40 years after Thatcher: Inequality in the UK - BBC Newsnight
Vložit
- čas přidán 18. 06. 2019
- Forty years after Margaret Thatcher came to power, is the UK once again on the brink of a sea change?
Subscribe to our channel here: goo.gl/31Q53F
In the final of a series of three films about the direction of the UK, our economics editor Ben Chu looks at the issue of inequality.
He's visits Cambridge, home to Silicon Fen, and is joined by Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell, chief secretary to the Treasury Liz Truss and former Bank of England governor Lord King.
Newsnight is the BBC's flagship news and current affairs TV programme - with analysis, debate, exclusives, and robust interviews.
Website: www.bbc.co.uk/newsnight
Twitter: / bbcnewsnight
Facebook: / bbcnewsnight
I've given up waiting for people to wake up to the immeasurable damage Thatcher has done to this country.
Not the Liz Truss jumpscare from the start, I wasn't expecting the epitome of Thatcherism to turn up in a documentary made before she was even PM
It's the same in America 40 years after Reagan
Precisely. Reagan like Thatcher convinced the middle class to vote for their OWN demise. Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor. They were "two sides of the same coin."
All these people who think inequalities don’t exist is what’s wrong with this day and age...
Who thinks inequality doesn't exist?
Inequality is natural and on countless dimensions, we're unequal in beauty for example. Unequal outcomes does not mean an injustice has occured, some people just do better than others on a whole range of things.
One of the issues is the shadow chancellor not wanting to have to step over a homeless person, I don’t want people to be homeless in the first place.
Shitty low wage, low skill economy. Never changed and probably never will.
lmao here is Liz before she messed everything up further
Tax cuts for the wealthy don't trickle down. There"s little employment creation. Rich people make money mostly out of market speculation, property and other lucrative speculative investments that are not productive for the economy.
The US congressional research committee has written a report on “trickle down economics”. The conclusion was that wealth does not trickle down, as rich people tend to hoard it and they keep their companies money and their own money separate. So when they say that higher taxes will prevent investment into their business, it’s all BS, especially since R&D is not a taxable expense
Economics works bottom up via spending
How do i know you are all wrong without the need for examination?
"Trickle down economics", which is a propaganda term, its actually supply side economics
"The rich horde wealth", what so they can watch inflation fuck it all? Or do they reinvest to create new jobs?
Yes employment creation as under Labour Blair in those years most of the factorys and jobs had gone from the town i live and this Inequality was going on in the 90s and then kicked right in as the 2000s roll in the economic inequality asthe economy in my town now is about Tescos and ASDA
Anyone who was alive in the late '70s and early '80s who didn't work this out wasn't paying paying attention or didn't want to know.
I do not want a bloody car. I walk, get bus or taxi.
You need money for the bus and taxi too :D
Poverty is a problem not inequality. The problem is a lot of poverty statistics are just inequality statistics.
No it's inequality that's the problem. If the working classes are generating wealth then executives should be sharing it with those who actually do the work. Instead they're stealing our money by paying themselves exponentially increasing amounts.
@@shamanahaboolist but why care about the executives? What import is how the worker are doing. Better a worker is paid £15k than £12k whether the executive is being paid £2m or £50k. Ie poverty not inequality. If the executive is taking from the worker the problem is the worker is poor, not the difference in there wages.
@@davidhouseman4328 That has to be one of the most illogical statements I've ever heard. The profits of an organisation are finite. If executives and shareholders take an ever larger piece of the pie then that has to come from somewhere and the executives greedily take it from their employees.
@@davidhouseman4328 And why care about executives? Because they are the decision makers who are entirely responsible for the allocation of profit.
@@shamanahaboolist they are finite but they aren't fixed. Bigger pie means you can get a bigger piece and a smaller share.
Dear Liz, it's the super rich who choke economic growth; all that money stored safely in tax havens instead of being invested or spent in other ways..
Here in Scandinavia we pay high taxes and all do but progressively based on income level. Here in Sweden we have maybe one of the lowest Gini coefficient but still seen as one of the most innovative countries. Most of our taxes is for redistribution over our life with amazing support when you are young and old. Great parental leave, really affordable childcare enabling young families...but also a great and free education system. I think UK is missing out on brilliant talents that are in families where education is not the normal.
You're absolutely correct. Education, care of the young and old is a serious weakness in UK society, on top of rampant inequality.
Your taxes have increased recently because of your progressive government, allowing certain nationalities to just sit on the benefits. How multi culturalism damaged your economy and the country? Greetings from Poland.
@@jerry6711 I'm not surprised that your comment comes from Poland. We have high taxes for decades however to say that they have increased lately shows you have no clue as that is not correct. We get a lot for our taxes. Your view on immigration is also totally and shows that you rather listen to right wing populist than checking facts. Have you ever been to Sweden. I have been to Polen at least 25 times but I should be careful to give comments .
Our taxes have not increased recently no. We have privetly borrowed to much mony to buy real easte but so far so... good. No crash (yet) and hopefully it can be avoided. @@jerry6711
I had to laugh when the lady talked about companies investing in "training" and "equipment". Companies do their damnedest to only hire people who are fully experienced, and try to push equipment well beyond its usable lifespan, never mind upgrading or replacing it. They try and use everything up to and including the moo. The money just builds up, look at Apple, they have so much cash on hand they could just buy out dozens of companies.
As for wealthy people with money, again, it just sits there. Accumulating. There's only so much you can buy, so many toys to be played with and cars to be driven. Past a certain point the money becomes just a way of keeping score and nothing more. At least for some people.
ya companies don't invest in the buisness, they buy back their stock to please shareholders and give their ceos multi million dollar bonuses. they will fire people just to cook their states
seen it first hand, at walmart machinery was falling apart, but they just pushed us to work harder to compensate. At hamrricks they did their damdest to hire as few employees as possible and pay as little to existing employees. Once the rush season ends they cut employee hours so much one veteran told me some people had to go on food stamps
That's why they have so much money though because they don't spend it and areusually terrified of loosing their wealth, one of the rothschilds was so terrified he wouldn't even let his servants take scraps home
Am only seeing the statistics saying the rich have gotten richer but where are the statistics for the poor? Are they getting poorer or stagnant? Also how many people from the original 10% are still in the 10% today?
If you look you can find them on the Jrf website, but I assume that you have no intention to do actual research
czcams.com/video/WjwhnhtCwsM/video.html
@@pallhe and what are you trying to say by linking me that?
@@_horl_8543 shedrack kombe asked about statistics on wealth/income distribution, so this was primarily meant for him, although I recommend the video to anyone interested in the subject. I for one was surprised how far the UK is lagging behind otherwise comparable countries when it comes to income/wealth inequality. The UK needs to step up its game big time.
Basic Income for all - no more patchwork and ineffective and expensive social costs. The rich will always be rich, but the poor don't always need to be so.
This document aired four years ago is done excellently, an opportunity for me to be given a glimpse of inequality apparent in the lives in UK. Thank you for the uploading.
Inequality is always natural. But to say that massive inequality at such an enormous extent is 'meaningless' has obviously never read about 18th century France or 1900s Russia.
Do you people even think before typing? What level of inequality reaches 'unnatural' proportions? How does 'unnatural' even applies to human endeavors? I may be reading too much into it but that's sort where your kind always go. Also, you are not under tyrannical rule from these people, get the hell off the high horse. What a far-left dumbass.
@@crazy3d When does inequality reach unnatural proportions? When people in rural Mississippi are developing hookworm and have a life expectancy of 58, where people have a high birth-mortality rate, all this in the richest country in the planet. All the while, Wall Street bankers could lobby the government into giving them large checks for screwing up the world economy, and live in the Hamptons for the rest of their lives. That is unnatural inequality, when one suffers tremendously for their poverty and the other benefits enormously for their wealth.
Well, anyone who has read Sheldon Wolin understands that the United States, which behaves very much like the United Kingdom, works in what is 'inverted totalitarianism'. There are no public executions, but Government policy has allowed these classes to evolve just like this. There becomes a lack of trust law enforcement, wage laws are weakened, unions are destroyed, education becomes financially harder to gain, all the while allowing the employer class to increase their wealth at tremendous levels. World wealth inequality is 83% to the top 20%, in America it is 86% for the top 20%, in the UK it is 45% for the top 20%. Both countries, thus, have the lowest social mobility of anyone in the first world, one cannot lift him or herself why working hard anymore. We now begin to see the massive suicide and drug rates in both countries, as people who have been told all their life they can achieve lot by working hard lose hope, they realize that the Western Dream is impossible.
Russia, after the 1905 Revolution, weakened the Czar, his oppressive regime was minimized heavily by the creation of the Duma. Still, the government was overthrown years later. Karl Marx was correct on one thing, and it is that crony capitalism makes the lower class overthrow the upper class, thus the 1917 Revolution (although, in turn, was inspired by Marx). The poor majority were not allowed to move up in social mobility, all the while the upper class enjoyed riches beyond even the nobles of Europe. Meanwhile, their children were to fight in useless wars, dying at mass, something that happens today.
I am no Communist, I despise Socialism and beyond, but let us not be so ignorant in seeing that there are problems in need of fixing today.
@@hschsc1300 _"Both countries, thus, have the lowest social mobility of anyone in the first world, one cannot lift him or herself why working hard anymore."_ Don't expect me to take you seriously. You yourself don't take this serious subject seriously. Copy/pasting a humongous text wall full of demagoguery is not an argument, just a silly non-answer. The U.S btw does lag behind other developed nations in terms of social mobility (rag to riches) but it's not the worst or the second. The only serious study from recent years finds social mobility did fell in certain places sharply but increased in others inside the U.S, but remains the same on average (such a big country makes no sense to compare it to a small nation like Denmark or Norway but whatever). It concludes it's been basically the same for the last 40 plus years. You are a moron. Also, your first paragraph literally makes no sense. You need help. Seriously.
@@crazy3d Take some deep breaths.
Social Mobility has declined in the United States, it is well agreed upon by 2019. The amount of College graduates living in poverty has doubled, real wages have overall stagnated (less per hour as Americans work more than they did in 1973), the price of necessitous goods such as healthcare premiums and college education are skyrocketing, and if you adjust for inflation, the bottom 20% of the US has actually lost around $1 billion since 1978. What was once a manufacturing powerhouse, exporting more goods than anyone else by far, has now fallen short through the surrender of such an arm in turn for a near-gig economy. Since the 1970s, with all these obstacles -along with much, much more- the so called 'American Dream' that was once achievable is over. Historians have backed such a claim, calling the 1970s the end of the 'Golden Age of Capitalism'.
The OECD did a study just last year (they did exclude Italy, a country's whose middle class is significantly weaker than the US and the UK, thus the US should be third bottom of First World nations): www.oecd.org/social/broken-elevator-how-to-promote-social-mobility-9789264301085-en.htm
It is true that the US did slightly increase its social mobility, but that is over the last 5-10 years. Since the 1970s, it has declined, for the reasons given above. The current crop of employees are expected to do worse than their parents in income.
www.businessinsider.com/social-mobility-is-on-the-decline-and-with-it-american-dream-2017-7
www.pewsocialtrends.org/essay/millennial-life-how-young-adulthood-today-compares-with-prior-generations/
The country-size argument would only make sense if the US had not topped Social Mobility from the late 1930s to the 1970s (often interchanging with the UK and West Germany).
jhr.uwpress.org/content/43/1/139.full.pdf+html
And my first paragraph is to create an understanding of how vast the difference is today. I even added the 2008 Financial Crisis, where the wealth of the upper class was invested in constant lobbying since the Reagan era to benefit a certain section of the country rather than address another. It is all very true though, there were large bailouts put into bonuses for bankers who now live in Hampton condos, while there are massive drug and infection problems that are equal to that of a third world country.
@@hschsc1300 Just to refute your point which is totally false, I have no interest in writing essays. You can shove your text walls up your bottom. Now, your own source clearly defines their work on social mobility as generational between father and son, *not* just "rag to riches". I am talking about everyone who is *legally defined to be a poor person living in the U.S.* That hasn't changed. You can always use statistics to say practically anything you moron. "Reports" like that of the OECD you could say cherry-pick to support a premise. Any rational person is interested in large, substantial studies that actually talk about the majority of the population, big groups. You can always pick certain piece that supports what you are trying to "prove". This is common now. So many sources exist where they are just cherry picking data. That's why you had sugar your post with a lot of other non-related nonsense at the beginning, or admit they exclude Italy, etc. Your source is not reliably saying what you claim it says. Here's the New York Times admitting the study from many top rated scholars from top rated universities say what I said:
www.nytimes.com/2014/01/23/business/upward-mobility-has-not-declined-study-says.html
_"The study found, for instance, that about 8 percent of children born in the early 1980s who grew up in families in the bottom fifth of the income distribution managed to reach the top fifth for their age group today. The rate was nearly identical for children born a decade earlier."_ The end.
Also no, you can't just compare America and Denmark here. It really makes no sense. You are a joke. Get help asap. You don't even try to make sense. I am also not responding again. Too many essays and you don't pay me to read or answer. Bye
Gini coefficient is between 0 and 1. Why does the gini chart at at 3.20 have 3.5 etc on the scale?
Agreed - this is misleading, they're using IFS data and have put the decimal point in the wrong place on that axis! There's some really good 2016 OECD data on Gini here: www.oecd.org/social/income-distribution-database.htm.
Sometimes it's out of 10 sometimes it's out of 100
universities are a magnet for the smartest citizens in the country. it is inevitable that there is inequality in these areas
Haven't they heard of a wealth or financial assets tax? Income tax isn't every thing.
Once you go into detail, it's helluva probematic. German legal code has wealth tax. It is not enact since it's in it current form unconstitutional. Government hasn't come up with a solution for years.
@@tomasbickel58 And the really rich Germans keep their asssets on Switzerland -check the list of German billionaires and then where the keep their money -Quandt family Leibherr Porsche Schumacher etc are tax resident in Switzerland -same with rich Scandinavians .
@@ronnieince4568 , in case of Schumacher and .. let's say .. Boris Becker .. it made sense since they personally had the contract and thus the income .. and taxes. In case of Quandt: iirc they are two siblings getting a huge dividend payout, holding 20% of BMW. BMW at this point already paid 15+ % tax. BWM probably withholds "Quellensteuer" on the payout. I can't tell how much they can retrieve that, but - you see - for them going to Switzerland is less effective than for Schumacher.
@@tomasbickel58 my point is that the really rich can hold their assets and move their money add the please or place it in tax the trust's or tax advantageous anstaldts .The Swiss hold a third of world wealth because the Swiss Banking Act of 1936 guarantees absolute privacy of personal financial transactions. We have an international tax system designed for trade in physical goods -not for the world as it is today .
s
Hell, capital taxes are needed more than anything to fix the horrific state Britain's in.
If journalists really cared for the public and wanted to interfere with the interests of big industry and finance, then they would point to one of the main causes of misery - lack of tariffs, which allows industry to settle in cheaper countries, suppress salaries of workers and increase capital gains for shareholders. Without tariffs it's very hard to maintain welfare.
By your logic having low to no tariffs on goods and services (on average I guess), means no welfare state or little welfare. The freest economies are the richest in the world and you know it, so? You are not making much sense. What I am getting at: At least provide a correlation between a sustainable welfare state and high tariffs. Does that even exists? It should exist right? At least one very important correlation between the two. Also, most rich countries became rich *before* implementing their welfare state, not first (duh). Socialism in Ethiopia is not going to turn anyone rich and wealth is not created that way.
@@crazy3d the freest economies have stagnating salaries, because industrialists and shareholders can blackmail workers. Rich countries became rich, because they were protected by tariffs. They built their wealth gradually, then they decided to spend it on welfare state and open their economies. UK, Germany, USA, Japan - all used tariffs to build their industry.
I would also point out that the freest economies are also on of the most indebted economies in the world and that's because of welfare spending and I suppose some of that comes from the fact that salaries aren't growing fast enough and welfare has to make up for that void. Perhaps if there were some tariffs to protect the industry, then growing salaries would even rule out a growing welfare state.
@@oo3380 Stay on point. Low tariffs do not show a correlation with less welfare. In fact the more open to commerce a country goes the richer it gets and the higher the welfare gets in terms of government expenditure aswell. For obvious reasons. Commerce makes countries wealthier just like it does with people. Not rocket science. When you bring "blackmailing" it shoes you don't take the issue seriously by the way. You are more interested in the usual demagoguery of victimizer vs exploited, good vs evil. Typical left-wing nonsense. You bring debt and some extraordinary claim about it with freest economies and what not. You can't stay on point isn't it? Typical demagogue. You can try and distract all you want, it doesn't change the hard well established truth. Extremely closed economies like Argentina have shown the complete opposite of your insanity. Total economic collapse and decaying. Same with Japan that implemented the biggest Keynesian experiment and protected their industries and watched their economy collapse. Meanwhile China, India and so on, opened and kicked ass. Commerce makes people richer and closing your economy does not help anyone except the usual demagogue suspect and their politically connected pals who get a capped market without competition.
We are not talking about immigration here but tariffs too. You are a complete sophist and a joke or the worst degree btw so I would not continue this conversation. A complete waste of time.
@@crazy3d By welfare I didn't mean necessarily the welfare state, but rather the economic prosperity for the people. The more open a country is for foreign investments, then yes, it gets more money, but at the expense of workers of the country from which those jobs were extracted, so people in China see their increase in salaries, but at the expense of American workers. Now, of course, it doesn't have to be a 1 to 1 correlation and a zero-sum game, because companies might want to share the profit they earned through foreign investments, but the openness of an economy allows logically for economic blackmail in developed countries.
I'm not saying that one has to build an autarky, because it destroys the efficiency of national companies, but should rather try to maintain a balance between an open economy and protective tariffs. Workers have usually one source of income, and when they're deprived of this because of economic blackmail, then the gap has to be filled by the welfare transfers and this leads to an increase in public debt. An open economy might bring additional engines of growth and a new source of money, but nevertheless, the economic blackmail exists and practice shows that developed economies that have built big companies are also excessively indebted, as the 2008 crisis showed for goodness sake.
Correlation is: open developed economies have an unsustainable welfare state and it's because workers' salaries don't grow, because of the economic blackmail that comes from an open developed economy. If you want to have a sustainable welfare state, then you have to protect your companies from cheaper labour, because then workers can rely more on just their salary.
crazy3d zero tariffs hurt the weaker economy not the stronger.
he could have asked some of these questions to john mcdowell, but ofcourse bbc wouldnt. Bbc are stuck in centrism.
The U.S. boomed post WW2, but Reaganomics are squandering all those gains. We are on our way to pre WW2 inequality here. The middle class continues to shrink from its height in the 1950’s and 1960’s. If the US loses its super power status, history will bear out that it was due to the slow burn caused by Ronald Reagan
I enjoyed this report - perhaps it would have been useful to show a graph with historic levels of top rate tax (and treasury revenue from income tax %GDP)... Heath and Wilson flipped about a bit in the 70s but Thatcher more than halved the top rate from 83% to 40% across her administrations. I think there is a generational thing at play here - those entering high paying jobs are working under people who have been lightly taxed all their careers. It seems dramatic to propose even a 5 or 10pc increase in the top rate now even though 55/60% represents a huge cut from 1978 levels!
"You'd rather the poor were poorer, provided the rich were less rich"
-Margaret Thatcher
I was about to comment that quotation:) Its a good one
Capitalism wasn't about inequality in the first place either, right? Who said 'laissez faire' economics or 'free markets' was about that? If anything it was freedom in general terms I guess, maybe making people richer, and creating abundant stuff or wealth. Not some socialist's wet dream.
And sure inquality can't be related to the state, no, of course. The government would never take MASSIVE amounts of wealth from the general public/masses (that spectacularly shrink how much wealth the rich have in comparison) which represent an enormous percentage of the goddamn gross domestic product and just use it to do all sort of weird things (like subsidizing other governments or pay media corporations, millions of workers, etc). That sure causes no wealth gap.
Margaret Thatcher, a woman who tried to introduce the poll tax for the poor and laid down the de-regulation framework for the financial sector that has now seen the western world burdened with astronomically massive debt.
Thatcher was an idiot.
@@shamanahaboolist yeah yeah one woman in a relatively small country. Achieved that lol.
The poor got poorer under Thatcher. There was a massive wealth transfer from the northern industrial areas to her Jewish banking buddies in London.
the statistics about 1/4 the way through don't appear to count for the fact that more people were in fact earning more
That higher taxes leas to less growth is rubbish. The Scandinavian countries as well as the Netherlands have higher income taxes and a functioning wealth tax. I don’t have the impression those places are a poverty stricken mess or suffering from a lack of growth.
What we need is for politicians to say to any company doing business, and making a profit off the backs of the people in this country, is, pay the going rate taxes to this county not offshore tax havens, or get out of the country and take your company with you.
This then allows for the people to come together and fill this void. If for example, a big business leaves the high street, it leaves a huge gap in the market. Investors can come up with a rescue plan, either for all high street shops or a partial amount of said shops.
This way the business is kept in this country and it pays it’s own taxes to this country.
If the politicians don’t like this get rid of them, because it’s been them that’s been in the pockets of big business, and holding the country back.
Liz Truss says money taxed is money that can’t be invested in broader society, but the truth is that money taxed is money that can’t be invested in huge bonuses and share dividends that make the super rich even richer. At least taxes are there to improve all areas of society. The money of the super rich is just there to help themselves
3years since this was made and its worse, not just the UK same USA,Australia etc
well you put great success as PM Lizz Truss in this video many times. how did that go?
The issue is that if UK increase taxes then all the compaies will move some where else. There are lot of countries even in EU who has low taxes which have been taking British jobs. If the whole world had an equal tax system then that would work but not the way it is now.
No, it’s about your socio-economic environment, and well functioning state agencies and institutions that contribute the most to economic development. You could start s business in Somalia, where there are no taxes, but there is no way your business will flourish. Also don’t get income tax and corporate tax confused. And don’t forget about Brexit. These companies no longer have access to the common market, which means different operating costs. So actually companies don’t just up and leave to other countries. It’s s long, difficult, and messy process
@@jamesbarker9819 Ireland and Estonia are first world countries with way lower taxes and in the eu which is easier to do business
Money moves
people earning under £10k a year should not pay any tax, but that was me in 1998, paying 21% in tax and NI contributions.
This is an amazing piece thank you. I am interested in how tax effects economy’s Like California here in the us. It’s nice to see how the uk compares
You’ve been tricked mate
The Laffer Curve is based on a theory by supply-side economist Arthur Laffer. Created in 1974, it visually shows the relationship between tax rates and the amount of tax revenue collected by governments. The curve is often used to illustrate the argument that cutting tax rates can result in increased total tax revenue.
Some of the things said in this program needs a deeper dive, for e.g. Lord King said that to have better funding for public services, not just the rich has to pay more taxes, but everyone have to pay more taxes. Ben Chu needs to ask what's behind that statement. Where I live, taxes on citizens fall into 2 big categories: Income tax and Goods-n-Services-Tax (GST). Income tax can be progressive. That is the case in many countries already, thriving prosperous countries. We can't just have these convenient throwaway statements, from high officials, and not have a proper conversation about what tools there are to mitigate and indeed, correct inequality.
programme* is the British spelling.
@@fionagregory8078 :D
Tell the American government to do this. Please! Los Angeles Out.
I do love a good old bit of wealth inequality
Me as well as i know that it was under Labour Blair in those years most of the factorys and jobs had gone from the town i live and this Inequality was going on in the 90s and then kicked right in as the 2000s roll in the economic inequality
UK has a problem with accentism relating class and intelligence to a accent.
There's less opportunities for people with certain accents. Problem won't go away until UK throws away this medieval belief.
Way-ay man
...Or, '45 years after Harold Wilson: Inequality in the UK - BBC Newsnight'
277 Years after Robert Walpole Inequality in the UK - Bolshevik Brainwashing Corporation
1609 years after the Romans left....
953 years after William the Conqueror. Inequality in the UK
Its a bit late to be getting scared, and deciding the impoverished need more money at this stage of the game.
How is this on the BBC
Inequality isn't really a problem as long as everyone is doing well.
Everyone isn't. Wage slaves aren't. People who can't afford housing aren't.
@@cyberhermit1222 I know. I was suggesting that inequality, in of itself, is not necessarily an issue.
All countries within the developed world also including the newly industrialised country's will have to tax the rich big time and crack down on tax evasion.
That would be a perfect world but if we increase our taxes the other countries will lower them and steal our jobs.
