Disentangling different aspects of wealth inequality
Florence Guyomar | 28 September 2026
Can a framework that disaggregates 'wealth inequality' into three aspects - extreme wealth concentration, the wealth gap, and lack of wealth - help build consensus on the harms arising from wealth inequality in the United Kingdom?
This report is the first in a series of planned Fairness Foundation outputs in 2026/27 looking in detail at different aspects of wealth inequality, their consequences and the potential policy responses.
Contents
Executive summary | The policy problem | The theoretical framework | Critical analysis | Conclusion | Bibliography
Executive summary
The UK lacks consensus on how to address wealth inequality. As economist Paul Johnson outlines in Challenging Inequalities (2026):
“Anyone can come up with suggestions to tax the rich or give greater benefits to the poor. Equally, anyone can construct persuasive arguments against such policies. We are not lacking for policy ideas… we are lacking a much more fundamental sense of direction and consensus over what matters, what the effect of different policies would be, and what trade-offs we need to make.”
This report argues that this lack of consensus is partly a consequence of how wealth inequality is framed. Rather than treating “wealth inequality” as a single policy problem, it proposes understanding its harms through three distinct but mutually reinforcing aspects: (1) extreme wealth concentration; (2) lack of wealth; and (3) the wealth gap across the distribution. Each aspect has different drivers, consequences and policy levers. When policymakers and advocates conflate them, proposed solutions can target different challenges, fuelling political gridlock. This problem is compounded by the absence of a dedicated UK government institution responsible for monitoring wealth inequality, developing the evidence base and assessing policy responses. Section one further outlines this policy problem.
Section two introduces a framework to disaggregate wealth inequality into the three aspects. The purpose is to establish a common starting point for meaningful policy deliberation. As a case study, the framework is tested against the harms evidenced in the Fairness Foundation’s Wealth Gap Risk Register. Section three critically examines the framework, drawing on informal consultation with experts to identify areas of convergence and divergence.
The policy problem
Wealth is not distributed equally in the United Kingdom, and this inequality creates economic, social, democratic and climate harms. Although 75 percent of Britons agree that wealth inequality is an important problem, consensus splits on the nature of the problem.
Rather than a single policy problem, this report suggests there are three distinct aspects in the wealth inequality debate. For some, the central concern is extreme wealth concentration among a very small number of households, raising concerns about outsized economic and political power. For others, the problem lies in the lack of wealth among those who cannot absorb financial shocks or build long-term opportunity. A third view emphasises a widening wealth gap across the whole distribution, when systemic harms arise from how wealth is spread, independent of the two extremes.
In political discourse, these aspects are frequently conflated and applied inconsistently. "Wealth inequality" is often used as a catch-all when describing the unequal distribution of wealth, masking competing drivers, consequences and policy levers. Without clarity about which of these aspects a policy solution seeks to target, debates risk arguing in the abstract and addressing fundamentally different challenges, addressing symptoms while leaving root causes untouched.
For example, the debate over a UK wealth tax is fractured by competing objectives. While economic arguments exist on both sides, even among supporters there is a lack of consensus regarding the fundamental problem a wealth tax should be designed to solve. For some, the primary objective is to curb the political and economic power of those who hold extreme wealth, while for others it is to raise funds to improve public services and living standards. Because these goals do not automatically reinforce one another without thoughtful policy design, proposed solutions can work at cross-purposes. A wealth tax might successfully dilute extreme wealth concentration while making only a marginal difference to the absolute lack of assets held by a significant number of UK households. Without consensus on which harms a wealth tax should address, political discourse devolves into ideological debate rather than progress.
Various features sustain the lack of consensus regarding wealth inequality in the UK. Think tanks, research groups and academics frequently report on wealth inequality, however these stakeholders often begin from fundamentally different social, political and economic starting points. Normative beliefs about fairness, equality and opportunity can be shaped by “social sampling”, where groups or individuals interpret inequality through the lens of their own environments and experiences. This spurs disagreement about the key facts of inequality, as well as perspectives about meritocracy, asset ownership and social mobility.
An additional barrier is the fragmented oversight of wealth inequality in the UK, with no government body tasked with monitoring or reducing it. HM Treasury designs taxation policy, the Department for Work and Pensions manages social security, and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government oversees housing policy, however there is no centralised responsibility for wealth as a system. This institutional gap is worsened by data deficits – in June 2025, UK’s Office for Statistics Regulation suspended accreditation from the Wealth and Assets Survey after determining that the results were no longer of “sufficient value or quality”. This leaves policymakers without an accredited standard to measure household economic wellbeing.
Noting these baseline issues, persistent political gridlock is unsurprising. The need for direction is pressing because wealth inequality is becoming increasingly important in shaping life outcomes in the UK. Absolute gaps between richer and poorer households have widened, disparities between generations, regions and asset holders have deepened, and wealth now plays a more significant role than income in determining economic security and opportunity.
The theoretical framework
To support greater alignment, a framework outlining three aspects of wealth inequality is proposed. The three aspects are not mutually exclusive categories, but analytical lenses for identifying the mechanisms through which wealth inequality produces harm.
There are many ways to segment conceptualisations of wealth inequality, and academic literature illustrates existing efforts to do so. Jens Beckert, for example, defines a comparative sociology distinguishing six “capacities of wealth” spanning security, opportunity, capital income, bequest, social status and power. This framework adopts a similar logic by disaggregating wealth inequality by the harms it creates.
The three aspects
The three aspects differ in what they describe. Extreme wealth concentration and lack of wealth refer to opposite ends of the wealth distribution. The wealth gap is a property of the distribution itself, describing the gradient in wealth between households. These are mutually reinforcing aspects rather than competing explanations. Many harms involve multiple aspects, and experts reasonably disagree about which aspect is most important. The intended value of the framework is in making these disagreements transparent and providing a basis from which to build consensus about solutions.
Aspect | Core mechanism | Illustrative measures* | Policy solutions |
Extreme wealth concentration | Wealth that is concentrated among a very small number of households, enabling disproportionate economic and political power | Share of total wealth held by the top 1% (or top 0.1%) | Reduce concentration or limit its conversion into economic and political influence |
The wealth gap | Differences across the wealth distribution shape outcomes for households beyond the effects of extreme wealth or lack of wealth | Comparisons across the wealth distribution (e.g. the 90th to 10th or 75th to 25th percentile ratios) | Reduce the size of wealth gaps across the distribution |
Lack of wealth | Households that lack sufficient assets to provide security, resilience and opportunity | Share of households below a minimum-adequacy wealth threshold | Raise the floor by increasing asset ownership and reducing insecurity |
* These illustrative measures aim to capture circumstances in which the concentration or absence of wealth becomes a source of harm. Both absolute and relative measures are relevant across the three aspects.
Extreme wealth concentration
Many would accept that some degree of extreme wealth is both inevitable and compatible with a healthy market economy. While normative judgements are sometimes made regarding the amount of wealth that is acceptable for households to accumulate, broader-based concerns typically arise when wealth becomes sufficiently concentrated that it generates societal harm.
If existing wealth trends continue, by 2035 the wealth of the richest 200 families in the UK will surpass the UK GDP. Extreme wealth concentration is yet to be precisely defined, and ongoing work to define an ‘extreme wealth line’ through a harms-based lens will help to refine this threshold. The defining feature is wealth that is sufficiently concentrated to enable it to be converted into outsized economic and political influence. The concern is that the wealth of the top 1% (or 0.1%) provides the power to distort markets, influence media and political institutions, and shape the development of public policy.
Policy responses to this concern often focus on reducing the concentration of wealth or limiting its conversion into power, including by capping political donations, ensuring stronger regulation of political parties and electoral reform.
The wealth gap
The wealth gap focuses on the broader distribution of wealth across UK society. While headline measures such as the Gini coefficient for wealth (a statistical measure of wealth inequality) are one way of measuring inequality, they do not tell the full story. The Gini coefficient has remained relatively stable in the UK in recent decades, however absolute gaps between richer and poorer households have risen significantly. The concern is the practical widening between rungs on the ladder, not just the existence of dispersion.
Drawing on Professor Sir Michael Marmot's concept of the social gradient in health, this aspect considers whether relative position within the wealth distribution generates harm independent of the existence of extremes. As the Marmot Review states: “People with a higher socioeconomic position in society have a greater array of life chances and more opportunities to lead a flourishing life… the lower a person’s social position, the worse his or her health.” In discussing the wealth gap with Marmot for this policy report, he agreed that the parallels between health and wealth inequalities are sufficiently strong to justify applying the social gradient concept in this context.
As the wealth gap widens, opportunities for mobility diminish, advantages accumulate across generations and an affluent class may become increasingly detached from those below. This reflects patterns sustained not just by a concentrated group with extreme wealth, but by a broad affluent tier engaging in ‘opportunity hoarding’. While principally a moral issue, evidence indicates that a society that extends broad opportunities is also better positioned to drive economic growth. The Fairness Foundation’s research indicates that the wealth gap can also erode social cohesion by fostering resentment and status anxiety, weakening the connections that sustain community engagement. The wealth gap therefore aims to capture harms associated with both relative position and the cumulative effects of inequality. Policy responses often aim to reduce the size of wealth gaps across the distribution, for example through inheritance tax reform or pre-distribution strategies.
Lack of wealth
Lack of wealth concerns households with insufficient assets to provide financial security, resilience and opportunity, estimated to affect almost 50% of the UK adult population (up from 29% in 2014/15).
This differs from a conventional poverty metric by incorporating both sufficiency and opportunity. Wealth enables households to absorb financial shocks, invest in housing, start businesses and plan for retirement. The absence of a financial buffer increases exposure to economic shocks, often necessitating short-term borrowing that can escalate into persistent debt. This reduces households’ economic resilience and constrains their capacity to plan, manage risk and exercise autonomy in decision-making.
The primary policy objective is ensuring all households have enough wealth to achieve a minimum level of security and opportunity. Policy responses often seek to ensure all households have access to a basic floor of wealth, for example through social housing or universal basic services.
Applying the framework to harms
The Fairness Foundation’s 2025 Wealth Gap Risk Register maps harms arising out of wealth inequality in the UK, spanning economy, society, democracy and the environment. The Register does not yet classify each harm according to which aspect of wealth inequality is the primary driver. This case study applies that lens through a set of proposed allocations intended to stimulate discussion rather than establish causal relationships.
To isolate each harm to one aspect of wealth inequality, three counterfactual questions are considered. Answering these questions aims to identify which aspect provides the strongest explanation for a given harm. Although many harms plausibly arise through multiple mechanisms, each harm is assigned one aspect to make assumptions transparent, identify areas of consensus and provide a structured basis for challenge.
Aspect | Counterfactual |
Extreme wealth concentration | Would this harm exist in a society with a small group holding an extreme share of wealth, even if everyone else had the same level of wealth? |
The wealth gap | Would this harm exist in a society with no extreme wealth and no poverty, but where wealth was still unequally distributed? |
Lack of wealth | Would this harm exist in a society where a meaningful share of households has too little wealth to cope with a moderate shock or meet basic needs, but everyone above that floor is equal? |
Applying this test to the harms identified in the Wealth Gap Risk Register produces a preliminary allocation of harms among the three aspects. For example:
- Harms best explained by extreme wealth concentration include unequal access to land, a tax system that favours income from wealth over income from work, and the entrenchment of market power reducing competition.
- Harms best explained by the wealth gap include reduced social cohesion and community participation, inequitable access to healthcare, and widening regional inequalities.
- Harms best explained by lack of wealth include reduced economic resilience, housing instability, and inability to invest in professional development.
Figure 1: Preliminary allocation of harms across the three aspects of wealth inequality
Source: Fairness Foundation, Wealth Gap Risk Register (2025)
This case study does not intend to suggest that any aspect of wealth inequality is most important or harmful, but rather to illustrate that the consequences of wealth inequality may be more varied than popular debate suggests. Each of the three aspects are valid, and different stakeholders may weight them differently depending on their political, economic or philosophical starting point.
Critical analysis
Approach to expert feedback
Feedback was sought on the three-aspect framework and preliminary harms allocations from subject-matter experts across philosophy, sociology, epidemiology, public health and economics, including with academics whose work is referenced.
The feedback spanned framework design as well as the utility of the framework in streamlining debate regarding wealth inequality. Experts who provided feedback included:
Name | Title | Organisation |
Sir Michael Marmot | Professor of Epidemiology and Public Health | University College London |
Mike Brewer | Deputy Chief Executive | Resolution Foundation |
Sarah Kerr | Transforming Wealth Lab | Joseph Rowntree Foundation |
Ryan Shorthouse | Executive Chair | Bright Blue |
Kate Pickett | Professor of Epidemiology | University of York |
Adam Swift | Professor of Political Theory | University College London |
Jonathan Wolff | Emeritus Professor in Philosophy and Public Policy | Blavatnik School of Government |
Richard Wilkinson | Retired Emeritus Professor of Social Epidemiology | University of Nottingham |
Paul Hufe | Senior Lecturer | University of Bristol |
Martin O’Neill | Professor of Political Philosophy | University of York |
Peter Taylor-Gooby | Emeritus Professor | University of Kent |
Geraldine Van Bueren KC | Chair | Alliance of Working-Class Academics Worldwide |
Ruth Lister | Peer/Emeritus Professor of Social Policy | House of Lords/Loughborough University |
Tania Burchardt | Professor of Social Policy | London School of Economics |
Jake Anders | Professor of Quantitative Social Science | University College London |
Patterns of convergence
Across the feedback provided, almost all experts affirmed the underlying premise of the three-aspect framework, often describing it as useful and intuitive. Many agreed that wealth inequality is usually described as a single issue despite harms clustering at certain points along the distribution. In written feedback, one expert noted that the framework presents a "very helpful disambiguation” noting that the term wealth inequality is often used to refer to all three aspects. Another described the framework as distinguishing: "…three importantly bad things that arise from the distribution of wealth."
Several experts highlighted the framework’s relevance for policymaking. It was observed that two aspects map onto existing fragmentation across government departments: lack of wealth aligns with the Department for Work and Pensions, while extreme wealth concentration aligns with HM Treasury’s fiscal remit. This supports a point made by another expert that each category implies different actors and policy levers. This feedback highlights the institutional gap identified in this report: different aspects of wealth have government bases, but there is no institutional home for wealth as a system.
Regarding the Fairness Foundation’s Wealth Gap Risk Register, experts frequently associated certain harms with each aspect. For example, harms commonly associated with:
- extreme wealth included political capture, competition and taxation dynamics;
- the wealth gap included opportunity hoarding and intergenerational inequalities; and
- lack of wealth included housing insecurity and inability to absorb shocks.
Testing harm classifications produced further consensus. For example, when testing the allocation of climate-related harms such net zero contributions, most confirmed allocations in extreme wealth concentration, however several provided a caveat that disproportionate emitters extend beyond the top 1% of wealthy households.
Patterns of divergence
The clearest divergence regarded whether the three aspects are separate or if they reflect one continuous picture of wealth inequality. One expert argued that each aspect is distinct, with different actors and different solutions, and that discussing them together risks talking in the abstract. Another suggested the opposite: the three aspects reflect one problem, with many harms running across all. A third expert diagnosed this as a live tension in the policy debate rather than being unique to this framework.
A key divergence concerned how the wealth gap should be defined and measured. Experts proposed different suggestions for ways to define this aspect: curve shape, relative vs absolute metrics, positional goods, life course trajectories, the top 20 percent vs bottom 80 percent divide or simply naming it as a residual bucket. Many of the Wealth Gap Risk Register harms provisionally sit in this category, yet none of the experts independently converged on the best way to define it. This both reinforces the importance of this category and highlights the difficulties in creating alignment on how to measure it. Each suggestion reflects a different interpretation of what matters when wealth is unequally distributed.
Feedback also highlighted the existence of values-driven political leanings. Of those consulted, some centred the wealth gap as being most fundamental to inequality related harms, while others centred lack of wealth as the primary concern for the UK. This reflects a divergence in views about which harms should be prioritised, informed partly by different baselines about what constitutes a fair distribution of wealth.
Some experts valued the framework’s simplicity by including only three aspects. Others highlighted that simplicity risks conflating genuinely distinct mechanisms or understating the complex links between them. Many recognised that while certain aspects could be further disaggregated, doing so cuts against communication goals.
What this shows
The challenges outlined in this report stem not from a lack of evidence but from a lack of alignment about what the fundamental components of wealth inequality are, which harms they generate and which policy responses should be prioritised. An organising framework can help to identify areas of consensus and divergence on these issues.
Conclusion
As set out in Challenging Inequalities (2026): “If we don't figure out how to integrate inequalities more intelligently into policy, we are likely to keep getting more divided." This report contends that the debate on wealth inequality in the UK is constrained by the absence of a shared understanding about fundamental issues. The UK does not face a single wealth inequality challenge, it faces three distinct ones: extreme wealth concentration, a wealth gap, and a lack of wealth. Treating these as a single issue has contributed to fragmentation, gridlock and limited progress. The framework outlined in this report provides a foundation for engaging stakeholders and building consensus on the harms of wealth inequality.
Bibliography
A M La Porta, Caterina and Stefano Zapperi. “Unravelling the Dynamics of Wealth Inequality and the Impact on Social Mobility and Health Disparities.” Journal of Physics: Complexity Vol. 4 No. 4 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1088/2632-072X/ad0018.
Aiyar, Shekhar and Christian Ebeke. IMF Working Paper: Inequality of Opportunity, Inequality of Income and Economic Growth. IMF: February 2019. https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/wp/2019/wpiea2019034.pdf.
Beckert, Jens. “Varieties of Wealth: Toward a Comparative Sociology of Wealth Inequality,” Socio-Economic Review Vol. 0, (2023), 1–25.
Broome, Molly and Jack Leslie. Arrears Fears: The Distribution of UK Household Wealth and the Impact on Families. Resolution Foundation, July 2022. https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/app/uploads/2022/07/Arrears-fears.pdf.
Broome, Molly and Ricky Kanabar. Before the fall: The distribution of household wealth in Britain and the impact on families. Resolution Foundation, October 2025. https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/app/uploads/2025/10/Before-the-fall.pdf.
Brown, William. The Low Pay Commission After Eight Years. CWPE 0544: October, 2005. https://files.econ.cam.ac.uk/repec/cam/pdf/cwpe0544.pdf.
Bunting, Jason. Rigged: How the Unfairness of Britain’s Broken Social Contract Drives Support for Populism. Fairness Foundation: September 26, 2025. https://files.fairnessfoundation.com/rigged.pdf.
Burchardt, Tania, Michael Vaughan and Ingrid Robeyns. The Bottom Line and the Top Line: Insights From Poverty Measurement for Developing an Extreme Wealth Line. London School of Economics International Inequalities Institute: CASEpaper 241, June 2026. https://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/case/cp/casepaper241.pdf.
Dixon, Rosalind. “Commissioning Economic Equality? Lessons from Scotland,” Federal Law Review Vol 51, no. 3 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1177/0067205X231187976.
Equality Trust UK. Money, Media and Lords. November 20, 2025. https://equalitytrust.org.uk/evidence-base/money-media-and-lords/.
Equality Trust UK. The Scale of Economic Inequality in the UK. https://equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-uk/.
Fairness Foundation. Unequal Kingdom 2024: Public Attitudes to Inequalities and Their Impacts. January 31, 2024. https://fairnessfoundation.com/unequal-kingdom/.
Harel Ben Shahar, Tammy. “Positional Goods and the Size of Inequality.” The Journal of Political Philosophy: Vol 26, 1 (2018), 103–120.
Institute for Fiscal Studies. Public Policy and Inequalities: Lessons for Policymakers from the IFS Deaton Review. April, 2026. https://ifs.org.uk/sites/default/files/2026-04/IFS%20Report%20-%20Public%20policy%20and%20inequalities%20lessons%20for%20policymakers%20from%20the%20IFS%20Deaton%20Review_0.pdf.
Jeffrey, Jack, Will Snell and Anita Sangha. Wealth Gap Risk Register 2025 (Fairness Foundation, October 27, 2025). https://fairnessfoundation.com/risks-2025.
Jeffrey, Jack. No Money, More Problems: Reconsidering Asset-Based Welfare. Fairness Foundation: April 5, 2025. https://files.fairnessfoundation.com/no-money-more-problems.pdf.
Johnson, Paul. Challenging Inequalities: How We Got Stuck and Where We Go Next. Princeton University Press, 2026.
Kerr, Sarah and Michael Vaughan. Changing the narrative on wealth inequality. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation, May 2, 2024. https://www.jrf.org.uk/narrative-change/changing-the-narrative-on-wealth-inequality.
Kerr, Sarah and Michael Vaughan. Effects of the framing of wealth inequality: a literature review. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation, May 2, 2024. https://www.jrf.org.uk/narrative-change/effects-of-the-framing-of-wealth-inequality-a-literature-review.
Kerr, Sarah. “Why We Need to Talk About Wealth If We Want to Address Poverty.” September 23, 2025. https://www.lse.ac.uk/research/research-for-the-world/economics/wealth-and-poverty.
London School of Economics. “Financial Insecurity Affects Nearly Half of UK Adults.” June 6, 2025. https://www.lse.ac.uk/news/latest-news-from-lse/f-june-25/financial-insecurity-affects-nearly-half-of-uk-adults.
Low Pay Commission. “20 years of the National Minimum Wage: A History of the UK Minimum Wage and its Effects.” Low Pay Commission: April, 2019. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c9e0e72e5274a527faae38a/20_years_of_the_National_Minimum_Wage_-_a_history_of_the_UK_minimum_wage_and_its_effects.pdf.
Marmot, Michael, Jessica Allen, Peter Goldblatt, Tammy Boyce, Di McNeish, Mike Grady, Ilaria Geddes. Fair Society, Healthy Lives: The Marmot Review (Strategic Review of Health Inequalities in England post-2010. 2010. https://www.instituteofhealthequity.org/resources-reports/fair-society-healthy-lives-the-marmot-review/fair-society-healthy-lives-full-report-pdf.pdf.
Office for Statistics Regulation. “OSR Suspend Accreditation of Wealth and Assets Survey.” June 13, 2025. https://osr.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/news/osr-suspend-accreditation-of-wealth-and-assets-survey/.
Policardo, Laura and Edgar J Sanchez Carrera. “Wealth Inequality and Economic Growth: Evidence from the US and France.” Socio-Economic Planning Sciences Vol. 92 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2024.101804.
Reeves, Richard R. Dream Hoarders. Brookings Institution Press, 2017.
Robeyns, Ingrid, Michael Vaughan and Tania Burchardt. Foundations for a Harm-Based Extreme Wealth Line. London School of Economics International Inequalities Institute: CASEpaper 240, June 2026. https://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/case/cp/casepaper240.pdf.
Rutter, Jill. “Putting Low Pay Out of Commission: Does the National Living Wage Herald the End of the Low Pay Commission?” Institute for Government, April 4, 2016. https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/article/comment/putting-low-pay-out-commission-does-national-living-wage-herald-end-low-pay.
Savage, Mike, Mina Mahmoudzadeh, Elizabeth Mann, Michael Vaughan and Sacha Hilhorst. Why wealth inequality matters. London School of Economics, May 2024. https://www.lse.ac.uk/International-Inequalities/Assets/Documents/Why-wealth-inequality-matters-PRINT97.pdf.
Sewell, Hannah and Tamsyn Hyatt. How People Think About Wealth Inequality Has Changed. Frameworks UK: March 18, 2026. https://frameworksuk.org/resources/how-people-think-about-wealth-inequality-has-changed/.
Snell, Will and Mike Brewer. “Wealth, Power and Fairness: In Conversation with Mike Brewer” Fair Comment (blog). Fairness Foundation: June 22, 2026, https://www.faircomment.co.uk/p/wealth-power-and-fairness-in-conversation.
Summers, Kate, Fabien Accominotti, Tania Burchardt, Katharina Hecht, Elizabeth Mann and Jonathan Mijs. “Deliberating Inequality: A Blueprint for Studying the Social Formation of Beliefs about Economic Inequality.” Social Justice Research 35 (2022): 379–400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-022-00389-0.
Sylvester, Rachel. “Andy Burnham slams Tony Blair for ignoring inequality in his defence of ‘radical centre’” The Observer. May 27, 2026. https://observer.co.uk/news/politics/article/andy-burnham-slams-tony-blair-for-ignoring-inequality-in-his-defence-of-radical-centre.
Tax Justice UK. “Billionaires Are a Threat to Democracy - Taxing Them More Is the Only Solution.” January 30, 2025. https://taxjustice.uk/blog/billionaires-are-a-threat-to-democracy-taxing-them-more-is-the-only-solution/.
Tunstall, Becky, Irene Bucelli, Irena Grugulis, et al. Insecure Lives: The Growth and Impact of Multiple Insecurities. CASE Report 159, June 2025. https://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/case/cr/casereport159.pdf.
UK Government. “LPC Recommendations Take the National Living Wage to £12.71,” November 26, 2025. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/lpc-recommendations-take-the-national-living-wage-to-1271.