Is austerity working- and will it ever end?

[Cyclone]

Ah, I guess this might have been your source;

 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/householddisposableincomeandinequality/financialyearending2016

 

Quote

he growth in median income over time has not been experienced equally by all households. Over the past year, median disposable income for the poorest fifth of households rose by £700 (5.1%). In contrast the income of the richest fifth of households fell by £1,000 (1.9%) over the same period.

 

[Robin-H]

6 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

Is there a source for this, it's proving fairly difficult to check.

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/813338/average-disposable-income-per-household-uk/

That gives a snapshot now (or recently) of disposable income by decile.  But we need multiple years of data to see if it's increased or decreased.

I don't think I was putting words in your mouth.  

You specifically told Anna that she was wrong.

Now you appear to be agreeing that it's hit the poorest the hardest.

I believe I have provided sources to those claims in earlier comments. 

 

Where did I say Anna was wrong that austerity hits the poorest the hardest? 

[Cyclone]

On 15/03/2019 at 07:20, Robin-H said:

Income equality has decreased since 2010.  

 

The richest are paying a higher share of the tax than before. 

 

Is that the ‘establishment agenda’.? 

If you were not directly contradicting her with these statements, then it must have been a strawman?

 

This is interesting though

Quote

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.

Taking a longer-term perspective, the median disposable income for the richest fifth of households in 2015/16 was 2.3 times higher than in 1977 (when comparable records began). The median income of the poorest fifth of households has also grown over this time, but the rate of growth has been slower (2.0 times higher in 2015/16 than 1977).

I suspect however that you and Anna are using different definitions for the rich.  You are talking about the top 5th of earners, Anna is talking about the rich, very different groups IMO.

[Robin-H]

3 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

If you were not directly contradicting her with these statements, then it must have been a strawman?

 

This is interesting though

I suspect however that you and Anna are using different definitions for the rich.  You are talking about the top 5th of earners, Anna is talking about the rich, very different groups IMO.

I quoted those stats to refute the fact that there is some establishment agenda to crush the poor, which is what she was claiming in her comment. 

 

I think the top 5th of earners includes the rich. 

Edited March 18, 2019 by Robin-H

[Cyclone]

It includes the rich of course.

So does the top 100% of earners, a meaningless claim.

 

The top 5th of earners includes the rich, however the top 5th of earners are not by any means all rich or the rich.

[Robin-H]

Just now, Cyclone said:

It includes the rich of course.

So does the top 100% of earners, a meaningless claim.

 

The top 5th of earners includes the rich, however the top 5th of earners are not by any means all rich or the rich.

I don’t know what you’re arguing. It’s not my arbitrary grouping, it’s just from the source I provided.

 

I’m not going to argue whether the top 5th of earners are considered rich or not - that’s going to depend on personal opinion.

 

Obviously the richest of the rich are the top 0.1% or an even smaller percentage, but they will be included in the figures for the top 5th, so if their income has rocketed, the fact that the lowest 5th still increased more suggests then they must be a tiny proportion. It doesn’t really bother me either way, like I said I’m not going to argue about it, I’d rather enjoy my evening instead. 

[Cyclone]

It's not arbitrary, but it isn't relevant to what Anna said.

9 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

I don’t know what you’re arguing. It’s not my arbitrary grouping, it’s just from the source I provided.

 

I’m not going to argue whether the top 5th of earners are considered rich or not - that’s going to depend on personal opinion.

 

Obviously the richest of the rich are the top 0.1% or an even smaller percentage, but they will be included in the figures for the top 5th, so if their income has rocketed, the fact that the lowest 5th still increased more suggests then they must be a tiny proportion. It doesn’t really bother me either way, like I said I’m not going to argue about it, I’d rather enjoy my evening instead. 

Rich generally refers to assets not income, although there's probably a correlation.

[max]

Surely we cannot consider austerity to be over until such time as services are returned to the level they were at before 2010? By services I include all those public sector jobs which have been decimated. Those such as fire, police, librarians, nurses, etc., etc. 

 

Plus, the return of the billions of pounds which have been denied the tax payers by the incremental reduction of central government money to local authorities.

 

For those affected by the massive cuts to funding and jobs austerity will never end.

[El Cid]

I have just found out that my local council fund a gardening service for older people and disabled. I personally don't think its been done in the right way and gardening is not an essential service, so austerity is definitely over.

The customer pays the gardener £11 per hour, the council scheme pays the gardener £4 per hour, so the gardener get £15 per hour and the customer gets a subsidised service, DBS checked and all that.

How much do gardeners charge in your area?

 

[lil-minx92]

49 minutes ago, El Cid said:

I have just found out that my local council fund a gardening service for older people and disabled. I personally don't think its been done in the right way and gardening is not an essential service, so austerity is definitely over.

The customer pays the gardener £11 per hour, the council scheme pays the gardener £4 per hour, so the gardener get £15 per hour and the customer gets a subsidised service, DBS checked and all that.

How much do gardeners charge in your area?

 

Is this just for council house tenants? If so it probably saves the council money as when the old person pops their clogs the council would be left with a big clear up job. 

£15 per hour is quite a lot if the gardener justs mows and strims I suppose but a 'proper' gardener would warrant that rate