Wealth inequality grows.
Discussion
durbster said:
I prefer sensibly. "Fairly" is far too abstract.
Some people understand the game better than others, some work smarter, some harder, some are luckier, and others more intelligent. Equality has never existed, and it never will. Might as well be realistic about these things.
Edited by LucreLout on Tuesday 20th January 07:41
pork911 said:
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.
Murph7355 said:
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...I'd like to live in a world where the wealth gap was diminishing not growing. It's hardly a utopian impossibility. And seems to me a very pragmatic and practical aim as well as moral one.
johnfm said:
It's a pretty disingenuous analysis, given the rate of population growth in the developing world. The 1% would need to give away a heck of a lot just to keep the status quo given how many millions of poor Chinese, Indians and Africans born every year.
The Chinese have been controlling population growth for decades.But yes you are quite correct in relation to Indians and Africans, smaller families would have reduced poverty rates there.
FredClogs said:
I have a dream...
I'd like to live in a world where the wealth gap was diminishing not growing. It's hardly a utopian impossibility. And seems to me a very pragmatic and practical aim as well as moral one.
Housing is principally a cost of living and can only be realised as wealth by downsizing or other arrangement. Global wealth inequalities that include housing are invariably going to be distorted and do not measure actual standard of living.I'd like to live in a world where the wealth gap was diminishing not growing. It's hardly a utopian impossibility. And seems to me a very pragmatic and practical aim as well as moral one.
Standards of living has been converging for decades as the poor of Asia are starting to earn far more. The biggest poverty reduction in history has been the growth in China since it abandoned Communism.
Is someone living in a 3 bed semi in the south-east massively better off than an Indian living in a similarly sized house simply because their home is valued 10 times(?) higher?
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
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30875633
BBC said:
That compares with an average wealth of $2.7m per adult for the elite 1%
The average wealth of the top 1% is $2.7m. This means to be part of the 1% club and offset all those billionaires also in the club, there must be a huge number of people with substantially less than this. Wouldn't surprise me if it's about $½M.This means every retired person on a final (and probably 50% final) salary pension is definitely in the 1% club. How many ex-public sector Labour voting people does this include? How many of them are sacrificing a large percentage of their pension to charity every month to offset the inequality?
JagLover said:
The Chinese have been controlling population growth for decades.
But yes you are quite correct in relation to Indians and Africans, smaller families would have reduced poverty rates there.
Alternatively, if they had a wealthier society they would live in better conditions. Better living conditions means better infant mortality rate. And if the chances of you losing your kids is significantly reduced, there's less need to have lots.But yes you are quite correct in relation to Indians and Africans, smaller families would have reduced poverty rates there.
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
You genuinely think there's 70 (SEVENTY) million people in the world with wealth over $2.7m. Where do these 70 million millionaires live then?
FredClogs said:
I have a dream...
I'd like to live in a world where the wealth gap was diminishing not growing. It's hardly a utopian impossibility. And seems to me a very pragmatic and practical aim as well as moral one.
I am sure most of us agree with that. The question is how to achieve it?I'd like to live in a world where the wealth gap was diminishing not growing. It's hardly a utopian impossibility. And seems to me a very pragmatic and practical aim as well as moral one.
The option the socialist choose is to tax the rich and give to the poor.
The capitalist option is to let the poor generate wealth so they to can become wealthy.
We can see the different solutions perfectly illustrated in Korea. Korea was devastated by the war with no infrastructure, and enormous poverty.
N Korea implemented socialist policies and now have a very equal society. Every one is equally poor and starving.
S Korea implemented capitalism and now have a much less equal society. The difference is the poorest person in S Korea is now richer than the almost everybody in N Korea.
The problem of poverty is not about distribution its about good Government.
I do find its funny Christian Aid sponsored the report. Their web site shows they are only interested in low carbon development. Since low carbon development is an inefficient way of producing energy, and energy is directly related to wealth. They are actually in favour of poverty.
Mrr T said:
I am sure most of us agree with that. The question is how to achieve it?
The option the socialist choose is to tax the rich and give to the poor.
The capitalist option is to let the poor generate wealth so they to can become wealthy.
We can see the different solutions perfectly illustrated in Korea. Korea was devastated by the war with no infrastructure, and enormous poverty.
N Korea implemented socialist policies and now have a very equal society. Every one is equally poor and starving.
S Korea implemented capitalism and now have a much less equal society. The difference is the poorest person in S Korea is now richer than the almost everybody in N Korea.
The problem of poverty is not about distribution its about good Government.
I do find its funny Christian Aid sponsored the report. Their web site shows they are only interested in low carbon development. Since low carbon development is an inefficient way of producing energy, and energy is directly related to wealth. They are actually in favour of poverty.
I used to be a fundraiser and supporter for Christian Aid but had major issues with their environmental policies and their apparent lack of understanding on issues of this type.The option the socialist choose is to tax the rich and give to the poor.
The capitalist option is to let the poor generate wealth so they to can become wealthy.
We can see the different solutions perfectly illustrated in Korea. Korea was devastated by the war with no infrastructure, and enormous poverty.
N Korea implemented socialist policies and now have a very equal society. Every one is equally poor and starving.
S Korea implemented capitalism and now have a much less equal society. The difference is the poorest person in S Korea is now richer than the almost everybody in N Korea.
The problem of poverty is not about distribution its about good Government.
I do find its funny Christian Aid sponsored the report. Their web site shows they are only interested in low carbon development. Since low carbon development is an inefficient way of producing energy, and energy is directly related to wealth. They are actually in favour of poverty.
(Understandably??) much of their literature and campaigning is designed to be misleading to get the result they want, but I felt I could no longer support them because of this.
fblm said:
Not even close. Net wealth of $1m gets you in the top 0.7% globally.
Based on this my parents are probably in the top 1% globally on wealth.Living in a "mansion" in London (3 bed semi) plus some pension pots they are the wealthy oppressors who should be taxed to reduced global inequality.
Of course in reality my Mother works part-time as a teacher and my dad receives the basic state pension and a relatively modest private pension so I am not sure how much tax they can afford to pay for being so evilly wealthy.
Mrr T said:
FredClogs said:
I have a dream...
I'd like to live in a world where the wealth gap was diminishing not growing. It's hardly a utopian impossibility. And seems to me a very pragmatic and practical aim as well as moral one.
I am sure most of us agree with that. The question is how to achieve it?I'd like to live in a world where the wealth gap was diminishing not growing. It's hardly a utopian impossibility. And seems to me a very pragmatic and practical aim as well as moral one.
The option the socialist choose is to tax the rich and give to the poor.
The capitalist option is to let the poor generate wealth so they to can become wealthy.
We can see the different solutions perfectly illustrated in Korea. Korea was devastated by the war with no infrastructure, and enormous poverty.
N Korea implemented socialist policies and now have a very equal society. Every one is equally poor and starving.
S Korea implemented capitalism and now have a much less equal society. The difference is the poorest person in S Korea is now richer than the almost everybody in N Korea.
The problem of poverty is not about distribution its about good Government.
I do find its funny Christian Aid sponsored the report. Their web site shows they are only interested in low carbon development. Since low carbon development is an inefficient way of producing energy, and energy is directly related to wealth. They are actually in favour of poverty.
Wage caps seem to work in sport, they seem to work in some countries, proper economists have done proper economics around their possible use in wider economies. Scaled taxation is effectively a means capping wealth (if it's implemented correctly and can't be loop holed) seems to work okay in a lot of places.
Seems sensible if we implement a minimum wage policy that a maximum wage policy could also be introduced. In Venezuela public officials are limited to a max salary of 12times the average - seems reasonable. Germany do it, the Swiss do it, I believe the Swedes and New Zealand do it - I mean it's not revolutionary marxist ideology, just seems like common sense, and if our politics in this country wasn't so corrupted I think any party who put in their manifesto would win votes.
JagLover said:
fblm said:
Not even close. Net wealth of $1m gets you in the top 0.7% globally.
Based on this my parents are probably in the top 1% globally on wealth.Living in a "mansion" in London (3 bed semi) plus some pension pots they are the wealthy oppressors who should be taxed to reduced global inequality.
Of course in reality my Mother works part-time as a teacher and my dad receives the basic state pension and a relatively modest private pension so I am not sure how much tax they can afford to pay for being so evilly wealthy.
