"Wealth taxes don't work"

[Frank's cousin]

No, it's not simply the other side of the coin. The difference is that the very high earners at least have earnt their money, unlike the benefit cheats. Perhaps if taxes weren't so high, the very rch wouldn't go to such lengths to avoid paying them. This country earns more than enough through taxes, both direct and indirect; it's how that money has been spent that is the problem.

 

Very true, there must be a considerable amount of wasteage - yet w eare a nation of moaners - we say we want decent healthcare yet are not prepared to pay for it..as an example... yes there is a huge amount of administrative wastegae in the NHS for example, yet we spend about 1/3 per head per year on healthcare than Germany does, and wonder why their hospitals are sparkly new, less cancer deaths, less HF deaths etc... but they pay for it and are prepared to pay for it.... the problem with welfare budgets is that again ours is so complex - a single assessment of need and that should be it - yet we have so many ways to claim (and scam) it no wonder some take advantage, but we should not fall into the 'Mail' trap and think the burden is all asylum seekers and immigrants - those cliaming benefit is a tiny proportion of our welfare bill...

[bridge too far]

No, it's not simply the other side of the coin. The difference is that the very high earners at least have earnt their money, unlike the benefit cheats. Perhaps if taxes weren't so high, the very rch wouldn't go to such lengths to avoid paying them. This country earns more than enough through taxes, both direct and indirect; it's how that money has been spent that is the problem.

 

Not all of them - Cameron and Osborn for example. Their wealth is largely inherited.

[Sour Mash]

Boll.oxs. The very rich pay very little tax meaning we have to pay more. It has nothing to do with "high taxes" it's to do with immortality.

 

Someone earning billions from the UK and paying a mere £38k tax has nothing to do with high UK tax rates and everything to do with greed, immorality and pure tax avoidance.

 

People rightly mither about benefit fraud, getting something for nothing, but seem quite happy for the very wealthy to get away with paying fu.ck all.

Well my post clearly wasn't "Bollo.oxs" as I am right, the very rich have at least eant their money, the benefit scroungers haven't. Why is it immoral? Everyone pays less tax if they can help it, we all try and find the best tax set-up to suit our own personal circumstances and the very rich are the same. Overall the very rich contribute far more to the economy than hundreds of us put together. I'm sure they're able to sleep at night despite this shocking case of "immorality".

[Sour Mash]

Not all of them - Cameron and Osborn for example. Their wealth is largely inherited.

The money they pay income tax on is inherited? Oh right, didn't know that.

[bridge too far]

The money they pay income tax on is inherited? Oh right, didn't know that.

 

Obviously they have their salaries for being MPs and government ministers but they both come from very wealthy families. Mrs Cameron is also independently very wealthy.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Cameron

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samantha_Cameron

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Osborne

[pap]

Well my post clearly wasn't "Bollo.oxs" as I am right, the very rich have at least eant their money, the benefit scroungers haven't. Why is it immoral? Everyone pays less tax if they can help it, we all try and find the best tax set-up to suit our own personal circumstances and the very rich are the same. Overall the very rich contribute far more to the economy than hundreds of us put together. I'm sure they're able to sleep at night despite this shocking case of "immorality".

 

Depends on the definition of "earned" I suppose. Did the Duke of Buckingham "earn" his massive Mayfair estate, for example? What about people who have got buy-to-let mortgages renting to people on Housing Benefit? I consider every pound paid to them to be an utter waste of our money. How about the people who perhaps earn the most, the professional gamblers of the financial services industry? Would you say they've earned their immense fortune, which continued to be paid out after it was revealed that everything they were doing was a complete crock of sh!t? Let's not even start with the brand conscious loan sharks like wonga.com, or indeed, the likes of Provident, who's genius idea was (and still is) "target the desperate".

 

I had some lovely lady phone me up today to tell me that my computer was infected ( infections are worse than virii, apparently ). I don't know what her motive was, but ultimately, someone in that organisation is driven by money, and wants me to go to a nasty web site or buy something I don't need (and potentially harmful) so he or she can get hold of mine.

 

The problem with equating success with money is that money is very easy to make, if you don't give a f*ck about how you go about making it, or indeed, how much tax you pay on it when you are done. A lot of the "successful" people you praise either haven't had to work for it, have had a massive advantage over your archetypal man on the street, in terms of both preparation and capital. Some, like the slum landlords, are wilfully speculating knowing the tax payer will pick up the bill. Others will just trample over people's lives and happiness to get it.

[SaintBobby]

No I'm agreeing with you on the stats, just felt your original statement could have been mis-interpreted.

 

The point about inequality was that with growing inequality you could easily end up with a significant number of people becoming more reliant on welfare even though the economy itself is growing. Hence welfare bills increase despite supposedly more prosperity.

 

Nope, I don't follow that line of argument.

 

I'm concerned about the absolute position of the poorest, but not the gap.

 

If the poor are getting a bit richer and the rich are getting a lot richer, that should diminish need for welfare support even though inequality is rising.

 

The poorest 10% in the UK today are much better off than the poorest 10% were in 1990. Yet welfare support has spiralled upwards.

 

Something is going badly wrong.

[Whitey Grandad]

What about people who have got buy-to-let mortgages renting to people on Housing Benefit? I consider every pound paid to them to be an utter waste of our money.

What about those getting their housing paid for them?

[pap]

Nope, I don't follow that line of argument.

 

I'm concerned about the absolute position of the poorest, but not the gap.

 

If the poor are getting a bit richer and the rich are getting a lot richer, that should diminish need for welfare support even though inequality is rising.

 

The poorest 10% in the UK today are much better off than the poorest 10% were in 1990. Yet welfare support has spiralled upwards.

 

Something is going badly wrong.

 

As I alluded to in a previous post, a big part of the welfare bill is going to landlords. The rates they charge are tied to property values, which indirectly influence the cost of the rental market. Property values were inflated by the influx of credit, and are still not really down to their normal levels. I keep banging this drum, but paying for your home, irrespective of whether you buy or rent, is everyone's biggest monthly bill unless you're lucky enough to own outright.

 

The massive rise in property costs means that someone can go out to work for 40 hours a week and still be on welfare.

 

I'd say that's where we've gone massively wrong.

[bridge too far]

What about those getting their housing paid for them?

 

What about them? I think you're missing the point Pap is making about the morality of some money making schemes.

 

But I'd be interested to know what you think people on very low wages should do about their housing if the rents charged by landlords are possibly more than they earn. More importantly, what about their children? And don't give me the 'well, they shouldn't have children if they can't afford to house them' line. Many people on housing benefit could have been in low paid jobs but working to pay their way when the rug was pulled from under them by being made redundant. Housing Benefit wouldn't need to be so costly if landlords charged sensible rents.

[tony13579]

When

[SaintBobby]

Depends on the definition of "earned" I suppose. Did the Duke of Buckingham "earn" his massive Mayfair estate, for example? What about people who have got buy-to-let mortgages renting to people on Housing Benefit? I consider every pound paid to them to be an utter waste of our money. How about the people who perhaps earn the most, the professional gamblers of the financial services industry? Would you say they've earned their immense fortune, which continued to be paid out after it was revealed that everything they were doing was a complete crock of sh!t? Let's not even start with the brand conscious loan sharks like wonga.com, or indeed, the likes of Provident, who's genius idea was (and still is) "target the desperate".

 

I had some lovely lady phone me up today to tell me that my computer was infected ( infections are worse than virii, apparently ). I don't know what her motive was, but ultimately, someone in that organisation is driven by money, and wants me to go to a nasty web site or buy something I don't need (and potentially harmful) so he or she can get hold of mine.

 

The problem with equating success with money is that money is very easy to make, if you don't give a f*ck about how you go about making it, or indeed, how much tax you pay on it when you are done. A lot of the "successful" people you praise either haven't had to work for it, have had a massive advantage over your archetypal man on the street, in terms of both preparation and capital. Some, like the slum landlords, are wilfully speculating knowing the tax payer will pick up the bill. Others will just trample over people's lives and happiness to get it.

 

Can't tell you how much I disagree with this.

 

Yes, there are crooks and there are sharks.

 

Yes, we should never have got ourselves into the insane position whereby the taxpayer had to bail out the bankers.

 

But, in a world of voluntary, free contracts (and most are), the profit motive is fantastic. I have to give people what they want in order to make money. If what I make or do is unwanted or crap, I go bust.

 

This free market position doesn't guarantee utopia, but it is a much better of producing decent goods and services than some central committee or bureaucratic structure deciding how much milk or bread people need and at what price.

