Jump to content

No pension till mid 70-s


Recommended Posts

lol, yes it did.

 

The best-paid head teachers, used to be within the top paid 1% in society. They have seen pay rises higher than most teachers, but, again, they have been overtaken in the rankings by financiers, managers, accountants and lawyers. The rich are getting more and more wealth, helped along by our millionaire Conservative ruling Government.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/15/how-super-rich-got-richer-10-shocking-facts-inequality

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best-paid head teachers, used to be within the top paid 1% in society. They have seen pay rises higher than most teachers, but, again, they have been overtaken in the rankings by financiers, managers, accountants and lawyers. The rich are getting more and more wealth, helped along by our millionaire Conservative ruling Government.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/15/how-super-rich-got-richer-10-shocking-facts-inequality

 

There are plenty of millionaires in the Labour parliamentary party.

Surely the most capable in society tend to acquire wealth, and also power. It's hardly shocking.

 

The Gini coefficient for the UK is on the high side.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality#Gini_coefficient.2C_after_taxes_and_transfers

Latest figure I can find is 0.332. 1 is maximum inequality, 0 is perfect equality.

It's not really changed significantly since 1990. And it was higher during the last Labour government.

 

Still I'm very much of the opinion that policy should be optimised to achieve the highest standard of living for the poorest in absolute terms. That is often in conflict with the goal of minimising relative poverty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are plenty of millionaires in the Labour parliamentary party. Surely the most capable in society tend to acquire wealth, and also power. It's hardly shocking.

 

 

The point is that top doctors and teachers were once in the rich list, now they are not. MPs were once unpaid and made up of our richest and most influential, so rich Labour MPs is nothing unusual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is that top doctors and teachers were once in the rich list, now they are not. MPs were once unpaid and made up of our richest and most influential, so rich Labour MPs is nothing unusual.

 

I don't see what point that is. It's probably true throughout the world.

 

Why is it that you have an issue with rich Conservative MPs but not rich Labour MPs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see what point that is. It's probably true throughout the world.

Why is it that you have an issue with rich Conservative MPs but not rich Labour MPs?

 

The point being made was that the rich are getting richer, a smaller minority at the top.

Rich Labour MPs is another matter, if they represent all the people, their wealth is not an issue. Wealth does make that task harder, but not impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point being made was that the rich are getting richer, a smaller minority at the top.

Rich Labour MPs is another matter, if they represent all the people, their wealth is not an issue. Wealth does make that task harder, but not impossible.

 

But rich Conservative MPs are?

 

The Gini coefficient shows that the "rich getting richer" is more a matter of perception than reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But rich Conservative MPs are?

 

The Gini coefficient shows that the "rich getting richer" is more a matter of perception than reality.

 

About 20 years ago, China's Gini coefficient for family net wealth was 0.45, according to the the People's Daily website, a Communist party mouthpiece, but by 2012 it had risen to 0.73.

According to some analysts, societies that have a Gini coefficient of more than 0.40 are at increased risk of widespread social unrest.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/28/china-more-unequal-richer

 

What do you base your assertions on, for the UK?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About 20 years ago, China's Gini coefficient for family net wealth was 0.45, according to the the People's Daily website, a Communist party mouthpiece, but by 2012 it had risen to 0.73.

According to some analysts, societies that have a Gini coefficient of more than 0.40 are at increased risk of widespread social unrest.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/28/china-more-unequal-richer

 

What do you base your assertions on, for the UK?

 

Our Gini coefficient is around 0.35 and has been since around 1990.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our Gini coefficient is around 0.35 and has been since around 1990.

 

The Gini coefficient doesn't capture very explicitly changes in the top 10% - which has become the focus of much inequality research in the past 10 years - or the bottom 40%, where most poverty lies. As a result, Sumner and colleague Alex Cobham put forward an alternative - the Palma ratio - which does.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-31847943

 

I will read further when I get the chance.

Link to comment
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.