A report detailing the gap between Britain’s rich and poor has been met with universal shock and promises to narrow the divide. But why? Isn’t inequality not only inevitable but desirable?

Even Tories reacted to the report by condemning the inequality gap with no apology for widening it when last in power and plans to widen it further when they return. But why do they think we should all earn the same? Are they Conservatives or Communists?

Surely inequality is the healthy outcome of people wanting to improve their circumstances? Some people will do better than others, either through opportunity, ability or inclination. Taxing the rich to subsidise the poor may be socially necessary (the poor cannot be abandoned and who else is there to tax but richer people) but it should not be an objective.

The report comes from the London School of Economics and the new National Equality Panel established by equalities minister Harriet Harman. The whole premise of its establishment, her job and the legislation that will put inequality discrimination on a par with racial and gender discrimination, is that inequality is bad and must be cured.

The report finds that the top 10 per cent of the population earn four-times as much as the bottom tenth – and in asset terms is much richer. Three decades ago that income multiple was three-times, but there is no correct ratio and it is certainly not one-to-one.

We may all think certain people are overpaid (bankers, chief executives or footballers, for instance) and some underpaid (usually ourselves) but surely no-one wants a flat rate of pay. So why do we want head in that direction with a flatter rate of pay?

Should the employee working overtime be paid the same as one choosing not to? Should the factory hand be paid the same as the factory manager? If the answer is no, then we support inequality.

Equality’s supporters frequently confuse high earners with hard workers. And they are wrong to blame class, if only because they self-define the rich as a class.

Equality of opportunity should be an objective in a meritocracy, but even that is a pipedream so long as children are brought up by parents with different abilities and inclinations. Of course the child taught to read by its parents has a head start at school and the prospects of a better career, but the state cannot dictate what happens in the home. And of course money helps – but that should be an incentive for parents to improve themselves and earn more, making themselves less equal to enable their offspring to do better, whether that lifts their children to the average (closing the inequality gap) or lifts them away from it (widening it).

Tony Blair rightly saw nothing wrong with the inequality gap widening. So long as the lot of the people at the bottom improved, he had no problem with the rewards of those at the top improving even more. If everyone is better off it doesn’t matter if the divide gets bigger.

Share this: