Child poverty is a ticking bombshell for the Tories,
as under the Tory child poverty Act 2010 they have a statutory requirement to end child poverty by the 2020.

If it continues to increase at the present rate that will mean around 1 million more in addition to the 3.7 millions now.

These children have been pushed into poverty by the Tories cuts and austerity policies since 2010.

There just couldn't be a more abject failure.

You're an idiot. All empirical data shows that reducing inequality from its current levels would increase productivity and increase output. This isn't simply theory.

The Laffer curve has also been shown, empirically, to only kick in at relatively high levels of taxation (above 60% top rate), so again, from real life, well tested data, increasing the top rate of tax to a more reasonable level wouldn't reduce effort, and so wouldn't impact on output, and in fact the tax raised could be used to fund investment in infrastructure, education and public services, all of which would have a multiplier effect on output and make the economy and society better off.

The extreme inequality in the UK and elsewhere across the globe is a huge break on economic productivity, both through inefficiencies of resources and in the way that the super wealthy go about avoid their proper contributions to the public purse, thereby forcing larger incidences of taxation on the less well off. The more skewed the income/wealth distribution the worse these two (huge) problems get.

Just so i can start to get my head around the definition which is poverty...feel free to educate me here Cambridge...is the IMF definition based on a financial figure in relation to that countries GDP or similar?

The reason I ask is that a number of us seem to have different ideas...each perfectly valid as to what the term 'poverty' ACTUALLY means.

- Do we use the victorian example?
- Do we use the IMF fiscal measure?
- Do we use the measure that excludes various 'luxuries' such as Fags, Internet, Vehicles, Phones, Alcohol before 'poverty' can be reasonably claimed?

Would it negate the fall in tax receipts from avoidance when going over that point it has done?

As I said there is a huge body of empirical evidence that clearly shows improved productivity and output across the board from reduced inequality and no evidence that increases in equality or tax rates up to levels way in excess of current tax rates that increasing tax rates to more reasonable levels (say 60% top rate) would increase avoidance above rates already prevalent.

Exactly how much would this start at the 60% tax rate.
It isn't hard to earn 40k and more if you have a trade.
But it took at least 3 years of s***e to get a trade
Mine was 4.5 years on crap dough.
Going back a few years but even then it was crap.
One year on the YTS at 25£ a week.
Even on 40k it's still a bloody struggle now mate.
Not sure what your actual ideas are.
Can you enlighten a few idiots.