Labour’s “Robin Hood” legacy

RT @leftfootfwd: GRAPHIC: Robin Hood government: Labour has taken from the poor to give to the rich http://bit.ly/abZuQV

Robin Hood Govt. Labour has taken from the rich to give to the poor (via @leftfootfwd ) http://bit.ly/abZuQV

IFS figs on redistribution post-97 are interesting & encouraging, but seem at odds with Hills Report http://bit.ly/abZuQV (via @leftfootfwd)

Thinking every Labour PPC should put this graphic up in their office. http://bit.ly/abZuQV

Robin Hood Govt. Labour has taken from the rich to give to the poor (via @leftfootfwd ) http://bit.ly/abZuQV

RT @leftfootfwd GRAPHIC: Robin Hood government: Labour has taken from the poor to give to the rich http://bit.ly/abZuQV

How the left and the right papers see income distribution under New Labour http://bit.ly/9FZeC0 (H/T @BevaniteEllie )

RT @BevaniteEllie Thinking every Labour PPC should put this graphic up in their office. http://bit.ly/abZuQV

RT @leftfootfwd: Labour's "Robin Hood" legacy http://bit.ly/9FZeC0

@BevaniteEllie <Robin Hood government> How unbelievable is this! Spare us please! http://bit.ly/abZuQV

RT @BevaniteEllie: Thinking every Labour PPC should put this graphic up in their office. http://bit.ly/abZuQV

It is being misleadingly reported.

What it is saying that the bottom 60% are paying less tax then they would have done if 1996-97 tax structures and rates were left in place, the upper middle are paying slightly more and the very top are paying significantly more.

What it is not saying is the rich are worse of – they are far better-off and have gained far more than everyone else (inequality measured by Gini has slightly worsened, post-tax incomes
of the top 1% have raced away).

Shoddy reporting. Labour in taxing rich more than Tories chose to do shock, but unable to stop inequality increasing

Labour? . . . Robin Hood? HAH!

Sevillista has more than adequately shown this for just more Labour Spin.

Or as the rest of us know it . . . Blatant Lying!

Under Labour; the rich have got richer and the poor have got poorer . . . F A C T.

What i find ineresting is that the right-leaning papers forget to mention that Osborne proposed to raid Child Trust Funds ETC for midle Britain.

That of course should have been:

What I find interesting is that the right-leaning papers forget to mention that Osborne proposed to raid Child Trust Funds ETC for middle Britain.

RT @leftfootfwd: Labour's "Robin Hood" legacy http://bit.ly/9FZeC0

Sevillista – I think you raise an interesting point which is that despite the clear redistribution (by proportion of income), inequalities have continued to rise as a result of exogenous factors such as globalisation. The key for me is how much worse would it have been without these redistributive policies? The OECD last year had good stats on how well Britain had done in relation to other OECD countries. Perhaps the slope should have been even steeper but given other factors, this is a relative success story.

Silent – No Labour spin here. I published a picture from an independent think tank and a range of commentary from different papers.

What’s your evidence that the poor have got poorer? Surely what you meant to say is that over 13 years, the poor have got richer and the rich have got even richer.

Mr. Sensible – Spot on, as ever. We all know the truth about the Tories. Under Thatcher/Major this graph would have been sloped the other way and the same will be true if they get in. There attack on CTF is just the start of it when you consider what they’ll do to child tax credits, the unfairness of the marriage tax break, and everything they’ll do to public services.

Silent – to be clear, Labour have done a good job at preventing worsening market inequality leading to spiralling inequality. This would be a very different story if the Tories were in!

However, it is merely treading water. The gains of growth have disproportionately accrued to the very richest.

Also, tax has not risen as a % of income since 1997 for all the shouting on the right. Hence the structural deficit.

@nickbent Stick this up in the office for when people are on the phones! http://bit.ly/abZuQV

RT @tomwilliamsisme: @nickbent Stick this up in office for when people are on the phones! http://bit.ly/abZuQV <good stuff! Labour fairness>

How about those earning under £15,000 like myself who have been royally screwed by Labour?

RT @nickbent: RT @tomwilliamsisme: @nickbent Stick this up in office for when people are on the phones! http://bit.ly/abZuQV <good stuff! Labour fairness>

Labour's progressive legacy | Left Foot Forward http://bit.ly/ayWYGF

Labour's progressive legacy | Left Foot Forward http://bit.ly/ayWYGF

[...] from Left Foot Forward [...]

[...] there’s this graph from the Institute of Fiscal Studies that has been bandied about on blogs like Left Foot Forward. Put in the form of a colourful graph the information that the tax/benefits outocomes for different [...]

“The poorest 10% of households gained by 13% while at the same time the richest 10% saw their incomes cut by almost 9%.”

I’m pretty sure that 9% of the richest decile’s net income is a lot more than 13% of the poorest decile’s. If this is Labour being “Robin Hood” then Robin Hood is sure taking a large slice of money away for his own purposes before he gives it to the poor.

This from leftfootforward is interesting (intelligent comments as well) http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/03/labours-robin-hood-legacy/

A lot of British news these days, with the upcoming election. How the same data can be interpreted differently: http://short.to/213×1

Mark M:

The difference will have gone into additional services that the Labour government have creted that the tories would never do. Services such as Sure Start, additional free nursery provision… and these services benefit the poorest most.

Interesting point from Mark M

But isn’t this part of the problem with wealth distribution: that a portion of society (the rich here) are giving up increasing amounts of their wealth, and why should they? Why should anyone have to give up what he has earned (other than the fact that we wish to punish those better off than ourselves)?

It is not a sustainable model in the long run – if those wealthy leave, or lose their wealth: who is supporting everybody else? Surely bringing the poor out of poverty by their own means should be the goal of any government activity or taxation in this regard?

@spiderplant88 The IFS report is authoritative on this http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/03/labours-robin-hood-legacy/

@jonathanfryer you agree that IFS proves bottom 20% most significant gainers of tax and benefit changes since 1997? http://bit.ly/aBmILo

@EpsomSean, @Selkie needs to work on her shorthand. Explicitly income inequality reduced through e.g. tax and min wage http://bit.ly/aBmILo

Labour's finest achievement, confirmed by the IFS – real redistribution of wealth http://bit.ly/9FZeC0 #ge2010 #ge10 #ukelection

Labour's finest achievement – redistribution of wealth, according to the IFS: http://bit.ly/9FZeC0 @SarahPortsmth @purpleline @GetLabourOut

Rebecca, the fact is that the rich ‘earn’ disproportionately. Their labour is rewarded excessively and their gains are inflated. Meanwhile, the labours of the poor are grossly undervalued, under renumerated and as such not likeley to ‘bring the poor out of poverty by their own means’.
Labour certainly can take credit for significant work to address the concerns of the poorest but there is still lots to be done to close the inequality gap by dis-advataging the over advantaged.

[...] in power and all Labour’s achievements in poverty-reduction via redistributive policies (as confirmed by the IFS) had not taken place?As Giles has angrily pointed out, what happened under Labour was that the gap [...]

[...] Democrats have argued that Labour should have done more to reduce inequality. Labour’s redistribution was pro-poor and held inequality in check. Nick Clegg is against it, when his party is not for more of [...]