New reports say we are getting poorer
March 31st, 2005
-
Does “Tax and Spend” have public support?
The economy and taxation are set to take centre stage in the election campaign with three national papers leading this morning that for the first time in more than a decade average household incomes are on the decline - the direct result of tax increases.
This will bring to a head the central philosophical difference between the two main parties which was the main reason behind the Howard Flight sacking.
The Telegraph, Times and the Mail splash the reports that average incomes fell last year for the first time in more than a decade as a result of tax rises imposed by Gordon Brown after the 2001 election, according to a study by the Institute of Fiscal Studies.
The IFS said Mr Brown’s big tax-raising 2002 Budget - the first after the 2001 election - which put up national insurance and froze personal allowances saw average take-home incomes fall in real terms in 2003-04, the first annual drop since the recession of the early 1990s. These tax increases were brought in with the specific intention of providing extra money for the NHS.
In another study the Telegraph reports that private pensions have dropped by upto three-quarters as a result of the tax changes brought in by Gordon Brown in 1997 and declining investment returns.
-
All this will bring to centre stage the question of whether we are prepared to pay higher taxes for better public services.
Last September ICM asked: Thinking about the present levels of tax on the one hand and the state of the public services (like health or education) on the other, do you think the party you support should pledge to increase taxes, hold taxes at their present level or to reduce taxes?. A total of 18% said raise taxes to 36% who said they should be cut.
YouGov last week reported a 44% to 12% split in favour of tax cuts to the question“Should whichever party wins the general election pledge to increase OR reduce taxes and spending, or are the present levels about right?
There is little doubt that tax increases are more acceptable when real income are rising because they are not noticed as much. With incomes falling - if only by a touch - the debate could change.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
And “the Sun” according to its online website reports that Michael Howards leadership rating has gone up by 3%
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005141757,00.htm
Interesting for those who only read the headlines. For those on the left these figures are the dog whisle we need. Four million children out of poverty since ‘97 and 25% of pensioners also taken out of poverty. If there are some earning over £40,000 who object to having contributed £150 of income last year to help achieve this then it’s unlikely they would vote other than Tory anyway.
“We are in the midst of a global economic downturn.” Alan Milburn on Radio 4 Today programme this morning.
BBC ticker reports house prices down 0.6% in March, largest drop for 10 years.
Also: “the CBI said sales for the time of year were their worst since November 1992″
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4393809.stm
If Labour do win with a small majority with them it may be as big a disaster for them as was the tories winning in 1992.
Can’t see the election being later than may 5th now
real income only went down depending on which kind of average you use. The mean went doen by 0.2%, but the medium, a better reflection of avrage earning rose. And as roger said this is actually evident of Labour doing something Labour should do. personally i think that the 20% of pensioners out of poverty and a massive reduction in child poverty is worth those who earn 30,000 plus wage, losing a pound a week.
People tend to identify not so much with the income they have as the one they’d like to have. So if someone on £25k, who is actually better off, reads that those on the £40k they wish they had are worse off, they conclude that they too are worse off (particularly if they’ve just had a letter from the bank manager) …
A combination of falling real incomes, rising interest rates, falling house prices and rising taxes is a formula for a serious consumer slow-down. Add in record personal debt and high levels of Government borrowing and you may just have a full blown recession blooming. No wonder Brown is apparently happy to be parked in the foreign office if they win on May 5!
interest rates have a hit a high for this cycle, this fall was not for a majority, just a few well off, and was 1 pound drop. House prices arnt really dropping, depends where you live but people have been saying since 1997 the houseing markets gonna go pop.
Agree the economy is not the 2001 economy but it is still in robust shape, the most important measurements are inflation, which is still consistantly low, and economic growth, still going strong. Employment is at an all time high.
the economy will not go pop, bar some major disaster, but it may not be as strong.
Government borrowing is low by international standards. Only the comparitively rich have seen their real incomes fall, and then only for one year. Growth is still strong. Interest rates are rising slightly but still very low in historical terms.
Doesn’t look like an imminent meltdown.
Labour are trusted more on the ecconomy than the Conservatives. So if signs of a downturn continue ironically it will be a big boost for the Labour vote. Quite simply if there is a fear of recession Gordon Brown is by some margin the most trusted politician to deal with it.
8 - everything i read said interest rates haven’t peaked. I’m no economist, but i don’t understand why the levels of consumer debt aren’t a serious problem, not so much because they will cause a downturn (in fact they are probably preventing it in the short term) but because if a downturn comes thousands of people are going to suffer very badly and make that downturn worse.
Roger, I seem to recall a similar argument being put forward about the 92 election. I’d rather not risk it though!
Still, I somehow doubt the idea of Oliver Letwin being called in to sort out the nations problems would inspire much confidence. Even amongst those who have actually heard of him…
alex, consumer debt is a problem, although it did stop us falling into recession, this with increased govt spending. But the main point of interest variation, is to controll inflation. If debt is high, then people cant spend more, so inflation will start to slow, fall whatever.
also the housing market is ver near saturation, you dont wanna keep raising interest rates to crash it.
“Labour are trusted more on the economy the the Tories” AT THE MOMENT. if people believe the article and really feel this happening to them then the “trust” in Labours economic management could well evaporate. The very fact that they have been so trusted will make it impossible for Blair&Brown to lay the blame for any problems elsewhere!
My point is that thus far Blairs government have only been faced with a public getting richer by the day. No wonder people think they have run the economy OK - they have orchestrated the longest running asset price bubble in British history. When that bubble unravels and all those people who have re-morgaged and re-morgaged find their equity has gone there will be the same kind of public backlash as we Tories suffered in 1992.
Timing is everything in politics. No wonder he can’t wait to go and see her Majesty next week!
PPP deal for Tube has cost taxpayers £1bn, MPs say
If any of you are wondering where your hard earned money has gone to, the PAC has found £1 billion wasted by Gordon Brown.
http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/story.jsp?story=625041
If you want to keep interest rates down and house prices up tell your local candidates you want the Euro now
8.
“interest rates have a hit a high for this cycle”
Really? You must tell me where to buy those crystal balls.
“House prices aren’t really dropping”
Yes they are, and they have been since last summer. 0.6% drop in March the largest fall for 10 years.
“depends where you live but people have been saying since 1997 the houseing markets gonna go pop”
True there have been a lot of economists crying wolf, trouble was the boy who cried wolf was eventually eaten by one.
“the most important measurements are inflation, which is still consistantly low”,
Really? the fact that the measure of inflation doesn’t include housing costs, council tax or petrol wouldn’t suggest that the figures are rigged then?
“Employment is at an all time high”
No, the highest for about 40 years yes, but the number out of work on long term sickness pay has gone over 3 million.
“the economy will not go pop, bar some major disaster, but it may not be as strong.”
I think with over one trillion debt, and the housing market looking sickly, the economy is precariously balanced.
Tom - it may be your opinion that rates have peaked but it is certainly not a fact. The futures markets still price a stable 5% with at least some chance of another rise this year.
It’s not true that demand strength is the only driver of inflation either. There is a widespread belief that Western importing currencies must fall against Asian currencies leading to a big increase in prices of manufactured goods. If that happens inflation could well go up even as consumption falls. And don’t get me started on oil…!
8. P.S - At the end of an economic boom you’re supposed to have a budget surplus, not a massive black hole, no wonder Gordon’s going to move.
Tom - I hope for your professional sake you aren’t looking to make a career out of economics.
Tom Watts wrote:
personally i think that the 20% of pensioners out of poverty and a massive reduction in child poverty is worth those who earn 30,000 plus wage, losing a pound a week.
Reply:
Yes but these poverty figures are Mickey Mouse statistics based on relative incomes.
