Fox Ulike Posted 15 October 2017 Posted 15 October 2017 7 hours ago, Webbo said: IFS data excludes the top and bottom 5% of earners. Anyne who uses their data should make that point clear. So this graph is irrelevant to the point Toddy was making about the poor getting poorer. It also ignores the huge incomes of the super rich, which is the point continually made by those arguing for greater wealth equality.
Webbo Posted 15 October 2017 Posted 15 October 2017 56 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said: IFS data excludes the top and bottom 5% of earners. Anyne who uses their data should make that point clear. So this graph is irrelevant to the point Toddy was making about the poor getting poorer. It also ignores the huge incomes of the super rich, which is the point continually made by those arguing for greater wealth equality. Apart from the poor aren't getting poorer according to that graph but the rich are since 2009/10 so that's lowering inequality.
Fox Ulike Posted 15 October 2017 Posted 15 October 2017 23 minutes ago, Webbo said: Apart from the poor aren't getting poorer according to that graph but the rich are since 2009/10 so that's lowering inequality. For the middle 90% it is yes, according to the graph. What about the poorest 5%? Whats happened to them since 2009?
Buce Posted 15 October 2017 Posted 15 October 2017 The Observer Children’s tsar savages NHS over paucity of mental healthcare Anne Longfield says services are ‘unacceptably slow’ to improve, in open letter to chief executive of NHS England https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/14/childrens-commissioner-attacks-nhs-mental-health
Guest Posted 15 October 2017 Posted 15 October 2017 Strokes. Wages are falling. We know that. Why are you so desperately defending the status quo which is that our country is demonstrably weaker than our competitors in.terms of wage growth? Inflation is running at nearly 3%. Have the poor seen.a greater than 3% indeed in their income in the last year? We.both know the answer to that. The graph I put.up.which came from the IFS website shows clearly that the poorest.have seen the weakest income growth.over the period of Tory rule.
Strokes Posted 15 October 2017 Posted 15 October 2017 5 minutes ago, toddybad said: Strokes. Wages are falling. We know that. Why are you so desperately defending the status quo which is that our country is demonstrably weaker than our competitors in.terms of wage growth? Inflation is running at nearly 3%. Have the poor seen.a greater than 3% indeed in their income in the last year? We.both know the answer to that. The graph I put.up.which came from the IFS website shows clearly that the poorest.have seen the weakest income growth.over the period of Tory rule. Webbo's IFS graph says different. Inflation average is 2.53% for 2017 last i read. Admittedly its still rising but lets be accurate. The autumn buget is still to come there might be something in there to address the increased inflation for the poorest.
Webbo Posted 15 October 2017 Posted 15 October 2017 35 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said: For the middle 90% it is yes, according to the graph. What about the poorest 5%? Whats happened to them since 2009? If you say the IFS doesn't use the top and bottom 5% I'll have to believe you but it looks like they're included on the graph to me.
Buce Posted 15 October 2017 Posted 15 October 2017 7 minutes ago, Strokes said: Webbo's IFS graph says different. Inflation average is 2.53% for 2017 last i read. Admittedly its still rising but lets be accurate. The autumn buget is still to come there might be something in there to address the increased inflation for the poorest. Might be? What do you suggest might happen? Removal of the block on Benefit increases? Increase the minimum wage? You live in cloud-cuckoo land if you believe any of that.
Webbo Posted 15 October 2017 Posted 15 October 2017 21 minutes ago, toddybad said: Strokes. Wages are falling. We know that. Why are you so desperately defending the status quo which is that our country is demonstrably weaker than our competitors in.terms of wage growth? Inflation is running at nearly 3%. Have the poor seen.a greater than 3% indeed in their income in the last year? We.both know the answer to that. The graph I put.up.which came from the IFS website shows clearly that the poorest.have seen the weakest income growth.over the period of Tory rule. Wages aren't falling, they are rising slightly less quickly than inflation. That doesn't take into account the huge increase in the tax threshold which has reduced the tax bill for us all, especially for people at the bottom.
