My Mrs Said the Strangest Thing Last Night

That may well be so grum. If I am correct, the IFS uses four measures – the Gini coefficient, the 90/10, the 50/10 and the 90/50 rule for their main analysis. So their conclusions ignore the 1% issue (I believe).

Hence a problem for the Tories because despite the political noise, their main support groups include many that have been squeezed relatively hard in the recession.

If you think about it if the present Governments argument that rich people contribute through spending is correct, then its also correct if the government tax heavilly and then spend surely?

Yeah except that the Government can choose on whom to spend it. Which is great for the properly disadvantaged. If you let the rich people spend their money on whatever they please, they might only spend it on things that other rich people provide, and so on.

The govt should be able to use the money a lot more effectively than just letting it do its own thing. In theory and, to an extent, in practice.

the falls in income were proportionately larger for richer househols which meant that inequality fell sharply in 2010-11

I think that was because wages did not keep pace with inflation but benefits did so it is true but hardly the whole picture. That is also net of tax for some reason not sure why tbh.

The graph on page 21 shows it has been flat from 1990 and rose under thatcher giving an upward trend from 79 and flat/slightly down [ recession caused really] since 1990
I am not sure why they say large as mean income fell by more than the top 10% – are they just comparing the top and bottom 10% THM for that quote?

it also notes that the benefits cuts and the reduction of the top rate of tax are likely to change this picture- last age iirc

It is murky THM and an interesting read- some of it is just an artefact of the recession IMHO but it seems reasonable to say it rose under thatcher and has stabilised since dropping only because wages did not keep pace with inflation whereas benefits did.

i dont think any party can truly have claimed to address this tbh

http://www.ifs.org.uk/conferences/hbai12_jc.pdf

the article from which your quote comes and some interesting graphs

Out of interest, and again stepping away from party ideology for a moment, it is intersting that perhaps arguably the most successful recovery from debt and economic collapse in the 20th century was brought about by a policy of government spending to rejuvenate the economy. I am not in any way suggesting that some form of Nazi ideology is the way forward, however, in their early days it has to be said that Adolf and the boys did bring about a dramatic turnaround in post WW1 German fortunes.

For some of us JY 😉 yes it is an interesting read. Not doubt that it is murky though. The issue about wages and benefits and inflation is true and IFS acknowledge that and I am sure that can be spun to suit!!!

Just another example of how reality can and does differ markedly from the media/political spin that is put on it. Now austerity…oh, no forget it, its Friday afternoon…

…let the pundits play around with today’s better data on the UK deficit. Rising employment stimulating rising tax revenues….hmm, and yet output data is (apparently) still down.

Murky old world out there.

or should that read…

…let the pundits play around with today’s better data on the UK deficit. (apparently) Rising employment stimulating (apparently) rising tax revenues….hmm, and yet output data is still down.

very murky if you ask me

thm – the falling tax revenues with rising employment is easily explained. The nature of employment has changed dramatically.

As well as the 2.6 million unemployed, there are another 1.4 million who were in full time work before it all went tits up, but now can only get part time. Hence the lack of impact on tax take.

But binners that’s not what is happening (nor what I said 😉 ) . Tax revenues were up today, not down, so all as to be expected. On changing nature of employment, true, but even adjusting for that productivity is down – hence my comment this morning that labour is being substituted for capital.

edit: but if, and it is an if at the moment, companies are hoarding labour, then the exploitation thesis starts to weaken!! The again, those evil capitalists may be exploiting their workers and the economy and productivity is a stronger than official GDP statistics suggest!!!

I am not in any way suggesting that some form of Nazi ideology is the way forward, however, in their early days it has to be said that Adolf and the boys did bring about a dramatic turnaround in post WW1 German fortunes.

Nothing dramatic imo.

It would have been extremely difficult for the Nazis to make the situation they inherited any worse. An improved economic situation through rearmament and infrastructure projects was a pretty much guaranteed. The German economy improved dispite Nazi bureaucratic inefficiencies, deep internal rivalries, duplication of authority, and the purging of highly qualified Jews from their professions, not because of that.

Don’t believe Nazi Party spin.

but if, and it is an if at the moment, companies are hoarding labour, then the exploitation thesis starts to weaken!!

It is some way from a workers cooperative or a nationalised industry with equal wealth and income

It is indeed. OOI, what is the relation between nationalisation and equal wealth/income? (actually that was merely a rhetorical question 😉 )