[Wes Tender]

Not all of them - Cameron and Osborn for example. Their wealth is largely inherited.

 

And therefore when their parents died, inheritance tax will have been levied on their estates, unless they managed to get the burden down by gifting it to their offspring in stages over a 7 year period, or however it works.

 

So they tax you on everything they can when you're alive and then they tax you when you die, if you've been clever enough or lucky enough to amass what is considered by the Government to be a fortune. Of course, the inheritance tax was originally devised as a tax for the "super rich", but the Exchequer has not raised the threshold in line with inflation for many years, so that middle income taxpayers living in expensive property areas have been caught in the net. Was this what was intended? I don't think so.

 

There's all this angst about certain wealthy individuals avoiding paying what they ought to, because they have exploited loopholes. Tax avoidance or tax mitigation is legally generally OK, but evasion isn't. So why don't the Government close up these loopholes? Otherwise what has not been acknowledged is that many of these people avoid paying tax because they have to forfeit living in the UK for a large portion of the year, when as a result, they might well be paying taxes elsewhere, albeit at a lower rate. But even if resident over here for most of the year, if they are big spenders as a result of their wealth, then they still end up paying copious amounts of tax on what they buy with their money, in the form of VAT or Capital Gains tax.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

Nope, I don't follow that line of argument.

 

I'm concerned about the absolute position of the poorest, but not the gap.

 

If the poor are getting a bit richer and the rich are getting a lot richer, that should diminish need for welfare support even though inequality is rising.

 

The poorest 10% in the UK today are much better off than the poorest 10% were in 1990. Yet welfare support has spiralled upwards.

 

Something is going badly wrong.

 

There are two big reasons why the welfare bill is getting bigger (there may be more):

 

1) People are living longer so are placing a bigger burden on the NHS

2) We're in one of the worst downturns in decades which has meant unemployment is huge right now, so lots of people on jobseekers (believe it or not, most of them wish they had a job and are not scroungers)

 

Regarding your other point, inequality is actually still important. You should read 'The Spirit Level' for an idea of how more equal societies score better on a whole range of indicators eg life expectancy, murder rate, educational performance etc:

 

http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why

[bridge too far]

Wes, Inheritance Tax thresholds were raised not too long ago and, additionally, the exclusion for a deceased partner where the husband / wife is still living is passed on to the living partner, effectively doubling the threshold at which IHT would be paid when the surviving partner eventually dies (if that makes sense )

[SaintBobby]

As I alluded to in a previous post, a big part of the welfare bill is going to landlords. The rates they charge are tied to property values, which indirectly influence the cost of the rental market. Property values were inflated by the influx of credit, and are still not really down to their normal levels. I keep banging this drum, but paying for your home, irrespective of whether you buy or rent, is everyone's biggest monthly bill unless you're lucky enough to own outright.

 

The massive rise in property costs means that someone can go out to work for 40 hours a week and still be on welfare.

 

I'd say that's where we've gone massively wrong.

 

There is a problem here, but it's not property being owned by private landlords.

 

It's the antiquated and absurd planning system.

 

Only 10% of this country is developed and only 5% under concrete.

 

Getting something built is harder than anywhere else in the developed world.

 

We therefore have a ludicrously limited housing stock, which pushes property and rental prices up to obscene levels.

[pap]

What about those getting their housing paid for them?

 

The money is not going to the tenant, is it? Straight to the landlord, and ironically, the high cost of housing makes it prohibitive for many tenants to ever get off the dole. Something that as you rightly point out, they are getting for free, is actually a lot more difficult to pay for on an honest wage.

 

Properties on the Flower Estates are going for around 1K a month on the private rental market. The cheeky bast*rds are even listing 3 bedroomed houses as four beds ( two reception rooms! ) on Right Move. What do you reckon the chances are of someone presently on DSS in one of those gaffes getting a job that is going to cover their rental costs? The net result is that the tax payer will end up forking out for those properties in perpetuity, with the buy-to-let landlord trousering the readies.

[Wes Tender]

Wes, Inheritance Tax thresholds were raised not too long ago and, additionally, the exclusion for a deceased partner where the husband / wife is still living is passed on to the living partner, effectively doubling the threshold at which IHT would be paid when the surviving partner eventually dies (if that makes sense )

 

But you know and I know that the Death Tax was originally set at a level to catch the very wealthy. And I'm sure you also know that the current rate does in fact catch out many middle class people because the starting level is commensurate with property prices in many parts of the country.