Strokes Posted 15 October 2017 Posted 15 October 2017 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Buce said: Might be? What do you suggest might happen? Removal of the block on Benefit increases? Increase the minimum wage? You live in cloud-cuckoo land if you believe any of that. Im not sure why a minimum wage increase is deemed off the agenda, they've not been shy in raising it so far. Its commited to rise another £2ph by 2020 anyway, so i would think an increase is due soon. Edited 15 October 2017 by Strokes
Fox Ulike Posted 15 October 2017 Posted 15 October 2017 29 minutes ago, Webbo said: If you say the IFS doesn't use the top and bottom 5% I'll have to believe you but it looks like they're included on the graph to me. People see what they want to see. Check out the source documents if you're interested enough. The IFS are pretty clear about it. I'm learning that it always pays to get information at source rather than rely on what someone else wants you to believe.
Webbo Posted 15 October 2017 Posted 15 October 2017 14 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said: People see what they want to see. Check out the source documents if you're interested enough. The IFS are pretty clear about it. I'm learning that it always pays to get information at source rather than rely on what someone else wants you to believe. You'll have to give me a link for that, I did look. I did find this summary though; Average (median) household income in 2015–16 (the latest data available) was just 3.7% higher than before the recession (2007–08) after adjusting for inflation. This is extremely slow growth by historical standards. Income inequality fell during the recession and its immediate aftermath, and has remained broadly unchanged since then. Although it is hard to track how the household incomes of the very richest have been changing, evidence from data on employees’ earnings shows that the earnings of employees towards the very top (99th percentile) have done worse than those at the middle (median). Absolute poverty (according to the government’s official measure) has changed little. This lack of progress is historically unusual and reflects the more general lack of real income growth. https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9540 So slow growth, not great but not going backwards either. Things aren't getting worse unless you want to believe they are..
Guest Posted 15 October 2017 Posted 15 October 2017 5 hours ago, Strokes said: Webbo's IFS graph says different. Inflation average is 2.53% for 2017 last i read. Admittedly its still rising but lets be accurate. The autumn buget is still to come there might be something in there to address the increased inflation for the poorest. It's currently 2.9% so nearly 3% is accurate.
Carl the Llama Posted 15 October 2017 Posted 15 October 2017 The last couple of pages have been a remarkable study in confirmation bias: 15 hours ago, Webbo said: This image comes from a right-wing publication attempting to show how well the Tories have been doing for the poor. If labour had presided over a decade-long period where people came out just over 2% better off than at the start then the same people praising this graph would be coming up with complaints about labour being rubbish with the economy for giving them such slow growth. 15 hours ago, toddybad said: From the IFS. Before housing costs the poor look good. After housing costs not good. This graph is directly from the source quoted in the previous image and it relates to the same period plus one year. In this one it's quite clear that the poorest have had their social status reinforced by housing costs. The fact that the middle sections appear to be at parity with the highest earners in terms of post housing income progression only papers over the cracks. 14 hours ago, Innovindil said: Either you can't read a graph or I can't. Your graph shows the poorest 10% have had net income growth, even after housing costs, which is exactly the point? What am I missing? That income growth for the poorest members of society has been severely hindered by housing costs and is leaving the poorest 10% even worse off compared to the rest of society. 5 hours ago, Webbo said: You'll have to give me a link for that, I did look. I did find this summary though; Average (median) household income in 2015–16 (the latest data available) was just 3.7% higher than before the recession (2007–08) after adjusting for inflation. This is extremely slow growth by historical standards. Income inequality fell during the recession and its immediate aftermath, and has remained broadly unchanged since then. Although it is hard to track how the household incomes of the very richest have been changing, evidence from data on employees’ earnings shows that the earnings of employees towards the very top (99th percentile) have done worse than those at the middle (median). Absolute poverty (according to the government’s official measure) has changed little. This lack of progress is historically unusual and reflects the more general lack of real income growth. https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9540 So slow growth, not great but not going backwards either. Things aren't getting worse unless you want to believe they are.. "Extremely slow growth by historical standards" "This lack of progress is historically unusual and reflects the more general lack of real income growth". Like I say, it's been an education in confirmation bias. 1
Carl the Llama Posted 15 October 2017 Posted 15 October 2017 By the way the source IMF paper is here. I found this graph quite revealing: Could it be that the tories have been pandering to the older generations with protectionist policies at a cost to the youngest? Surely not.
