Counting On … – Page 14

Counting on … 157

3rd October 2025

“Growing wealth inequality in the UK could be a “major driver of societal collapse” within the next decade, according to a new report by the Fairness Foundation and the Policy Institute and Department of War Studies at King’s College London…

“The participants identified a negative feedback loop, whereby the government’s failure to tax wealth effectively means it lacks sufficient revenue to uphold the social contract by which strong public services, an effective social safety net and a healthy economy provide people with decent living standards.

“Trust in politics then declines further, politicians avoid honest discussions of the underlying problems and what to do about them, and the system’s legitimacy is increasingly questioned as the social contract collapses.” (1)

Looking at public attitudes, the report that “two-thirds (63%) of Britons now think the very rich have too much influence on politics in the UK – far higher than the share who say the same about businesses (40%), religious organisation (40%) or international organisations like the EU and UN (38%).

Improving incomes levels for the poorest, and taxing the richest clearly has multiple benefits.

https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/wealth-inequality-risks-triggering-societal-collapse-within-next-decade-report-finds

Counting on … 156

2nd October 2025

How do we ensure that work is used to do good things and not bad things?

As individuals and as households, we can make within the limits of our own domain – although we nevertheless be impacted by the decisions of others. The moral choices we make will be affected by our culture, our upbringing and our faith.

Outside our domain, what work happens and how it is encouraged or not, will depend more on the aims of businesses and corporate organisations, governments and legislation. Traditional economic theory tells us that businesses make their decisions solely on the basis of profit. Governments on the other hand may be seen as ‘systems responsible for governing an organised community, established to serve the collective needs and interests of their populations’ (1) or ‘to serve the interests of its rulers, be they monarchs, dictators, aristocracies, or ruling classes.’ (2)

Taking the former definition, there is also an onus on governments to control or organise businesses so that their pursuit of profit is not at the expense of others. Nevertheless pursuit of profit does seem to be the biggest determinant of what work is undertaken because it is the pursuit of profit that determines how much people are paid for each job, and the ‘profit’ value may differ from what is of value for the welling being of the society. Looking at pay levels, CEOs and senior officials are earning an average of £104,000 (and up to several million for the CEOs of banks, fossil fuel and water companies) but are there jobs really more valuable to society than the work of farm workers, cleaners and and nursery nurses who earn between £17,000 and £27,000? (3)

Could the CEOs do their work if it wasn’t for the large number of low paid workers who ensure that food is grown – and transported to the shops and stacked on shelves and dispatched to homes via delivery vans? Could the CEOs do their work if no one cleaned their offices, mended the electrics, or maintained their IT? Could the CEOs do their jobs if there weren’t nurseries and schools for their children, if there weren’t taxi drivers and traffic wardens and car mechanics getting them safely to work?

Having a UBI would at the very least give more equal value to the the work people. If it was financed through higher taxes for those with higher pay packets, then that too would redress the balance of the social value of work.

(3) https://www.unionlearn.org.uk/compare-average-pay-job

https://www.unionlearn.org.uk/compare-average-pay-job

Counting on … 155

1st October 2025

What is the purpose of work?

Yesterday’s Counting On highlighted some of the diversity around work – and principally that no all work is paid, and indeed nor is all paid work remunerated at the same rate.

According to Ecosia, work, as a noun, is activity involving mental or physical effort done in order to achieve a purpose or result, and as a verb, is to be engaged in physical or mental activity in order to achieve a result. Work might be contrasted with play if play js seen as an activity that has no purpose or result. But play does have a purpose: it enables people (especially children) to learn; it helps people relax; it enables people to explore alternative worlds. Work might be contrasted with being lazy if lazy is seen as not being bothered, or not caring, or being selfish. This brings in a moral dimension and asks the question is not working always bad? Is all work inherently good? Which comes to the question, what is the purpose of work?

We work to stay alive – eg gathering, growing, and preparing food to eat; building, maintaining, cleaning a safe place of shelter – ie a home; looking after our mental and physical health which might include making medicines, or listening to people’s troubles, taking exercise – and making that exercise fun; through education to ensure that what we learn that makes life better is shared and passed on; through exploring and researching and just being curious so as to understand better the intricate ways by which this world exists and flourishes; making clothes and tools, making things that keep our homes warm (or cool) and making things that make our homes homely; making shoes and bicycles and other means of transport (including roads and bridges etc) so that we can meet other people and exchange ideas and goods; protecting the ecosystems in which we live – keeping them safe and in good health, ensuring the safety and well being of each other and all other living beings with whom we share this planet; and finally praying for as St Benedict said, to,work is to pray and pray is to work.

All this is about ensuring a flourishing life for all and is morally good. But what if work is used to harm people, to harm other living beings? What is work is used to exploit the planet, to denude it of resources and to pollute it? What is work is used to benefit and small minority at the expense of everyone – and everything – else?

