We don’t believe them when they talk of inequality

It is indeed true that we worry a great deal less about inequality than some others do. That one child is in Primark tackkies and another has a spare pair of Air Jordans is not one of those things that greatly concerns us. That all children are shod does matter, yes. But that’s a matter of the general level of income - or wealth, as you prefer - of the society, not of the inequality of provision within it.

So we’re predisposed to not agree here:

Andy Burnham should tackle inequality in the UK by introducing a wealth tax, universal free personal social care and bringing gas and electricity networks under public ownership, according to a report from more than a dozen influential thinkers.

The “influential thinkers” include people even we’ve not heard of so the value of either of those words is arguable. But in the report itself:

Third, inequalities need to be reduced. This is more than a Labour platitude: it is a principle to guide policy making. British society is riven with inequalities….

Here we disagree vehemently. Not just on those grounds of personal taste or moral stance. Rather, on technical grounds.

When we measure inequality, whether of income, wealth or consumption, we do not include many of the things we already do to reduce inequality. The NHS, at least nominally, provides free cradle to grave health care to all on equal terms. This is a significant reduction in inequality from when the grandfather of one of us was providing GP care to the residents of Sparkhill. The value of social housing in inner London can amount to £1 million over a lifetime - this is not included in our estimations of any of the three possible forms of inequality. And so on - we just do not include the values of much of what is already done to reduce inequality in our estimations of current inequality. Free education for all the kiddies. The insurance value of the welfare state. Even that state pension is not counted as wealth, not even included in the calculations of pensions wealth.

One effect of this is that a system of “universal free personal care” would not reduce inequality by one iota, whit or smidgeon. Because we do not include such things in our estimations of inequality.

We would be willing to discuss inequality if we all did count what is already done to reduce it. But then we know what would happen - those who currently whine about it wouldn’t join in the conversation. For once we do include all those things already done then there’s not much inequality left to get worried about. Certainly not enough to justify launching yet another set of programmes we don’t bother to measure the effect of.

Perhaps a little challenge to the likes of Compass - the organisers of this report - and so on. Once we include all the things that are already done to reduce inequality in Britain how much is there left? And is this still something we need to worry about? Show your workings and include everything, the NHS, taxes, benefits, education, state pensions and all.

We’d say we’ll wait but know such a calculation will turn up about the same time as Godot.

Tim Worstall