Forum menu
Good point z11, remind me Why council houses were sold...
Pay inequality??? More nat lies.
Why don't you read what you copy and paste ?
[i]Generally the higher earners did better, with [b]the top 1% having the biggest increase[/b] between 1986 and 2011, at 117%. The top 10% saw an increase of 81%, while the bottom 10% had a 47% increase. Those at the very bottom did better, with the bottom 1% having a 70% increase.[/i]
So the gap between the the top 1% and everyone else is growing. The gap between the top 1% and the bottom 1% is also growing, it's just not growing quite as fast as the bottom 10%, but it's still growing.
Growing income inequality is real, it's not a lie as you claim.
Why the fascination with top earners doing so well when the poorest 1% are seeing a 70% increase in wages and that is inflation adjusted as well. Would the figures only have been acceptable if the richest had seen their wages fall? The figures show that everyone is better off in the UK since 1986. No doubt some negative nat will be along to put a negative spin on these figures.
Disposable incomes have fallen since the start of the economic downturn, with average equivalised income falling by £1,200 since 2007/08 in real terms. The fall in income has been largest for the richest fifth of households (6.8%). In contrast, after accounting for inflation and household composition, average income for the poorest fifth has grown over this period (6.9%).
ONS
No doubt some negative nat will be along to put a negative spin on these figures.
Is that suppose to be some sort of joke ?
Income inequality has been growing for 35 years, it's [u]you[/u] who's putting a spin on it by pretending that the richest 1% aren't receiving an ever increasing share of the nation's wealth.
Forget the nasty nats, let's see what the Scottish government says
The following chart, using DWP figures, shows that inequality in Scotland increased gradually between 2004 and 2009, and then decreased suddenly after the financial crisis. It also illustrates that current inequality levels are now similar to those seen in the late 1990s.
April 2014.
So what if they are? If everybody else is better off as well what is the problem? Why focus on the top 1% when the poorest 1% are 70% better off. Typical negative nat tactics.
Wow, this is too confusing.
Why focus on the top 1% when the poorest 1% are 70% better off.
That's the second time that you've said that. Why do you keep mentioning that the poorest 1% are 70% better off but not mention that the top 1% are 117% better off, according to your own figures.
It's almost as if you're trying to put a spin on it.....the very thing you're accusing the "negative nats" of doing.
The richest 1% already had more money than they could spend. The poorest 1% will have greatly benefited from the 70% wage increase. The fact that you can't see that shows just how out of touch with reality nats are. It is no wonder that the majority of people in Scotland do not want independence.
Which is why no-one needs food banks any more.
Oh wait...
fasternotfatter - MemberThe richest 1% already had more money than they could spend.
And according to you it's OK that they have had a 117% increase in their income from 1986 and 2011, [u]more[/u] than anyone else ?
Seriously ?
Or is this some sort of wind up ?
I think we may have got off topic here folk
THM is correct that since the recession inequality has fallen we cannot debate actual facts.
However none of this is really by Tory design it is has been caused by three major factors
1.We all have less. When this happens the gap shrinks as the rich tend to loose more.
2. Labour tax rise for to 50% - reduced to 45 % by the Tories but still a rise from the 40%
3. Lib dem policies re threshold of tax giving the poorer more money
Its not like reducing this is a Tory ideological aim but it clearly happened in the short term [ assuming we can call since the recession the short term] due to the economic crash
Interestingly poverty has also reduced due to how it is calculated
I would argue both are largely very short term blips/artefacts but they have occurred.
I dont care what you want to say about long term trends but the reduction generated by labour/left wing polices has been eradicated by right wing Thather type drip down capitalism [ I include Nu Labour in this]. I see little either side of the issue [ independence] to change that massively but iS will at least try to redress this [ as indeed will the Lib Dems if they are in power]
The tories wont - Who knows what red ed will do but i doubt it will be very red .
1.We all have less. When this happens the gap shrinks as the rich tend to loose more.
I'm not totally sure this is true. If you're at the top end, you've done ok.
Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them.
Nice quote but the stats say differently.
There was a fall in income inequality between 2010/11 and 2011/12. This was driven partly by earnings falling for higher income households and partly by changes in taxes and benefits. These
changes include an increase in the income tax personal allowance and changes to National Insurance Contributions and Child Tax Credits.
• Disposable incomes have fallen since the start of the economic downturn, with average equivalised income falling by £1,200 since 2007/08 in real terms. The fall in income has been largest for the richest fifth of households (6.8%). In contrast, after accounting for inflation and household composition, average income for the poorest fifth has grown over this period (6.9%)
[quote=Junkyard ]I think we may have got off topic here folk
Yeah, nobody's mentioned that there won't be a currency union for several pages.