Webbo Posted 15 October 2017 Posted 15 October 2017 6 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said: The last couple of pages have been a remarkable study in confirmation bias: This image comes from a right-wing publication attempting to show how well the Tories have been doing for the poor. If labour had presided over a decade-long period where people came out just over 2% better off than at the start then the same people praising this graph would be coming up with complaints about labour being rubbish with the economy for giving them such slow growth. This graph is directly from the source quoted in the previous image and it relates to the same period plus one year. In this one it's quite clear that the poorest have had their social status reinforced by housing costs. The fact that the middle sections appear to be at parity with the highest earners in terms of post housing income progression only papers over the cracks. That income growth for the poorest members of society has been severely hindered by housing costs and is leaving the poorest 10% even worse off compared to the rest of society. "Extremely slow growth by historical standards" "This lack of progress is historically unusual and reflects the more general lack of real income growth". Like I say, it's been an education in confirmation bias. Both graphs say the same. The bottom 5% are between 2% to 4% better off, therefor to say the poor are getting poorer is a lie. What's so hard to understand? It also mentions the 99th percentile in the summary, which is unusual to say the least if foxulike's claim that the IFS don't count the bottom and top 5%.
Carl the Llama Posted 15 October 2017 Posted 15 October 2017 Just now, Webbo said: Both graphs say the same. The bottom 5% are between 2% to 4% better off, therefor to say the poor are getting poorer is a lie. What's so hard to understand? Take another look: The numbers show that the poorest are experiencing income growth at a slower rate than everyone else, therefore widening the gap between them and the rest.
Webbo Posted 15 October 2017 Posted 15 October 2017 Just now, Carl the Llama said: Take another look: The numbers show that the poorest are experiencing income growth at a slower rate than everyone else, therefore widening the gap between them and the rest. Growth being the operative word. If your income is growing you aren't getting poorer. This isn't a complicated formula.
Carl the Llama Posted 15 October 2017 Posted 15 October 2017 Just now, Webbo said: Growth being the operative word. If your income is growing you aren't getting poorer. This isn't a complicated formula. If your income is growing but inflation is rising faster and the rest of society is experiencing faster income growth then in real world terms you are becoming poorer and more marginalised.
Webbo Posted 15 October 2017 Posted 15 October 2017 Just now, Carl the Llama said: If your income is growing but inflation is rising faster and the rest of society is experiencing faster income growth then in real world terms you are becoming poorer and more marginalised. They're taking inflation into account..
Carl the Llama Posted 15 October 2017 Posted 15 October 2017 Just now, Webbo said: They're taking inflation into account.. I don't know what you mean by that, the graphs show wage growth which is a byproduct of inflation. According to the Bank of England's inflation calculator the pound's value growth has averaged about 2.7% over the period that the graph covers, so at 2% the lowest percentile on that graph is losing out.
Webbo Posted 15 October 2017 Posted 15 October 2017 Just now, Carl the Llama said: I don't know what you mean by that, the graphs show wage growth which is a byproduct of inflation. According to the Bank of England's inflation calculator the pound's value growth has averaged about 2.7% over the period that the graph covers, so at 2% the lowest percentile on that graph is losing out. You see this bit on the graph where it says "real income growth" that means taking everything into account. Now I'll admit that such a small growth over 6 to 7 years isn't great but the poor are not getting poorer and the rich are not getting richer. Equality (which I don't personally care about) is improving.
Webbo Posted 15 October 2017 Posted 15 October 2017 On 11/10/2017 at 16:07, Buce said: Monetary Fund (IMF) IMF: higher taxes for rich will cut inequality without hitting growth Analysis supports tax strategy of Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour in UK – and undermines that of Donald Trump in US https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/oct/11/imf-higher-taxes-rich-inequality-jeremy-corbyn-labour-donald-trump Higher income tax rates for the rich would help reduce inequality without having an adverse impact on growth, the International Monetary Fund has said. In an analysis certain to be seized on by Labour as backing for its tax strategy, the IMF used its influential half-yearly fiscal monitor to attack the rationale for the reductions in tax for the highest earners in recent decades. The IMF said tax theory suggested there should be “significantly higher” tax rates for those on higher incomes but the argument against doing so was that hitting the rich would be bad for growth. “Empirical results do not support this argument, at least for levels of progressivity that are not excessive,” the IMF said, adding that different types of wealth taxes might also be considered. The fiscal monitor does not mention any country by name, but the thrust of the report suggests it has doubts about the pro-rich tax plan proposed by Donald Trump for the US. By contrast, its finding that tax systems have failed to keep pace with an ever-widening gap between those on the highest incomes and those struggling with stagnant wages had echoes of Jeremy Corbyn’s 2017 Labour manifesto. Labour proposed a new 45% tax band on those earning more than £80,000 and a 50% rate for those on more than £123,000. Corbyn and the shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, said the proposed changes were needed to arrest rising income inequality – a line of argument supported by the IMF study. The fiscal monitor said most advanced economies in the west had experienced a sizeable increase in income inequality in the past three decades, driven primarily by the growing income of the top 1%. Traditionally, governments have sought to make their societies less unequal by levying higher income tax rates on the rich and using the proceeds to help those less well off either directly or through public services. But it found that income tax systems had become markedly less progressive in the 1980s and 1990s and had remained stable since then, even though growing inequality raised the need for a more progressive approach. In an IMF blog, the head of the IMF’s fiscal affairs unit, Vitor Gaspar, said the average top income tax rate for the rich country members of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development had fallen from 62% in 1981 to 35% in 2015. “In addition, tax systems are less progressive than indicated by the statutory rates, because wealthy individuals have more access to tax relief,” Gaspar said in the blog co-written with Mercedes Garcia-Escribano. “Importantly, we find that some advanced economies can increase progressivity without hampering growth, as long as progressivity is not excessive.” IMF research found that between 1985 and 1995, redistribution through the tax system had offset 60% of the increase in inequality caused by market forces. But between 1995 and 2010, income tax systems failed to respond to the continuing increase in inequality. It also said inequality should be tackled by giving a more pro-poor slant to public spending. “Despite progress, gaps in access to quality education and healthcare services between different income groups in the population remain in many countries,” Gaspar and Garcia-Escribano said, adding that in rich countries men with university education lived up to 14 years longer than those with secondary education or less. “Better public spending can help, for instance, by reallocating education or health spending from the rich to the poor while keeping total public education or health spending unchanged,” they added. In its separate global financial stability review, the IMF said it would take several years for central banks to return interest rates to more normal levels due to the risk of aborting recovery. But the report also highlighted the risk that prolonged monetary support could lead to the buildup of further financial excesses. Too much money was chasing too few assets offering a yield, the IMF said. From the Economist; Quote But the report is about the west as a whole, rather than Britain in particular. When it comes to a specific tax rate, it says that Assuming a welfare weight of zero for the very rich, the optimal marginal income tax rate can be calculated as 44 percent and compares this with the average top tax income tax band in the OECD of 35%. So there is scope for many countries to raise income taxes rather than attempt (as is suggested in America) to cut them. In Britain, however, the top tax rate is already 45%, almost exactly at the optimal level. Mr Corbyn and the Labour party want to increase this to 50% which the IMF report implies is sub-optimal. So not really support for Mr Corbyn at all. The recommendations are really aimed at other countries https://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2017/10/tackling-inequality
Carl the Llama Posted 15 October 2017 Posted 15 October 2017 1 minute ago, Webbo said: You see this bit on the graph where it says "real income growth" that means taking everything into account. Now I'll admit that such a small growth over 6 to 7 years isn't great but the poor are not getting poorer and the rich are not getting richer. Equality (which I don't personally care about) is improving. So by your standards, in a world where inflation is at 2.7%, having your income grow by 2% is an overall improvement. Ok. And regarding improving equality I'd just like to return to your own selective evidence: 6 hours ago, Webbo said: You'll have to give me a link for that, I did look. I did find this summary though; Average (median) household income in 2015–16 (the latest data available) was just 3.7% higher than before the recession (2007–08) after adjusting for inflation. This is extremely slow growth by historical standards. Income inequality fell during the recession and its immediate aftermath, and has remained broadly unchanged since then. Although it is hard to track how the household incomes of the very richest have been changing, evidence from data on employees’ earnings shows that the earnings of employees towards the very top (99th percentile) have done worse than those at the middle (median). Absolute poverty (according to the government’s official measure) has changed little. This lack of progress is historically unusual and reflects the more general lack of real income growth. https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9540 So slow growth, not great but not going backwards either. Things aren't getting worse unless you want to believe they are.. You're so keen on being right and proving that everything's lovely under Tory rule that you'll contradict your own prior admissions.
Webbo Posted 15 October 2017 Posted 15 October 2017 1 minute ago, Carl the Llama said: So by your standards, in a world where inflation is at 2.7%, having your income grow by 2% is an overall improvement. Ok. And regarding improving equality I'd just like to return to your own selective evidence: You're so keen on being right and proving that everything's lovely under Tory rule that you'll contradict your own prior admissions. Carl, how many times? It's after inflation is taken into account. As for your second and third line, I don't know what you're talking about.
Recommended Posts