[Jaspersharpe]

That may be true but it's a separate issue. I'm just saying that it'd be much easier to mess about with the tax system than bring in a totally new system.

[rich d]

I don't really see it as a realistic system - more's the pity. But think as an idea it's very interesting. Often the top earners (for want of a better phrase) in an organisation justify their icreasing wages due to performance. In this case the entire workforce would need to be rewarded to enable the top earners to increase their earnings. I like the idea - but don't think it could ever work. However I don't think that an increasing differential is a healthy way to go - and something along these lines would at least not be an excuse to raise more and more tax.

[Jaspersharpe]

I'm getting far too into this and I don't even think it's a particularly good idea (I know of lots of flaws in the argument already) but I'll have to answer that one:

What I've suggested wouldn't raise any more tax. The increase in personal allowance for those on lower incomes would be calculated to cost a similar amount to the projected extra income from the high earners. That's the whole point of the exercise.

[slackline]

Equal pay for all, high earners get taxed to fuck so that their take-home is the same as the lowest earners 

[Sloper]

Funnily enough that absolutely sums up the Labour government.

The problem we have is one of an increasingly unequal society where the people at the bottom are actually on many measures, life expectancy, level of education and so on falling back when everyone else is pushing on to varying degrees.

Throwing £9bn at the problem as Labour has done has not dealt with the problem, indeed the levels of deprivation have increased in terms of depth, spread and number and of course inequality and social cohesion in some parts of the UK have been substantially degraded.

Dealing with what traps these people in the underclass and imposing solutions on them to remedy their problems should be the focus; not some hand wringing nonsense that will not work and fails to address the real issue.

The earnings of the top .1% are socially irrelevant.

[Jaspersharpe]

Equal pay for all, high earners get taxed to fuck so that their take-home is the same as the lowest earners 

I didn't say any of that you twat!   

[Stu Littlefair]

The earnings of the top .1% are socially irrelevant.

I've never read such utter nonsense from you sloper, and that's saying something. Just to pull one social consequence of the top of my head, why are house prices so expensive in central london? I'll give you a clue, it rhymes with wankers.

If you accept that inequality is a social problem, then it is a problem at both extremes. There is no logical alternative.

[Sloper]

Prices in central London are so high largely because the banks unleashed an avalanche of cheap credit, liar loans to buy to let landlords, an undersupply of property, ineffective local planning laws and so on.

The wages and bonuses in the city are statistically insignificant when taken against the above.

If your point was in any way valid, the prices of houses in Frogatt and Curbar would be broadly similar with the prices in central London.

Which of these two facts is more relavent to social cohesion and the broader society?
100,000 city types earning >£1m pa or 1,000,000 people living in real poverty, with high levels of illiteracy, criminality, child abuse and domestic violence, physical and mental ill health etc etc etc.

[Stu Littlefair]

Sloper, I love you man but you have a tendency to disengage your critical faculties when your biasses get in the way.

If cheap credit and liar loans are responsible for inflated london house prices, why are london house prices so much higher than the rest of the country, where cheap credit and liar loans were just as available. What does the rest of the country lack that central london has again? Oh yes - The City.

Since The City attracts the highest paid individuals in the country, they can afford to pay grossly inflated prices for all their goods and services, including houses. If you think that doesn't raise prices for the rest of us it's back to economics 101 for you.

Your 'two facts' question illustrates that you're letting your personal beliefs cloud your interpretation of the real world data. Spend some time reading Andy's links - there is clear evidence that income inequality leads to social problems, regardless of the average level of income. Because your port-addled mind believes that all problems are caused by the proles, you fail to see it's because the proles have so much less than the rich, that they start causing all the problems...

[a dense loner]

i think threads like these start off well meaning and quite interesting, then descend into utter drivel with people arguing while actually thinking they're the only ones with any sense and if the other person doesn't agree they're wrong and an idiot. now we're talking about house prices? whats next, no house should cost 10% more than the average? 

[Jaspersharpe]

To say we're three pages in I reckon the thread is still remarkably on topic in comparison to the norm!

[Stu Littlefair]

I'd take offence at the utter drivel remark as well. The last few points have just been to take issue with sloper's statement that the top salaries are socially irrelevant. They're not, simple as that.

House prices were just an example of the social influence the top earners have. Here's another one - they pay a lot of tax. Whether you think the top earners are a net plus or a net problem, I don't think it's tenable to say they're irrelevant, and that tackling inequality should only mean tackling poverty.

It also seems irrefutable that wage inequality causes social problems. Mental illness, drug abuse, teenage births, obesity, the proportion of the population in prison, educational performance of school children, levels of trust and strength of community life, and social mobility are all worse in societies with greater wage inequality.

What should we do about that? Do nothing and hope for the best? Higher taxes on the rich? A wage cap? Only focus on the poor?

None of those solutions are perfect, but at least reducing the amount of money the richest in society take home is more simply done than finding more money to give to the poor, or could be a way to find money for the poorest, as Jasper suggested (and hurriedly disowned).

[slackline]

Equal pay for all, high earners get taxed to fuck so that their take-home is the same as the lowest earners 

I didn't say any of that you twat!   

I was just making a joke in general (thats why I didn't quote you  )

[andy popp]

Which of these two facts is more relavent to social cohesion and the broader society?
100,000 city types earning >£1m pa or 1,000,000 people living in real poverty, with high levels of illiteracy, criminality, child abuse and domestic violence, physical and mental ill health etc etc etc.

Er, both of them? Is it not possible that those two facts are not utterly unconnected? Moreover, across a whole range of non-economic measures of standards of living everyone does worse in more unequal societies. Reducing inequality is good for all, including the rich.

Edit: Having just read Stu's post; what he said basically.

[Jaspersharpe]

I've not disowned the idea Stu I just know that it's not as simple as I've made out. All I disowned was the idea of equal pay for all (that slackers made a joke about).

[slackline]

whats next, no house should cost 10% more than the average? 

Sounds good to me, I get first dibs on

[Stu Littlefair]

I don't think anyone has actually suggested equal pay for all, have they? Unless slack-line's middle name is really Engels and he was being serious...

[Jaspersharpe]

No, they haven't and at the risk of repeating myself I'll shut up now! 

[Sloper]

As for biases getting in the way of critical reasoning 

Of course social inequality is a problem, it damages social cohesion and is corrosive to both the people at the bottom and wider society.

My point is this, the most significant area of social inequality is between those trapped in absolute poverty and deprivation, the underclass, victims of bourgeois capitalism and neo con liberalism, untermenchen, proles or what ever you would call them and 'the workers' the people who earn say <£20k.

There is of course a serious problem with ossification of social class and economic opportunities and that too needs to be addressed.

The relavence of the .1% of top earners in the grand scheme of things is like a fat bloke jumping up and down on the rotation of the earth.

As for the point about the prices of property in London vs Property prices in other areas.

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/find.html?locationIdentifier=OUTCODE^2222&minPrice=1000000&radius=10.0

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/find.html?locationIdentifier=OUTCODE^2222&minPrice=1000000&radius=10.0

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/find.html?searchType=SALE&locationIdentifier=REGION^787&insId=3&radius=10.0&displayPropertyType=&minBedrooms=&maxBedrooms=&minPrice=1000000&maxPrice=&retirement=&partBuyPartRent=&maxDaysSinceAdded=&_includeSSTC=on&x=18&y=12&sortByPriceDescending=&primaryDisplayPropertyType=&secondaryDisplayPropertyType=&oldDisplayPropertyType=&oldPrimaryDisplayPropertyType=&newHome=&auction=false

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/find.html?searchType=SALE&locationIdentifier=REGION^813&insId=4&radius=10.0&displayPropertyType=&minBedrooms=&maxBedrooms=&minPrice=1000000&maxPrice=&retirement=&partBuyPartRent=&maxDaysSinceAdded=&_includeSSTC=on&x=67&y=21&sortByPriceDescending=&primaryDisplayPropertyType=&secondaryDisplayPropertyType=&oldDisplayPropertyType=&oldPrimaryDisplayPropertyType=&newHome=&auction=false

[Jaspersharpe]

Not quite the same as this though is it?

Surely that's exactly the point. A 2 bed appartment for £3.3m intead of a massive country estate.

Prices in London ARE bonkers because of outrageous earnings in The City.

[a dense loner]

don't take offence to quickly stu, its only an internet forum. plus i get confused when people start using big words and iggy popp paraphrases from books i don't know.

all i want to do in life is climb, and make love to a beautiful woman. its snowing today, but one out of two ain't bad

[Jaspersharpe]

You're climbing in the snow?

[cofe]

one man just couldn't be stopped.

[Sloper]

Wages in the city are part of the picture, not the reason why.

Prices are bonkers because of (in declining order of importance)

1. a lack of supply
2. silly mortgages
3. the sale of council houses (see 1) and BTL
4. rampant inflation due to 2
5. higher wages generally
6. wages in the city

Wages in the city includes lawyers and people like that who are really socially useful.

[andy popp]

and iggy popp paraphrases from books i don't know.

Yeah, I know, I know, sorry. But Sloper brings out the worst in me and sometimes I just can't help myself when it strays into areas where I know what the fuck I'm talking about.