Duncan Exley argues the lessons we should draw from the British Social Attitudes Survey are to push for a living wage and retain the 50p top rate of tax.
Duncan Exley is the campaign director for One Society
It has been widely reported that the latest British Social Attitudes Survey found that although three quarters of the British public think the gap between rich and poor is too wide, only 35 per cent thought the Government should engage in redistribution.
This raises a question of how a progressive government could reduce the UK’s high, growing and unpopular levels of income inequality if the public distrusts tax-and-spend solutions.
There are two answers to that question.
The first is to recognise that although the public may not be enthusiastic about redistribution in general, they do favour redistribution away from the top one per cent. The majority of voters, including Conservatives, support the 50p top tax rate.
The popular support for the idea of reversing the rocketing pre-tax levels of top pay has also been recognised in statements by Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat politicians.
But progressives should also recognise that inequality at the bottom end of the income scale can be tackled at the same time as seeking to reduce spending on benefits. This could be done by focusing on the huge cost to taxpayers and the wider economy of companies which pay their low-paid staff at such levels that substantial benefit subsidies are required to make ends meet.
The cost of in-work poverty is huge: The IFS estimates that sub-living wage pay costs taxpayers £6 billion each year. If we examine the wider taxpayer cost of in-work poverty, the picture is even bleaker: child poverty costs us £25 billion each year, even though 57 per cent of children in poverty have working parents.
Politicians have been relatively quiet about the living wage recently (perhaps distracted by the staggering increases in top-end pay). This is a shame – there are certainly many more companies who can afford to pay a living wage than presently do so (we could start by looking at those who can afford to pay their senior staff unusually large amounts).
While some private sector companies pass the costs of their low pay policies onto taxpayers, some public sector employers are also complicit. For example, there is an increasing trend towards local authorities outsourcing services.
It would be helpful if public sector employers published an assessment of the full taxpayer cost of major contracts, so that “taxpayer savings” can be scrutinised, to see if they are what they claim to be.
See also:
• 50p tax: Still a Tory obsession, still not that exceptional – Alex Hern, November 24th 2011
• Inflation is worse for the worst off – Alex Hern, November 6th 2011
• Citizens UK: “The Big Society is flawed if people have to work two jobs” – Peter Carrol on Neil Jameson, October 21st 2011
• Only quarter of voters want to scrap 50p tax – Will Straw, August 1st 2011
• Tesco (profits: £3.8bn) under fire for failing to pay cleaners living wage – Peter Carrol, June 21st 2011
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.
41 Responses to “To end inequality without redistribution of wealth, we should pay a living wage”
Anonymous
Here are some alternatives.
1. Stop taking money from the poor. The major reason that anyone is working is poor is because government takes money from them. Lots of money.
2. As an employer, you only employ someone if they make you money. They either reduce costs by more than the cost of employing them, or they produce benefits greater than the cost of employing them.
You need to decide what to do about people who are unwilling to work, and to get to the level that they are productive.
You can make people more productive if you get rid of employment taxes. They might produce the same, but the cost of employing them is lower, so the threshold is lower.
However, it doesn’t affect much the real issue. You’ve run up 7 trillion of debts, and used fraudulent methods to hide it. Now those debts are due you are racking up taxes and cutting services, and screwing the public in the process.
Richard Hardy
To end inequality, we should pay a living wage, writes @One_Society’s Duncan Exley: http://t.co/Z7LgUKp6
AprilMorlan
To end inequality without redistribution of wealth, we should pay a living wage: It has been widely reported tha… http://t.co/DAavlR3P
Green Party LGBTIQ
To end inequality without redistribution of wealth, we should pay a living wage http://t.co/K68ogjOL
Brian Tomkinson
To end inequality, we should pay a living wage, writes @One_Society’s Duncan Exley: http://t.co/Z7LgUKp6