Back on track then.
So when we keep the pound,and take no debt and take the EU place,will England try to rejoin the EU?
As you were.
Yeah, nobody's mentioned that there won't be a currency union for several pages.
Yes, even the No campaign have stopped going on about that.
I saw my first UKOK car sticker today. On a white BMW that was tailgating, driving aggressively, then using a bus lane.
I'm not sure your persistent stereotyping of No voters is achieving anything other than reinforcing your own prejudice.
I was stating a fact. I'm sorry if that fact offends you 😉
I know a bunch of intelligent, articulate No voters - one is even a mate of Gordon Brown. We've had lots of sensible discussions about it.
I was stating a fact. I'm sorry if that fact offends you
It doesn't.
Just for balance, I saw my second UKOK car sticker just now - they must be breeding - and it was on a black Golf that was driven safely and courteously.
Ben just for balance the majority of Scots do not share your views on independence and do indeed think that the UK is OK.
Enough Scots are intelligent enough to know that sterling is not an asset and therefore are unlikely to be duped. This week rUK business came to a pretty clear conclusion as well The story (should be) dead and buried. But like Farage's falsehoods I am sure some will try to resurrect the BS before too long.
Scottish tennis oppo today with "F of S" as a ring tone. I would almost offer CU just to get ride of that awful tune. If you do get an iS please find a decent anthem. FoS sucks the spirit away.
Anything is better than the dirge that is God Save The Queen.
Another good point of iScotland - we could move the 6th verse of GStQ up to first 😉
I was surprised to find that FoS was only written in the 1970's, thought it was a lot more ancient than that.
Like "beastiality's best boys", FoS should have stayed in the rugby showers. Nowhere else. Then again swing low, sweet chariot should be the same as well. Two things (can't face using the word tunes/music for either) that should never be allowed to taint a rugby field again
Income inequality. As I have posted elsewhere the poor are much better off that they where 50, 100, 200 years ago. Housing, education, health service. Even on shorter term horizons look at home ownership or things like owning a car, or these days multiple cars. The top 1% is a very wide band, from someone (or a coup,e) earning £200k pa upto the billionaires like Peter Green or Abramovich. This is the key factor in the growing wealth of the rich, it's the wealth created and retained by these invididuals which distorts the figures. Also the "poor" are under pressure from globalisation (something which increasingly is impacting the middle income bracket), we don't have basic manufacturing anymore as it's much cheaper in Bangladesh or Vietnam. So how does the government address this, it's not by making the tax rate 50 or 60%
I see the Yes/No vote significantly impacted by the desire to have a left wing Government in an independent Scotland, I think voting Yes in September because you believe a left wing government is going to deliver a materially different society I think you are mistaken.
Scotland already has a materially different society - different legal system, different education system, different health service, different political outlook.
We want to keep those differences, and improve on them - we can't do that when all the control is in Westminster, which has very different priorities to ours.
You only have to have a look at how UKIP fares North and South of the border to understand the differences.
The control of those things does not lie with Westminster. How do you improve on differences? Making us more different perhaps?
The detailed control doesn't lie with Westminster - the control of the purse strings does. We still have austerity imposed upon us, policies like the bedroom tax, and of course the nuclear weapons.
OK I'd promised to stay away for 2 weeks, but this was too good not to share... 😆
[url= http://www.yesscotland.net/news/no-campaign-organiser-defects-yes ]BT organiser defects to YES[/url]
......the poor are much better off that they where 50, 100, 200 years ago. Housing, education, health service.
And the very wealthy are also much better off than they where 50, 100, 200 years ago with regards to housing, education, and health care. They live in a healthier environment with all the advantages of modern technology, education/knowledge, and modern health care.
So it turns out that it's still a huge advantage to be part of the 1% who own a huge proportion of the nation's wealth relative to their tiny size, and this proportion of wealth is as large today as it was a hundred years ago.
All the concessions which have been made over the last one hundred years through political and industrial struggles, in terms of social and welfare provisions, has consequentially not touched the wealth of the 1% who today own as much of the nation's wealth as they did a hundred years ago.
And yet despite all that they still want to roll back the welfare state and the hard won social provisions. It seems that their greed knows no bounds - having the same proportion of the nation's wealth as they had a hundred years ago just isn't enough, they still want more.
And judging by the attitude of many including some on here they'll get more. Whatever temporary setbacks the banking crises caused them short term.
As a society we have turned logic, commonsense, and economic justice, upside down, as we reward staggering levels of failure and incompetence with multimillion pound bonuses, golden handshakes and golden hellos, and we happily allow the super rich to fill their pockets and boots, while everyone else has to tighten their belts.
The power of marketing politics eh ?
That is right ernie all those rich and successful people should all stop being so rich and successful and then that means all of the money they would have got would go to the poor people instead because they would suddenly learn how to be successful. Those pesky middle classes might try to get their hands on the money though so we also need them to be less rich and successful as well to ensure that the money only goes to the poor. How about we ban education for all children and in one generation we will have a level playing field of idiots all as unsuccessful and poor as one another! At least the rich won't be rich any more.
all of the money they would have got would go to the poor people instead because they would suddenly learn how to be successful
Yes, because poor people are poor because they just haven't learned how to be successful. They're probably too stupid, lazy or ****less to get rich - it's all their own fault really.
So fasternotfatter, you believe the rich need to be even richer, that failure should be rewarded with huge bonuses, and that the situation which existed 50 years ago when income inequality was considerable lower than it is today was unacceptable, care to explain why ?
On a more serious note ernie.
[i]As a society we have turned logic, commonsense, and economic justice, upside down, as we reward staggering levels of failure and incompetence with multimillion pound bonuses, golden handshakes and golden hellos, and we happily allow the super rich to fill their pockets and boots, while everyone else has to tighten their belts.[/i]
Were you writing about Alec Salmond because didn't he praise Fred Goodwin when RBS took over ABN? A deal that broke RBS and seriously dented the UK economy.
On a more serious note ernie.
It wasn't really was it......it was just more silly point scoring.
FNF - excuse me if I am not following your train of thought correctly. But, and it's a big but, the man you want to entrust with your future well-being was a massive supporter of the hubris that's was the RBS bid for ABN. He was even giving personal support for his Celtic Lion embarking on one of the most ill-judged acquisitions in banking history.
It was my job at the time to advise and comment on these deals. And it was breathtakingly obvious that it was not only a very bad deal but also massively mispriced. And yet, your man was personally recommending it ie, going out of his way to ensure that his PERSONAL support was behind mad Fred.
Trying to spin that into a yS argument will be some feat. I am looking forward to it....
...then again if an economist like AS cannot tell the different between a bank's asset and it's liabilities then I guess understanding valuation and M&A really is too much to expect!
And the very wealthy are also much better off than they where 50, 100, 200 years ago with regards to housing, education, and health care
@ernie - just a couple of points
The wealthy are much worse off in terms of housing, 50 or 100 years ago a wealthy person would own a whole house in London not a flat or a country estate rather than a large house. Education was arguably superior with small class sizes at school and university plus this provided a huge relative advantage as most of the poor left school at 14. Health care they where also better off relatively but of course medicine for all as moved on. Today the NHS keeps you alive after a heart attach or cancer whether you are in the 99 or the 1%
You are guilty of a generalisation that the 1% want to see the dismantling of the welfare state, you cannot make that generalisation. There are many supporters and donars in the 1% and the fact is the 1% are paying 25% of the bills for those things and in many cases not using the services (eg education and benefits)
@ernie - most of the people at the top of the 1% don't get a "bonus" as they don't work in a normal job. If you do get a Yes vote you'll be able to run your own tax policy, if you put top rates of tax up you'll find your top people moving over the border. If you don't like bonuses you'll be able to outlaw them.
Labour are conflicted in the campaign as a Yes vote in Scotland would be bad for the Labour party in the UK. It's no surprise to see Labour campaigners switching sides.
@bencooper - on the nuclear issue I think we (the UK) should use an independent Scotland as an excuse to cancel our nuclear submarine programme. If we don't cancel it we should move it elsewhere. I wouldn't for 1 second want to give any concessions to an independent Scotland in return for keeping the base at Faslaine. I would much rather see the money spent elsewhere in the military
THM - Salmond actually wrote to Fred Goodwin offering his praise for the ABN deal, can he really be trusted to run a country with his obviously flawed judgement?
That is my question. IMO, obviously not. This is just one of many examples of why he is not fit for purpose. But I thought you were a supporter of his? I must be mistaken. The RBS example is just another example of his opportunism. This is compounded by his failure to grasp basic concepts relating to how you govern a country. I have said many times before, Scotland and rUK both deserve a LOT better.
The wealthy are much worse off in terms of housing....
Bollox are they. The 1% can afford housing way beyond the wildest dreams of ordinary people. I only scan read after that, it's obvious that you're not going to be serious.
Although I did notice this :
.... a Yes vote in Scotland would be bad for the Labour party in the UK.
That's nonsense too. The evidence shows that a Yes vote would have no significant effect on the Labour Party in the rest of the UK.