As the dust begins to settle, some of us holding our collective breath in anticipation of a Boris-run London – and Gordon licks his wounds and wonders if this was all to do with the abolishing of the 10p rate – I thought it may be a good time to start thinking about notions of equality. I wanted to start by looking at the commitment all the main parties have made to ending child poverty.
Last Monday I attended the 4 Children/Barnados conference, addressed by, among others, Nick Clegg (Lib Dem), Michael Gove (Tory) and Stephen Timms (Labour), where a pamphlet, ‘Turning up the volume on child poverty’, was launched. With contributions from Labour’s Ed Balls, Michael Gove and our own David Laws, the pamphlet calls for clear policy commitments from all three parties.
Nick’s speech focussed on education and the relationship between social mobility and parents’ income. He argued for a more flexible system, better maternity/paternity benefits and higher quality childcare available to all.
He proposed extending the childcare tax credit to workless families – “moving money from subsidies for the well-off to support the poorest – instead of the other way around.” And argued that language was a barrier for many immigrant children and that developing English language skills should be a priority for them.
Michael Gove suggested that child poverty was a relative term, his definition was being “excluded from the good life” he was interested in creating a society that was “more cohesive and more equal” and spoke about “moving away from social justice” – whatever that means. He referred to a new Tory metaphor (borrowed from Polly Toynbee) of society being a caravan moving through the desert; the important thing was that those at back did not fall behind. His vision was of a society where people were brought out of dependency, able to take control of their lives. He put a lot of problems down to absent fathers and reiterated that the Tories would “reward commitment”. He lauded the success of Academies and bemoaned the scandal of children not reading by age six. Tories would reward talent and enterprise and create a more meritocratic society.
Stephen Timms welcomed the strength of the End Child Poverty coalition. Labour had committed to the abolition of child poverty within a generation. He emphasised the importance of a job as a route out of poverty. He also talked a lot about what the government had already done to take children out of poverty.
For me the most challenging speech came from Lisa Harker, co-director at the Institute of Public Policy Research.
While acknowledging that Labour were the only party to have implemented any policies to end child poverty, she criticised the party’s approach as being highly centralised and putting more effort into getting people into work – rather than looking for more flexibility in the workplace.
The Tories, she suggested, were interested in messaging rather than policy, identifying the root causes as addiction and family breakdown, rather than understanding the complexity of issues that lead to child poverty.
She took Liberal Democrats to task for having a hybrid model, focusing on education but with no significant pressure to tackle the wider issues, in particular redistribution.
She identified what she saw as the major barrier to change, namely deep underlying inequalities in society. For her the problem was the underlying winner takes all culture; a place where working hard is just not enough.
Her solution was to redistribute to tackle the underlying inequalities. Sweden, for example, redistributes through the tax system (and in a much-publicised Unicef Report last year came 2nd in the league of child wellbeing in rich countries, compared with our bottom place).
Lisa saw a real problem with the need for public support which had hardened against the poor, 1 in 3 believing poverty is the result of laziness or lack of will power. Her concern was that in reality tackling poverty is just not a vote winner, although she speculated whether the outcry over the 10p rate would mark a shift in public attitudes.
Finally she challenged us all that we have a great opportunity to up the pace of change, but recognising that there is not a quick fix solution and that any solution requires public backing which is just not evident at the moment.
I left feeling exasperated. As a party we do have a commitment to improve outcomes for children, the pupil premium, more affordable housing, higher child benefit, but there is so much more we could do. The government’s Every Child Matters agenda looks at improving the wellbeing of children and young people across a range of indicators, but equality is not one of them.
I know it’s not a popular position, especially after our recent Tax Commissions, but I honestly believe we need to have a good hard look at what more we can do to contribute to ending this scandal. What was it Nick Clegg said about being radical and taking risks?!
* Linda Jack blogs at Lindyloo’s Muze.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Joy of Six 1529
Liz Saville Roberts to Give the David Lloyd George Memorial Lecture at Gwyl Cricieth Festival
Labour deputy claims that Farage is a threat to democracy
We do have a two-tier policing system but it is not what our homegrown racists think it is.
Peter Martin
Gordon Lishman
Roland
David Murray
Tristan Ward
55 Comments
I’m exasperated too! Both of our recent tax policy papers have been redistributive AND we’re the only party committed to see local government funding based on the ability to pay.
We’re committed to eliminating tax loopholes exploited by the super-rich; increasing the tax threshold so that those on the lowest incomes pay less tax; and, most importantly, eliminating the wasteful, frustrating and stigmatising system of tax credits.
It’s time the government ended the red-tape and loopholes nightmare, and gave us a simple, fair and understandable tax system.
I would like to know how David Laws responded to the accusation by the IPPR that the Liberal Democrat’s policy is inadequate in tackling redistribution.
I am not a tax expert. Although I did not support the party dropping it’s previous committment of taxing the rich more (50% taxes on those who earn more than £100K), I was reassured at the time that our new policies more than made up for this, notably with the Green Taxes?
Were we hoodwinked? Or have the IPPR not looked into this seriously enough?
I’d like to know what he said too.
Personally, while the 50% rate and our “extra 1p” policies were popular, they’re not fair.
My view is that if ANY government is to raise taxes that hit a large number of people, then this should only be AFTER they have eliminated all tax concessions and loopholes that either are no longer appropriate, or, never were.
I think it’s entirely the correct approach, as it’s the most democratic. How many people have actually voted to allow some extremely wealthy people to get away with paying no tax by setting themselves up an a tax haven. Worse still, they’re getting another subsidy with tax-free fuel to fly back and forth.
“She took Liberal Democrats to task for having a hybrid model, focusing on education but with no significant pressure to tackle the wider issues, in particular redistribution.”
Redistribution, per se, is not the government’s business.
“Redistribution, per se, is not the government’s business.”
Who’s business is it then? The philanthropic rich perhaps? Or is it up to the deserving poor to work a little harder for some extra crumbs?
The government’s business is to redistrubute unearned common-wealth from the privileged haves to the stakeless have-nots. Income tax ain’t the way though, otherwise poverty would have been eliminated long ago.
“Redistribution is not the governments business”
Agree very much with the sentiments already expressed on this…it is naive to assume that the rich will simply redistribute themselves…they wont so the government has to redress the imbalance within the system….
On redistribution not being the governments business…
Agree very much with the sentiments already expressed on this…it is naive to assume that the rich will simply redistribute themselves…they wont so the government has to redress the imbalance within the system….
The devil is in the detail: Redistribution, per se, is not the government’s business.
In other words, the size of the gap between richest and poorest is, in itself, of no concern. Objective poverty certainly is a concern, but the distinction is important.
But the question then becomes how do you end poverty if not through a measure of redistribution….?
I think Redistribution Is the governments’s business. I read this quote recently-
“…policymakers might ask, not what we should do for the economy, but what the economy can do for us”.
Have a more sensible definition of poverty that something as arbitrary as 60% of median income. That’s not poverty, it’s inequality, and you can never ‘solve’ inequality in a free society.
– That’s not poverty, it’s inequality, and you can never ’solve’ inequality in a free society. –
There is a degree of inequality that becomes unfair. What’s wrong with wanting a free and fair society?
– There is a degree of inequality that becomes unfair –
No, there’s a level of deprivation that is either dangerous to human welfare as in absolute poverty and must be alieviated, or acts as a significant barrier to opportunities necessary to take care of yourself and your family and should be offset as in provision of services like education for all and child care.
Fair, being entirely subjective, depends on where you are sitting. It is perverse though to argue that if there are two people, one of whom sits around all day on a sofa doing nothing while the other goes out and works and becomes a success, helping 100s of others in the process, that it is unfair on the cushion moistener that inequality between them has increased.
As has already been pointed out there comes a certain time when wealth inequality means that freedom is in fact negated for those at the bottom end of the inequality….as such I am against the freedom of the rich to avoid their tax obligations and so on and so forth….
I ain’t disagreeing (no one would) that Sofa sitter should be afforded exact equality. Sure – leave them somewhere not far above the level of deprivation.
But i Am saying that there is a degree of general inequality that becomes unfair – Per Se. Lets exclude the sofa-sitters. It’s the hard workers that I am including – and a lot of them happen to be on minimum wage. It’s simply not a fair (or free) society if there is massive inequality.
– As has already been pointed out there comes a certain time when wealth inequality means that freedom is in fact negated for those at the bottom end of the inequality… –
Sure, there are extreme cases where someone for example owns all the land in an area and exploits it to charge high rents. These extreme cases though are why liberals oppose uncontestable monopoly ownership.
But that’s not a very good argument for adopting 60% of median income as a measure of poverty. It’s an argument for good competition laws and a land tax. And as far as the definition of poverty goes it’s an argument that supports the line above about removing barriers to meaningful opportunity stated above.
£100 (per week? – if you want…) means close to nothing to a millionaire. It makes a world of difference to the lowest earners. If you have any sense of general untility you would want to mimimise inequality.
But people who are rich by definition own the majority of a socities wealth so is it not arguable that they in fact hold a monopoly over not land but capital…this is the argument for a redistributive programm of taxation…
Of course redistribution (or not if you happen to be a free market libertarian ) should be in the political agenda. Otherwise politics would just be about the best way of allowing an unfettered free market which is not deep down what i hope most Liberal democrats are all about ?
However our previous Tax changes , (even allowing for the very risky assumptions as to how the shift to green Taxes would effect behaviour and thus overall tax revenue) were designed I understand to ensure that everyone earning under c£65K gained .
I certianly did not and still do not think it should be our priority to assist the ‘poor’ who earn well over twice the national average salary , as by definition there is less fund available to assist those who are actually poor by most normal peoples definitions.
This was surely an opportuinity lost.
Regards
John Fraser
– But i Am saying that there is a degree of general inequality that becomes unfair – Per Se. Lets exclude the sofa-sitters –
I agree, but then we’re talking about something different to the government’s definition of poverty. My main point is that we can’t ‘solve’ child poverty if the definition makes little sense
– But people who are rich by definition own the majority of a socities wealth so is it not arguable that they in fact hold a monopoly over not land but capital… –
Well no, because this wrongly assumes that capital, like land is fixed. It isn’t, new businesses and their capital are precisely that, new. A good example is the market for music. If this wasn’t true there would be no such thing as growth.
Norman Scott – I agree that the definition of poverty might need some work, given how relatively (!) rich we all are now, and perhaps untying from general inequality (as lon as we understand that inequality is, Per Se, a Bad thing)-
As an aside – This is from Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations-
“By necessaries I understand not only the commodities which are indispensably necessary for the support of life, but what ever the customs of the country renders it indecent for creditable people, even the lowest order, to be without. A linen shirt, for example, is, strictly speaking, not a necessary of life. The Greeks and Romans lived, I suppose, very comfortably, though they had no linen. But in the present times, through the greater part of Europe, a creditable day-laborer would be ashamed to appear in public without a linen shirt, the want of which would be supposed to denote that disgraceful degree of poverty which, it is presumed, nobody can well fall into, without extreme bad conduct. Custom, in the same manner, has rendered leather shoes a necessary of life in England.”
– Of course redistribution should be in the political agenda. –
But I agree with you, the issue is surely what redistribution should be in our agenda and to whom.
Well no, because this wrongly assumes that capital, like land is fixed. It isn’t, new businesses and their capital are precisely that, new. A good example is the market for music. If this wasn’t true there would be no such thing as growth.
But that would be to falsely assume that mononopolies dont then develop in new markets and not all capital is new…you are assuming there is a level playing field between Steve’s Records and the Virgin (or is it Zaaavi now) Megastore next door….some capital is also acquired by ‘liquifying’ assets (or workforces) or another way is the predatory acquistion of smaller companies….
– But that would be to falsely assume that mononopolies dont then develop in new markets –
Not at all, if you have active competition policy it doesn’t matter where the monopolies develop, you have the tools to deal with them and break them up. I hope we agree we are against monopoly.
But going back to your point you made a bold statement that the rich by definition monpolise wealth. That evidently isn’t true, they also create it, that was my point.
If then you’re going to engage in redistribution you need to ensure, where possible, and like every other aspect of our desire tax policy, that you’re taxing bads not goods. Then spending it on creating meaningful opportunities for those without and relieving deprivation not just spreading it around on the basis of a weird definition of fairness that indescriminately rewards failure, penalises graft and creates poverty traps.
But they create it not in bulk for the rest of society but for themselves. Much is made of the trickle down effect but how are we seeing that with the gap wideneing between rich and poor in society…is it not in fact that we are seeing the reverse is the case…if the trickle down effect actually worked in reality then the enriching of the top strata would not result in the widening gap that it so self-evidently does…
One point worth remembering is that redistribution is a lot easier in a country like Sweden that has lower levels of people with very poor labour market potential (such as those with literacy difficulties). Even if we were prepared to tax at Swedish rates it would not be sufficient to deliver Swedishly-low child poverty rates, because there are more children in Britain in households that have low earnings potential. For that reason our pupil premium policies should be seen as valuable not only in themselves, but also as a necessary precursor to solving (residual) poverty/severe inequality via traditional tax and spend policies.
But for the moment I find the question of whether every kid should have an x-box or an education easy: education wins down the line.
…if the trickle down effect actually worked in reality then the enriching of the top strata would not result in the widening gap that it so self-evidently does…
This is an extraordinaryly naive statement Darrell. Inequality can increase for many reasons, barriers to setting up new businesses for example, raising taxes on cigarettes, income or alcohol, cronyism, scrapping the assisted places scheme, closing grammar schools, weak shareholder democracy… and yes as we’ve I hope agreed, monopoly exploitation.
You can’t though sit in your armchair and blankly claim it’s all down a failure of the capitalist… and then conclude from that, that the answer is to indescriminately raise taxes on the wealthy.
Barriers to setting up new business increases inequality?? Or maybe its the fact that existing ones increase the wages of executives disproportionatly to the rest of the workforce….
The notion that taxes on cigerettes and alcohol are responsible for rising inequality is patently a total nonsense because taxes on those things increase across the board and by no means all poor people smoke and drink…the primary cause of inequality is the inequality of incomes…
Redistribution is based on the false premises that is is fair, effective and possibly efficient.
Closing loopholes, standardising enforcement procedures and ensuring a level playing field to provide access and opportunity for all will eliminate the iniquitous distribution patterns that damage individual lives and the general state of society.
Prevention is always better than a cure – the scars should provide a permanent reminder.
– Barriers to setting up new business increases inequality?? –
Of course it does, it’s one of the major drivers of inequality in Africa where in some countries it can take over a year to get through the bureaucracy. Barriers to entry for new firms increase the power of those already in the market. You can’t compete with Microsoft if only Microsoft is allowed to sell software.
– The notion that taxes on cigerettes and alcohol are responsible for rising inequality is patently a total nonsense because taxes on those things increase across the board and by no means all poor people smoke and drink –
Sorry you think that, it just happens to be true. Like other commodities, the poor spend a greater proportion of their income on basics like fags and booze than the well off. Ergo prices go up, inequality goes up. If you don’t believe me, look at the party’s own tax figures, used to calculate the tax burden and take out booze and fag tax. If you do that the top and bottom 20% are paying almost exactly the same proportion of their income in tax.
– the primary cause of inequality is the inequality of incomes…-
Sure but we’re not communists, we don’t think inequality of incomes is wrong, we believe in merit, thrift and property, and we generally think incomes should be determined by the market not political fiat or committees.
– the iniquitous distribution patterns that damage individual lives –
I don’t know about you Orangepan but I never seen anyone in the UK mugged by an iniquitous distribution pattern.
– Prevention is always better than a cure –
Isn’t this the argument the Labour govenrment use for ID cards comrade. I’m also curious as to why you equate success with a disease with this language.
Errr we dont live in Africa….
And of course they spend a ‘greater proportion’ because there is less to spend in the first place…thats like saying a hosepipe drains a greater proportion of a lake than it does an ocean…but the point remains that this is not *what makes them poor* but it is their level of income which determines that…something which you then go onto recognise…
Inequality of income equates to inequality of opportunity which in turn leads to a lack of freedom…suddenly the market isnt looking so free is it?? David Cameron seems quite keen on redistrubitive taxation (rhetorically in any case)suppose he must be a ‘communist’ too 😉
Er no… if all other things remain equal and you put up excise taxes you increase inequality. Saying you don’t, becuase you could solve the problem by making everyone more equal is a circular argument.
– Inequality of income equates to inequality of opportunity which in turn leads to a lack of freedom… –
Sure, and I care deeply about that if we’re talking about access to education and health. I don’t though if we’re talking about access to trainers and satellite TV. The freedom to buy M&S ready meals rather than McCann oven chips is something you need to earn for yourself.
The difference between our positions is that I believe in redistribution to combat deprivation and create meaningful opportunities. You seem to want to redistribute anything and everything regardless of how it was earnt or how it would be spent. Or have I misunderstood your argument.
Norman, in agreeing with you and expanding on your point I seem to have lost you somewhere.
Social inequality, poverty and injustice can’t be solved by whining about behavioural choices, but by extending opportunity and providing entitlement through infomed choice – that’s empowerment.
As a concept redistribution attempts to rebalance flawed distribution patterns, but this is a wasteful and futile game of catch-up when ensuring a level-playing field will indirectly and gradually create better, more equal and fairer distributions.
I agree that the government is trying to paint ID cards as a preventitive panacea, but that is the lie that gives rise to the false and unwinnable debate.
It’s the same as the left-right question, we liberals properly deny the false questions which are forced upon us by the framing of our opponents.
I think the quote by Adam Smith is relevant to your point about MP3’s and oven chips with the caveat that i would rather people were helped to have the better foodstuffs first….’depravation’ can be cultural as well as economic though especially in a consumerist society where people are actively encouraged to consume to keep the system working….consume beyond their immediate means too….and it is that consumption that makes the rich rich as you would ackowledge I think….
Yes Adam Smith is agreeing with my point, he’s arguing for meaningful redistribution according to cultural norms, not for the sake of it to achieve some arbitrary benchmark of equality.
As to your other point, I’m really unclear what you’re saying. Are you against consumers? Are you suggesting we should raise taxes to help irresponsible people pay off their credit cards?
I’m saying that without debt the system wouldnt work….and without debt the rich wouldnt be very rich at all….it’s a bit rich for you to bemoan ‘irresponsible’ people with credit cards because they are the bedrock of the incomes of the people you seem so desperate to defend from the social and economic consequences of their own wealth…
So again I ask the question, are you suggesting we raise taxes to pay off credit card bills?
I presume your tacit silence is acceptence of the basic premise….no i am not but government’s should be proactive in combating debt and the problems it causes not helping create it with things like tuition fees….
I found your premise so eccentric that I thought it more polite to ignore it. I do though agree with you that governments should avoid increasing poverty through bad policy.
I dont see whats eccentric about it…if credit didnt exist…if people purely lived within their means then would the system work….the answer is no of course it wouldnt….you cant seriously be telling me that the economy would function without credit…if thats so why is just about every fiscal descision at the moment guided by the desire to get people to spend money??
Er yes… capitalism, exchange, buying and selling etc. can all function quite alright without credit. The economy would be smaller and more unequal, as only the already wealthy and extremely thrifty could afford to invest in new business to any great degree, but it would still function.
As to why it’s good that people spend money, think about which is better for jobs and growth, sticking your money in a hole in the ground, or spending it on something somebody else produces.
“But the question then becomes how do you end poverty if not through a measure of redistribution….?”
A measure of redistribution, yes, to assist those most in need. But not redistribution for its own sake, i.e. from some misguided attempt to level incomes. The distinction is vital.
Well lets abolish credit and see if your supposition works which i am sure it wouldnt…capitalism is not merely the buying and selling of goods…if it was then capitalism would have been the mode of production since time began. Part of capitalism is the production of money as a commodity in and of itself.
To drag this back to the topic somewhat, the relevancy of credit to poverty is that simply the easy avaliabilty and lack of regulation of the provision of credit is another contributory factor to poverty. Increased regulation of the provision of credit is something that would need to be considered to help raise people out of poverty.
Ending poverty has nothing to do with levelling INCOME (certainly not by taxing productive work) and everything to do with equitably sharing community-created WEALTH – reducing debt-dependency as a consequence.
The distinction is vital.
‘Those affected by the abolition of the 10p band are amoung the hardest working families in Britain’ – cant say i disagree with that. In other words the highest income earners are not the most productive workers it’s those at the bottom end of the scale.
– the easy avaliabilty and lack of regulation of the provision of credit is another contributory factor to poverty. –
It cuts both ways Darrell. If only the rich or moderately well off can borrow to invest or set up new businesses, then it’s extremely difficult to get yourself out of a low start in life.
Equally freely available credit for spending can encourage people to live beyond their means. But that’s not a new phenomena (or restricted to the poor) and in many respects it’s better today than historically. For example before credit cards, the loan sharks used to prowl the estates with rates so high that you could never escape, and enforced by threats of violence. Legal credit, reasonably regulated is better than the alternatives.
We also now have refinancing that can make debt more manageable and personal bankruptcy laws which help people start over if they’ve made unrecoverable errors. If I’d improve anything it’s the weak state of personal finance education in schools.
Helping people manage their risks repsonsible through education is important. But claiming them as victims of unseen social trends and introducing bail-out funds for the feckless is counterproductive.
Most things in this debate cut both ways and there are a whole plethroa of reasons that people do get into debt – fecklessness is by no means the only one though. I was not seriously arguing that credit should be abolished more was making a point by saying it. The point is that once people are in debt then there does need to be mechanism’s for reducing that dependancy and ultimately getting people out of that situation.
I agree that there are positives about how things currently are and can even agree that education in personal finance management would be dull but a worthy measure. I would also add that there needs to be more intensive and targeted educational efforts for people who are already in that situation and the services of professionals in debt management need to be as freely avalible as possible.
Having said that there are concrete instances where people do become the victims of what you call ‘unseen social forces’ in other words market forces and one called Northern Rock springs to mind. In these instances the state does need to be prepared to intervene in the wider interest and ‘bail people out’.
Having spent yesterday galavanting around Worcester I sadly come to this debate late! I am delighted to have sent a few hares running, but reading the comments it has highlighted for me what I think is one of the fundamental issues we as a party have to grapple with If we are to get our story clear. Our strap line free, fair and green. Putting green to one side for the mo (but we need to be clearer on this too) I have always argued that free and fair are concepts that are far too motherhood and apple pie and open to broad interpretation. This debate highlights this. So, we skip along, all with our own notions of the words……….until we discover we are chatting at cross purposes! The freedom of the rich to exploit the poor doesn’t often result in the greater freedom of the poor……does it? As the debate has highlighted, I may consider it fair to tax the wealthy more, but others see that as a mark of unfairness. I wanted to pick up on a few comments. Firstly angentmancuso – the idea that the gap between rich and poor is not the business of government. Given the constraints on my word count I was unable to mention that Michael Gove himself touched on this as a great evil and lauded the likes of the military and John Lewis for addressing this in their pay structures – I will be interested to discover if and when the Tories come up with any policies whether this will feature as a manifesto pledge! As a progressive party surely we are committed to redistributive tax policy?
