Doesn’t he know this stuff?

There is little reason to add more: what we have is increasing income inequality by design in the UK.

That is what none (sic, nine) years of Tory government has delivered.

And yes, we do need to be angry. Because dividing society by choice in this way is a crime against humanity.

Doesn’t he know this stuff? Inequality is lower than it was in 2010.

15 thoughts on “Doesn’t he know this stuff?”

  1. Don’t you know that its all about the feelz now? If you feel inequality is rising then it is, regardless of all your racist white male fact-splaining……….

  2. There was a very small increase in *income* inequality, which ONS said could be a blip, after eight years of reduction of inequality in after-tax income. That is enough for the Grauniad and its fellow-travellers to claim the evil blood-sucking Tories are deliberately increasing inequality.
    “Despite the small increase income inequality remains lower than levels reached 11 years ago” [Source: ONS]
    Years of increasing state pensions (but not private sector ones) faster than inflation and protecting those on benefits (but not in work) from the decline in average earnings are instances of Tory oppression of the poor and increasing taxes on the rich/eliminating unnecessary tax breaks and tax evasion disguised as tax avoidance that were encouraged/winked at by Brown are, by some Alice-through-the-Looking-Glass method, deemed to be reducing taxes.

  3. It is worth noting that it never crosses Murphy’s mind (or Marmot’s, for that matter) that reducing taxes, compliance costs and regulation would lower barriers to entry and administrative costs, thus allowing those who are on the lower end of the income spectrum a greater chance of success in starting and growing businesses, which is the true engine in narrowing income inequality.

  4. There was a time when we had real inequality in the UK.

    In the education sector.

    Ok, I generalise here, but you had the epsilon semi-morons who never attended school or left without qualifications. The brighter who left with Os and As (and up here Highers). Then the really bright who went to Uni and graduated. Then, even more clever, those in academe.

    Right at the top, you had the unassailable professors, the intellectual crème de la crème.

    What the fvck happened, with absolute idiot fvckwits like this and Murphy in post in professorships at the top and the journos uncritically lapping up their dross? One already knighted and the other who considers the prospect of vermine still to be a real possibility?

  5. “What the fvck happened, with absolute idiot fvckwits like this and Murphy in post in professorships at the top and the journos uncritically lapping up their dross?”

    I think its down to the growth in the economy and the ability for clever people to make shed loads more money elsewhere. Who wants to be a teacher nowadays? Only the dim, too thick and lazy to make a better living out in the real world. So teachers are now actually the dross of the educational system, and its the same right to the top of the educational system.The rewards just aren’t there like they used to be (in relative terms) so you get candidates commensurate with the remuneration. Same applies to journalism…..

  6. “What the fvck happened, with absolute idiot fvckwits like this and Murphy in post in professorships at the top and the journos uncritically lapping up their dross?”

    There’s 193 Universities in the UK and plenty more with desires to be one. Each one has hundreds of courses available that must be filled and must be taught. Those needs removes any desire to be picky about appointments. You can also name any old idiot on an EU grant, though most wouldn’t make that idiot a Professor of Practice

    There’s still an academic pecking order, most of the real academic economists I’ve met either haven’t heard of him, including some at City, or find his work a nuisance or distraction. Even my cousin dismissed him, and he’s a Scottish, Keynesian Professor, so they should be soulmates.

  7. If you’re gonna start doing “sics”, Tom, you’ll need a lot more than that.

    Actually, it can be quite fun, when up against a more than usually illiterate opponent, or one who types with his forehead, to “sic” the blister every two words.

    But it’s like that Law: you’ve got to be sure you haven’t committed the same sin. Otherwise you look a plonker. Not that it’s ever happened to me.

  8. So the Conservatives in Coveney have DESIGNED an increase in income inequality without actually stealing any poor person’s money. That is so amazingly clever of them. Anyone that clever should form the government forever without the need to bother with an election.

    Struggling to understand how they’ve buggered up Brexit so badly though. Something doesn’t fit together here.

  9. @ Ironman
    What has really happened is that The Cameroons designed a decrease in income inequality by selectively increasing taxes on the rich *except the headline rate of income tax*, decreasing taxes on the poor and pushing up the real income of the poorest main category (state OAPs). Last year all these efforts combined failed to stop income inequality increasing.
    Does that make buggering up Brexit more understandable?

  10. john77

    That MIGHT be my answer, that is IF the Income Inequality odd post-tax income. So my question, which is genuine, is whether we are measuring pre-tax or post-tax here.

  11. I was looking at Disposable (i.e. after both taxes and benefits). The Gini coefficient increased slightly both for original and disposable income in 2017-8 having declined since 2010.

  12. Dear Mr Worstall

    Recessions reduce income inequality, booms increase it, so we ought to welcome increases in income inequality.

    More equality comes with less wealth: there’s an awful lot of equality in Venezuela.

    Consumption counts, not income. Fat, salt, sugar, alcohol, carbon, tobacco, meat, milk, takeaway and sock taxes impact on the poor the most, so concentrating on income inequality whilst simultaneously taxing fat etc, especially those favoured by the unwashed, serves only to salve the consciences of the hard of thinking.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *