How inequality has soared in the US

The top 1 per cent now take home 23.5 per cent of all income.

If you want to get some idea of why the 99 per cent movement has attracted so much support in the US, just take a look at this graph. Over the last thirty years, the share of income taken by the top 1 per cent of Americans has risen from 10 per cent to 23.5 per cent. Even more remarkably, the share taken by the top 0.1 per cent (the top 14,988 US families, making at least $11.5m in 2007) has risen from 1 per cent to 6 per cent. Income inequality in the US is now at its highest level since 1928 (see this excellent Berkeley report for more data), when the top 1 per cent took home 23.9 per cent.

A

As you'll notice, from the 1950s onwards, income distribution in the US remained broadly stable until the Thatcher-Reagan revolution. The neoliberal policies pursued by the Reagan administration - tax cuts for the wealthy (the top rate of tax was reduced from 50 per cent to 28 per cent), deregulation and privatisation, led to a dramatic rise in inequality.

Consequently, it's no surprise that even in the US, where the Tea Party has tilted the political spectrum rightwards, the majority of citizens support the aims of the 99 per cent movement. A recent Time/Abt SRBI poll found that 54 per cent had a "very favourable" (25 per cent) or "somewhat favourable" (29 per cent) view of the movement.

It was Alan Greenspan, a disciple of free-market guru Ayn Rand, who remarked in 2005: "This is not the type of thing which a democratic society - a capitalist democratic society - can really accept without addressing." Obama now has a huge political opportunity to win support for a renewed drive against inequality. He was memorably attacked during the 2008 presidential election for wanting to "spread the wealth" but the polls suggest that's exactly what the voters want him to do.

As for the UK, we're not doing much better. The richest 10 per cent now receives 31 per cent of national income and owns almost half of the country's personal assets, while the poorest 10 per cent takes home just 1 per cent of the total income. The coalition's decision to rely on spending cuts (which hit the poorest hardest), rather than tax rises, to reduce the deficit will inevitably widen the gap. Conservatives may criticise the Occupy London movement but they cannot deny that it reflects a grim empirical reality.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The big problem for the NHS? Local government cuts

Even a U-Turn on planned cuts to the service itself will still leave the NHS under heavy pressure. 

38Degrees has uncovered a series of grisly plans for the NHS over the coming years. Among the highlights: severe cuts to frontline services at the Midland Metropolitan Hospital, including but limited to the closure of its Accident and Emergency department. Elsewhere, one of three hospitals in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland are to be shuttered, while there will be cuts to acute services in Suffolk and North East Essex.

These cuts come despite an additional £8bn annual cash injection into the NHS, characterised as the bare minimum needed by Simon Stevens, the head of NHS England.

The cuts are outlined in draft sustainability and transformation plans (STP) that will be approved in October before kicking off a period of wider consultation.

The problem for the NHS is twofold: although its funding remains ringfenced, healthcare inflation means that in reality, the health service requires above-inflation increases to stand still. But the second, bigger problem aren’t cuts to the NHS but to the rest of government spending, particularly local government cuts.

That has seen more pressure on hospital beds as outpatients who require further non-emergency care have nowhere to go, increasing lifestyle problems as cash-strapped councils either close or increase prices at subsidised local authority gyms, build on green space to make the best out of Britain’s booming property market, and cut other corners to manage the growing backlog of devolved cuts.

All of which means even a bigger supply of cash for the NHS than the £8bn promised at the last election – even the bonanza pledged by Vote Leave in the referendum, in fact – will still find itself disappearing down the cracks left by cuts elsewhere. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. He usually writes about politics.