If the average incomes fall, more people will statistically no longer be in poverty even if they are standing still.
Yes they are, and they have been since last summer. 0.6% drop in March the largest fall for 10 years
first 0.6 aint 25%. Its a slight drop, many would argue a slow correction of the makret is a good thing, second employemt is at its highest i think you are getting confused with unemployment.
And inflation does measure housing depending on which measuremnet you use. HCIP doesn’t RPIX doesn’t but RPI does, all are published by the bank of england. If you look up the statistics on the ONS website you will see that the RPI measurement has stayed low. Do people not remember incomes policies and 25% inflation. That is the economy screwed and that my friends aint gonna happen again.
Yes they are, and they have been since last summer. 0.6% drop in March the largest fall for 10 years
first 0.6 aint 25%. Its a slight drop, many would argue a slow correction of the makret is a good thing, second employemt is at its highest i think you are getting confused with unemployment.
And inflation does measure housing depending on which measuremnet you use. HCIP doesn’t RPIX doesn’t but RPI does, all are published by the bank of england. If you look up the statistics on the ONS website you will see that the RPI measurement has stayed low. Do people not remember incomes policies and 25% inflation. That is the economy screwed and that my friends aint gonna happen again.
tom watts - I thought you said you were 20 years old. So how do you remember 25% inflation and “incomes policies” ???
Oddly enough stagflation was caused by a set of policies and events not dissimilar to those being pursued now…
lol ok well i am 20 but i never said i did remembe,r i was asking others tro remember the economy in the past. My general point which i have been making for some time is that the economy should never suffer the sort of failures it did in the past, regardless of who is running it, this includes the tories.
Therefore the tories have had the wrong attck line on gordon brown for 8 years. Every year the shadow chancellor plays on the fear thatr labour can’t run the economy and says it will crash, every year it doesnt and every year gordon brown looks like an economic genius. It wuld have been far better for the tories in the past to have raised the bar for the chancellor by saying that the economy should be growing at 2.5% every year, and attacking him on wheather people are feeling the benefit they should. As has been proved recently.
Economist know a great deal more now than they did 75, 30 or even 10 years ago. Looking back at every period of economic disaster we now know what was wrong and what should have been done in that situation.
Hahaha except the next one of course… and the next. Economists still do not know how to run economies. Are you saying the largest bubble in history, which occurred this millenium is evidence of this new sagacity?
I think if there’s one thing we have learned, it’s that healthy economies are not obtained by economists in Whitehall/ Washington etc sitting down and deciding “what is wrong and what should be done in the situation!”
jon youve just proved my point, the largest bibble in history, two planes into one of the most important economic regions of the world, two wars and here we are talking about a period of economic success.
Believe it or not what happened in the last 7 years was ver similar to what ahppened in the late 20’s then the econonmy was screwed for 10 years because governments cut spending and tried to balance the books. THis made the situation worse, over this time governmensts spent there way out of trouble, by making up the fall in AD that the economy suffered, now this cannot be a long term solution but it did the job to stave of a period of economic decline like the 1930’s.
30 - if it’s that simple, why did the UK recover quicker than the US in the 1930s? We were back in reasonable shape before the war, whilst it was only the war economy that really fixed things there.
I’m not an economist, but isn’t it true that for the first time in decades Britian has actually been growing faster than most other large developed economies?
That tends to suggest good economic management to me, especially compared to the last recession in the early ninties when we suffered much more than other countries.
the us started to recover when FDR started his government schemes, but i agree it wasnt till the war when things really got back to normal.
It is true, though productivity rates are still poor. The two greatest economic acts of this government which are responsible for this
1) Independence for the BoE (pinched from the LibDems)
2) Not joining the euro (pinched from the Tories)
33 - I’m not an economist either, and I can’t properly debate the issue, but the orthodoxy you quote is not universally accepted: the fact that the UK recovered before the US being used as a counterexample.
and targeting inflation and moving towards a free market economy by the tories and the idea of comparitive advantage. Although i have serious problems as to the way they did this. Although the uk economy did need to reform, a lot of thatchers economic decisions were based on political reasons rather than sound economic reasons.
yes but because we suffered more in the 90s we fell back further and therefore had more potential to make back the difference so differentially we are similarly placed now than in the early 90s. and the underperformance of the Euro in the last few year has helped as the Euro zone economys have been dragged down to their lowest common denomonator.
Tom - you may be talking about it but I am certainly not. A colossal amount of utility was destroyed by economic error, and we are now blowing up the debt markets in exactly the same way. If you and other blithe optimists are wrong about interest rates/inflation we will be in the most awful crisis imaginable with no obvious way out.
its a bit general to say the eurozone is peforming badly. The assesion countries are beggining to boom, spain and irelands performance has been very respectable over the past 10 years. France is starting ot get its act together and is now growing at 2.5% even though it still have far to high unemployment and a stupid law which prohibits people working long hours if they want.
Jon i dont understand what you think will happen and why, I also am not saying we will never have an economic recession again, i am just saying that things will not be as bad as in the past as we have economic institutions that did not simply exist in the past.
The main threat to world stability is the weak dollar, caused to a degree by their debt levels. If people dump the dollar as a reserve currency then we will have a recession but it will not be like the past.
Everything is so simple at age 20
In France, L’Assemblée Nationale voted down the 35 hour a week rule a fortnight ago. It appears they are finally understanding what changes they need to make to become a more competitive economy. The proof of the pudding will be whether Chirac has the guts to take on the French Unions.
Alex at 41. A little patronizing?
Tom - It will be far far worse. For many years now over half the world’s savings have been invested in the dollar. If they are destroyed in the manner you rightly suggest it will likely create a recession everywhere. The accumulated US imbalance now is greater than ever. Oil is probably the second most likely catastrophe. Note all economists saying it doesn’t matter this time…. bets?
Ok jon i will make you a bet that in the next 10 years we dont see over 3 million unemployed or inflation at 25%.
33 - FDR’s New Deal helped, but not very much. Unemployment fell, but not by much. Without the war he’d have been viewed as more of a failure
Not much of a bet though is it? How about in the next 20 years we will see 10% plus inflation again.
As someone mentioned earlier unemployment is more subtle - there has been an explosion in sickness related unemployment which if added to the figures would have us there already.
How about that we will have a recession according to the standard definition in the next 10 years and the total peak to trough contraction in real output will be 4% plus?
Deflation is more likely isn’t it - and that can be just as damaging
I am an economist (student of anyway) - I feel a need to comment on a few things here.
1) The UK housing market is not ’sickly’- there is an issue with regard to supply of housing, which relative to demand has been very low for the last few years, caused by low interest rates (I will come to those soon)and an increase in the occupational and geograqphical mobility in Briatin’s labour force - this means that people have become more able to move accross the country (as they are richer) to take jobs in different professions from where they started (either due to adult education/training or because structural changes have made this necessary e.g. minors). You cannot describe this market as sickly as demand for houses because for these reasons will not fall away easily, even with small rises in the interest rate. I’d be very surprised if house prices fell by more than 2% in any calender year before 2012.
2)Consumer borrowing a problem? Well Yes and NO - Its a problem if the lenidng companies lend badly and then try to recall their loans too fast, however I am not convinced this is happening. Yes we borrow more than ever before however despite this minor drop in mean average income we are richer than we have been too. If consumer debt threatened to undermine the economy, the government could instruct the Bank of England to change its inflation target to 3%, this would result in lower interest rates meaning the debts were costing less and higher inflation, which undermines the value of a debt in real terms, again lowering its value over time. I wouldnt worry to heavily about consumer debt.
3) 31 - “if it’s that simple, why did the UK recover quicker than the US in the 1930s?” - In fact we didnt really, It’s just that damage to America was much greater than it was to ours (principally because we managed to withdraw from the gold standard in 1931)- The Americans grew faster than us in the 1930’s and at no point, despite having a bigger economy than them pre-WWI could we catch up to American size,growth or productivity levels even in their darkest economic hour.
Finally, Britain’s performance over the last few years has been outstanding, Brown and The BoE has steered us clear of three major world recessions (Asia, dot.com and US) while every other country in the World has been impacted by at least one - is the Eurozone doing badly? No, not really - its about average really, Germany especially was hurt by movements in the World economy. And whilst of course Brown has made some mistakes, Blair and the country should be proud and not too overly-critical of our Chancellor’s performance - the outstanding member of the government?
Economics theories are easy. Wait until you have to put them into practice.
Alex - some people think so following the examples of Japan and others as to what has followed a major bubble. My own view is that for countries like the US that won’t happen because their currency can just fall an essentially unlimited amount as a consequence of their current account problems over many years - and it would do if there was ever a sniff of deflation thus preventing it. The UK tends to go in the same pot as the US - though its imbalances are much less severe so is the capacity of foreigners to carry our debt.
Europe on the other hand could easily have savage deflation.
For those interested about GB and his economic performance I would recommend reading Tom Bower’s recent biography of GB. It debunks a lot of the myths he and his supporters have built up about his economic peformance. Especially 1) pensions 2) gap between private sector and public sector growth and 3) The use of tax credits.
jon, if there is not a recession by definition in the uk in the next 10 years i will be amazed, my argument is not that output will contract, just that we wont see the economic instability of the 1930′ 70’s etc. Thefore if you disagree any bet should be based on the figures from these time periods, hence why i propose the bet being that inflation will at no point be over 20%
No I said by 4% which is of course a rather severe recession.
Is this Blairs strategy?
Having moved onto Tory territory and forced them to adopt ever more ‘right wing’ populist policies, perhaps TB is happy to lose votes, party members to Respect, Greens and LDs. Although many are pissed off with war, TB supporters will remain loyal, non-TB supporters are more likley to defect to left wing parties. Thus TB can claim more of the centre ground after election, his party will be reduced of left-wing members with a greater proportion of TB and NuLab supporters in associations ready to inform policy and soon elect new leader. Perhaps he is happy with a workable majority of 50-60 if this is what he gains. PS I’m not stating that TB went to war for this reason, but that this could be the unintentional result.
I see Labour may be in trouble for calling people on the telephone preference service.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4395195.stm
42 - As a frenchman working for the French Treasury, I think your analysis of our policy kind but untrue : Chirac is completely in the hands of the unions. Our growth rate forecast for 2005 is no longer 2.5% but (at most) 2.0%. As the government is commited only to winning the referendum about the Constitution, pay rises have been awarded to civil servants even if the State’s balance sheet is already very much in the red… farmers have obtained big handouts as well and we’re just waiting for the next claim…
57. Do you think the French strikes hurt your Olympic chances?
57 - balance sheet, or income/expenditure account?
I don’t know why we spend money on MI6 when we can just set up internet websites
1. Real Income has not gone down, only disposable (after tax) income has fallen. Real income is GDP adjusted for inflation, nothing to do with taxation. To claim that ‘income has gone down under Labour’ without clarifying what you exactly mean is rather lazy to say the least.
2. Growth rates are pretty high at the moment but if anything I expect them to rise to 3.5-4% (after all RoI, a much richer country, has a growth rate of roughly 4.5%).
3. French growth rate was 2.3% last year and is expected to be 1.9% next year. France’s problems are to do with an attempt to go back to the 1980s by creating ‘national champions’, in my view the 35hr week is significant but secondary (though in any case it should be modified - as it is doing now). The Euro is not responsible for the low growth in France and indeed has helped RoI and the accession countries be successful.
4. (RE: 49) I agree with you - but which party is in hock to the rural NIMBY lobby? - which party is committed to creating more housing (esp social housing)? I would say that Prescott has been good in taking the rural lobby on and needs to be more radical.
58 - i’m not sure, after all they’re a part of our national traditions … (well that’s what the unions said anyway)
59 - Both
61 - I disagree. The “national champions” are a lesser part of the problem than a general attitude of defiance against any kind of non state-driven economy. the whole campaigning about the referendum is about one single question : is it a free-market friendly Constitution or a “social” one? Even right-wing parties are campaigning (as our prime minister said yesterday night) on the theme of a “Constitution for a French kind of Europe” i.e. against “ultra-liberalism” and free–market.
61 RoI a much richer country?
In terms of real (PPP adjusted) GDP per capita, yes (though admittedly not on all other measure).
““Constitution for a French kind of Europe” i.e. against “ultra-liberalism” and free–market. ”
Didn’t Chirac said something like that “Ultra-liberalism is new communism”
Did anyone see Chirac on the Windor Castle flydoc. on Easter Sunday. He looked so bored and disinterested, very rude indeed. Her Maj should have given him a tour of HMS Victory instead!
well chirac said so many things… he used to brand himself a liberal in the 80ies, a “travailliste”(french translation of Labourite) in the 70ies,…
don’t forget he was a minister for the first 38 years ago… so he had time to say a lot of contradictory and/or stupid things!
“so he had time to say a lot of contradictory and/or stupid things! ”
Isn’t this what all politicians usually do (especially like you said the ones who are in politics for a long time).
Er Matthew there is no evidence to suggest the euro has helped France and obviously none to suggest it has helped the accession countries since they have not adopted it.
The success of the RoI comes mostly through tax competition - in effect it acts as an onshore offshore country. Very doubtful if the model can be extended elsewhere as countries like the UK, France Germany etc are too big for the limited amount of such investment to take effect. Ireland was being referred to as the Celtic tiger well before the advent of the euro - indeed most experts felt at the time it went in at an artificially favourable parirty considering its strong economy.
what are peoples opinions on the euro, i would be intrested to know. The the euro in purest economic theory should work, but as many will point out theory doesn’t always translate. I would find it hard to adopt a never never attitude because i would be unwilling to sacrfice peoples jobs for tradition. Therefore if it was in the long run economic interests of the UK i would be happy to join, although i cant ever see it being beficial for the uk in the next 10 years or so.
71. I agree totally.
Re. 70 The ROI boom has mostly been down to the huge flows of inward investment it has received due to as you say favourable tax treatment and also due to being english speaking and inside the Eurozone and I agree when you say you doubt it could be achieved in larger countries.
I am in favour of the Euro in principle but the stability pact is badly written and far too restrictive the French have stimulated a recovery basically by ignoring the rules.
I don’t agree that economic theory says the euro is a great idea. Indeed before it was introduced many economists thought it was laughable. When you adopt the euro you take away your fiscal, exchange rate, and interest rate flexibility all in one foul swoop. Most economists I know would argue that as much flexibility as possible gives you the best chance of ensuring economic growth as it allows you to adjust to changing circumstances.
jon, my statement was a bit misleading, but it wouldnt make sense for everyone to use a different currency, and so it doesnt make sense for each country, the problems with the idea of teh euro are more political, for example different government have different priorities, not having control over interest rates removes a mojor form of policy from governments.
Re. 74 Jon I do agree that flexibility is useful a better written stability pact would have allowed more fiscal flexibility. The question of interest rate and exchange rate flexibility is an interesting one because the UK actually has very little flexibility in this regard anyway and is driven by international markets a large powerful block like the E.U. arguably has greater room for movement.
Yes Tom broadly agree - there is a balance to be struck. I would argue that a country of the size of the UK whose economy (particularly trade patterns and housing market) differs somewhat from that of the eurozone should always retain its own currency. Even in the case of countries like say Belgium and the Netherland I think would be better off with narrow trading bands (as used to operate before EMU) - then if the best rate changes it can be adjusted without absolute meltdown.
You might say Belgium and Netherlands are very similar but actually if you look at public debt which could be a huge issue going forward as the pension crisis bites, the freedom to adjust exchange rates could become very important. Who knows what the future holds…
have to say i am sceptical of the euro myself, Britain is more alligned with europe as an economy than it was say 10 years ago, but imho we are a long way of having anything like similar trade cycles.
Also i think europe is generally over regulated, i have to say i find it down right offensive that i would be unable to work more than 44 hours (correct figure?) if the E.U was to get its way.
48 I think though maybe they are angling to bring it down.
78 - Tom, then keep an eye on your own party’s stewardship of the DTI… there are periodic rumblings about watering down the opt-out.
Re:71 What everyone should remember about the Euro is that it is a POLITICAL project rather than just an economic one ie it has far more to do with uniting Europe as a single political entity than it has about improving the economies of individual states or the European economy as a whole. I find the economics of it barmy and can’t see how it can be a long-term success with the different countries using it without them co-ordinating their economic/tax policies more closely together than they are at present.
78 - very often Euro-regulation is a convenient figleaf for governments to hide behind so they can fail to adress the long-hours/presenteeism/low-productivity/high-divorce-rate/high-stress culture we have here
Quite right Tabman
Perhaps controversially, I’m going on topic:
I don’t think the technicalities of this drop in incomes are important. It’s going to encourage the Tories to vote, and make Labour voters who they took in 97/01 think twice about returning to the polls if they aren’t “better off under Labour”. If Gordon’s economic record is questioned, that’s a big blow to Labour.
You don’t care about the ‘technicalities’ of the income drop - is that shorthand for saying that you don’t want the facts to get in the way of your theory?
re 63 etc, I havent got used to the idea of the Republic of Ireland being richer than us, France and Germany, but it is.
http://www.worldfactsandfigures.com/gdp_country_desc.php
I dont know if theres a prize for quoting the most obscure statistics…. For the 1930s, here are the figures
USA 113
Canada 91
NZ 74
Australia 72
Argentina 66
UK 56
Netherlds 56
Switz 53
Norway 48
Sweden 40
Germany 39
Denmark 38
France 36
USSR 36
Belgium 30
Austria 24
Czechsvk 23
Irish FS 22
Italy 21
Portugal 18
Finland 16
Hungary 15
Egypt 15
S Africa 14
Rumania 14
Spain 13
Japan 13
Greece 12
Yugo 12
Poland 11
All other countries below 10 gold pounds (sounds so archaic). USSR probably much overstated (propaganda), Figures from the Bankers Almanac 1936. Presumably gnp not gdp ppp, so probably exaggerates the “real” gap between top and bottom, but the ranking should be about the same.
http://www.financialdirector.co.uk/news/1139843
Going back a little but this ridiculous comment from Printz was left unchallenged:
Yes but these poverty figures are Mickey Mouse statistics based on relative incomes.
If the average incomes fall, more people will statistically no longer be in poverty even if they are standing still.
1. If they are Mickey Mouse figures how SHOULD we measure poverty then, Mr Expert? If it’s an absolute poverty line then poverty rates have fallen even more quickly.
2. The relative poverty line is based on MEDIAN income which rose by 0.5%, so actually poverty would have gone UP even if people had stood still.
3. Incomes for POORER people rose faster than incomes for richer people.
Perhaps you should care to read these things before making comments and statements on things you clearly have no knowledge about.
85 - no, what a meant is the detailed facts, such as the median rose - it was the mean that fell -, aren’t really going to affect people as much as the headline that “Labour has made us poorer”
ntadgwbyvy…
pkvwisua wrxapkzyjpe aecmckkoxq yndnkjahwa …