[CB Saint]

Wes, Inheritance Tax thresholds were raised not too long ago and, additionally, the exclusion for a deceased partner where the husband / wife is still living is passed on to the living partner, effectively doubling the threshold at which IHT would be paid when the surviving partner eventually dies (if that makes sense )

 

£325k is hardly loads. Money passing between spouses is completely exempt, however, unless the first dead person of a couple passes the money to a child then the allowance is lost.

[SaintBobby]

The money is not going to the tenant, is it? Straight to the landlord, and ironically, the high cost of housing makes it prohibitive for many tenants to ever get off the dole. Something that as you rightly point out, they are getting for free, is actually a lot more difficult to pay for on an honest wage.

 

Properties on the Flower Estates are going for around 1K a month on the private rental market. The cheeky bast*rds are even listing 3 bedroomed houses as four beds ( two reception rooms! ) on Right Move. What do you reckon the chances are of someone presently on DSS in one of those gaffes getting a job that is going to cover their rental costs? The net result is that the tax payer will end up forking out for those properties in perpetuity, with the buy-to-let landlord trousering the readies.

 

You are aware that housing benefit isn't just for the unemployed, right? It's mainly claimed by those in work.

 

The key thing is to taper benefits, not guillotine them. (e.g. for every £1 you earn, you lose, say, £50p in benefits, not £1.20!)

 

The government is taking some tentative steps in this direction, but not sufficient steps.

[bridge too far]

£325k is hardly loads. Money passing between spouses is completely exempt, however, unless the first dead person of a couple passes the money to a child then the allowance is lost.

 

I think you're wrong there. My father died in 1997 and my mother died in 2009. Dad's IHT allowance was added to Mum's and this meant we didn't have to pay so much IHT on her estate. My father hadn't passed any money to us when he died - it all went to my mother

[Whitey Grandad]

What about them? I think you're missing the point Pap is making about the morality of some money making schemes.

 

But I'd be interested to know what you think people on very low wages should do about their housing if the rents charged by landlords are possibly more than they earn. More importantly, what about their children? And don't give me the 'well, they shouldn't have children if they can't afford to house them' line. Many people on housing benefit could have been in low paid jobs but working to pay their way when the rug was pulled from under them by being made redundant. Housing Benefit wouldn't need to be so costly if landlords charged sensible rents.

 

What about them? They are getting their housing paid for them.

[Whitey Grandad]

As I alluded to in a previous post, a big part of the welfare bill is going to landlords. The rates they charge are tied to property values, which indirectly influence the cost of the rental market. Property values were inflated by the influx of credit, and are still not really down to their normal levels. I keep banging this drum, but paying for your home, irrespective of whether you buy or rent, is everyone's biggest monthly bill unless you're lucky enough to own outright.

 

The massive rise in property costs means that someone can go out to work for 40 hours a week and still be on welfare.

 

I'd say that's where we've gone massively wrong.

 

Lucky to own your own home? What does luck have to do with it? Pay your mortgage for twenty-five years and you will.

[Whitey Grandad]

I think you're wrong there. My father died in 1997 and my mother died in 2009. Dad's IHT allowance was added to Mum's and this meant we didn't have to pay so much IHT on her estate. My father hadn't passed any money to us when he died - it all went to my mother

 

This is never straightforward especially in cases where one spouse has died some time ago. You have to be able to prove that the deceased had not used any of their tax-exempt allowance. This seven year business is also misleading. You have to make the gift seven years before you die. After that there is no sliding scale, the whole amount is taxed.

Edited 1 October, 2012 by Whitey Grandad

[pap]

You are aware that housing benefit isn't just for the unemployed, right? It's mainly claimed by those in work.

 

Yes.

 

The massive rise in property costs means that someone can go out to work for 40 hours a week and still be on welfare.

 

I'd say that's where we've gone massively wrong.

 

The key thing is to taper benefits, not guillotine them. (e.g. for every £1 you earn, you lose, say, £50p in benefits, not £1.20!)

 

The government is taking some tentative steps in this direction, but not sufficient steps.

 

Not really. The key thing is to realise that the Emperor is in the nip, and always has been. 500K mortgages in a land of 25K average salary? We must all be doing well!

 

It's a paper tiger, guv. One of the classic distinctions between capitalist and communist systems is who gets dibs on the means of production. Businessmen normally lay claim in capitalist societies, while your state runs things in pinko-ville. That distinction still exists in places around the world, but Britain has a singular problem here. The collapse of our manufacturing base means that in many areas, we simply don't have the means of production. We're an outsourced economy. Many of the captains of industry are doing all they can to accelerate that, largely to satisfy shareholders who treat their stocks like casino chips.

 

I can sort of understand people's reluctance to point out the Emperor's giant schlong in the good old days of unlimited credit, especially homeowners who were quids in if they opted for a down-size, a cheeky self-build or a move up North Now that we're getting asked to chow down, with big reductions in living standards and loss of public services, I find the slavish support for a clearly broken system a little harder to swallow, so to speak.

 

Some food for thought:- The US is massively in debt. They have a debt clock which counts up alarming speeds, going through money like a Sex in a City fan with a platinum card in a high-end shoe shop. Theoretically, if people stopped lending them dosh tomorrow - they would be f*cked. Some adjustment would be inevitable, but practically, they've got everything they need to initially survive, and eventually thrive in that country. What's stopping them, really?

[pap]

Lucky to own your own home? What does luck have to do with it? Pay your mortgage for twenty-five years and you will.

 

I feel that once again, this is one of those occasions where you are perhaps seeing the world through the prism of the financially gentler times you experienced.

 

You used to be able to buy a house with 3 times your annual salary.

 

Today, the average house price is £160K, the average salary is £26K. That's just over 6 times the average salary.

[bridge too far]

This is never straightforward especially in cases where one spouse has died some time ago. You have to be able to prove that the deceased had not used any of their tax-exempt allowance. This seven year business is also misleading. You have to make the gift seven years before you die. After that there is no sliding scale, the whole amount is taxed.

 

It was very straightforward even though there was a 12 year gap between their respective deaths, and had nothing to do with gifting. But then my Dad never tried to wriggle round taxes due. His estate went to my mother when he died and then when she died his tax exemption was added to hers as is the law now.

[Jonnyboy]

Lucky to own your own home? What does luck have to do with it? Pay your mortgage for twenty-five years and you will.

 

first time buyers aged about 40 years old these days and these are the lucky ones as they will not be stuck on rip off rents their whole lives

[Jonnyboy]

Well my post clearly wasn't "Bollo.oxs" as I am right, the very rich have at least eant their money, the benefit scroungers haven't. Why is it immoral? Everyone pays less tax if they can help it, we all try and find the best tax set-up to suit our own personal circumstances and the very rich are the same. Overall the very rich contribute far more to the economy than hundreds of us put together. I'm sure they're able to sleep at night despite this shocking case of "immorality".

 

Britains biggest tax payer thinks the richest need to pay more:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/rich-must-pass-smell-test-says-top-taxpayer-8191494.html

[Whitey Grandad]

I feel that once again, this is one of those occasions where you are perhaps seeing the world through the prism of the financially gentler times you experienced.

 

You used to be able to buy a house with 3 times your annual salary.

 

Today, the average house price is £160K, the average salary is £26K. That's just over 6 times the average salary.

 

It was 5 or 6 times salary in about 1970, in Hampshire. In London it was a lot more. There was tax relief on mortgage interest payments but rates were much higher. The population explosion has pushed prices up somewhat.

[Whitey Grandad]

It was very straightforward even though there was a 12 year gap between their respective deaths, and had nothing to do with gifting. But then my Dad never tried to wriggle round taxes due. His estate went to my mother when he died and then when she died his tax exemption was added to hers as is the law now.

 

You were fortunate, I'm pleased for you. I know of some who have had problems. My point about gifting related to another post.

[Whitey Grandad]

first time buyers aged about 40 years old these days and these are the lucky ones as they will not be stuck on rip off rents their whole lives

 

Times have changed and expectations and priorities are different. Instead of saving for a deposit today's youngsters want everything all at once, new cars, foreign holidays, to go out on the town most nights.

[CB Saint]

I think you're wrong there. My father died in 1997 and my mother died in 2009. Dad's IHT allowance was added to Mum's and this meant we didn't have to pay so much IHT on her estate. My father hadn't passed any money to us when he died - it all went to my mother

 

you are right, introduced in 2007, must have missed that one

 

Any hoos...£650k isn't loads

[bridge too far]

Times have changed and expectations and priorities are different. Instead of saving for a deposit today's youngsters want everything all at once, new cars, foreign holidays, to go out on the town most nights.

 

A bit of a generalisation there methinks! Based on my children's experience, I can tell you that they struggled to survive and they've got old cars, hardly ever go out and I can't remember their last foreign holiday - probably their honeymoons. The problem was that they were having to pay almost £1K a month in rent - tough to do on teachers' salaries when there are student loans to be repaid. My daughters are in their late 30s / early 40s and have only just managed to buy houses in the last 3 - 5 years.

 

I suggest their situation is far more the norm than the 'youngsters' you describe.

[View From The Top]

Times have changed and expectations and priorities are different. Instead of saving for a deposit today's youngsters want everything all at once, new cars, foreign holidays, to go out on the town most nights.

 

 

You don't half chat sh.it.

[buctootim]

The problem is houses are way too expensive compared to incomes and are generally of poor quality. Things like private landlords / housing benefirt/ selling off council houses have exacerbated the situation but not caused it. If we are going to have consistent immigration we need to build a lot more houses. I'd argue we should build a lot of high quality spacious detached homes - hundreds of thousands - on land compulsorily purchased at agricultural land prices. It would puncture the ridiculous price premium at the top end and cause prices to fall throughout the chain whilst making better quality houses available at all levels as people trade up. .

Edited 1 October, 2012 by buctootim

[bridge too far]

If the government invested in a serious amount of social housing and housing for sale, then there would be an enormous boost to the economy. Apart from employing loads of construction workers, there would be a huge knock-on effect on other sectors. And it would help solve the housing crisis.

 

Maybe it would be a good idea to tax the land banks. If developers were taxed on their land if they didn't develop it within a timescale, they perhaps wouldn't hang on to it waiting for land prices to increase and that land would be developed sooner.

[pap]

The problem is houses are way too expensive compared to incomes and are generally of poor quality. Things like private landlords / housing benefirt/ selling off council houses have exacerbated the situation but not caused it. If we are going to have consistent immigration we need to build a lot more houses. I'd argue we should build a lot of high quality spacious detached homes - hundreds of thousands - on land compulsorily purchased at agricultural land prices. It would puncture the ridiculous price premium at the top end and cause prices to fall throughout the chain whilst making better quality houses available at all levels as people trade up. .

 

I wouldn't point to any one cause, but buy-to-let massive factor compounded by the fact it was never adequately replenished. Whitey Grandad makes a decent point when talking about population increases, and you mention immigration, which is also another source of demand in a market short on supply. I completely agree that we need to build more housing stock, yet I also think that not all of it should be allocated based on need. I'd like to see new stock built and a good proportion of it allocated along the same lines as the way mortgages get allocated. i.e. have you held down a job for a couple of years?

 

Needs-based policy has its heart in the right place, but it's totally the wrong message to send out to young families who are out there and actually trying to earn. I reckon building stock for short-term occupation (5-10 years-ish) specifically aimed at people looking to save for a deposit for a house would be an excellent move. You could offer dirt cheap rent coupled with a component that makes the "saving for deposit" thing an integral part of their rental contract.

 

I think we also need to do a lot more to get self-build on the go. Others have mentioned the problems with onerous planning permission. I'm interested in self-build. The difference in price between a place with no PP, outline PP and specific PP varies massively. Your choices boil down to pay through the nose for guaranteed permission or take an educated guess (gamble) on winning planning permission on land that hasn't got it before, with all the costly advice seeking that entails and may fail anyway. Doesn't inspire confidence.

 

Given that PP is one of the biggest barriers, reckon we'd be much better off with a degree of zoning. The government would be onto a winner if it sold half acre plots with utilities wired in and outline PP guaranteed. Ties into your detached house notion quite well.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

Nope, I don't follow that line of argument.

 

I'm concerned about the absolute position of the poorest, but not the gap.

 

If the poor are getting a bit richer and the rich are getting a lot richer, that should diminish need for welfare support even though inequality is rising.

 

The poorest 10% in the UK today are much better off than the poorest 10% were in 1990. Yet welfare support has spiralled upwards.

 

Something is going badly wrong.

 

Well you obviously do follow the line of argument but you contend that the poorest in society are still better despite rising inequality. Seems fine to me but is the supported by any evidence?