Daniel Hannan has got it wrong (again). A poorer society is less likely to be a more equal society.
Daniel Hannan has got it wrong (again). A poorer society is less likely to be a more equal society
Tory MEP Daniel Hannan has a provocative piece in today’s Telegraph in which he argues, among other things, that a “poorer society will be more equal”:
“A poorer society will more be equal for the obvious reason that there are fewer assets to spread. That doesn’t make it equal in other ways: hunter-gatherer tribes often have huge gradations of status, including concubinage and hereditary slavery. But inequalities of physical wealth are a product of, well, wealth…In other words, as a result of Labour’s recession, egalitarians got their way. The materialism that they rail against declined.”
It’s an interesting piece. However one of Hannan’s fundamental assumptions is wrong: poorer societies are not necessarily more equal.
There is a proper debate to be had about whether inequality is good or bad for growth that was re-ignited recently by an IMF paper, which concluded that inequality did hurt growth prospects. The research found, however, that redistribution to address inequality was only negative in terms of growth when redistribution reached extreme levels.
That said, it’s not unreasonable to argue that inequality is neutral or positive for growth in certain circumstances.
But Hannan’s problem is this: his blanket statement that “a poorer society will be more equal for the obvious reason that there are fewer assets to spread” is just plain wrong. Richer countries tend to be more equal than poorer ones largely because, as Jonathan Portes has pointed out, as societies get richer they develop mechanisms to spread income and wealth that poorer societies lack.
Similarly when Hannan uses the example of the Second World War and the recent recession to support his case – i.e. to say that inequality fell sharply because people got poorer – he ignores the real reason that inequality decreased in those instances: society had put mechanisms in place to mitigate inequality – in the latter case things like tax credits, the benefits system and higher income taxes for the rich.
In other words, Daniel Hannan has got it wrong (again): a poorer society is less likely to be a more equal society (click the graphs to zoom).
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
11 Responses to “Daniel Hannan is wrong: we don’t need to be poorer to be more equal”
treborc1
I think I’ll get my bow and arrows out and my club and go gather a few women and then some rabbit stew.
Frippertronics
This word “redistribution” really has to stop. Income is something that is earned by people exchanging goods. It is not a big pile that we found somewhere and decide to “distribute”. When governments take away our money, they are not “redistributing” anything, they’re simply taking it away. If a thief steals my wallet, my money is not being “redistributed” from me to him. He’s just stealing it.
Michael
Hannan really isn’t that bright. Not entirely sure why left and right take so much notice.
John
Because other people also pay attention? We do give idiots a lot of airtime these days.
John
True, but your argument suggests that the use to which the government puts your money is no better than the theif; enriching only themselves.
Taxes pay for a wide variety of things from welfare to defence. I doubt you’ll argue we don’t need these things and thus, taxes should be paid.
In terms of ‘redistribute’ it’s wrong to simply say ‘we shouldn’t redistribute’ at all as there will ALWAYS be hypothetical situations in which redistribution (or whatever term you choose) is right. If you lost your arms I’m sure you’d appreciate wealth being redistrubuted from a healthy person to you since (I’m assuming) while able-bodies you also worked and contributed to society. Only fair they support you now you can’t, through no fault of your own.
So what you want is for redistibution to change so money isn’t spent on things you don’t wany? (I’m asking; I don’t want to put words in your mouth)