Inflation rate higher for rich, study finds
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.THE RICHEST households have faced bigger increases in their 'real' cost of living than official inflation figures suggest, according to a study published yesterday. The poorest have fared better.
The study, from the Institute of Fiscal Studies and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, says inflation in the 'real economy' can vary by as much as 3 percentage points, depending on the income of the consumer.
In spite of fears expressed by poverty pressure groups, the move from direct to indirect taxes since 1979 has had a greater impact on the rich, it suggests. The main reason is that the poor spend more of their income on necessities such as food, fuel and clothing, the relative price of which fell during the 1980s.
'Luxuries' such as eating out and entertainment have grown relatively more expensive. Better-off households have been spending much more in these areas, particularly on entertainment.
The report says VAT zero- rating of items such as food, fuel, public transport and children's clothing, which are important items of spending for poorer households, means that the burden of the tax has fallen most heavily on the better-off. However, the cost-of- living of rich and poor has varied since 1979. During the early 1980s, for example, the poorest 10 per cent faced a real inflation higher than the retail price index (RPI).
By 1992, the picture had changed: the richest 10 per cent faced inflation 2.46 per cent higher than average; for the poorest 10 per cent, the figure was 0.32 per cent lower.
The author, Ian Crawford, says that linking social security benefits to the RPI may leave poor households short of cash for periods of one or two years: benefits should be more closely tailored to the recipient's cost of living.
Although the study indicates that the increase in real income inequality is less than statistics have suggested,'this does not imply that it is good to be poor. The differences are small and the welfare effects of low income massively outweigh the effects of a slightly lower-than-average cost of living.'
When capital gains and losses on housing are taken into account, poorer households appear to have done worse, because many elderly poor people own their homes and have felt the full effect of falling house prices.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments