To which the obvious response is the one O’Toole has to offer:
The cure for poverty is an adequate income.
And yet this is precisely what society does not want to offer. Just listen to the argument on universal back income – that it will permit the idle to do nothing – and all the prejudices O’Toole refers to are apparent.
There is no reason why people cannot have enough to live on in a country of plenty. That they don’t is a decision. And it’s not a decision the poorest made. In which case it’s the responsibility of those with money. And it’s they who have to face up to their responsibility to change that.
And yes, when I talk of peaceful revolution that is one of the things that has to change.
The median equivalised household disposable income in the UK was £26,300 in the financial year ending 2016 (2015/16). After taking account of inflation and changes in household structures over time, the median disposable income has increased by £600 (or 2.2%) since 2014/15 and is £1,000 higher than the pre-economic downturn level observed in 2007/08.
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.
We’ve had median household income growth (after tax, benefits and inflation), we’ve had a fall in top end household incomes and a decent enough rise in bottom 20% household incomes.
As it well know, inequality has fallen this past decade therefore the above must in fact be true. Low incomes must have risen relative to higher ones.
He’s spouting cock, isn’t he?