Unequal Britain: UK's Inequality Crisis Explained
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 04. 2024
- An explanation of why the UK is seeing a rise in inequality - not just income, but also wealth, geographical and age inequality.
► Please subscribe! / economicshelp1
About
► www.economicshelp.org was founded in 2006 by Tejvan Pettinger, who studied PPE at Oxford University and teaches economics. He has published several economics books, including:
► Cracking Economics. www.economicshelp.org/shop/cr...
► What Would Keynes Do? Amazon amzn.to/2xShqq4
A look at UK's economic decline and why we are all getting worse off. czcams.com/video/8V5pkSvyK0g/video.html
Thank you for covering this. Wealth inequality has been almost normalised in this country. Society atm very messed up.
It's global. The wealthy and corporations aided by their self interested short sighted for personal financial, power and political gain political puppets have created a system designed specifically to advantage them and screw the workers.
There's only one thing that causes inequality, and that is the fact that people are not equal. No matter how many self-serving arguments the communists will come up with, the root cause of inequality is that our society is a mix of people, some of whom are very capable, and some of whom are total screw ups. That is just a basic unalterable fact of life. Inequality is naturally going to grow over time, because if someone is one unit better than another person over a given day, then after seven days the first person will be seven units in front, whereas after sixty days they will be sixty units in front, etc. The people at the bottom need the more capable people to generate a surplus. Yet every brain dead left wing idea is always focused on clipping the wings of the top performers, and bringing everyone back to the lowest common denominator. Left wing thinking is just a recipe for making everyone poor (and entrenching the power of the rulers). Left wing philosophy does nothing for people at the bottom of the pecking order, and even worse, it removes their capacity to improve their own life.
@@daleviker5884 What?😂 What are you talking about there are no communists in the comments just people concerned about very hard working individuals missing out because you can no longer “just work hard” you have to have 3 jobs/businesses. Your “explanation” added absolutely nothing to your argument…it’s clear you don’t see the struggles younger millenials and gen z face. We have to work 10x as hard, make businesses and invest from the day we turn 18 to get anywhere.
I grew up in and live in a very very wealthy area…one of the wealthiest in the world. I was very lucky because of housing association/council housing to have been given very similar opportunities to build my education like the wealthy people around me despite my parents being refugees working minimum wage. I also work with very wealthy people and let me tell you something…most of them don’t have jobs. Most of them are incredibly lazy, entitled and expect everything handed to them like their parents have done. The reality is those building the most wealth in my area live off of inheritance and do nothing valuable for society. Meanwhile all the working class people I know work their asses off to still get played.
It took me a lot of time and effort to build a basic level of wealth to where I could perhaps put a deposit down on a flat in the suburbs/outskirts of London. I did not enjoy my youth 😂 It was just working, investing and hoping I would be able to relax in the future. I am ahead of others my age yes but I’m unsatisfied because it’s still not enough to thrive.
@@daleviker5884 The government should not serve the wealthy. The government should not serve the perfectly able-bodied people living in council estates having everything paid for them. The government should serve ordinary WORKING people and neither party does that at the moment. No one cares about the ordinary people.
I agree - to the extent that people have lost the fact that wage inequality is a political decision.
What a fallen, broken & evil world we live in.....and it's only going to get worse. :( :( :(
A very good analysis. The government seem to think making someone poorer will make them keener.
UBI is basically the state pension for old people.
It is the same dilemma in Australia.
For litterally my entire life that I can remeber it feels like there has been a slow-ish decline. Turns out its becuse there was/is.
My grandparents bought their terraced house, my parents bought a nice semi in a village and we have a nice detached house. I did wonder, about 10 years ago, how can this carry on. Our adult children are renting. I hope we don’t need to have to move to a care home, so that our children can inherit our house
With the cost of care homes, your house would be paying for the care home
This video should be circulated widely. If it were, I truly think the Cons. would never see power again. Tax asserts and scare the bejesus out of the gammon. I probably shouldn't say that on this very polite channel. My goodness where have you been all my life. You're absolutely now my go-to-guy on economics.
