Wealth inequality grows.

[crankedup]

xjsdriver said:

crankedup said:

McWigglebum4th said:

crankedup said:

The study was under the auspices of Oxfam, when the President of USA and other World leaders begin to publicly discuss their concerns regarding the issue you can be sure its not an imaginary situation. Unfortunately the World leaders are only talking, likely fearful of backlash from the wealthy hitting their politics. We can forget the references to those earning 42k + this report concerns the Global wealth inequality.
It will be interesting to hear what comes out from the Leaders chin-wag this week.

Do you earn over £42K?

I really hope you don't

Can you explain to me what you mean by that comment and what on earth brought you to post it!

Looks like Wibbles has gone into random Tourette's mode again.......Nurse, nurse!!! - time for Wibbles' meds again!!!!......

Indeed, not even the merest hint of a debate.

[anonymous-user]

crankedup said:

Why is taxation not workable?

Lets start with the worlds Richest man, Carlos Slim, a Mexican. How are you going to tax him?
OK maybe leverage NAFTA to force your tax on him. Now lets go a little off piste how are you going to tax Usmanov, Fridman, Veksleburg etc... best of luck

crankedup said:

It is not simply a matter of bringing prosperity to the under-privileged...

Then I'm afraid we disagree entirely. I couldn't give a st if someone is worth 50bn or 5bn. I do care that half the planet has nothing and that hundreds of millions of children grow up abject poverty surrounded by violence and disease. I would rather the west turn its attention to making them healthier, safer and wealthier than making a handfull of very rich people slightly less very rich. Each to their own.

Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 25th January 18:51

[crankedup]

fblm said:

crankedup said:

Why is taxation not workable?

Lets start with the worlds Richest man, Carlos Slim, a Mexican. How are you going to tax him?
OK maybe leverage NAFTA to force your tax on him. Now lets go a little off piste how are you going to tax Usmanov, Fridman, Veksleburg etc... best of luck

crankedup said:

It is not simply a matter of bringing prosperity to the under-privileged...

Then I'm afraid we disagree entirely. I couldn't give a st if someone is worth 50bn or 5bn. I do care that half the planet has nothing and that hundreds of millions of children grow up abject poverty surrounded by violence and disease. I would rather the west turn its attention to making them healthier, safer and wealthier than making a handfull of very rich people slightly less very rich. Each to their own.

Edited by fblm on Sunday 25th January 18:51

I agree that kids in foreign lands could do with our continued leg up. This comes from our taxation pot in the form of 7 billion year foreign aid. So don't feel to guilty over their plight.
I would be interested to see, hear, read of the helping hand directly from the extreme wealthy, I'm sure some must help but as ever we don't know.
Don't overlook the second part of the issue of uber wealthy, that is the power wealth brings to them.

Like you I could disregard all of this stuff, well I don't lose any sleep over it, but its a gossip forum, an exchange of POV, nothing more or less.

How to implement some form of taxation on the uber rich, well that is being discussed by some of our Global Leaders. I'm not part of that so have to wait and see what they come along with.

[anonymous-user]

crankedup said:

This comes from our taxation pot in the form of 7 billion year foreign aid. So don't feel to guilty over their plight.

I don't feel guilty in the slightest. In a thread about global wealth inequality I'm simply bemused by the 'left's obsession with dragging the uber rich down rather than the poor up.

crankedup said:

Like you I could disregard all of this stuff, well I don't lose any sleep over it, but its a gossip forum, an exchange of POV, nothing more or less.

Disregard it? I found the thread interesting which is why I have participated, probably more than my fair share. As far as I can see I'm the only one who has bothered to even look at the raw data. Hardly disregarding the issue.

crankedup said:

How to implement some form of taxation on the uber rich, well that is being discussed by some of our Global Leaders. I'm not part of that so have to wait and see what they come along with.

[Rovinghawk]

crankedup said:

How to implement some form of taxation on the uber rich, well that is being discussed by some of our Global Leaders. I'm not part of that so have to wait and see what they come along with.

Some wise words contained within:

http://www.electronicflattax.com/?PageID=165

[turbobloke]

crankedup said:

How to implement some form of taxation on the uber rich, well that is being discussed by some of our Global Leaders.

Use of the term 'leader' is obvious in context but not particularly worthy, given that this inevitably includes political failures presiding over their bankrupt ideology trying to salvage something by taxing over and again some of the most enterprising success stories on the planet who are firstly already taxed at penal levels and secondly vilified by the same type of politician on an almost daily basis. That's rich that is.

[edh]

turbobloke said:

....taxing over and again some of the most enterprising success stories on the planet who are firstly already taxed at penal levels...

[turbobloke]

edh said:

turbobloke said:

....taxing over and again some of the most enterprising success stories on the planet who are firstly already taxed at penal levels...

Laughing without reason can be a medical symptom, you ought to get checked out.

Any arbitrary category of 'the rich' includes the type of individual described. Check.

Already heavily taxed - take the UK top 1% earners, paying 30% of all income taxes on 13% of income. Check.

As one example of extortionate tax levels, marginal income tax rates of over 50% are indeed penal when they involve handing over more of the additional income than is kept. Check.

Regarding the need for third-rate politicians to look for yet more taxes on those already paying ott, the failures are varied but consistent e.g. egalitarian delusion failure (Clinton), self-aggrandising empire building failure (EU, take your pick) and basic economic incompetence (UK, Labour).

[edh]

turbobloke said:

edh said:

turbobloke said:

....taxing over and again some of the most enterprising success stories on the planet who are firstly already taxed at penal levels...

Laughing without reason can be a medical symptom, you ought to get checked out.

Any arbitrary category of 'the rich' includes the type of individual described. Check.

Already heavily taxed - take the UK top 1% earners, paying 30% of all income taxes on 13% of income. Check.

As one example of extortionate tax levels, marginal income tax rates of over 50% are indeed penal when they involve handing over more of the additional income than is kept. Check.

Regarding the need for third-rate politicians to look for yet more taxes on those already paying ott, the failures are varied but consistent e.g. egalitarian delusion failure (Clinton), self-aggrandising empire building failure (EU, take your pick) and basic economic incompetence (UK, Labour).

I can't help but laugh at such ridiculous emotive blather

Yet again the focus on income tax - I wonder why? There are other taxes you know. Btw tax land values and we could slash income and consumption taxes.

The real "enterprising success stories" running SME's or on the odd occasion growing them into major businesses don't rely solely on pay to provide their returns.

I see no problem in taxing socially useless wealth extractors. A FTT might be a better tool though.

[turbobloke]

edh said:

turbobloke said:

edh said:

turbobloke said:

....taxing over and again some of the most enterprising success stories on the planet who are firstly already taxed at penal levels...

Laughing without reason can be a medical symptom, you ought to get checked out.

Any arbitrary category of 'the rich' includes the type of individual described. Check.

Already heavily taxed - take the UK top 1% earners, paying 30% of all income taxes on 13% of income. Check.

As one example of extortionate tax levels, marginal income tax rates of over 50% are indeed penal when they involve handing over more of the additional income than is kept. Check.

Regarding the need for third-rate politicians to look for yet more taxes on those already paying ott, the failures are varied but consistent e.g. egalitarian delusion failure (Clinton), self-aggrandising empire building failure (EU, take your pick) and basic economic incompetence (UK, Labour).

I can't help but laugh at such ridiculous emotive blather.

That's a standard reaction to left-liberal tosh which causes the problems requiring more tax as a solution (apparently - spending less would be better) but not one that's appropriate for factual matters.

edh said:

Yet again the focus on income tax - I wonder why? There are other taxes you know. Btw tax land values and we could slash income and consumption taxes.

It was an illustration not a focus, but clearly an apt one as your failed attempt to rubbish it shows only too clearly.

edh said:

The real "enterprising success stories" running SME's or on the odd occasion growing them into major businesses don't rely solely on pay to provide their returns.

NSS. Adds nothing.

edh said:

socially useless

Presumably you or somebody who thinks like you gets to define what being socially useless means. EU and UN salaried minions come to mind.

edh said:

wealth extractors

AKA people reasonably expecting to keep a more proportionate slice of what their skills / efforts / risk decisions eventually generate, starting with no marginal rate of income tax (illustration again) above 50%.

The one defining aspect of this discussion is that the people that inept 'leaders' (politicians) and their second-rate advisers are chasing are both smarter and mobile. Pushing the curve with higher tax rates (not limited to income taxes) as suggested by the post which initiated this discussion, isn't likely to produce more tax-take.

In the UK we're blessed with Labour rump types wanting higher rates to be levied out of spite even if less tax is collected. This is indicative of the level of 'thinking' that goes on where hiking tax rates is seen as the answer to increasingly widespread left-liberal political failure.

[edh]

turbobloke said:

edh said:

turbobloke said:

edh said:

turbobloke said:

....taxing over and again some of the most enterprising success stories on the planet who are firstly already taxed at penal levels...

Laughing without reason can be a medical symptom, you ought to get checked out.

Any arbitrary category of 'the rich' includes the type of individual described. Check.

Already heavily taxed - take the UK top 1% earners, paying 30% of all income taxes on 13% of income. Check.

As one example of extortionate tax levels, marginal income tax rates of over 50% are indeed penal when they involve handing over more of the additional income than is kept. Check.

Regarding the need for third-rate politicians to look for yet more taxes on those already paying ott, the failures are varied but consistent e.g. egalitarian delusion failure (Clinton), self-aggrandising empire building failure (EU, take your pick) and basic economic incompetence (UK, Labour).

I can't help but laugh at such ridiculous emotive blather.

That's a standard reaction to left-liberal tosh which causes the problems requiring more tax as a solution (apparently - spending less would be better) but not one that's appropriate for factual matters.

You can't deny the emotive bit - it read like a TPA tweet. These poor souls are subject to "penal" taxation, and then what little they manage to retain, is taxed "over and over again"

btw Please don't call me "liberal"

turbobloke said:

edh said:

Yet again the focus on income tax - I wonder why? There are other taxes you know. Btw tax land values and we could slash income and consumption taxes.

It was an illustration not a focus, but clearly an apt one as your failed attempt to rubbish it shows only too clearly.

Semantics. Your "illustration", presumably to make a point, you chose an area you wanted the discussion to "focus" on.

turbobloke said:

edh said:

The real "enterprising success stories" running SME's or on the odd occasion growing them into major businesses don't rely solely on pay to provide their returns.

NSS. Adds nothing.

Why would you say that, because it fits your narrative? This is where we get sustainable growth. Not from city firms skimming off money through schemes like HFT (however "enterprising" that might be).

turbobloke said:

edh said:

socially useless

Presumably you or somebody who thinks like you gets to define what being socially useless means. EU and UN salaried minions come to mind.

I was just using the term coined by the radical leftist who used to be DG of the CBI, chair of FSA, & McKinsey director. As I'm sure you know.

"I do not apologise for being correctly quoted as saying that while the financial services industry performs many economically vital functions, and will continue to play a large and important role in London’s economy, some financial activities which proliferated over the last ten years were ‘socially useless’, and some parts of the system were swollen beyond their optimal size. And if you disagree with that, you have a bone of contention not only with me, but with the Chairman of the British Bankers’ Association, Stephen Green, who has said exactly the same thing in very similar words, when he argued that ‘in recent years, banks have chased short-term profits by introducing complex products of no real use to humanity’, and when he recognised that ‘some parts of our industry have become overblown’."

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/Communication/...

I'd agree with you that some large public institutions would also feature in this list.

turbobloke said:

edh said:

wealth extractors

AKA people reasonably expecting to keep a more proportionate slice of what their skills / efforts / risk decisions eventually generate, starting with no marginal rate of income tax (illustration again) above 50%.

AKA the people who produce nothing, yet charge excessive transaction fees or rents, taking a charge on the productive efforts of workers and businesses. Also see "socially useless" above

[iphonedyou]

crankedup said:

I agree that kids in foreign lands could do with our continued leg up. This comes from our taxation pot in the form of 7 billion year foreign aid. So don't feel to guilty over their plight.
I would be interested to see, hear, read of the helping hand directly from the extreme wealthy, I'm sure some must help but as ever we don't know.
Don't overlook the second part of the issue of uber wealthy, that is the power wealth brings to them.

Well the top 1% odd pay 30% of the total tax take into that taxation pot, ergo the source of that direct helping hand must surely be crystal clear.

Unless you think they must be seen publicly to empty their purses in Africa's direction.

[edh]

iphonedyou said:

Well the top 1% odd pay 30% of the total tax take into that taxation pot, ergo the source of that direct helping hand must surely be crystal clear.

Are you sure about that number?

[crankedup]

Wealth inequality grows. Done well coming full circle.

[turbobloke]

crankedup said:

Wealth inequality grows. Done well coming full circle.

And still neither yourself nor anyone else has shown convincingly that it's detrimental or avoidable in any realistic scenario.

A great deal of rational evidence has accumulated in the thread against your position on this issue.

[crankedup]

turbobloke said:

crankedup said:

Wealth inequality grows. Done well coming full circle.

And still neither yourself nor anyone else has shown convincingly that it's detrimental or avoidable in any realistic scenario.

A great deal of rational evidence has accumulated in the thread against your position on this issue.

I disagree, which is rather inconvenient it seems, as some other posters have also disagreed with you're and other posters stance. No more to be said methinks.

[iphonedyou]

crankedup said:

I disagree, which is rather inconvenient it seems, as some other posters have also disagreed with you're and other posters stance. No more to be said methinks.

Thank goodness. No more posting threads like this one, then.

[turbobloke]

iphonedyou said:

crankedup said:

I disagree, which is rather inconvenient it seems, as some other posters have also disagreed with you're and other posters stance. No more to be said methinks.

Thank goodness. No more posting threads like this one, then.

I see what you did there

And then there's the matter of subjective opinion against evidenced position.

The thread shows a wealth of compelling evidence against the OP's opinion. The response has been to ignore it and/or head off into emotive fluff.