Steve Ronald – I agree, you can never solve inequality in a free society, but you can and should surely mitigate against it? The same argument could be used against regulation, you can never stop all accidents so maybe you should forget Health and Safety legislation.
On defining poverty – I agree the definition is crude and clearly on the basis of that definition we will never eradicate child poverty – by definition we will always have families on less than the median. But at the moment it is all we have to go on.
On the interesting exhange between Darrell and Norman on paying off credit cards. Actually, if that were the problem it may be easier – for many of the poorest families it is paying off debt to loan sharks, doorstep lenders – all at exorbitant rates, they find themselves financially as well as socially excluded. Its not just that they pay more tax proportionally, it is also that they pay more for financial services, utilities and other services.
I would agree about the problem being not so much credit cards but loan sharks. I deeply resent the implication that people who get into debt are by definition feckless (after all we have seen plenty of examples of the fecklessness of people with money) and would contend that what maybe called the cultural pressure to fufill an economic imperitive to consume plays a role here. I’m not saying this is the sole truth in this debate, just that it is an angle that needs to be addressed.
I doubt it will surprise anybody to hear that I am in favour of redistributive taxation in principle but recognise that it is far from the last word in tackling these issues. We need to be looking at a raft of measures which challenge debt and a (over) consumption culture and it is my contention that this had wide-spread implications for other issues like the enviroment too.
A little bit dissapointed that the tone of this debate seems to be –
a) Resolving aroud whether some redistribution will simply allow the ‘poor’ to buy more x boxes or whatever (do the calculations on minimum wages or supplementary benafits X -boxes do not come into such a families budget ) .Unless their is a insinuation that most of the poor are feckless ??
B) An overemphasis on defining poverty . We do not need an exact defination of ignorance to know that we need a good education system to minimalise that . Likewise we should not use a lack of an exact agreed defination of poverty to get stuck in to tackle that social evil also.
C) There seems to be an underlying assumption that even a small rise in taxation will distroy wealth generation , despite the fact that throughout the 1960s and even into the 1970s the UK had a steady level of growth while relatively high (perhaps in this instance too high taxes) .
Perhaps this debate could veer more towards WHAT POLICIES people belive we should actually be implementing to tackle poverty in the short / medium term . This is separate from our Child education policies which may well help the next generation but will not impact immediately .
Any Thoughts ???
Best Regards
John Fraser
There’s something to be said for working out where we want to go before debating the best way to get there John, but I take the point. 2 wishes? Let’s tackle poverty by a) raising the threshold significantly, and b) tackling the housing problem by LVT and planning reform.
agentmancuso – yes absolutely agree that is a good place to start. We do have a range of other policies in place and in the pipeline that will contribute, so John you are right to raise this. What we need is a joined up approach where all our policies are analysed as to whether they contribute to or help alleviate poverty.
Darrell, the reality is that debt is often the result of purely surviving. Centrepoint published a report a couple of years ago “Too much too young” which found that 82% of homeless young people were in debt by amounts ranging from £1000 – £15000. In my time as a youth worker and in my work now (on the FSA Financial Capability Strategy) I come across examples all the time of young people struggling to survive on the pittance they get be that JSA or other benefits. If they are 16/17 (and think of all those leave care at 16 and have no choice but to fend for themselves) they are not even entitled to the full minimum wage. How on earth any young person on benefits or low wages can survive, particularly in London, beats me. The other variable for those on low incomes (as well as financial exclusion) is that amounts are relative. For a high earner with a few thousand debt they know they will eventually pay it off. For someone on low income or sporadic income (another policy area maybe with agency and casual working?) the same amount is often impossible to imagine ever being free of.
I will return to the interview with Nick Clegg on my blog, but he was cautioning against alienating the middle classes. My view is we have to grasp this nettle if we are to really make any progress. Our timidity in other areas has never done us any favours. Lets do the radical and risky Nick promised on the hustings!
I agree Linda, the thing is that timidity impresses nobody least of all the people who it is supposed to reassure. I think a bold programme of reforms would actually impress the middle classes….