Adi B The right is obsessed with preventing individuals from freely crossing borders. Why is there such a different standard for capital? Why are they allowed to do whatever they want?
Y food bank r people going poor.. In UK serious ?
When you start talking about the gap, you make clear that you'd rather the poor were poorer, so long as the rich were less rich.
As soon as you start claiming that addressing the pay gap is about making the poor poorer, you make clear that you have a vested interest in continuing to rip people off.
@@shamanahaboolist There isn't a pay gap, there is an earnings gap. Why would you think people should be paid the same?
a line used by an evil psychopath
@@Philiptanzer "There isn't a pay gap, there is an earnings gap."
Semantics
"Why would you think people should be paid the same?"
I don't. I just don't it's even slightly acceptable that executives have gone from an "earnings" gap of between 10x and 20x their average employee in the 60's to between 200x and 400x their average employee in the 2010s.
That is just greed.
And the 60s had worse poverty and lower standards of living. That is the point, so long as the poor get better living standards then who are you to want to drag them back to the 60s?
The joke of Liz Truss being given a chance to share her views. Look how she screwed things up. How long did she last as PM??
Why is it so unequal?
Wealth simply breeds wealth. Children from wealthy families get privately educated, extracurricular activities etc not to mention funds from family - they’re much more likely to be successful. For example than poorer families, where siblings are sharing rooms, cannot afford any extra activities, might not even have a table to do their homework on etc
What i find awful is that in my local area u can only use the food vank once only two weeks because people were going in and selling rhw food so now those few have ruined it for eveeyone
9:11
11:30*
Nice thank god it plays where you left off now.
Is the 'other side of the tracks' the Arbury Estate?
Fairly simple get rid of this thatcherism build back your industry also side with technology and banking systems. A more fairer society.
The story of post-Thatcher England is the same as post-Reagan/Clinton America
I think the argument of Thatcher and her legacy is, in a actuality, polorized and not as one sided as first meets the eye. Thatcher came from a humble background in a society that was very much unequal in terms of a hereditary class of filing elites who beloved they were born to rule. Further, the country (known then as the 'sick man of Eurpoe') was almost held ransom by militant trade unions with stagnant national industry. I feel that Thatcher's policies were intended to liberate many people which it did; (council homes that could be purchased giving you something to pass on to your family, people being in a position to buy shares in once national industries and run their own companies, competion forced industries to be more competitive and productive being examples) but something went wrong. What was that? Perhaps it's human nature and greed that fucked it all up?
but, at the same time, many people were left behind.
I was just reading about her. She always claimed to have come from a humble background, but she actually didn’t. She was upper middle class. Her family owned a chain of grocery stores, and her father was a local council man.
Yeah the council homes were sold at a cheaper price but the people who bought it used the home for profit and raised rent prices significantly
9:20 Are there really a super-skilled Roger Federers of Banking that deserve seven-figure salaries?
I hear their backhanders are world class
There was a study on bonuses in the financial industry that found no correlation at all between last year's bonus and the following year's performance. So no. They don't exist. In software development there is a massive difference in performance (there are Roger Federer's) but very little difference in remuneration - go figure.
@@andrewhickey2849 Have you ever met anyone in finance in London? I have and they literally get 4 hours sleep 5 days a week with the majority of them on like £26,000 to £40,000. Which is shocking considering that they have to live in the CBD unless they want to deal with a commute and shorten their time to sleep to 2-3 hours. On top of all this their work isn't validating or fulfilling, unlike a teacher or doctor. If they can last the 5 to 10 years or so to start earning significant salaries with those hours I salute them and they deserve it.
If you don't want people on the dole make higher education and two year colleges free
3 years later no difference lol
Pretty sure inequality (generally) is good. It shows that people can progress in the system. Sure in communist countries inequality was a way of life, but you didnt really have a way to progress unless you knew a bureaucrat.
Inequality does not equal social mobility. The fact that 36% of our PM’s all went to Eton, and that 30% of all land in the UK is held by aristocrats doesn’t exactly show “progressing in the system.”
We don’t live in a meritocracy, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
@@tadhgknight3484 how do the poor get poorer? The poor have clean water, electricity, safe foods readily available and in good supply. They have fridges, televisions, and other forms of modern technology. I wouldn't say that they are the worst they could be. Also, pretty sure there is social mobility in this country.
Thatcher was a useful turning point
To the banks….‘she’s fucked us over
Inequality has risen yet we are all richer.
I prefer more inequality and less overall poverty.
I'm not the jealous type. I just need enough.
No no no don’t raise taxes !!!!!!
Interesting.
Just takeover all private sector companies and use those profits for the public.
England ran an empire, running a small country should be a piece of cake, don’t you think so? Where is the problem? Probably they have the wrong priority.
Claudio Saltara mainly because they run it like an empire. It goes to the top
Success in the last few decades since the stock market casino was opened is pretty much a myth based on projected profits. Before this easy route to IPO riches it'd take a lifetime to build fortunes that the few, an increasing number of few, build in under a decade. It's like growth, another mythical metric, where nothing matters but the illusion of success. And then there's GDP, another myth, which doesn't count the essential dimension of profit, almost a dirty word in EBITDA accounting circles. If markets buy into tomorrow today then inequality increases as funds seek opportunities to profit quickly. The fairly fixed cash in the system becomes concentrated into a few golden geese. Hence the 1% gaining more and more. And those 1% believe they're magicians so they conjure up smoke screens around their true value to a company.
Business is a religion of faith in the top and belief in the many that rewards are justified when, in actuality, the illusion is fading. If everyone benefits then the illusion is easy. If only the top benefit the smoke screen clears and those inhabiting privilege become naked and vulnerable to criticism.
Businessmen write books of their self sacrifice and thus entitlement to adulation and riches. The only sacrifices of late are those at the bottom stripped of basic needs. They work hard shifts, with repetitive work and KPI targets imposed by managers barely able to do basic maths. They do work seventy hour weeks. They don't claim networking as hard graft. Businessmen don't know the meaning of seriously hard work. They perpetuate a myth of self importance. True, risk is stressful, but it pays handsomely if successful. The rewards merit risk taking. But it's more and more evident that risk is an illusion too with serial entrepreneurs. So are the fast rewards justified? Or is it just riches for the boys?
Lizzie bonckers as an expert OMG ..... 😅😂😵💫
I’ve had a fair few people be quite rude and horrible to me because I worked hard and bettered myself. The people giving those remarks are people who’ve been stuck for the last 40 years and not willing to do anything to improve their situation. Had I listened to those who said individuals from my background cannot go to sixth form or uni, or study history and politics then I wouldn’t be any further forward than my mother. I’m also now studying psychology to change career and further myself even further
By these accounts, the vast majority of people surveyed don't want taxes to be cut... so why are the two people running for Tory leadership speaking about tax cuts??? Surely they are not out of touch??!!
Brcause the Tory membership isn't most people.
Thatcher is supposed to be UK's savior, now there are doubts about what she had unleashed, inequality. Can this inequality be fixed/solved in the UK Capitalist society? I have my doubts.
Socialists and welfare lovers love to take money from others so of course they hate people having a lot of money they can't control from the government. That has nothing to do with Capitalism or Thatcher. Capitalism wasn't about some Socialist utopia where the super rich don't exist because some get offended by wealth or something. Capitalism was about having the most efficient system to create wealth which is it, it brought abundance like it never existed in human history, not even close. Socialism would never bring wealth to Ethiopia but Capitalism can, that's it. Before Capitalism 99% of the people all over the world as living in extreme poverty. Poverty is the natural state of all human beings. Nobody was born with cellphones and healthcare. Welfare states appeared after developed nations got rich, not before either. Socialism also failed all over the world, even today keeps failing while Capitalism never fails. Finally, Capitalism was also about private property and freedom. Not equal outcomes. If you are offended by unequal outcomes and great inequality that's fine but that wasn't the point in the first place. Don't blame others, blame yourself for being a commie at heart.
@@crazy3d If you think Capitalism works so well wait till it fails. When it fails many people will be hurt including the innocents. No system is perfect, Capitalism is good when the country is growing look at China, when that the country ages like western countries cracks appear like 2008 crisis, believe me, it will happen again this time these countries will fall harder.
In general, I disagree with the premise of your argument and leave it at that.
@@yttean98 You should read "Meltdown" by Tom E. Woods. Explains the 2008 crisis perfectly. The business cycle is just a bubble inflated by cheap money through the financial system coming from central banks trying to "stimulate" the economy and it does. Gets people drunk and they do wrong investments like in housing where prices can only go up, right? Big banks don't care and keep lending because all is backed by the central bank plus they make money, they get the cheap money first so no risk involved and they get paid on top of it all. Then there's Freeddy Mac or something and Mae, two lending institutions created by congress, partially private (more cronyism) responsible for half the junk crap that ended up going all over the place, hundredths of billions lost there from the tax payers. And they also drove the market. If these huge institutions do it why not everybody else? Thanks government and politicians buying votes through housing. The speculation in the market was indeed driven by the desire to sell houses with inflated prices to make money but it's the government who created the whole charade. Blew air into that market and everybody follows the money. Without government alcohol there's no party. Corruption always existed, Capitalism didn't invent political connections and mercantilism. The Soviet Union wasn't a utopia, right? At the end of the day China will collapse due to the government, not Capitalism.
I would say that the wealthy should have a period of time, not limitless time, to become wealthy and recover from the horrible economy of the 1970s. However, after that, they can't hide like moneyed cowards from the poor. They should pay more taxes, and they should get involved in the social welfare of their country.
People are unequal, accept it. Some people are intelligent and some are not, some beautiful and some are not, some people are tall and others are short, some people are rich and some people are poor. People have agency to do something to improve their lot.
It's not a question of being equal. It's a question of the tall man not being allowed to say he deserves more than his fair portion of the pie because he is tall.
@@shamanahaboolist Wealth is created, there is no pie, if I make £1000 I have not stolen £1000 from other people. We all have our own pie.
@@GreenEyedGod27 I think we can see from that comment that you do not understand how the economy, currency nor the banking system works.
@@shamanahaboolist I said wealth, it was badly explained, money is just a unit of exchange. I know money is created from thin air (fiat currency) by the Bank of England. This is why money is constantly being bastardised by inflation which hurts the poor the most. As for "fair" share, that depends on how much value you provide to an employer or customers, you reap what you sow in most cases.
@@GreenEyedGod27 "you reap what you sow in most cases."
This is exactly the problem you don't reap what you sow. A tiny handful of land owners, executives and shareholders reap the vast majority of what billions of people sow.
Why do they only show eminently punchable bankers?
I wish taxes never go up
Capitalism is an endless free lunch.....
Don't you mean socialism
@@billyshears5569 Capitalism is socialism for the rich.
thatcher had more balls than all of today's male politicians haha, irony of that.
Please get in Labour
Labour are no different from the Conservatives. They had 13 years to create their utopia...instead they gave all the gold and financial bailouts to the banks and bombed Iraq.
Thatcher was a incredibly ignorant person but not as ignorant as the people who supported her
If a greedy person keeps giving you a tiny portion of a pie and then eats 99% of it, telling you it's his right to eat 99% of it because his days work at a desk is worth 400x your days work actually generating the wealth... how long would you put up with that? Cause that's what's causing inequality. Greed.
shamanahaboolist And then ask yourself who worked their ass off to perfect the recipe for that pie - that's right the man who owns the business. If you work your way to the top of a business from the bottom or even take your business from the bottom to the top, them you deserve to take all profits it makes, we live in a nation in which we pay our workers well, and once you've paid them, as a boss you should be allowed to keep profits.
Stop demanding money you deserve, just because you can't be bothered working harder.
Typical socialist, you think it'll make everyone richer because business profits will be shared amongst everyone, when in actuality it is just the state taking everyone's money whilst poverty is shared equally amongst the people.
@@Lucas-ec5db
"And then ask yourself who worked their ass off to perfect the recipe for that pie "
Most pies are perfected by a group effort. How many iPhones iterations would there have been and how many would Steve Jobs have sold if he had no employees?
"If you work your way to the top of a business from the bottom or even take your business from the bottom to the top, them you deserve to take all profits it makes"
No you don't. If you think you deserve all the profits you are a greedy entitled pig.
"we live in a nation in which we pay our workers well,"
Not any more we don't.
"and once you've paid them, as a boss you should be allowed to keep profits."
Once you've paid them a FAIR portion of the wealth they created yeah sure.
"Stop demanding money you deserve, "
No.
"just because you can't be bothered working harder. "
You have no idea what I am bothered by. Your assertion is pathetic.
"Typical socialist,"
Typical brainwashed neo-liberal who thinks everyone that disagrees with him is a socialist.
"you think it'll make everyone richer because business profits will be shared amongst everyone, "
That's exactly what I think because only a moron would think any differently.
" when in actuality it is just the state taking everyone's money whilst poverty is shared equally amongst the people."
Then make Executives pay properly instead.
shamanahaboolist No most businesses are not started by a team as people don't have the funds to pay his team so they do it by themselves.
And your point about apple, if Steve jobs had have just complained about his pay rather than gating of his ass and perfecting the iMac then no there would be no apple and therefore no apple phones.
But you can't just demand to be paid more than what you deserve, you are just a tiny part in a massive company, a company started and run by its owner who has every right to, like I said, reap all of its benefits.
I'm definitely not a neo-liberal, far from it, I'm a right-wing, gay, millennial, catholic, who funnily enough knows a socialist when he sees one.
@@Lucas-ec5db Right wing gay Catholic. Man... I doubt you know anything about reality when you see it. You only know the framing of your imagination as defined by your emotions. Literally that little confession seals the deal on how messed up your mind is.
Good luck in your mental box.
shamanahaboolist Right so you think I am a moron, either because I am:
Right wing which is absurd as the only economic view that allows for people to prosper is a right wing one, everyone gets poorer under a left wing government and the economy crashes.
Gay which is again ridiculous because me liking a dick in my mouth does not affect my intelligence in any way shape or form.
Or Catholic and I'm not sure how to take that because it doesn't mean I believe everything the Bible says because I really don't but it does mean I want something to believe in.
The only difference between you and me is I dont push my message onto other people, you do, by force and insults, now that shows your intelligence.
Build more houses it will help the new tech middle class and the poor I mean some cheaper houses and middle class variants simply would work.
We need to cut some spending on culture and sport and use that for roads and houses even just a few billion.
What's the point...immigration is at 300,000 per year. You can't outbuild that level of immigration.
@@cyberhermit1222 even if capitalism can work miricles and yes we need to cut down immigration.
This woman cared more about her conservative ideology than she did her people. So many lives ruined. So much chaos she caused.
you missed the B off Itch in the thumbnail
and also the W for witch
Freedom means inequality of outcome.
Equal outcomes means totalitarianism.
It is not the state's job to use tax money to give handouts. The state can try and provide opportunities to the poor for self improvement, like cheaper education, thereby improving equality of opportunity. But the moment the state start subsidizing people's income, you create a culture of dependency and it never ends well. People must be allowed to suffer the consequences of their own choices, or society as a whole will stagnate.
no it does end well it worked until thatcher
@@tomgibson6801 Fun fact: no, it didn't. England was stagnating before Thatcher, and the unions were choking the economy for their own narrow interests. Thatcher was a brilliant leader - killed off the socialist unions, and fixed the economy. If it wasn't for Thatcher, England would've been just another failed socialist third world country by now.
@@Hannodb1961 unemployment went from 1.5 million under sunny jim to 3 million under the bitch. thats not the sign of a brilliant leader
Talks about inequality with a poorly paid girl forcing the boat forward
oh come on
Are you saying that wasn't a deliberate spotlight of irony?
That poorly paid girl will be the daughter of a wealthy family who is doing the job for its aesthetic value and exercise - usually a summer routine by undergrads, local people don't like to go into the centre unless it's to get wasted. I lived in Cambridge in the early 90's and in 2010, I come from a much more deprived area of the UK. I worked hard in Cambridge and struggled mostly with rent and avoiding the element of British society that either deems hard graft or study either stupid or effeminate, there is a parochial mentality that defies any government initiative for turf related BS. It's a simple debate - schooling, housing and healthcare for the people offers opportunity, generation after generation of Brits decide to turn it down for local street cred. It doesn't matter how much culture you throw at society it will not listen. The minimum wage allowed me to study to become a teacher, albeit never a lawyer, but it is not as hopeless as this makes out, the porter makes a fortune for a working man, he is lucky indeed, he is not the real picture of depravity there. They didn't discuss the crack areas where people don't chose to get a job - that city has so much employment you can be in work in a day if you want to. Anyone there can make a great life for themselves but prefer to get wasted - it's a great place to get wasted. The debate is false - the top echelons of society and its nepotism is the area of concern for fairness; there is social mobility between poor to middling, but not middling to rich - that has always been the case, but for the few who are devious or talented enough with enough perseverance to get there. Any teacher will tell you that the battle to educate is subjective to the individuals' value system. Over 150 years of schooling has failed to eradicate the us and them syndrome, because people are generally cerebrally lazy, too parochial and narrow minded. Honestly - the kids in Cambridge spend more time stealing bikes, blazing weed and playing the xbox than reading books, getting up for work and visualising a better future. I served drinks for around two quid an hour and got myself through the local college in Cambridge and on into a life of travel and varied careers, and I know why they can't do that - they wear blinkers, they accept mediocrity and look down on intellectualism. Britain is a country of snobs and inverted snobs.
I mean, she does that job by her own free will. Ofc she’s not going to be rich doing that
Requires people to donate to and help food banks. A bit to riksy for my taste (what if donations or help dry up?).
Liz Truss you forget about VAT. Taxes have gone up. VAT the tax that disproportionally affects the poorer more. You concentrate on not taxing the rich what about not taxing the poor.
VAT isn't paid on rent, council tax or most food essentials, a reduced rate is paid on utilities. That doesn't seem like the poorest would be most effected by a main rate rise.
@Daniel Clark Clark business' claim back VAT, so it doesn't impact food. Fuel is also mostly taxed by duty not VAT. So all you've added is it's on transport, fair enough, I didn't say it was on nothing. But it hits most on luxury good, ie what rich people buy.
*public transport is VAT free another one to add to the list.
@Daniel Clark Clark you can reclaim VAT on fuel www.gov.uk/reclaim-vat/cars
But that's just minutiae. Rich people spend a higher percentage on luxuries, so more of there spending is hit more by VAT rises.
@Daniel Clark Clark you again ignored my main point. The extra stuff rich have over poor is subject to VAT.
But on the VAT on transport, give me a link say it can't be reclaimed because you basic stand point is it can.
* water supplied to households zero rated.
Success of other people doesn't make YOU any poorer. It benefits you, that's how they got rich. Assuming no crime or robbery of course.
look back in history think sheriff of nottingham was he honest
Liz Truss the child MP Good grief is she for real?
It would help taxing the rich
Liz Truss = MANIAC
When the top wealth goes crazy indicates the top of the. Markets and the beginning of the roll down hill - to hell in a handcart.... 🤪
What about Manufacturing Maggie ? lol😂 Maggie was a disaster for manufacturing.
Her Jewish advisors orchestrated her policies.
This whole inequality debate is stupid. Why does it matter that their is someone doing really well financially if everyone else is doing well enough. My income in contrast to Bill Gates is enormous doesn't mean he should give me half his money. Honestly how can people take this seriously 🙄. My Grandparents were all from Socialist nations where income inequality was minuscule. Everyone was miserable, no one had enough to eat or clothes to wear and now these nations have adopted Austrian economic principles people are more prosperous despite income inequality sky rocketing. If you want income inequality go live in Moldova...
This is a comment i made on a reddit post:
Capitalism has fooled us all into thinking that we have to be spend most of our waking ours working for wages, when in reality technology should be freeing us from this excess labour. Why is that for that past 40 years, the world's productivity has shot through the roof, while worker's wagers have stagnated? www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/. In other words we are making more money for our employers but the workers aren't making anymore money for themselves. The only people benefiting from this productivity gain are the capitalist who own the companies we work for. Technological progress and scientific advances should be helping and liberating the millions of poor people in this world.
Louise Laws what is that you work so hard in? Probably some no job (customer excellence manager or a lawyer)
People in McDonalds also work hard so why are they not worthy of being part of a society that rewards them with health care, a house, state education and energy?
austrian economics fucked nations. communism and capitalism are both bad. keynesian economics is the only thing that works.
It just sounds like scare tactics all the way. ''Well, if we throw up taxes on the rich, we have to put taxes for EVERYONE. Yes, yes, we have to keep taxes low to encourage success in business, and we are sure the profits will be reinivested to take on more staff and invest in to more industry''(Bullshit). If companies can find a way to mechanise more and more and employ fewer and fewer staff, they will do it. (i.e. automated tills, robots in automotive industry, online banking etc etc). Furthermore all these companies think its totally fine to move the money to off shore banks and undermine the countries they do business in. Time for a change I think!! Who needs a billion pounds??! I mean honestly?!
Federer won his money because he is talanted and a great sportsman you cant compare him to the shite your on about
There was a immigration problem at her timeis well
Thatchers face makes me feel sick idk what it is about hwr but it disgusts me so much i actually feel sick
Thatcher was a high handed, mean-spirited, and belligerent individual who peddled a demented political and economical ideology of cutting taxes for the rich, cutting government assistance for the poor, and cutting regulations for the banks and corporate businesses, in the misguided and obsessed belief that it would lead to economic growth.
Instead, it has caused high public debt, extreme poverty, and wage inequality, which the UK is still struggling with today.
Both the USA and UK have fallen victim to their own Thatcherite/Reaganite policies of financial deregulation, union emasculation, and full on de-industrialisation.
The Tories, starting with Thatcher, have successively abdicated all societal responsibility in their goal of reducing the role of the state at all.
The result on both sides of the Atlantic has been declining standards in living and life expectancy among those whose communities were destroyed by these policies; and those who survived them blame immigrants for their problems.
Hence, Brexit in the Uk and Trumpism in America.
Sign of good government is how it looks after its weakest citizens in Society.
This is how the E U operate.
Ummm there’s ALWAYS been inequality in the UK but until Thatcher working class people had little hope of owning their own home. It’s funny that this report seems determined to paint the UK and Thatcher in a negative light yet starts at the beginning - without irony - saying the 70s was a time of great poverty - but at least it was more equally shared! It says life expectancy in Cambridge is 10 yrs lower for the poorest than the richest. BUT IT DOESN’T MENTION THAT LIFE EXPECTANCY HAS RISEN FOR THE POOREST TOO. The wealth generated by the few has pulled us all up and pays for our massive welfare state. Our expectations have risen massively too. When I was a kid in the 70s we had no central heating, no double glazing, outside toilets and little in welfare payments. Also consider the population growth. Mass immigration has put massive pressure on wages, public services and housing not to mention created ethnic ghettoes, social unrest and increased crime of the sort we never saw in this country before but this isn’t even mentioned. All those people in poverty _
1. What does poverty even mean nowadays?
2. How many are immigrants from the Indian subcontinent or Africa or Eastern Europe are counted as those ‘in poverty’? Come on, figures please.
3. How many are doing jobs on the side cash in hand and not paying tax, or claiming for multiple wives who don’t work?
4. There are many jobs available in the UK but somehow millions claim to be in poverty and moaning they don’t get enough in benefits. I have zero sympathy frankly.
This whole programme just sounds like the politics of envy. They’ve got more than me and I want it. I was brought up on a council estate and my parents either very very hard to buy our council house and keep us fed and clothed and well behaved. Everyone on our estate was in the same boat as us - but some people just chose to claim benefits pop out kids and don’t bother to keep their house tidy - with predictable results. It’s their choice to be lazy slobs. WHY SHOULD THEY BE REWARDED AND MY FAMILY PAY FOR IT?? If it were up to me I’d remove benefits from everyone but the disabled and the elderly. The welfare state is responsible for a lot of social ills frankly by encouraging feckless breeding and unearned entitlement and that’s not what it was intended for. It was meant to be a temporary safety net not a lifestyle choice. When it was first introduced it was appreciated and not abused because people remembered what came before. Now it’s taken for granted
I felt like you made some valid points and I was somewhat with you until '4'. The issue that you missed is that many people living in poverty in this country are in work. The key to all of this is ensuring that work pays. If you work full-time then you should be able to live with some level of comfort and dignity. Nobody that works full-time should have to use food banks or have to visit their local church to keep warm for a few hours. If the system was to ensure that people in full-time low-paid/low-skilled employment are able to support themselves, you would soon see a fall in the number of people who are able to work claiming benefits.
This BBC OpinionNight 😂😂 not BBC Newsnight