Wealth inequality grows.
Discussion
sidicks said:
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
I didn't say anything about copying Venezuela's economy, I said their policy of limiting public sector exec salaries is worthy of consideration - I don't think you'll find many people who disagree with that. I don't know how many people working in the public sector earn over £300k, but I'd like to bet it's more than you think.
Yes I am aware wages are taxed.
FredClogs said:
I'm not confusing income and wealth - but if you know a way of generating personal wealth and bypassing the income bit then I'd love to hear it. It's one of the failings of democracy that if a policy can't be seen to be fully mature and working within 12 months is condemned as a failure, limiting high levels of income will effect the wealth at the top and distribute it to the bottom over time.
I didn't say anything about copying Venezuela's economy, I said their policy of limiting public sector exec salaries is worthy of consideration - I don't think you'll find many people who disagree with that. I don't know how many people working in the public sector earn over £300k, but I'd like to bet it's more than you think.
Yes I am aware wages are taxed.
Well, in 2010'there were just 1,000 public sector employees earning more than £200k, so I doubt the number earning 50% more than that level 4 or 5 years later is materially higher...I didn't say anything about copying Venezuela's economy, I said their policy of limiting public sector exec salaries is worthy of consideration - I don't think you'll find many people who disagree with that. I don't know how many people working in the public sector earn over £300k, but I'd like to bet it's more than you think.
Yes I am aware wages are taxed.
Reducing high incomes simply reduces the taxes received on those high incomes, which seems like a bad idea....
FredClogs said:
I'm not confusing income and wealth - but if you know a way of generating personal wealth and bypassing the income bit then I'd love to hear it.
The past couple of decades in this country are a good example. Most increases in wealth have come from rising house prices.You would have to be earning a very decent salary indeed to eventually match the "wealth" of someone who bought a non-descript family home in the south-east in the 1970s and is now living there mortgage free.
MrCarPark said:
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-...
Is this dipstick aware that we have recently suffered a seismic financial global crash I wonder. Wonder what caused that to happen, wealth built upon sand maybe!"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-...
A Neighbour recently sold several tens of acres of his farm land for development. God only knows how much for. He then gets 3 years or so to find some more land to buy to roll his money into before he pays any tax. Would it kill the guy to actually pay some tax? These are to sorts of things that allow people to amass considerable wealth.
He will obviously be bidding on land with money burning a hole in his pocket against people that haven't had a massive windfall. He will probably pay 4 times what the land is worth to farm, probably more.
He will obviously be bidding on land with money burning a hole in his pocket against people that haven't had a massive windfall. He will probably pay 4 times what the land is worth to farm, probably more.
crankedup said:
MrCarPark said:
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-...
Is this dipstick aware that we have recently suffered a seismic financial global crash I wonder. Wonder what caused that to happen, wealth built upon sand maybe!"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-...
crankedup said:
Rovinghawk said:
crankedup said:
Idiot.
I can't compete against debate of that quality.JagLover said:
FredClogs said:
I'm not confusing income and wealth - but if you know a way of generating personal wealth and bypassing the income bit then I'd love to hear it.
The past couple of decades in this country are a good example. Most increases in wealth have come from rising house prices.You would have to be earning a very decent salary indeed to eventually match the "wealth" of someone who bought a non-descript family home in the south-east in the 1970s and is now living there mortgage free.
Adventures in QE have increased the wealth gap by supporting and inflating asset prices. As I understand it, that's why the rich are moving further ahead, not because they are getting big pay rises...
edh said:
JagLover said:
FredClogs said:
I'm not confusing income and wealth - but if you know a way of generating personal wealth and bypassing the income bit then I'd love to hear it.
The past couple of decades in this country are a good example. Most increases in wealth have come from rising house prices.You would have to be earning a very decent salary indeed to eventually match the "wealth" of someone who bought a non-descript family home in the south-east in the 1970s and is now living there mortgage free.
Adventures in QE have increased the wealth gap by supporting and inflating asset prices. As I understand it, that's why the rich are moving further ahead, not because they are getting big pay rises...
crankedup said:
Rovinghawk said:
crankedup said:
Idiot.
I can't compete against debate of that quality.I stick with what I said- the wealth inequality figures are based on the politics of envy and will be a justification for some to further tax those who have succeeded.
FredClogs said:
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.
Global wealth split equally is between 20 and 30 grand each depending how you calculate it. Let's imagine I am retired and live in a 2 million quid house in London and some poor guy lives in Chad with nothing but a chinese made AK47 worth $20. Can you explain what pragmatic and practical policies will even begin to even us out? Ok you can tax me £1m and give it to the Chad government in aid to give some to our friend but I think we both know he's not going to get it. So if it's not a utopian impossibility and it is entirely pragmatica and practical aim, how's this gonna work? Do I have to share my cars with other people if they are worth over 30 grand?I think one thing being entirely overlooked is that HMS UK is like an aircraft carrier parked in the North Atlantic on which the Global Super Rich can land their fortunes. It has a good legal system, a strong and stable currency, and provided you aren't a UK citizen an almost uniquely generous tax haven. As a result the UK has over the past decade attracted those with huge wealth, not wealth made here, wealth made from Russia, Africa, SE Asia, the Middle East, all of which has a distorting effect.
On the face of it wealth inequality has grown, but a great deal of that IMO is due to the gobal elite using us as a tax haven, and very little with the ordinary folk being opressed and exploited by the fat cats of industry.
On the face of it wealth inequality has grown, but a great deal of that IMO is due to the gobal elite using us as a tax haven, and very little with the ordinary folk being opressed and exploited by the fat cats of industry.
eccles said:
edh said:
JagLover said:
FredClogs said:
I'm not confusing income and wealth - but if you know a way of generating personal wealth and bypassing the income bit then I'd love to hear it.
The past couple of decades in this country are a good example. Most increases in wealth have come from rising house prices.You would have to be earning a very decent salary indeed to eventually match the "wealth" of someone who bought a non-descript family home in the south-east in the 1970s and is now living there mortgage free.
Adventures in QE have increased the wealth gap by supporting and inflating asset prices. As I understand it, that's why the rich are moving further ahead, not because they are getting big pay rises...
fblm said:
FredClogs said:
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.
Global wealth split equally is between 20 and 30 grand each depending how you calculate it. Let's imagine I am retired and live in a 2 million quid house in London and some poor guy lives in Chad with nothing but a chinese made AK47 worth $20. Can you explain what pragmatic and practical policies will even begin to even us out? Ok you can tax me £1m and give it to the Chad government in aid to give some to our friend but I think we both know he's not going to get it. So if it's not a utopian impossibility and it is entirely pragmatica and practical aim, how's this gonna work? Do I have to share my cars with other people if they are worth over 30 grand?Mind you, if he's got an AK47, give him a few hundred on air fares and he'll turn up on your doorstep and redistribute some of your assets towards him & his mates..
alock said:
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?
The scariest thing about this thread is that these idiots need this explaining to themThis 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?
edh said:
That's too extreme a position to take. Agree - very difficult to have a direct effect on our friend in Chad, but not so difficult to redistribute within the UK - exactly what Brown did with tax credits.
So G Browns policy of tax credits which:1. Takes money from tax payers and after filling in lots of forms and having lost of overheads gives a small amount back to tax payers.
2. Means that the marginal tax rate of the lowliest paid is amongst the highest.
3. Is a disincentive to work harder and get a better job.
4. Subsidises employers who can then pay lower wages.
IS A GREAT SUCCESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OMG what would failure be?
Mrr T said:
edh said:
That's too extreme a position to take. Agree - very difficult to have a direct effect on our friend in Chad, but not so difficult to redistribute within the UK - exactly what Brown did with tax credits.
So G Browns policy of tax credits which:1. Takes money from tax payers and after filling in lots of forms and having lost of overheads gives a small amount back to tax payers.
2. Means that the marginal tax rate of the lowliest paid is amongst the highest.
3. Is a disincentive to work harder and get a better job.
4. Subsidises employers who can then pay lower wages.
IS A GREAT SUCCESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OMG what would failure be?
My observation on your points is that
1. It actually pays out very large amounts - CTC particularly.
2. Will affect marginal rates significantly, although not on very lowest paid, who are below IT threshold (and a lot below NI as well). I think it's the £15-20k pa group but don't quote me..
3. Don't come across many people who don't want to earn more or get more hours (and threshold for WTC is 30 hours or 16 hours if carer for child)
4. Completely agree
I'd also add that the people who have really lost out are the single people & the childless - seems the votes were in "hardworking families"..
Mrr T said:
So G Browns policy of tax credits
Very clever marketing, it should really be referred to as Low Wage Benefit. As an aside/observation a point worth bearing in mind is that whilst for example 10% in the UK are ( by definition ) in the top 10% of earners, a far, far larger % of folk will at some stage be in that bracket as over most peoples working lives there wages increase and then decline in retirememnt.
I've not seen a figure for it, but it's easy to imagine that rather than the top 10% being some tiny elite it is infact a band that 30-40% of people are in at some stage of their working lives.
edh said:
Adventures in QE have increased the wealth gap by supporting and inflating asset prices. As I understand it, that's why the rich are moving further ahead, not because they are getting big pay rises...
Thats true enough but its those asset prices that are pretty much the only thing that has kept global economys and tax receipts ticking over.edh said:
That's too extreme a position to take. Agree - very difficult to have a direct effect on our friend in Chad, but not so difficult to redistribute within the UK - exactly what Brown did with tax credits.
The report is specifically about global wealth distribution, as was Fred Clogs post. Country redistribution, easy, global redistribution, practically impossible. In any event hailing tax credits as a success in wealth redistribution is bizarre, unsurprisingly for your fvckwit Mr Brown it did the EXACT opposite
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 20th January 15:59
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 20th January 16:02
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff