Although overall relative poverty levels have flatlined in recent years at about 21% of the population, life for those below the breadline has got materially worse as they try to subsist on incomes many thousands of pounds beneath the poverty threshold.

About 6.8 million people – half of all those in poverty – were in very deep poverty, the highest number and proportion since records began three decades ago, said the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF), which carried out the analysis.

Households on the lowest incomes were still experiencing a cost of living crisis four years on, with millions of people forced to go without food, falling behind on household bills and having to borrow to survive, said JRF.

“Poverty in the UK is still not just widespread, it is deeper and more damaging than at any point in the last 30 years,” said Peter Matejic, the JRF’s chief analyst.

Very deep poverty is defined as less than 40% of the UK poverty threshold after rent. The average income of a household in very deep poverty is 59% below the poverty line. For a couple with two young children this amounts to £16,400 or below.

Although households move in and out of very deep poverty, about 1.9 million people (3%) in the UK are persistently in this category. A couple with two young children in very deep poverty would need to earn an extra £14,700 a year to entirely move out of poverty.

The most recent estimates show about 3.8 million UK people experienced destitution – a category even more extreme than very deep poverty, in which households cannot afford to stay warm, dry, clean, clothed and fed, the JRF said.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/jan/27/very-deep-poverty-uk-record-numbers-joseph-rowntree-foundation-analysis

The e problem with the rich is that, because they have so much money, they demand too much of our productive capacities. Their money translates into massive purchasing power (and also enables them to increase their investments and ownership of production). So we are then required to use our labour and resources to produce things like mansions, private jets, sports cars, estates, luxury goods and so on. This facilitates elite consumption and accumulation but it does not benefit society – it is wasteful, ecologically destructive, and it should be curtailed so that we can undertake production that does benefit society.

Taxation can be used to help achieve this in two ways: a) tax income and wealth over a certain threshold, and b) tax damaging and unnecessary goods.

Ultimately, we do not need to tax wage labour at all.

If a key purpose of taxing income and wealth is to reduce excess demand and consumption, then it is reasonable to implement a very simple and straightforward tax rule. All income below a certain minimum threshold (the level needed to acquire goods and services necessary to live a good life) should be taxed at zero per cent, and all income above a certain maximum threshold (a level beyond which additional consumption is clearly unnecessary and destructive) should be taxed at 100 per cent. This is consistent with calls for a maximum income policy.

The vast majority of workers do not consume too much – in fact, in many cases they consume too little and struggle to make ends meet. If so, they do not need to be taxed.

A maximum income may sound radical, but it is perfectly reasonable once we understand that money is not just abstract credits that can be accumulated endlessly. It represents demand for – and enables increased control over – real labour and resources. Clearly it makes little sense to allow elites to consume as much of our labour and our planet – and our future – as they want.

https://newint.org/equality/2026/who-should-pay-public-services