OV9

Jobbo wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2026 6:30 pm That was the point in time at which the gap between richest and poorest was the smallest. And I infer you think that is a good thing since you bothered to mention it and criticised the policies introduced by Reagan and Thatcher. Therefore you think the pre-Thatcher 1970s was the best time. If you didn’t mean that, correct your own post.

Don’t be an arse, it’s objectively true that wealth disparity was at its lowest in the 70s and immediately started climbing after Thatcher and Reagan were elected.

Any inference on the wider social and political environment at the time is coming from you.

Jobbo wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2026 6:36 pm Getting the richest to pay tax at the same rate as the squeezed middle classes should be the aim.

I think if we could get them to pay even half that we'd be doing well!

Inequality would still further increase though, just at a slower rate. Say someone with an income of £1 million a year pays a 90% tax rate. They still take home more 4x the amount of someone on minimum wage.

Putting aside Thatcher I thought inequality generally drops following a major war because you end up in a wartime economy - maximum taxation (wasn’t it at 99% for high rate earners after ww2?), low unemployment, government spending goes crazy, loads of assets destroyed. Pretty unsustainable, although it draws parallels with a welfare state. But it’s easier to get people to pay tax when the alternative is becoming a prisoner of war.

So the solution is pretty simple. It’s clearly why we have John Healey as chancellor now

Mito Man wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2026 7:20 pm Inequality would still further increase though, just at a slower rate. Say someone with an income of £1 million a year pays a 90% tax rate. They still take home more 4x the amount of someone on minimum wage.

i can’t believe they didn’t consider you for the job with this insight…

Mito turned it down, too busy enjoying his life with the birds and the bees.

Damn right I did.

ZedLeg wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2026 6:41 pm

Jobbo wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2026 6:30 pm That was the point in time at which the gap between richest and poorest was the smallest. And I infer you think that is a good thing since you bothered to mention it and criticised the policies introduced by Reagan and Thatcher. Therefore you think the pre-Thatcher 1970s was the best time. If you didn’t mean that, correct your own post.

Don’t be an arse, it’s objectively true that wealth disparity was at its lowest in the 70s and immediately started climbing after Thatcher and Reagan were elected.

Any inference on the wider social and political environment at the time is coming from you.

What’s that got to do with politicians always working to ensure they and their mates leave office richer than they entered???

This is hilarious
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce970y1n7plo
After 1 day FFS.

And £45 a year saved on electricity. I imagine the usual council tax rise will wipe that out and then some by a margin.

dinny_g wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2026 10:06 pm

ZedLeg wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2026 6:41 pm

Jobbo wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2026 6:30 pm That was the point in time at which the gap between richest and poorest was the smallest. And I infer you think that is a good thing since you bothered to mention it and criticised the policies introduced by Reagan and Thatcher. Therefore you think the pre-Thatcher 1970s was the best time. If you didn’t mean that, correct your own post.

Don’t be an arse, it’s objectively true that wealth disparity was at its lowest in the 70s and immediately started climbing after Thatcher and Reagan were elected.

Any inference on the wider social and political environment at the time is coming from you.

What’s that got to do with politicians always working to ensure they and their mates leave office richer than they entered???

My point was that there was a brief period in the mid 20th century when making sure the rich got richer wasn’t a primary focus of governments.

Not sure why Jobbo got so cross about it.

I’m not cross. You’re banging on about it then denying you hanker for that. If it was so good, why don’t you want to take us back to the 1970s?

ZedLeg wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2026 10:23 pm My point was that there was a brief period in the mid 20th century when making sure the rich got richer wasn’t a primary focus of governments.

Not ‘the rich’ - just the government politicians and their friends..

dinny_g wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2026 11:21 pm

ZedLeg wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2026 10:23 pm My point was that there was a brief period in the mid 20th century when making sure the rich got richer wasn’t a primary focus of governments.

Not ‘the rich’ - just the government politicians and their friends..

It was also trying to stop the unions destroying the country, which they did a cracking job of doing.

Dave!