Wealth inequality grows.
Discussion
iphonedyou said:
McWigglebum4th said:
Do you earn over £42K?
I really hope you don't
Again, it's wealth being referred to here rather than earnings. But it does highlight just how daft this argument is. We're not talking huge sums here - $2.7m wealth to be in the top 1%.I really hope you don't
Roverload said:
iphonedyou said:
McWigglebum4th said:
Do you earn over £42K?
I really hope you don't
Again, it's wealth being referred to here rather than earnings. But it does highlight just how daft this argument is. We're not talking huge sums here - $2.7m wealth to be in the top 1%.I really hope you don't
on a salary basis if you earn around £26 p.a. you are in the 1% in the world - but the politics of the 99% requires them to cut out swathes of people poorer than them so as to argue that it is unfair that there are people richer than themselves, quite convenient really 
inequality isn't of itself bad
inequality isn't of itself bad
FredClogs said:
Roverload said:
iphonedyou said:
McWigglebum4th said:
Do you earn over £42K?
I really hope you don't
Again, it's wealth being referred to here rather than earnings. But it does highlight just how daft this argument is. We're not talking huge sums here - $2.7m wealth to be in the top 1%.I really hope you don't
To put that in perspective if you had nothing but a final salary pension of GBP27k/pa you'd be in the top 0.7% wealthiest on earth. Half of all houses in the UK are mortgage free. Throw in some savings and a modest pension and you're there. Top 1% is obviously lower so no not really a huge sum. Most of the planet don't have a pot to pi55 in, why do you imagine the threshold to be in the top 1% would be very high?
And yes of course this is all about tax. The report in question calls for;
"Share the tax burden fairly to level the playing field
Specific commitments must include: shifting the tax burden away from labour and consumption and towards wealth, capital and income from these assets; transparency on tax incentives; national wealth taxes and exploration of a global wealth tax"
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 19th January 18:46
crankedup said:
The global wealth gap continues to grow at a rate which could see the top 1% exceeding the total wealth ownership of the remaining 99%. More startling is this may occur within our lifetimes or a few decades time.
Marx prediction that just a few giant Corporations will fuel and supply and own the World needs isn't that fanciful it seems.
uk.news.yahoo.com/top-1-richer-rest-world-031552893
So we have wealth and income inequality. Why is this a problem?Marx prediction that just a few giant Corporations will fuel and supply and own the World needs isn't that fanciful it seems.
uk.news.yahoo.com/top-1-richer-rest-world-031552893
iphonedyou said:
crankedup said:
With respect :
Alternately its called 'bury your head in the sand'. If you have children and Grandchildren, like myself, you should be aware and have some concern over the issue, if only for your siblings. I say that with respect that most posters in here do have an interest and sensibility over major issues. The 'little influence' to which you refer is naive, who do you believe controls major Global assets, it is this that is of concern.
Random capitalisation notwithstanding, I'll do my bit by providing my children and grandchildren with the skills and abilities I myself was equipped with from a young age. They'll be just fine, without any artificial and ultimately entirely arbitrary wealth transfer from the 1% to the 99%.Alternately its called 'bury your head in the sand'. If you have children and Grandchildren, like myself, you should be aware and have some concern over the issue, if only for your siblings. I say that with respect that most posters in here do have an interest and sensibility over major issues. The 'little influence' to which you refer is naive, who do you believe controls major Global assets, it is this that is of concern.
Again, using relatives rather than absolutes in this regard is emotive b
ks.ETA: I see your concern doesn't actually lie with wealth disparity then, but with those directly controlling the nebulously termed 'global assets'. Can you elucidate?
Edited by iphonedyou on Monday 19th January 17:00
This has nothing to do with people earning wages or people who run SME business, its the uber rich, those who can pay twenty million + pounds for a London Penthouse from what for them is small change. As these peoples wealth increases so they have the 'need' to purchase ever more assets to grow more wealth.
Very small example is the London(City)property market, as overseas buyers have entered this market it has pushed up prices to an extent that fewer people are able to consider, out of financial reach, to purchase. This has led to the phenomenon of multi-million pound homes which are exclusively for investment only and never lived in as a home. This situation can be transferred into almost any asset you may wish to consider, but mainly it will be money making assets and that means multinational Corporations.
mondeoman said:
Where has al the QE money gone? Follow the money, as always. And it hasn't been a trickle down, not by any stretch, When you get to the point where 80-odd people have 50% of the worlds wealth, something isn't quite right.
It would appear you don't have a clue what QE is!!crankedup said:
Wealth brings power and dominance, it is up to each individual how they may, or may not, wish to use these three powerful criteria. For example, Murdock and his use of money,power and dominance, multiply that up as the wealth continues to be on its upward pyramid trajectory.
This has nothing to do with people earning wages or people who run SME business, its the uber rich, those who can pay twenty million + pounds for a London Penthouse from what for them is small change. As these peoples wealth increases so they have the 'need' to purchase ever more assets to grow more wealth.
Very small example is the London(City)property market, as overseas buyers have entered this market it has pushed up prices to an extent that fewer people are able to consider, out of financial reach, to purchase. This has led to the phenomenon of multi-million pound homes which are exclusively for investment only and never lived in as a home. This situation can be transferred into almost any asset you may wish to consider, but mainly it will be money making assets and that means multinational Corporations.
do you earn over £26k p.a.? what have you done with your power and dominance?This has nothing to do with people earning wages or people who run SME business, its the uber rich, those who can pay twenty million + pounds for a London Penthouse from what for them is small change. As these peoples wealth increases so they have the 'need' to purchase ever more assets to grow more wealth.
Very small example is the London(City)property market, as overseas buyers have entered this market it has pushed up prices to an extent that fewer people are able to consider, out of financial reach, to purchase. This has led to the phenomenon of multi-million pound homes which are exclusively for investment only and never lived in as a home. This situation can be transferred into almost any asset you may wish to consider, but mainly it will be money making assets and that means multinational Corporations.
iphonedyou said:
Again, it's wealth being referred to here rather than earnings. But it does highlight just how daft this argument is. We're not talking huge sums here - $2.7m wealth to be in the top 1%.
What conceivable definition of "huge wealth" do you have that a)excludes millionaires (seriously, try asking people on the street if they think that's a huge amount or not), b)excludes the 1% who have the most of it and half the total that is in existence?Guess is, you're defining yourself as "normal". Which is, put bluntly, stupid, and an example of why wealth is a poor metric of intelligence.
LucreLout said:
It usually comes down to jealousy and spite, in my experience. Socialists will repackage the hell out of it and plead that it's different this time, but it never takes long for the mask to slip.
I disagree. Is our system of capitalism really above criticism?To me there's something unpleasant about our monetary system when it allows one single human being to have wealth they couldn't possibly spend. Even one billion dollars is a ridiculous number.
But I don't begrudge those who have it, I don't think they should give it away and, if anything, it seems those right at the very top are doing some wonderful things (see: Bill Gates, Elon Musk).
You don't get there unless you've worked bloody hard but the point is, are they really working a billion times harder than everyone else?
Of course not. Some people have just learned to play the game better than others. To stop this happening, the Government's job should be to change the game, enforce the rules and make new rules when the players have figured out how to cheat the old ones. What seems to have happened is Governments have learned to play the game too, so aren't particularly motivated to change the rules.
A wealth gap between different nations, industries, and even within a company cannot surely grow indefinitely. The world is shrinking and it'll become more and more difficult to ignore the things that happen far away to give us our nice lives.
This article sums it up well for me - written by an obscenely wealthy capitalist (which may confuse many on here
):http://topinfopost.com/2014/06/30/ultra-rich-mans-...
Put simply, if wealth was distributed more sensibly then surely we'd all be better off. If people are paid more, they can buy more s
t they don't need, and isn't that pretty much the basis of our economy? 
durbster said:
I disagree. Is our system of capitalism really above criticism?
To me there's something unpleasant about our monetary system when it allows one single human being to have wealth they couldn't possibly spend. Even one billion dollars is a ridiculous number.
But I don't begrudge those who have it, I don't think they should give it away and, if anything, it seems those right at the very top are doing some wonderful things (see: Bill Gates, Elon Musk).
You don't get there unless you've worked bloody hard but the point is, are they really working a billion times harder than everyone else?
Of course not. Some people have just learned to play the game better than others. To stop this happening, the Government's job should be to change the game, enforce the rules and make new rules when the players have figured out how to cheat the old ones. What seems to have happened is Governments have learned to play the game too, so aren't particularly motivated to change the rules.
A wealth gap between different nations, industries, and even within a company cannot surely grow indefinitely. The world is shrinking and it'll become more and more difficult to ignore the things that happen far away to give us our nice lives.
This article sums it up well for me - written by an obscenely wealthy capitalist (which may confuse many on here):
http://topinfopost.com/2014/06/30/ultra-rich-mans-...
Put simply, if wealth was distributed more sensibly then surely we'd all be better off. If people are paid more, they can buy more st they don't need, and isn't that pretty much the basis of our economy?
I agree entirely and hope change will come, most of the wealthy people I know some who would definitely edge into the 0.1% are not of the opinions that these PH self styled capitalist moguls spew out, they are decent people who have trusted and loyal staff and for whom success in life is akin to winning a game, but they're clever enough to realise (as all good sports fans are) that if there are no rules there is no game, without the other players - there is no game, to stay in the game and enjoy the thrill of winning there must be a sustainable set of rules and regulation and a healthy level of competition.To me there's something unpleasant about our monetary system when it allows one single human being to have wealth they couldn't possibly spend. Even one billion dollars is a ridiculous number.
But I don't begrudge those who have it, I don't think they should give it away and, if anything, it seems those right at the very top are doing some wonderful things (see: Bill Gates, Elon Musk).
You don't get there unless you've worked bloody hard but the point is, are they really working a billion times harder than everyone else?
Of course not. Some people have just learned to play the game better than others. To stop this happening, the Government's job should be to change the game, enforce the rules and make new rules when the players have figured out how to cheat the old ones. What seems to have happened is Governments have learned to play the game too, so aren't particularly motivated to change the rules.
A wealth gap between different nations, industries, and even within a company cannot surely grow indefinitely. The world is shrinking and it'll become more and more difficult to ignore the things that happen far away to give us our nice lives.
This article sums it up well for me - written by an obscenely wealthy capitalist (which may confuse many on here
):http://topinfopost.com/2014/06/30/ultra-rich-mans-...
Put simply, if wealth was distributed more sensibly then surely we'd all be better off. If people are paid more, they can buy more s
t they don't need, and isn't that pretty much the basis of our economy? iphonedyou said:
Again, it's wealth being referred to here rather than earnings. But it does highlight just how daft this argument is. We're not talking huge sums here - $2.7m wealth to be in the top 1%.
According to the Credit Suisse report on which this was based (and was issued months ago), you need less than 1/3 of that. Almost every UK homeowner will be in the top 10% unless they have very little or negative equity. Even without considering pensions
According to the Credit Suisse global wealth report (pdf), a person needs just $3,650 – including the value of equity in their home – to be among the wealthiest half of world citizens. However, more than $77,000 is required to be a member of the top 10% of global wealth holders, and $798,000 to belong to the top 1%.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/oct/14/ri...
So I guess that we should blame all the pensioners with their mortgage free homes for hogging all the worlds wealth.
FredClogs said:
I agree entirely and hope change will come, most of the wealthy people I know some who would definitely edge into the 0.1% are not of the opinions that these PH self styled capitalist moguls spew out, they are decent people who have trusted and loyal staff and for whom success in life is akin to winning a game, but they're clever enough to realise (as all good sports fans are) that if there are no rules there is no game, without the other players - there is no game, to stay in the game and enjoy the thrill of winning there must be a sustainable set of rules and regulation and a healthy level of competition.
What sort of "change" are you after exactly? Your post doesn't seem to say...Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff