Jump to content

Is austerity working- and will it ever end?

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Robin-H said:

Why would it? It might have done, it might have not. 

 

 

I mean, it looks like you're saying that maybe it WAS because of austerity and that we can't say that austerity works against equality.

On 15/03/2019 at 10:50, Robin-H said:

Which makes it even more impressive that at a time of austerity the government have ensured inequality has gone down by increasing the incomes of the poorest and raising the tax burden on the richest.. 

And that the government should be applauded for a moderate increase in equality, which could have been a much greater increase, if not for government policies which directly cause inequality.

On 15/03/2019 at 07:20, Robin-H said:

Income equality has decreased since 2010.  

 

The richest are paying a higher share of the tax than before. 

 

Is that the ‘establishment agenda’.? 

And you're directly arguing against Anna B's point that austerity hit the poorest the hardest;

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/14/austerity-poor-disability-george-osborne-tories

 

Quote

Our analysis shows that, contrary to Alexander’s pledge, changes to taxes and welfare payments since 2010 have indeed hit the poorest hardest, whether you look at the record of the 2010-15 coalition government or that of the Conservative government elected in May 2015. Some changes, such as increases in the personal allowance and the minimum wage, have boosted incomes; but others, especially cuts to benefits and tax credits, more than offset this.

Looking both backward and forward, by 2021-22 the overall impact of all these changes will have been to reduce the net incomes of the poorest fifth of households by about a tenth, on average, while making little or no difference to the incomes of the richest fifth.

 

Quote

Income tax cuts for millions of workers announced in Philip Hammond’s budget will “overwhelmingly benefit richer households”, analysis has found, with almost half set to go to the top 10% of households.

The analysis by the Resolution Foundation (pdf) thinktank found that welfare cuts would continue to affect the poorest households, despite Hammond’s announcement that austerity was coming to an end.

It kind of makes you wonder about those equality figures actually doesn't it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/03/2019 at 07:20, Robin-H said:

Income equality has decreased since 2010.  

 

The richest are paying a higher share of the tax than before. 

 

Is that the ‘establishment agenda’.? 

https://data.oecd.org/inequality/income-inequality.htm

 

Decreased SINCE 2010?  Doesn't look like it.

 

It decreased between 2009 - 2010, and has never been lower than the 2010 figure.

 

It's also still significantly higher than most of our comparable peers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

I mean, it looks like you're saying that maybe it WAS because of austerity and that we can't say that austerity works against equality.

And that the government should be applauded for a moderate increase in equality, which could have been a much greater increase, if not for government policies which directly cause inequality.

And you're directly arguing against Anna B's point that austerity hit the poorest the hardest;

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/14/austerity-poor-disability-george-osborne-tories

 

 

It kind of makes you wonder about those equality figures actually doesn't it.

I never said austerity didn’t hit the poorest the hardest. Please don’t put words in my mouth. 

 

I said the government enacted policies that mitigated against them being hit harder by ensuring that their income increased more than any other group and the poorest have been taken out of paying income tax altogether. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Robin-H said:

I am merely pointing out that despite austerity inequality has decreased and the incomes and disposable incomes of the poorest fifth of people in this country have increased the most. 

 

Is there a source for this, it's proving fairly difficult to check.

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/813338/average-disposable-income-per-household-uk/

That gives a snapshot now (or recently) of disposable income by decile.  But we need multiple years of data to see if it's increased or decreased.

1 minute ago, Robin-H said:

I never said austerity didn’t hit the poorest the hardest. Please don’t put words in my mouth. 

 

I said the government enacted policies that mitigated against them being hit harder by ensuring that their income increased more than any other group and the poorest have been taken out of paying income tax altogether. 

I don't think I was putting words in your mouth.  

On 15/03/2019 at 00:17, Anna B said:

Austerity was a Tory con. It didn't need to happen. In fact it has added to the problem, but it suited the Tory and Establishment agenda - a further move towards Neoliberalism - every man for himself, winner takes all. Austerity has mostly affected the lower echelons of society and left those nearer the top untouched. In fact during this period of 'Austerity,' the richest have got even richer off the back of it.

No wonder the Tories don't want it to stop, and are therefore at great pains to stop Jeremy Corbyn from getting in.

You specifically told Anna that she was wrong.

Now you appear to be agreeing that it's hit the poorest the hardest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, I guess this might have been your source;

 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/householddisposableincomeandinequality/financialyearending2016

 

Quote

he growth in median income over time has not been experienced equally by all households. Over the past year, median disposable income for the poorest fifth of households rose by £700 (5.1%). In contrast the income of the richest fifth of households fell by £1,000 (1.9%) over the same period.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

Is there a source for this, it's proving fairly difficult to check.

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/813338/average-disposable-income-per-household-uk/

That gives a snapshot now (or recently) of disposable income by decile.  But we need multiple years of data to see if it's increased or decreased.

I don't think I was putting words in your mouth.  

You specifically told Anna that she was wrong.

Now you appear to be agreeing that it's hit the poorest the hardest.

I believe I have provided sources to those claims in earlier comments. 

 

Where did I say Anna was wrong that austerity hits the poorest the hardest? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/03/2019 at 07:20, Robin-H said:

Income equality has decreased since 2010.  

 

The richest are paying a higher share of the tax than before. 

 

Is that the ‘establishment agenda’.? 

If you were not directly contradicting her with these statements, then it must have been a strawman?

 

This is interesting though

Quote

While median income for the majority of households has recovered to pre-economic downturn levels, income for the richest fifth of households has fallen by £1,900 (or 3.4%) in real terms. This has been largely driven by a fall in average income from employment (including self-employment) for this group following the economic downturn.

By contrast, the average income of the poorest fifth has risen by £1,600 (or 13.2%) since 2007/08. This is mainly due to an increase in the average income from employment for this group, reflecting increases in both the wages and employment levels of people living in these households.

Taking a longer-term perspective, the median disposable income for the richest fifth of households in 2015/16 was 2.3 times higher than in 1977 (when comparable records began). The median income of the poorest fifth of households has also grown over this time, but the rate of growth has been slower (2.0 times higher in 2015/16 than 1977).

I suspect however that you and Anna are using different definitions for the rich.  You are talking about the top 5th of earners, Anna is talking about the rich, very different groups IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

If you were not directly contradicting her with these statements, then it must have been a strawman?

 

This is interesting though

I suspect however that you and Anna are using different definitions for the rich.  You are talking about the top 5th of earners, Anna is talking about the rich, very different groups IMO.

I quoted those stats to refute the fact that there is some establishment agenda to crush the poor, which is what she was claiming in her comment. 

 

I think the top 5th of earners includes the rich. 

Edited by Robin-H

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It includes the rich of course.

So does the top 100% of earners, a meaningless claim.

 

The top 5th of earners includes the rich, however the top 5th of earners are not by any means all rich or the rich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Cyclone said:

It includes the rich of course.

So does the top 100% of earners, a meaningless claim.

 

The top 5th of earners includes the rich, however the top 5th of earners are not by any means all rich or the rich.

I don’t know what you’re arguing. It’s not my arbitrary grouping, it’s just from the source I provided.

 

I’m not going to argue whether the top 5th of earners are considered rich or not - that’s going to depend on personal opinion.

 

Obviously the richest of the rich are the top 0.1% or an even smaller percentage, but they will be included in the figures for the top 5th, so if their income has rocketed, the fact that the lowest 5th still increased more suggests then they must be a tiny proportion. It doesn’t really bother me either way, like I said I’m not going to argue about it, I’d rather enjoy my evening instead. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not arbitrary, but it isn't relevant to what Anna said.

9 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

I don’t know what you’re arguing. It’s not my arbitrary grouping, it’s just from the source I provided.

 

I’m not going to argue whether the top 5th of earners are considered rich or not - that’s going to depend on personal opinion.

 

Obviously the richest of the rich are the top 0.1% or an even smaller percentage, but they will be included in the figures for the top 5th, so if their income has rocketed, the fact that the lowest 5th still increased more suggests then they must be a tiny proportion. It doesn’t really bother me either way, like I said I’m not going to argue about it, I’d rather enjoy my evening instead. 

Rich generally refers to assets not income, although there's probably a correlation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely we cannot consider austerity to be over until such time as services are returned to the level they were at before 2010? By services I include all those public sector jobs which have been decimated. Those such as fire, police, librarians, nurses, etc., etc. 

 

Plus, the return of the billions of pounds which have been denied the tax payers by the incremental reduction of central government money to local authorities.

 

For those affected by the massive cuts to funding and jobs austerity will never end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.