How do we ensure that work is used to do good things and not bad things?

Counting on … 154

30th September 2025

What is a ‘universal basic income’? What are its benefits?

A universal basic income is a social welfare payment paid to all citizens with either a means test or a requirement to complete any sort of work. As a full basic income, it should be sufficient to cover basic needs. (That said, some people with specific needs might need a higher rate to cover their living costs – eg if they were disabled and needed additional support or equipment).

The idea behind the UBI is that everyone in that society will have enough to live on – is that lower limited of the economic doughnut will have been secured. It allows some people to pursue voluntary work – caring for the young or the elderly, working on conservation projects etc. It allows people to take jobs with low pay – such as artists and cleaners – but might there be an argument here to say such jobs should be better paid even if that means higher prices or higher rates. It allows people with stressful jobs to work shorter hours and spend more time relaxing. It ensures security of income for people whose work is seasonal – fruit picking, local tourism etc.

There are clear benefits to society as a whole – the population will be healthier both physically and mentally. This is good in itself. It means people can work better. It reduces costs for health care. It can increase sales of non luxury goods as more people have the money to spend on essentials. Evidence from small scale trials suggests that with the UBI safety net people spend time finding a job they like and are suited to and then become more reliable committed workers.

Perhaps more importantly it allows people to feel valued and be happy and fulfilled.

“Humans need to do work that feels valuable, psychologically,” says Cleo Goodman, a UBI expert at the thinktank Autonomy. “It’s baked into us. It is complete nonsense to suggest that there’s a faction of society that just wants to sit around on the sofa all day, drinking beer and watching TV. We want to spend a fair amount of our time doing something that makes us proud.” (1)

Some people do argue that UBI would lead to people avoiding work, or not working as hard, big I wonder if that would be so? When we are children, everyone asks what do you want to be when you grow up? Getting a job or a role that you want, a job that you will enjoy, is seen as a sensible and worthwhile objective and one which motivates us. For many of us, the jobs we choose are vocational: we choose them not because of the financial reward but because we would not be happy doing anything else.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/jul/14/money-for-nothing-is-universal-basic-income-about-to-transform-society

Counting on … 153

29th September 2025

Another way – or rather a parallel way – of reducing the inequality between rich and poor (so enabling us to live within the inner and outer limits of the doughnut) is to ensure minimum pay rates that are sufficiently generous to enable a good level of wellbeing. In this regard the ‘real living wage’(1) should be a minimum. The current real living wage is £12.60 per hour (outside London) which for a 35 hour week equates to £22,050 per annum.

But how generous is that – is it just a necessary minimum?

According to the calculations of Raisin (2) a comfortable salary for a single person would be £28,018. But add in a young child, and that income would need to increase to £51,363 – or for a couple and one young child, a joint income of £65,810.

And equally what if you earn the real living wage but are only able to get 20 hours a week?

An alternative would be to pay everyone a basic income, paid for from taxation, to ensure that no one falls through the safety net of not having enough income to sustain a reasonable standard of living.

Counting on … 152

26th September 2025

Wealth taxes are also a good idea that could be implemented globally.

Gabriel Zucman, a French economist, at the request of the Brazilian G20 presidency, has produced a blue print for such a tax – to be collected by participating nations. “[A] minimum tax on billionaires equal to 2% of their wealth would raise $200-250 billion per year globally from about 3000 taxpayers”. He explains that “The G20 has been a driver of international tax reforms over the past decade. Thanks to the leadership of the G20, more than 130 countries and territories have agreed to a common minimum corporate tax for large multinational companies in 2021. What we have collectively done with multinational corporations, we could in principle now do with billionaires.” (1)

One argument against taxing the rich is that it stifles enterprise. However Oxfam’s report Takers Not Makers, revealed that 60% of billionaire wealth comes from inheritance, cronyism and corruption, or monopoly power. (2) Taxing such wealth would not undermine enterprise. Rather the revenue raised could provide much needed infrastructure for poorer communities enabling them to have more opportunities to become entrepreneurs. The revenue could equally enable poorer nations to adapt to the impact of climate change – a crisis that is being compounded by the growing number of billionaires!

https://gabriel-zucman.eu/files/report-g20.pdf

(2) https://oxfam.dk/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/2025-english_davos_full-_report.pdf

Counting on … 150

24th September 2025

Doughnut economics refutes the mainstream theory that if the wealth of an economy increases, that that wealth will not just reward the rich but will trickle down and benefit the poorest too.

One flaw in this trickle down argument is that if you are poor is that you often pay more pro-rata than someone who is wealthy. A rich person who owns a house has both somewhere to live rent free and the means for raising extra money to invest in money making or money saving schemes and products (eg a rich person can afford the cost of a heat pump that will longterm save money). A poor person will not be able to afford to buy a house and instead will be forced to rent so each month income will be going out of their pockets and into the pockets of someone rich enough to own a buy to let property.

This flow of income away from the poor and to the rich (a trickle up effect) has been documented both nationally and globally. This is something Oxfam reports on annually.

“In 2024, the number of billionaires rose to 2,769, up from 2,565 in 2023. Their combined wealth surged from $13 trillion to $15 trillion in just 12 months. This is the second-largest annual increase in billionaire wealth since records began. The wealth of the world’s ten richest men grew on average by almost $100 million a day and even if they lost 99 per cent of their wealth overnight, they would remain billionaires.

“UK billionaires saw their collective wealth increase last year by £35 million a day to £182 billion …. Four new billionaires were created last year, taking the current total to 57.

“Meanwhile, according to the World Bank, the number of people still living in poverty – around 3.5 billion – has barely changed since 1990.“ (1)

The poverty line in the UK is determined as households whose income is under 60% of the median household income after housing costs for that year. (2) The Joseph Rowntree Report for 2025 reported that 2 in every 10 adults are in poverty in the UK, with about 3 in every 10 children being in poverty. Further the poorest families – those living in very deep poverty – had an average income that was 57% below the poverty line, with this gap increasing by almost two-thirds over the past 25 years. (3)

For further information read more from Oxfam’s report – https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10546/621668/bp-takers-not-makers-200125-summ-en.pdf;jsessionid=1D0798BB3DCCC8B2A556159969CB2CD3?sequence=1

Counting on … 151

25th September 2025

One way of redressing the wealth and income imbalance would be via wealth taxes. In July of this year, 30 economists, the Patriotic Millionaires, the Commission for the Reform of International Corporate Taxation, and others called for a UK wealth tax and other reforms. (1) The proposed reforms would not only begin to rebalance wealth inequalities, but would provide useful revenue for funding those things that benefit society – schools, healthcare, a just transition to renewable energy etc

Apply a 2% wealth tax on assets over £10 million, raising up to £24 billion a year.
Reform capital gains tax to raise £14 billion a year.
Apply National Insurance to investment income, raising up to £10.2 billion a year.
Close inheritance tax loopholes to raise £1.4 billion a year.
Close the loopholes in the new non-dom scheme to raise up to £1 billion.
Introduce a 4% tax on share buybacks, raising approximately £2 billion a year. (2)

Altogether this totals over £52 billion a year.

Counting on … 149

23rd September 2025

The economic systems that predominate globally with their focus on growth (of GDP) and determined by the pursuit of profit (for the share holders) is a cause of growing inequality and with that (as outlined over the last few weeks) come problems such as climate change, biodiversity loss, social injustice etc.

The economic theory that underpins this is flawed. There is no trickle down effect by which one can justify growing wealth for the already wealthy. The economist Kate Raworth has proposed an alternative model known as Doughnut Economics. Its basic premise is that there is on the one hand an outer limit to our economic activity which is determined by the limitedness of the Earth’s resources – planetary boundaries. And on the other hand a lower limit determined by what is needed to ensure the needs of each individual – food, water, housing, healthcare, education, mental well being. These inner and outer boundaries thus encasing the doughnut of economic activity.

In other words we would ensure consumption levels stayed within the boundary of what the Earth can provide – and than would include not putting more waste/ pollutants, including carbon dioxide , into the Earth’s systems than can be absorbed. It would mean reining in total consumption to that which one planet can sustain – ie bringing back Earth overshoot day back to 31st December.

And it would mean ensuring a fair and equitable distribution of resources so that everyone has enough – reining in the excessive levels of income and wealth currently accruing to a minority – and by so doing this will enable everyone contribute from the their full potential rather than being constrained by the limits of poverty, ill health etc.

https://doughnuteconomics.org/about-doughnut-economics

Counting on … day 148

22nd September 2025

Lack of political will can also worsen the impact climate change. Ilan Kelman, Professor of Disasters and Health, UCL explains it thus: “The IPCC’s summary entirely avoids the phrase “natural disaster”. This reflects decades of work explaining that disasters are caused by sources of vulnerability – such as unequal and inequitable access to essential services like healthcare or poorly designed or built infrastructure like power plants – rather than by the climate or other environmental influences.

“The [2022 IPCC] report states, with high confidence, that “climate change is contributing to humanitarian crises where climate hazards interact with high vulnerability”. In other words, vulnerability must exist before a crisis can emerge. Climate change is not the root cause of disaster. The report explains that places with “poverty, governance challenges and limited access to basic services and resources, violent conflict and high levels of climate-sensitive livelihoods” are more vulnerable to climate change impacts.”

“The report explains that disaster risk and impacts can be reduced by tackling fundamental issues which cause vulnerability, no matter what the weather and climate do. It places high confidence in risk management, risk sharing, and warning strategies as key tasks for adapting to climate change.” (1)

(1) https://theconversation.com/ipcc-report-how-politics-not-climate-change-is-responsible-for-disasters-and-conflict-178071