There is a quotation by Bob Dylan that goes along the lines that however much we talk about equality we all end up the same way; dead.
Whilst death (and taxes) are said to be unavoidable, the amount of time we have before the former occurs is shown by research to be hugely influenced by the area in which we live and, more particularly, by the deprivation that exists.
As the latest data published by the Office for National Statistics shows, research carried out by Griffiths and Fitzpatrick (2001) and woods, et al. (2005) demonstrated that where you are born and the prospects you enjoy in terms of education and jobs will strongly influence your health and well-being and the time of our death.
READ MORE: {}
The ONS's report makes clear that life expectancy is very much a 'north-south' affair in that the data indicates that those in the poorer north tend to live shorter lives than those who live in the more prosperous south.
As always there are anomalies and even in the capital which is regarded as extremely affluent it is not hard to witness poverty and deprivation.
And a recently published report by the Equality Trust The Cost of Inequality asserts that poverty and deprivation not only afflicts the poorest but must be borne by all of society.
Given that Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne will deliver the coalition's penultimate budget this week the contents of this report would be assumed to make vital reading.
According to The Cost of Inequality the overall burden is in the order of £39 billion (a precise figure is provided) which if divided equally among the population would be £622 for every citizen.
Most Read
The £39 billion is made up of the following; £12.5 billion as a result of reduced life expectancy; a whopping £25 billion due to mental health problems in the poor; and the costs of criminal justice - £1 billion because of increased imprisonment and £678 due to increased murders.
This figure is not far off the amount we spend on defence each year: some £40 billion.
Inequality is nothing new.
Let's face it, accounts of poverty and injustice are included in publications going back millennia and repeated ever since; especially in the works of Charles Dickens.
However, The Cost of Inequality makes the point that though relative to past generations we have become wealthier, the gap between the rich and poor has 'spiralled [...] like a chasm' in the last forty years to the extent that in this country the richest one hundred people are worth as much as the poorest 30% of all households (approximately 18,900,000 people).
The report states that inequality has consequences in ways that mean we score poorly on a range of measures compared to more equal societies:
"Of the developed OECD countries, the 海角视频 is ranked 17th out of 23 in life expectancy, 19th out of 22 on obesity, 17th out of 21 on teenage births, and 17th out of 23 for imprisonment."
Don’t miss
Many argue that inequality is socially destructive and that as we move to short-term and so called 'zero hours' contracts there is a sense that even if you are employed you may still experience deprivation.
The Costs of Inequality suggests that as well as recognising the costs we should demand that our politicians should do more to address the problem and that there is a need to stop the spiral of hopelessness that will continue to increase.
As Duncan Exley, who is the chief executive of the Equality trust believes that the current rhetoric of gaining employment and working to better oneself is not helpful in the current climate in which, most especially for the young, entry-level jobs are so poorly paid and offer low prospects for advancement.
Exley also alludes to the problem that we have where housing is currently increasing at a rate that means those on low and middle income are effectively excluded:
"We used to be as equal as a place like Sweden, but that has changed dramatically in the past few years. You just need to look at cities like London, where few people can afford a house because of a tiny handful of people who can afford to buy three."
Poverty is often seen to be something that is the fault of those who are afflicted and that if they were so feckless, lazy or, perhaps, some suggest, stupid, they would see the error of their ways. The recent furore following the screening of Benefit Street which is located here in Birmingham indicated that many are not sympathetic to the plight of those living in deprivation.
The current political zeitgeist is that we are experiencing financial problems because of the last government's recklessness and willingness to increase benefits that, many on the right passionately believe, made work unappealing.
Many commentators believe that the last Labour government should be condemned for is allowing the greed and hubris in City of London to continue unchecked whilst doing nothing to abate the decline manufacturing that had commenced in the 1970s.
Once the financial crisis caused by toxic lending became apparent it was bound to be felt disproportionately in areas which had experienced the destruction of traditional industries as we know only too well here in Birmingham.
If George Osborne should do anything in this week's budget he should attempt to uses taxes to the incentives to industry coupled with investment in the sort or training and education that will ensure that the next generation have the requisite skills to cope with constant change and innovation.
Undoubtedly, though, we will hear the argument that austerity will continue.
As a direct consequence suffering and deprivation caused by inequality will, at best remain and, at worst, become even more pronounced.
Duncan Exley thinks that there is an alternative and that whilst it is unlikely that inequality will ever be eradicated small changes could have a very profound impact:
"Our estimate is based on a comparison between the level of inequality in the 海角视频 and the average level seen in developed countries. In other words, small changes to our level of income inequality would make the public purse richer, individuals healthier and the 海角视频 a more pleasant society to live in."
Surely that is not such an unreasonable or unrealistic objective is it?