RugbyRebels

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2024 8:03 pm

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2024 11:45 am

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 5:29 pm
Modern societies are unequal. The degree will differ but I’m less concerned by inequality as a concept than you are. I’m all for creating an environment where people can better themselves, which requires jobs, transport , housing etc.

Re inequality as a concept, I won't get into a big discussion on that but please, if you haven't already done so, read The Spirit Level by Wilkinson and Picket, for how, in developed countries, inequality (and not average wealth) is a big driver of violence, imprisonment, drug abuse, mental illness, obesity, teenage pregnancy, and, negatively, on life expectancy, infant mortality, trust, educational attainment and social mobility (ie an environment where people can better themselves, as you put it ).

But you agree that poverty is a big driver of support for the far right and the current riots. So (leaving aside arguments for reducing inequality) we should try to reduce poverty. My argument is this:

There are two broad methods for reducing poverty: 1) increase the size of the economy so that we all get more wealthy, and 2) redistribute (some of) the wealth that we have from the rich to the poor.

1) Growth. We're already trying to do this, the Tories were trying to do this, everyone always tries to do this. Of course we should do our best to grow the economy (without destroying the planet's capacity to support human life). But who has any confidence the Labour will do a significantly better job than the Tories (using the same fiscal rules)? Even if they are better at it, or luckier, the increase in GDP will take a long time to be noticed by the poor. In the meantime support for the far right will grow.

2) Redistribution. The government can increase this today. To whatever degree they want. Whether it's through more progressive income taxes and benefits, a wealth tax, reduction in VAT, or more indirectly by increasing local government budgets, educational and health spending, consumer price controls etc this can begin to make a difference the moment the button is pressed. This can improve the life of the poor quite quickly making them less susceptible to the bullshit easy answers and scapegoats of the far right.
(Additionally, making the poorest more wealthy will boost the economy because the poor are more likely to spend any extra money they have whereas the rich are more likely to save it.)

Therefore we should redistribute more.

And you can reduce property by developing jobs and opportunities, which is why the focus should be on levelling up.

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2024 1:08 am

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2024 8:03 pm

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2024 11:45 am
Re inequality as a concept, I won't get into a big discussion on that but please, if you haven't already done so, read The Spirit Level by Wilkinson and Picket, for how, in developed countries, inequality (and not average wealth) is a big driver of violence, imprisonment, drug abuse, mental illness, obesity, teenage pregnancy, and, negatively, on life expectancy, infant mortality, trust, educational attainment and social mobility (ie an environment where people can better themselves, as you put it ).

But you agree that poverty is a big driver of support for the far right and the current riots. So (leaving aside arguments for reducing inequality) we should try to reduce poverty. My argument is this:

There are two broad methods for reducing poverty: 1) increase the size of the economy so that we all get more wealthy, and 2) redistribute (some of) the wealth that we have from the rich to the poor.

1) Growth. We're already trying to do this, the Tories were trying to do this, everyone always tries to do this. Of course we should do our best to grow the economy (without destroying the planet's capacity to support human life). But who has any confidence the Labour will do a significantly better job than the Tories (using the same fiscal rules)? Even if they are better at it, or luckier, the increase in GDP will take a long time to be noticed by the poor. In the meantime support for the far right will grow.

2) Redistribution. The government can increase this today. To whatever degree they want. Whether it's through more progressive income taxes and benefits, a wealth tax, reduction in VAT, or more indirectly by increasing local government budgets, educational and health spending, consumer price controls etc this can begin to make a difference the moment the button is pressed. This can improve the life of the poor quite quickly making them less susceptible to the bullshit easy answers and scapegoats of the far right.
(Additionally, making the poorest more wealthy will boost the economy because the poor are more likely to spend any extra money they have whereas the rich are more likely to save it.)

Therefore we should redistribute more.

And you can reduce property by developing jobs and opportunities, which is why the focus should be on levelling up.

Assuming 'leveling up' means reducing regional inequality, I agree this should be done as much as possible.

But should that really be the focus? Rather than reducing inequality in general?

Even if successful, reducing regional inequality may do nothing for the poor, any more than being poor in London is somehow made better by sharing the city with billionaires. Even if it does benefit the poor in deprived areas, it will obviously not help equally poor people in richer areas.

And it's been shown that more equal societies are more socially mobile societies. Isn't that something you'd want?

So I don't think you've made a case for concentrating on regional equality rather than overall equality.
[/

I’d have assumed it was obvious that inequality across regions has been cause d y significant industrial decline and focus on certain sectors ? Your life chances in deprived areas are far worse than in say the south east. Developing those areas and encouraging job creation will lift thousands out of poverty without leaving them dependent on benefits.

Improve the situation in deprived regions and reduce the need for younger people to move elsewhere to find work, give those regions pride in themselves again and also reduce poverty. Improving regional inequality also improves individual inequality.

The alternative is to what? Reduce inequality by taxation. How does that fix employment issues in old industrial areas? You still have the underlying problems to deal without growing incomes from an expanding economy.

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 9:24 am

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2024 1:08 am

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2024 8:03 pm
And you can reduce property by developing jobs and opportunities, which is why the focus should be on levelling up.

Assuming 'leveling up' means reducing regional inequality, I agree this should be done as much as possible.

But should that really be the focus? Rather than reducing inequality in general?

Even if successful, reducing regional inequality may do nothing for the poor, any more than being poor in London is somehow made better by sharing the city with billionaires. Even if it does benefit the poor in deprived areas, it will obviously not help equally poor people in richer areas.

And it's been shown that more equal societies are more socially mobile societies. Isn't that something you'd want?

So I don't think you've made a case for concentrating on regional equality rather than overall equality.

I’d have assumed it was obvious that inequality across regions has been cause d y significant industrial decline and focus on certain sectors ? Your life chances in deprived areas are far worse than in say the south east. Developing those areas and encouraging job creation will lift thousands out of poverty without leaving them dependent on benefits.

Improve the situation in deprived regions and reduce the need for younger people to move elsewhere to find work, give those regions pride in themselves again and also reduce poverty. Improving regional inequality also improves individual inequality.

The alternative is to what? Reduce inequality by taxation. How does that fix employment issues in old industrial areas? You still have the underlying problems to deal without growing incomes from an expanding economy.