The World Economic Forum has been holding its annual meeting in the up-market Swiss ski resort of Davos. Many of the world’s richest and most powerful people attend these meetings, including political leaders, business leaders and representatives of various interest groups.
This year, one of the major topics has been the growth in inequality across the globe and how to reverse it. According to a report by Oxfam, Wealth: Having it all and wanting more:
The richest 1 per cent have seen their share of global wealth increase from 44 per cent in 2009 to 48 per cent in 2014 and at this rate will be more than 50 per cent in 2016. Members of this global elite had an average wealth of $2.7m per adult in 2014.
Of the remaining 52 per cent of global wealth, almost all (46 per cent) is owned by the rest of the richest fifth of the world’s population. The other 80 per cent share just 5.5 per cent and had an average wealth of $3851 per adult – that’s 1/700th of the average wealth of the 1 per cent.
Currently, the richest 85 people in the world have the same amount of wealth as the poorest 50% of the world’s population. It might seem odd that those with the wealth are talking about the problem of inequality. Indeed, some of those 85 richest people were at the conference: a conference that boasts extremely luxurious conditions. What is more, many delegates flew into the conference in private jets (at least 850 jets) to discuss not just poverty but also climate change!
Yet if the problem of global inequality is to be tackled, much of the power to do so lies in the hands of these rich and powerful people. They are largely the ones who will have to implement policies that will help to raise living standards of the poor.
But why should they want to? Part of the reason is a genuine concern to address the issues of increasingly divided societies. But part is the growing evidence that greater inequality reduces economic growth by reducing the development of skills of the lower income groups and reducing social mobility. We discussed this topic in the blog, Inequality and economic growth.
So what policies could be adopted to tackle the problem. Oxfam identifies a seven-point plan:
•
Clamp down on tax dodging by corporations and rich individuals;
•
Invest in universal, free public services such as health and education;
•
Share the tax burden fairly, shifting taxation from labour and consumption towards capital and wealth;
•
Introduce minimum wages and move towards a living wage for all workers;
•
Ensure adequate safety-nets for the poorest, including a minimum income guarantee;
•
Introduce equal pay legislation and promote economic policies to give women a fair deal;
•
Agree a global goal to tackle inequality.
But how realistic are these policies? Is it really in the interests of governments to reduce inequality? Indeed, some of the policies that have been adopted since 2008, such as bailing out the banks and quantitative easing, have had the effect of worsening inequality. QE drives up asset prices, particularly bond, share and property prices. This has provided a windfall to the rich: the more of such assets you own, the greater the absolute gain.
The following videos and articles look at the problem of growing inequality and how realistic it is to expect leaders to do anything significant about it.
Why has inequality increased in most countries in recent years?
For what reasons might it be difficult to measure the distribution of wealth?
Which gives a better indication of differences in living standards: the distribution of wealth or the distribution of income?
Discuss the benefits and costs of using the tax system to redistribute (a) income and (b) wealth from rich to poor
Go through each of the seven policies advocated by Oxfam and consider how practical they are and what possible objections to them might be raised by political leaders.
Why is tax avoidance/tax evasion by multinational companies difficult to tackle?
Does universal access to education provide the key to reducing income inequality within and between countries?
How much does the UK spend on welfare? This is a highly charged political question, with some arguing that benefit claimants are putting great demands on ‘hard-working tax payers’. According to information being sent by the government to all 24 million income tax payers in the UK, the figure of £168bn being spent on welfare is around 24.5% of public spending. But what is included in the total? Before you read on, try writing down the categories of government expenditure included under the heading ‘welfare’.
The heading does not include spending on certain parts of the ‘welfare state’, such as health and education. These are services, the production of which contributes to GDP. The category ‘welfare’ does not include expenditure on produced services, but rather transfer payments. The way the government is using the term, it does not include state pensions either, which account for 11.6% of public expenditure. So does the 24.5% largely consist of payments to the unemployed? The answer is no.
The category ‘welfare’ as used by the government includes the following elements. The percentages are of total managed expenditure (i.e. government spending).
•
Public service pensions, paid to retired public-sector employees, such as teachers, police officers, doctors and nurses
(2.6%)
•
Other support for the elderly, including pension credit, winter fuel allowance, bus passes, etc.
(1.5%)
•
Sickness and disability benefits, including long-term care for the elderly, sick and disabled
(6.6%)
•
Support for families and children, such as child benefit and child tax credits
(3.4%)
•
Social exclusion, including income support and housing benefit
(7.8%)
•
Unemployment benefits, including Job Seekers Allowance
(0.7%)
•
Other
(1.9%)
Lumping all these together under a single heading ‘welfare’ can be highly misleading, as many people have strongly held preconceptions about who gets welfare. In fact the term is used pejoratively by many who resent their taxes being given to those who do not work.
But, as you can see from the figures, only a small proportion goes to the unemployed, the majority of whom (around 65%) are unemployed for less than a year as they move between jobs (see). The bulk of benefits goes to children, the retired and the working poor.