Having seen a couple of newspaper headlines recently, one about finance sector bonuses being particularly healthy - not sure the newspaper involved put it quite like that - and that global wealth still has concentrations that are capable of exerting leverage to improve quality of life...unlike the even distribution's "economic heat death"" where we all have about £37k to play with and as a result much less if not little of use can happen, I thought there would be a PH thread soon enough.
Clearly, those wanting equality will exempt certain classes from this redistribution, including the political class of a communist-type administration with its four legged politicians more equal than others.
Just as green bigwigs are happy to fly around the world on a regular basis discussing the evil of flying around the world while promoting their book about the evil of flying around the world (and driving on it).
FredClogs said:
I think you're a tad confused, North Korea isn't a good example of a country with a narrowing wealth gap and South Korea isn't a particularly good example of a country with a very wide wealth gap.
Wage caps seem to work in sport, they seem to work in some countries, proper economists have done proper economics around their possible use in wider economies. Scaled taxation is effectively a means capping wealth (if it's implemented correctly and can't be loop holed) seems to work okay in a lot of places.
Seems sensible if we implement a minimum wage policy that a maximum wage policy could also be introduced. In Venezuela public officials are limited to a max salary of 12times the average - seems reasonable. Germany do it, the Swiss do it, I believe the Swedes and New Zealand do it - I mean it's not revolutionary marxist ideology, just seems like common sense, and if our politics in this country wasn't so corrupted I think any party who put in their manifesto would win votes.
You appear to be confusing income and wealth.Wage caps seem to work in sport, they seem to work in some countries, proper economists have done proper economics around their possible use in wider economies. Scaled taxation is effectively a means capping wealth (if it's implemented correctly and can't be loop holed) seems to work okay in a lot of places.
Seems sensible if we implement a minimum wage policy that a maximum wage policy could also be introduced. In Venezuela public officials are limited to a max salary of 12times the average - seems reasonable. Germany do it, the Swiss do it, I believe the Swedes and New Zealand do it - I mean it's not revolutionary marxist ideology, just seems like common sense, and if our politics in this country wasn't so corrupted I think any party who put in their manifesto would win votes.
You appear to be using Venezuela as an example of an economy we should aim to copy.
How many public individuals currently earn more than £300k (approx) per annum?
Are you aware that wages are already taxed??
Edited by sidicks on Tuesday 20th January 12:42
Tim Worstall nails it IMHO:
"As to why Oxfam is leaping aboard the latest piece of bien pensant whataboutery, consider what the Oxford Committee for Famine Relief was set up to do (the clue is there if you look for it). Now that we know that modern famine is a result of idiot governments and that, thankfully, there’s fewer of those around, the aid bureaucracy decided to concentrate on poverty. And there’s a certain amount of running out of that to deal with, as the last 30 years have seen the greatest reduction in absolute poverty in the history of our entire species. Billions have moved from peasant destitution to the global middle class, and the major beneficiaries of globalisation have been the poor. Even sub-Saharan Africa is showing decent signs of the people in general getting richer. As a result, global income inequality is falling.
"As C Northcote Parkinson pointed out, a bureaucracy that has solved its problem will not gracefully fade away. It will search, desperately, for a new task to justify its continued existence. As long as there’s something to shout about, the donations will continue to roll in.
"Oxfam is just trying to survive, but it doesn’t mean we need to pay them any attention."
Source: http://www.cityam.com/207441/why-we-should-beware-...
"As to why Oxfam is leaping aboard the latest piece of bien pensant whataboutery, consider what the Oxford Committee for Famine Relief was set up to do (the clue is there if you look for it). Now that we know that modern famine is a result of idiot governments and that, thankfully, there’s fewer of those around, the aid bureaucracy decided to concentrate on poverty. And there’s a certain amount of running out of that to deal with, as the last 30 years have seen the greatest reduction in absolute poverty in the history of our entire species. Billions have moved from peasant destitution to the global middle class, and the major beneficiaries of globalisation have been the poor. Even sub-Saharan Africa is showing decent signs of the people in general getting richer. As a result, global income inequality is falling.
"As C Northcote Parkinson pointed out, a bureaucracy that has solved its problem will not gracefully fade away. It will search, desperately, for a new task to justify its continued existence. As long as there’s something to shout about, the donations will continue to roll in.
"Oxfam is just trying to survive, but it doesn’t mean we need to pay them any attention."
Source: http://www.cityam.com/207441/why-we-should-beware-...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff