Andrew Smith wrote:
> On Sat, 23 May 1998, Mr J C Greenwood wrote:
>
> > Somewhere at the back of all this discussion is issue of inequality. I
> > think it should be brought forward and looked at as the major cause of
> > our woes rather than a symptom.
>
> Surely inequality has to be seen as a symptom? It doesn't cause itself.
Of course inequality causes itself! That's the whole problem - if it didn't then
good old Tory equality of opportunity, in the form of the Assisted Places Scheme
and grammar schools would be as good as anything we could come up with. Inequality
of income causes inequality of health. Inequality of income causes inequality of
education. Inequality of health causes inequality of income. Inequality of
education causes inequality of power. And of course it continues across
generations. The children of low-income parents will have poorer health and poorer
education so they become low-income parents too. And so it goes on. This is not
theory, this is empirical fact upon empirical fact.
> > The nettle to be grasped is that this insidious trend to greater
> > inequality has to be controlled. In the past this has been done by
> > progressive taxation and "socialist" institutions such as strong unions
> > and the welfare state.
>
> Is there evidence for this? Didn't the most steeply progressive taxes just
> What about full employment and comprehensive education as reasons for
> greater equality?
>
> > When they were reduced in the Thatcher years,
>
> The welfare state did not get reduced in the Thatcher years. Social
> security spending shot up from a fifth to a third of government spending.
>
> > low and behold inequality increased
>
> It increased far more than the reasons you give can explain.
Please read my paper at http://www.abel.co.uk/~febl/monin/monineq1.htm for the
other reasons!
> > and society got nastier.
> > Bringing inequality down again is going to be a major struggle and is
> > unlikly to be achieved just by patching up an ailing welfare
> > state.
>
> It might however be increased by better targetting of welfare spending, a
> reduction in poverty traps, a minimum wage, a decent standard of
> education for all, and most of all, a concerted effort to get people off
> benefit and back into work.
These will slow the trend toward greater inequality, and may even reverse it in the
short run, but unless there has been a wholesale culture change in business and the
economy from money-value to human-value by the time the New Deal money runs out, we
won't have achieved lasting change. (I do, by the way, begin to detect a
realisation of this in Blair's Foreword to the 'Fairness to Work' White Paper -
http://www.dti.gov.uk/IR/fairness/fore.htm)
> > I also think some form of Citizens Income should be high up on the Third Way
> > agenda. As well as being a respectable, well developed idea, with cross party
> > support,
>
> Well-developed? By whom? Who are these supporters? Didn't even the
> Lib Dems have to abandon it as unworkable?
>
> > it could provide a mechanism for the redistribution of wealth with
> > reduced interference in the lives of individuals by the state.
>
> Handing out money regardless of need, regardless of effort, reduces state
> interference? The priority for government should be to end social
> exclusion not to subsidise an underclass, who won't even be expected to
> look for work.
>
Curiously enough, William Hague's right hand man, Alan Duncan is rather keen on the
idea (set at an appropriately low level of course)! The truth (unpalatable to some,
evidently) is that effectively we do have a citizen's income - we're just not very
honest about it. As a GP, it pretty soon became apparent to me that if someone
really doesn't want to work, they'll always find a way to wangle out of it! Often
enough even if you refer someone to the DSS Employment Medical Service they end up
deciding that they're unfit for work anyway. I mean how can you prove that someone
who says they have back pain, or are depressed or suffer from claustrophobia if
they get on a bus, isn't telling the truth? In the end the expense of chasing these
people up exceeds the cost of their benefit - and who'd want to employ them anyway?
Some of them are so bloody resourceful, they probably will end up doing something
useful if you let them get on with it their own way! If you end up withdrawing
benefit - who suffers? Probably the wife and kids - the NHS, or the police - that's
who, ie: the rest of us. In the end work (as currently so restrictively defined) is
only a partial solution.
> > I am sceptical about sustainable full imployment.
He's right - the economy is not structured to achieve anything like full
employment. How can it be when the best way to make money is to print it yourself
and then give it to some poor sucker, who then has to do real work and then some so
he can pay it back with interest?
> > I ask the ultimate question: are there any circumstances in which
> > society is willing for some of its members to starve?
>
> Yes. When there isn't enough food, springs to mind.
This situation seems to me to be a real test of how best to organise society. There
are two options 1) The most powerful get plenty, and the less powerful starve.
Since those with the resources to solve the scarcity problem have little incentive
to do so, it doesn't get solved. Therefore the famine may eventually affect them
too, assuming they don't get killed in the riots! 2) The food is distributed fairly
equitably, possibly more goes to those most likely to solve the scarcity problem,
but this is a collective decision. There is now a much better chance of ending the
famine permanently, since all of society are working together toward this common
aim. There is empirical evidence for this as well. According to philosopher and
economist Amartya Sen, famines are much less common in democracies!
> > If the answer is no, then every citizen is going to have an income
> > somehow, so why not provide this by a better route?
>
> I think expecting people to earn it, enabling them to get the opportunity
> to earn it, and providing handouts only for those in genuine need, is a
> better route than handing money out regardless.
>
The difficulty is, at the margin who decides on what earns what and who is in
'genuine need'? Are we back to the 'deserving poor'? Like most Victorian concepts
that's just pure hypocrisy.
Diarmid Weir
-------------------------------------------------------------
Posted to uk-policy, a service of Nexus. http://www.netnexus.org/
Hosting and email provided by new media consultants On-Line Publishing