You are great, I've been waiting for a channel like this.
Taxation also needs to move from labour to passive income sources. It makes no sense that dividend, rent, inheritance or property increases - money you make while doing nothing, should be taxed less than your physical work.
But then you incentivise people to keep the capital in their bank. And then you might say why is that sitting cash being taxed as well then?
And then the cash leaves the country never to be seen again and we end up poorer.
Truth is in the global economy you need to play ball with the ultra rich or you lose them to countries that do. Even countries like Ireland that used to have famines can be a competitor in terms of wealth management and hiding taxes.
Thats a hard pill to swallow for many.
edit: There is a great example of this. A while back France tried to implement a wealth tax and everyone moved to Belgium with their money. Now France tries to block people from moving money to Belgium...
They aren't.
Dividend income is taxed twice. At corporation tax, then additional income tax on the net dividend.
How should the increase in the value of your house be taxed? Only when you move? And sell 1 house to buy... 1 house. So why would anyone sell a house?
Tax on rents is high. If you aren't a Ltd company you can actually pay tax even of make a loss due to the dumb way interest costs are only deductible at 20% rate. If inside a business, same as dividend comment above.
This is so informative. Thank you.
Insightful analysis of a very grim situation, looking forward to the UBI video - can you explore anything on the likelihood of UBI being adopted as policy as I hear a lot about the studies that get carried out but not if there's any actual appetite to implement
Things may change quickly in next few years. But, it would be hard to implement now (political will)
This is the most important issue facing the UK today but it will be brushed under the carpet as long as possible. Maybe the next generation will do something about it but I'm not holding my breath...
Thank you...!
Very good video, thank you. Inequality and lack of education or prospects also have grave political implications. Those left behind tend to be protest voters. These negative emotions find an outlet among the populists and other right-wing politicians. You could argue that Brexit happened, because this wealth equality made some feel left behind by globalisation and then voted against their own interests. I have also often wondered why UK became so much like USA. I would love for some historian of ideas to study the topic.
Britain has been wedded to the United States at least since the early part of the 20th century. Money united them, then war, and then money again. The international Capital Markets we have today were devised by the private banks in the City of London who held USD on deposit for American Corporations, and other financing. The US had capital controls on the USD, which meant other nations and corporations in Europe were having problems getting enough USD to buy commodities and finance growth. This caused inflation to go up. So very quietly, British bankers decided to lend out these dollars in short term loans to governments and multinational corporations who needed them on a wholesale basis. The banks had millions available, and they demanded the best collateral and got it too. They made a lot of profits. Eventually, the American banks wanted a piece of the action, and together British and American bankers created the offshore Eurodollar Market, which was the basis of the global International Monetary System we have today. And it's unregulated and not supervised by any governments. And it is run by an association of private banks, who run it themselves. Its why Britain controls either directly, or indirectly over 50% of the global tax havens still today. With no official democratic oversight from any government. And that market's turnover is not officially tracked by anyone except the banks running it. Which probably explains why central banks - including the BoE and the Fed can't track inflation properly, because the money in the "Euro Market" is officially offshore, but money flows between it and national economies. For example, its been estimated that the Eurodollar Market - trading USD - has almost 2×the amount of USD in it than the US domestic economy. Why? All transactions in the offshore Eurodollar Market are denominated in USD, and these banks making these loans are creating new money every time they lend to their customers. And so, their profits on these loans are in USD. It's worth trillions of dollars. So the British and American financial sectors are entangled, and just follow the money. That's why where Middle East oil was in the 50s and 60s the Brits and the Yanks were always sniffing around. And British and American millionaires meet up regularly. Just follow the money.
yes I agree with this observation
considering the skills shortage in the UK and training opportunities, its debatable whether it was against their own interests... the eu allowed free flow of goods and labour.. UK gov and business used the situation to under invest in UK workforce, driving down standards, conditions and skills of Uk workforce. A perfect example was truck drivers... filthy conditions for drivers... rock bottom pay...
You lost remoaner and still complaining about it. Pathetic.
XDDDD "right wing bad grrr" insight of a toddler.
Brexit was about non tax co-operation if we consider the AML directives and the calling for a public register of offshore beneficial ownership, the best that has been achieved is a blanket 15% on corp tax, however secrecy jurisdictions will remain just that and the pesky EU can do one was the establishments cry!.........whilst I am on that subject was it not the case that Wales and other deprived areas were promised that all EU funding would be 100% matched, has that happened? I don't think so!
The rise in inequality in the UK seems to track the country’s deindustrialisation pretty exactly. In 1973 manufacturing accounted for 30% of the UK economy. in 2023 it’s 9%.
Good analysis. Can you pass your ideas on to politicians or some of the new media like Novara and Doubledown .
Thanks for covering, it is grotesque & absolutely amazes me how the uneducated are completely unaware just how farcical the current system is.
A Land Value Tax might be a good way forward too?
Thanks - another great vlog.
If the government becomes revenue dependent on taxes paid by the super wealthy, it will be forced to follow policies which keep those people super wealthy. If you need tax receipts from Amazon to fund the NHS, you won’t pass any anti-monopoly laws which reduce Amazon’s profitability.
During the postwar recovery of 1945-1973, we had both our highest per capita economic growth and our lowest inequality. At that time government tax revenue depended more on raising the earning capacity of the median worker than raising the earning capacity of billionaires.
Rising house prices bring inequality in that it makes purchasing a house much less attainable than it was. However, it DOES NOT make such house owners any more wealthy, except perhaps , notionally.
We bought our modest 3-bed detached in 1980 for £35K, and it's now worth probably £450K. But we can't access that money unless we sell up and live in a tent.
The beneficiaries will be our children, who will inherit the property when we peg it.
Sir, I don't understand what you mean about "Global tax co-operations to prevent tax avoidance". Taxes are already very high in the UK.
Tax rates may be high, but it doesn't mean people and companies pay them.
@@economicshelp1 🙂
@@economicshelp1 And having a bunch of ignorant left-wingers claim that companies don't pay their tax, simply because they are ignorant about the workings of the tax system, doesn't mean they don't. Left wingers never advise people on ways to improve their life, they only play one record, which is "vote fur us, do nothing, and we'll invent a bogeyman that you can direct your hate towards."
Again and i have laboured the point - the UK govt is a the currency issuer of the £. The £ has been off the gold/$ std since 1971, there is no need to tax wealth for the govt to run a larger defecit to put more Fiat in the hands of those struggling - this would boost aggr demand and the economy in general and allow people to pay down debt. Private debt is the issue here, if people can pay down their private debt they have more of a chance of having a better quality of live and improving the countries wealth at the macro level. Taxation at the macro level is nothing more than money being destoryed, therefore to tax the wealthy to provide better public services is a moot point, it should be to stop them being able to have access to govts via that wealth to lobby them. Neoliberialism and its proponents have largely contributed to the malaise in many countries, with the gutting of the public sector and the UK becoming concentrated around the financial district and the finnace industry - The fastest growing economy in the G7 is Japan, which has 250 % debt to GDP, which doesnt seem to hurt their economy, they have had relativley low inflation, run a trade surplus and tend to care for their citizens more than the UK or US i would suggest. they are also in control of the Bond yield curve and are not bothered about 'Bond vigilantes' - coz when you own your own bank , there isnt much the bond vigilantes can do! > if you want to understand the economy more - skoot over to Steve Keens youtube channel where he seriously understands a monetary economy - imho PS - the gov debt is the non gov surplus, why would you want to pay it back to the creator of the thing!? seems fundamently a strange aproach - and if you are concerned about the treasury paying int on the debt - simply put in a ZIRP .
But what about Gilts? Government spending is also funded by selling Gilts to the private sector. And also what about the fact that new money can only be created by entering a liability on the government's books?
Or, the fact that money is a trust-based system, which means if Stirling loses its credibility in the international monetary system, the willingness of investors to buy Gilts will also go down in value, pulling down the value of Stirling as well?
Moreover, taxation is a redistributive system. Why not use taxation to redistribute money where the cost to the economy of accumulating wealth in one sector is greater than the benefit?
Finally, how does MMT account for the fact that money is only a token for distributing resources within an economy, and as that it doesn't guarantee the amount of resources available for each token, that just increasing the number of tokens in circulation, but not the amount of resources available will lead to deflation, with the erosion of purchasing power? This goes to heart of how MMT would would work within the global monetary system.
@@BigHenFor Japans BoJ doesnt seem concerned about the willingess of investors. you may want to look into Princes of Yen by Richard Werner on the Japanese economy and external influences to bring about a collapse.
Only a complete and utter transformation of the capitalistic system would solve the inequality's of the present system, perhaps the days of politicians and those in high office are numbered and one by one they leave the stage of their inglorious reign, better times are with the people, people power is the only way of changing society's ills through a more just way of living.
Good video. It is informative. The reality facing the UK post Brexit is that the country and its people are becoming significantly poorer
With markets tumbling, inflation soaring, the Fed imposing large interest-rate hike, while treasury yields are rising rapidly-which means more red ink for portfolios this quarter. How can I profit from the current volatile market, I'm still at a crossroads deciding if to liquidate my $275k bond/stock portfolio
The market is volatile at this time, hence i will suggest you get yourself a financial-advisor that can provide you with entry and exit points on the shares/ETF you focus on.
Compare oneself to yourself yesterday. Not to someone else today.
The welfare system also prevents those who want to work and be productive, even if they cannot do so to the fullest extent (age, disability, mental health, dependants, not wanting to leave current job but not being able to acquire a second part time job, etc) from working more without having benefits taken away, and then ending up slightly worse off at times, all the while having worked as many hours that they've worked. People are given a choice between being poor, or by doing back breaking work and being slightly less poor.
you are conflating income inequality with wealth inequality, also the top 1% of income earners with the top 1% wealthiest people (most of whom don't work for a salary and their gains are typically not accounted for as income)
the main problem is extortionate property prices as a result of both tight demand relative to supply and the financialisation of housing into an investment vehicle, and this is only tangentially related to inequality in the sense that although it's thanks to the existence of a significant pool of ultra-wealthy investors that housing can stay so expensive, you wouldn't even need them for it to be the case as you'd only need to have an attractive housing-as-finance vehicle system and the ultra-wealthy would come from abroad, as they do
the reality is that inequality - particularly the extreme inequality that exists in access to housing - is not the cause but a symptom of a broken housing market that cannot be sorted by raiding the rich or any other lefty "solution" stemming from a Dickensian view of Britain eyeing to redistribute capital by state force; tory/labour socialism won't work either (raiding the taxpayer to prop the housing market) but that will certainly be done because the majority of the MPs are landlords and have multiple properties, and can claim expenses on their mortgages
Economic decline will weld them together. Divide is usually caused by prosperity when everyone just cares about what the size is of the piece of cake is they get. Poorer countries worry more about baking a bigger cake. Economic decline is very hard to cope with and will require a lot of skills and luck to make a turnaround.
Why can't the government step in and build more housing? How much housing is needed?
A lot of housing is needed. But, it's been an issue for at least 20 years. NIMBY problem
Building houses using wood and compressed straw would lock up a lot of carbon.
We need much more effective wealth taxes for that top percentage. If I was in government I'd be taxing the capital and income of the top 1% at far higher rates than are currently the case, and using the revenue to fund better wages for state employees - and strengthening the welfare state. I really think that failing to implement some form of wealth redistribution policy for very much longer would be a very risky policy indeed. Eventually the left behind may conclude that the state has nothing to offer them, and when/if they do that, then the results will be extremely dangerous. Far better to act now, whilst the resentment and anger can still be controlled, and we have a chance to manage an orderly restoration of balance.
Aggressive progressive taxation of wealth and income, frankly aimed at discouraging the single-minded acquisition of "lazy" money, money that is sequestered from circulation in the economy, will go a long way toward addressing the UK crises.
Jenny, terrifying ignorance of economics but it's sadly the norm amongst the populous so hey, you're not alone. If you're ready to have your assumptions truly shattered by fact after fact after fact and brave enough for the red pill I'd suggest you seek out Prof.Thomas Sowell's Uncommon Knowledge series on YT and any of the more than 30 of his books. You're welcome.
Thing is, if the government begins taxing that 1% even more, that 1% will just pick up and emigrate elsewhere because they will fall under tier 1 visa status for most other countries. Why keep your business here in the UK at a 45% tax rate when you can move to like Dubai and pay essentially no taxes or HK and pay a flat 15%? Also same for Doctors.. many already have left the profession because they get a penalty on their pension if they work too much (new gov rule) and then the gov are like "Oh there's an NHS crisis we dont know why you're not able to see your GP!" when it's entirely their fault. They waived the penalty for barristers but not doctors. Doctors also get paid 3x more in Australia so.. they just leave. Then the UK is gonna be left with no skilled workers and an even poorer economy. I'd personally like to see the UK reinvest into their education system (offering better bursaries for certain degrees) and better benefits for childcare so that more people can get back in the workforce so the UK can be more productive and generate more income for the economy.
@@puccarts Be careful that you do not indulge the conceit that the one-percenters are vital to the nation. They are not. The UK should encourage them to leave.
Parasites and freeloaders are not indispensable.
@@maynardmckillen9228 Well some of the one percenters sure.. but some others in the tech or medicine or other skilled trades or sectors can be very valuable. Let's keep the ones that pay taxes fairly and encourage our growth and education for sure. And get rid of the others of course.
Sitting on property waiting for it to increase in value is not a skill, it is not creation and it is not innovation.
Damn in blackpool you're dead before you even get a pension 💀
But what if we import even more cheap labor? Maybe the inequality will decrease?
So is it about the U.K. or Britain…?
British people seem so smart and honest about whats going on I don't understand why it has so many problems?
Don't believe all you read on the internet. Many area of England have no houses under $1.5million
If you shrink the size of the state at the same time as private sector investment is falling then your GDP can only fall and Keep falling
If mainstream media wanted to talk bout something important theyd talk bout this and climate change
the haves and the have nots always been like that and always will be.
Wales is not
There is no reformist solution. What we are seeing here are the symptoms of an INEXORABLE crisis of the whole system of capitalist production. This impacts negatively on every aspect of society, welfare state included (in those areas of the world where it exists in a meaningful sense) , and we must take the bull by the horns if we are ever to break out of this spiral of decline.
Capitalism today is not attacking the conditions of the majority, eroding the welfare state it itself set up to prevent revolution, transferring ever more wealth to a tiny minority, because the wrong party sits in parliament or its equivalents worldwide. It is doing so because that is the only way capitalism can maintain profitability, the only way it can squeeze enough profits to carry on functioning. The capitalist system of competition between economic entities ensures that workers can process ever more materials via improved technology, machinery, robots, computers. The result is that an ever-greater share of capital invested pays for factors of production other than paying workers. But since there is no source of profit other than those acquired by the exploitation of labour (i.e., the value of wages is less than the value the worker adds, hence the possibility of profit) the rate of profit is constantly being pressured down and capitalists compensate this at least in part by exploiting workers more. This includes paying less tax for the various services, NHS, etc. included, and benefits workers won in the past as well as holding down wages.
The reality is not that capitalism can be directed to serving the community in general, but that its survival depends on an ever-greater attack on workers’ conditions and even that will not be enough to keep the system going. It has no answer to a climate crisis which it created, and which is becoming ever more critical. Meanwhile, around the world, the great powers are ever more aggressively confronting their rivals, threatening more war. Or perhaps it may be more accurate to say it only has one possible way out of the crisis mechanism rooted in the impossibility of constantly ramping up production and maintaining adequate profitability - a massive act of destruction of capital on the scale of a global war which can give rise to a post-war growth spurt as it did after the Second World War.