Another preconception is that much of welfare spending goes to fraudulent claimants. But, as the article by Professor Hills states:
Just 0.7% of all benefits was over-paid as the result of fraud, less than the amount underpaid as a result of official error. For the main benefit for unemployed people, Jobseeker’s Allowance, estimated fraud was 2.9%, or an annual total of £150million.
It is also important to consider people’s life cycle. The same people receive benefits (via their parents or guardians) as children, pay taxes when they work and receive benefits when they retire or fall sick. Thus you might be a net contributor to public finances at one time and a net beneficiary at another. For example, the majority of pensioners were net contributors when they were younger and are now mainly net beneficiaries. Many unemployed people who rely on benefits now were net contributors when they had a job.
The message is that you should be careful when interpreting statistics, even if these statistics are factually accurate. How figures are grouped together and the labels put on them can give a totally misleading impression. And politicians are always keen to ‘spin’ statistics to their advantage – whether in government or opposition.
What benefits do you receive? How would you expect this to change over your lifetime?
What are the arguments for (a) reducing and (b) increasing welfare payments. In each case, under which categories of welfare would you decrease or increase the level of benefits?
Referring to Table 5.2 in the PESA data below (the table used for the government’s calculations), which of the categories would be classified as expenditure on goods and services and which as transfer payments?
Assess the arguments of the IFS for the reclassification of the categories of ‘welfare’ payments.
Referring to the pie chart above, also in the BBC video and articles and Table 5.2 in the PESA data, assess the arguments about the size of the UK’s contributions to the EU budget.
A big expenditure for many households is petrol. The price of petrol is affected by various factors, but the key determinant is what happens in the oil market. When oil prices rise, this pushes up the price of petrol at the pumps. But, when they fall, do petrol prices also fall? That is the question the government is asking.
The price of oil is a key cost of production for companies providing petrol and so when oil prices rise, it shifts the supply curve up to the left and hence prices begin to increase. We also see supply issues developing with political turmoil, fears of war and disruption and they have a similar effect. As such, it is unsurprising that petrol prices rise with concern of supply and rising costs. But, what happens when the opposite occurs? Oil prices have fallen significantly: by a quarter. Yet, prices at the pump have fallen by around 6%. This has caused anger amongst customers and the government is now urging petrol retailers to pass their cost savings from a lower price of oil onto customers. Danny Alexander, Chief Secretary to the Treasury said:
“I believe it’s called the rocket-and-feather effect. The public have a suspicion that when the price of oil rises, pump prices go up like a rocket. But when the price of oil falls, pump prices drift down like a feather … This has been investigated before and no conclusive evidence was found. But even if there were a suspicion it could be true this time it would be an outrage.”
However, critics suggest that tax policy is partly to blame as 63% of the cost of petrol is in the form taxation through fuel duty and VAT. Therefore even if oil prices do fall, the bulk of the price we pay at the pumps is made up of tax revenue for the government. Professor Stephen Glaister, director of the RAC Foundation said:
“It’s a simple story. Before tax we have just about the cheapest petrol and diesel in Europe. After tax we have just about the most expensive … It’s right to keep the pressure on fuel retailers but if drivers want to know what’s behind the high pump prices of recent years all they have to do is follow the trail back to the Treasury … if ministers are serious about reducing fuel prices further then they should cut duty further.”
However, even taking out the fuel duty and VAT, Arthur Renshaw, an analyst at Experian has said that the actual price of petrol has fallen by 21% since last year. Still, a much bigger decrease than we have seen at the pumps. One further reason for this may be the fact that dollars is the currency in which oil is traded. The pound has been relatively weak, falling by almost 7% over the past few months and hence even though the price of oil has fallen, the effect on UK consumers has been less pronounced.
The big supermarkets have responded to government calls to cut petrol prices, but how much of this cut was influenced by the government and how much was influenced by the actions of the other supermarkets is another story. A typical oligopoly, where interdependence is key, price wars are a constant feature, so even if one supermarket cut petrol prices, this would force others to respond in kind. If such price wars continue, further price cuts may emerge. Furthermore, with oil production still at such high levels, this market may continue to put downward pressure on petrol prices. Certainly good news for consumers – we now just have to wait to see how long it lasts, with key oil producing countries, such as Russia taking a big hit. The following articles consider this story.
One of the key battle grounds at the next General Election is undoubtedly going to be immigration. A topic that is very closely related to EU membership and what can be done to limit the number of people coming to the UK. One side of the argument is that immigrants coming into the UK boost growth and add to the strength of the economy. The other side is that once in the UK, immigrants don’t move into work and end up taking more from the welfare state than they give to it through taxation.
A new report produced by University College London’s Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration has found that the effect on the UK economy of immigrants from the 10 countries that joined the EU from 2004 has been positive. In the years until 2011, it has been found that these immigrants contributed £4.96 billion more in taxes than they took out in benefits and use of public services. Christian Dustmann, one of the authors of this report said:
“Our new analysis draws a positive picture of the overall fiscal contribution made by recent immigrant cohorts, particularly of immigrants arriving from the EU … European immigrants, particularly, both from the new accession countries and the rest of the European Union, make the most substantial contributions … This is mainly down to their higher average labour market participation compared with natives and their lower receipt of welfare benefits.”
The report also found that in the 11 years to 2011, migrants from these 10 EU countries were 43 per cent less likely than native Britons to receive benefits or tax credits, and 7 per cent less likely to live in social housing. This type of data suggests a positive overall contribution from EU immigration. However, critics have said that it doesn’t paint an accurate picture. Sir Andrew Green, Chairman of Migration Watch commented on the choice of dates, saying:
“If you take all EU migration including those who arrived before 2001 what you find is this: you find by the end of the period they are making a negative contribution and increasingly so … And the reason is that if you take a group of people while they’re young fit and healthy they’re not going to be very expensive but if you take them over a longer period they will be.”
However, the report is not all positive about the effects of immigration. When considering the impact on the economy of migrants from outside of the EEA, the picture is quite different. Over the past 17 years, immigration has cost the UK economy approximately £120bn, through migrant’s greater consumption of public benefits, such as the NHS, compared to their contributions through taxation. The debate is likely to continue and this report will certainly be used by both sides of the argument as evidence that (a) no change in immigration policy is needed and (b) a major change is needed to immigration policy. The following articles consider this report.
Report The Fiscal effects of immigration to the UKThe Economic Journal, University College London’s Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration, Christian Dustmann and Tommaso Frattini (November 2014)
How are UK labour markets be affected by immigration? Use a demand and supply diagram to illustrate the effect.
Based on your answer to question 2, explain why some people are concerned about the impact of immigration on UK jobs.
What is the economic argument in favour of allowing immigration to continue?
What policy changes could be recommended to restrict the levels of immigration from outside the EEA, but to continue to allow immigration from EU countries?
If EU migrants are well educated, does that have a positive or negative impact on UK workers, finances and the economy?
The cost of living is a contentious issue and is likely to form a key part of the political debate for the next few years. This debate has been fuelled by the latest announcement by SSE of an average rise in consumer energy bills of 8.2%, meaning that an average dual-fuel customer would see its bill rise by £106. With this increase, the expectation is that the other big energy companies will follow suit with their own price rises.
Energy prices are made up of numerous factors, including wholesale prices, investment in infrastructure and innovation, together with government green energy taxes. SSE has put their price hike down to an increase in wholesale prices, but has also passed part of the blame onto the government by suggesting that the price hikes are required to offset the government’s energy taxes. Will Morris, from SSE said:
We’re sorry we have to do this…We’ve done as much as we could to keep prices down, but the reality is that buying wholesale energy in global markets, delivering it to customers’ homes, and government-imposed levies collected through bills – endorsed by all the major parties – all cost more than they did last year.
The price hike has been met with outrage from customers and the government and has provided Ed Miliband with further ammunition against the Coalition’s policies. However, even this announcement has yet to provide the support for Labour’s plans to freeze energy prices, as discussed in the blog Miliband’s freeze. Customers with other energy companies are likely to see similar price rises in the coming months, as SSE’s announcement is only the first of many. A key question is how will the country provide the funding for much needed investment in the energy sector? The funds of the government are certainly not going to be available to provide investment, so the job must pass to the energy companies and in turn the consumers. It is this that is given as a key reason for the price rises.
Investment in the energy infrastructure is essential for the British economy, especially given the lack of investment that we have seen over successive governments – both Labour and Conservative. Furthermore, the government’s green targets are essential and taxation is a key mechanism to meet them. Labour has been criticized for its plans to freeze energy prices, which may jeopardise these targets. The political playing field is always fraught with controversy and it seems that energy prices and thus the cost of living will remain at the centre of it for many months.
In what market structure would you place the energy sector?
Explain how green taxes push up energy bills? Use a diagram to support your answer.
Consider the energy bill of an average household. Using your knowledge and the articles above, allocate the percentage of that bill that is derived from wholesale prices, green taxes, investment in infrastructure and any other factors. Which are the key factors that have risen, which has forced SSE (and others) to push up prices?
Why is investment in energy infrastructure and new forms of fuel essential? How might such investment affect future prices?
Why has Labour’s proposed 20-month price freeze been criticised?
What has happened to energy prices over the past 20 years?
Is there now a call for more government regulation in the energy sector to allay fears of rises in the cost of living adversely affecting the poorest households?
Indeed, some of those 85 richest people were at the conference: a conference that boasts extremely luxurious conditions. What is more, many delegates flew into the conference in private jets (at least 850 jets) to discuss not just poverty but also climate change!
Income inequality is ‘brake on growth’, Oxfam chief warns Davos France 24, Winnie Byanyima (22/1/15)
