solution to the problems of 2023. Great idea. Or no, let's say that 40 years ago was before many voters were bloody born.

If you wish to argue that Thatcher’s ideology and the myths that sustain it are not the central cause of inequality, or that it isn’t a myth, then I look forward to hearing it.

The cause of the CURRENT inequality is the result of the CURRENT government of the last few years. Thatcher's ideology may be a myth, the thing is that the current shower have weaponised the inherent selfishness, greed and "I'm all right Jack" attitudes of the Great British Public. Guess what? They keep voting for them, myth or not.