Increasingly this is the bleak, binary reality facing us as we take step after painful step down the road of crisis. Either….or….
There are only two paths on offer in our period. Socialism, understood as the elimination of capitalism and its class divide, brought into being by the vast majority of non-exploiters creating the means to usher in a borderless society without wage labour, commodity production, on a global scale, or barbarism - the descent into ruin, destruction, environmental catastrophe, social collapse and ultimately the threat of the very extinction of humanity.
Understanding this is the precondition for the socialist outcome. It means jettisoning the illusions in the so-called Labour Movement, the Labour Party and the trade unions, which all operate on the premise of the capitalist framework. A capitalism incapable of a better deal, a capitalism in fact taking back any concession it could once afford.
Are there any current examples in where socialism has been effective?
@@danielthomas1355 Not really. I am specifically referring to the Marxist idea, not schemes which do not abolish capitalism. You have to understand it in terms of a global revolution. A revolution can begin in a specific territory but either it then extends globally or goes under.
The reason pensioners are taken care of and doing better is because they vote. The young don't. If they did the government would take care of them because they don't want them voting them out of office. People try to get the youth vote out, but it just doesn't happen. So, we are where we are. Voting doesn't mean much but it does affect this.
The young don’t need taking care of because that’s the job of the parents if a parent can’t look after their kid that’s a failure of the parent plus why should the young vote I’m 19 and when I was 16 I didn’t care about politics and no one in my school did and the odd one kid that did care was incredibly incompetent and didn’t know anything
My extended filmily in England are only interested in Ganja/cocaine/tattoos/piercing/BMWs/ pit bull look-alikes etc...whilst not working and maximizing their 'enhanced sickness benefit' etc... They deserve all that comes with that life style
There is wealth inequality in every Country, go look at the USA. The UKs biggest problem was all the cheap labour from the EU and elsewhere, it has pushed down salaries for everyone but the highest qualified.
With respect; it was ever thus; there will always be people who succumb to the silly idea that going to school somehow gives them an education? (the silliest idea, or the very best propaganda in all history?) the reality is that school gives you an introduction to a shortlist of mostly irrelevant subjects. An education involves either going to university and "learning a profession" and perhaps getting the first basic clues? and/or realising you really haven't been educated at all/or getting out into the world and discovering "you know nothing of "what you need to know; about earning a living" that will give you a decent standard of living throughout those decades in which you contribute to society, and in the fullness of time a decent retirement,,,,,,,,,,,, in common with many others my grandfather was a miner (in Wales)., he and absolutely all of those around him; of that generation worked hard and retired with no retirement funds or pensions at all, (just the government's age; "poverty pension". let's call it what it is, and have an end to this "Bull-Shiite" working hard; has nothing to do with winning in life........... it's all about working smart.......... remember that at the beginning of the electronic age, "they burned the goalposts"....... make of the New World what you will, from this point on it is up to you?........
South West is a paupers stronghold, its just that the Londoners I vading us have such huge incomes that makes it look like we're all millionaires!
Us locals are dirt poor compared to the invaders!
Wfh just makes it worse for non wfh staff uk is a joke
More Africans and Arabs will help as the countries they come from are so fair and equal lol
This is the biggest issue not diversity,???
We need Islam there is no accountability
Need to watch the biography of Umar ibn khataab
So a dictatorship were religion superseeds science and and an end to secularism since when is islam ever accountable
Pensioners vote, that's why their pensions are topped up a bit. The younger ones don't tend to vote.
As the young are edged out of growth and suffer more from income/wealth inequality they will vote less as they become de-politicised as they have less of a stake in society as their agency diminishes - they have to work harder to stand still economically. Equally, they will resort more to social/economic unrest as they care less about conserving the status quo and can not see the political process working in their interests.
The UK has got more service sectors in its economy, which naturally causes inequality in terms of household income. For example when guys worked in a factory as labourer, their pay differences won't be large. But if the two guys singers, then their pay gap could be astronomical, and rightly so. Equaler and poorer vs. inequal and vibrant, there is no right and wrong. But politicians always use "EQUAL" as a slogan to hoover votes from whose who's made wrong life decisions and bearing consequences.
All you are doing is extracting odd figures and spinning them into some narrative.
Pensioners are now better off simply because they mostly own their home and do not pay rent like they did a generation ago.
The poor having a larger gap between them and average is down to the average doing mush better and is a good thing.
You seem to forget that all the benefits and support the poor get is paid for by the tax paid by the better off and from business profits.
The better off most of us are means we can afford to support the poor more.
You're wasting your time talking common sense. The purpose of left-wing spin like this video is to to keep the poor downtrodden, by giving them a bogeyman that they can hate on. The last thing left wing parties want is for poor people to escape poverty, because otherwise they'd have no voter base. All they need to do is give out propagnada to the masses 24/7 telling them they have an "enemy". It is just straight out of the Orwellian playbook from 1984. Convince people they have an enemy that is responsible for all their problems, and you can get them to believe anything.
@@daleviker5884 Thank you! Yes there seems to be a marked change in the way the left operate. They now do not have the mass of people considering themselves working class to vote for them so instead seem to promote attacks on the system and our democracy.
Inequality is irrelevant. The Netherlands is also considered very unequal and yet it is a good place to be.
Inequality ranks are an statistical gimmick used by extreme left organizations to attack capitalism and to promote their ideology. Accumulation of wealth will create inequality, but what matters is how much resources the poorest have and how easy it is to get them... And those ranks don't tell you that.
There's a difference of being relatively low income, and then just straight up impoverished. We don't mind not earning alot of money, we mind that we are getting to a point where the poorest are choosing between meals and bills, and are struggling from debt (not because of frivolous spending) but because they cannot even pay their bills/taxes in full. Poor doesn't Equal poverty. Being poor is acceptable, poverty on any part of the globe is not.
@@raydromeda3777 i don't know in which country do you live (i am assuming you are from the UK), but I can tell you that those levels of poverty that you are describing, having to choose between food or basic utility bills are not a common situation in most developed countries for people with jobs, even basic jobs. so, my point stands, inequality does not matter, access to ressources does.
@@pedrolopes3542 Once you've reached a point where people have to choose between paying bills and food then you have a failed economic system and it's no longer worthy preserving. We have reached that point already. Neoliberalism has not delivered on what was promised.
@@nilsalmquist802 What exactly was "promised" and to whom was it "promised" and what exactly was the content of the "promise"?
Lack of production capacity for the levels of consumption causes the sort of issues that you are describing: not having enough "money" to pay for food, or energy, or other bills.
Money is just a theoretical representation of the existing resources within an economy, that is why printing more money does not make a country wealthier. And the UK does not have the amount of resources it needs to sustain its current levels of consumption, regardless of the economic model that you fancy the most, wild capitalism, social democracy, socialism, or hard core communism, the lack of productive capacity will always result in suffering and poverty. Ask the soviets from the 1930's, the Cubans, the Venezuelans, or the Weimar republic Germans (who were not communists but had less resources than expenses).
YOUR government policies do not help.
But who decided to impose tariffs on European food (cheaper than UK produced food)? who decided to artificially reduce interest rates to the point that it created a real estate bubble which made the entire housing market unaffordable to 70% of the population? Who created countless useless bureaucracies that make manufacturing in the UK a nightmare?
None of the policies mentioned above are "liberal"...
The simple answer is: your UK government! composed by authoritarian fools who were elected by people like you!
"Neo-liberalism" is a buggy-man created by the left to scare the stupid massed to vote for them, liberalism (new or classic) does not exist in the real world. Government always stick their nose into all business, it is too irresistible for politicians not to exert their power unwisely.