Remix clone Hacker News

> Poverty is through the roof. More people using food banks than ever. More people on zero hours and low paid contracts.

Is that supposed to prove me wrong? I said that everybody is getting poorer.

> Wealth inequality is through the roof.

Wealth inequality, while high, is still roughly where it was in 2007. (Source: https://equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-uk/)

> If you think the problem with the UK is that rich people are leaving

I said it's a problem, not the problem. And it's not just the ultra-rich who are leaving, but vast swathes of the middle classes. Many poor people would leave too if they had the means.

You and the other replier seem to think I'm defending the status quo. How on earth did I imply that? You think I think it's a good thing for the entire country to get poorer?

▲

a_dabbler 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

"Wealth inequality, while high, is still roughly where it was in 2007"

This is not whats represented in the source you cited?

In the graph titled "Top 10% and Bottom 50% Wealth Shares in The UK 1900-2020" you can clearly see the wealth owned by the top 10% increased from 54.4% in 2007 to 57% in 2020 and likely even higher now 5 years later.

▲

arrowsmith 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yes, that's only a 2.6% increase. I don't think it's unfair to call that "roughly where it was".

In fact, according to that chart wealth inequality today is much lower than it was in the 1970s, although it increased throughout the 1990s.

The same link shows that the UK has unremarkable wealth inequality by the standards of developed countries: we're bang in the middle of the OECD, with lower levels of wealth inequality than Sweden, Denmark, Finland or Norway. (That's funny, I thought the Nordics were egalitarian utopias?)

I'm not saying that wealth inequality is low, or that it's not a problem. I'm merely responding to the claim that "wealth inequality is through the roof", which I take to mean that wealth inequality has increased substantially in recent years. As far as I can tell that's not true.

Personally I think we need more economic growth, not more taxes. We already have the highest taxes since WWII, soon to be the highest taxes in the entire history of the UK, and all it's doing is strangling the economy and making productive people flee.

▲

stavros 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Right, but the maximum is 92.7% and the minimum is 46%. A 3% difference seems small enough to be noise.

	▲	chownie 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		If the floor is 46% and the ceiling is 92.7% that 3% is much less likely to be noise.

▲

93po 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The statistics they provide are the result of self-reporting by people they interview, and they themselves talk at length about the challenges and errors that may exist in their data and sampling: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personal...

I think this is inherently going to be a poor way to get an accurate representation of wealth inequality, because if you ask a bunch of really wealthy people worth $100mm+ how much money and assets they have, and especailly when these are very privacy focused people, they're going to either:

1. decline to respond in any way

2. if they do respond, they are very likely to misrepresent and downplay their wealth

3. very likely to have wealth that isn't UK based and therefore wouldn't disclose it to anyone for any reason

4. have a lot of very valuable things, like owning a private businesses, that may not necessarily have a price tag attached to them, and so therefore hard to represent when asked "how much money do you have?"

even though reports throughout years would always have this same issue, i think the problem is that as wealth for the 0.1% rises, that rise is not going to get well represented or collected

	▲	4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]