Wealth inequality grows.
Discussion
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?
k about with countries that have very bad governance either through charity/military or clandestine means? We do it because it's good for us, we do it because it's the right thing to do both economically speaking and morally speaking. Once people are cut adrift from a market place suddenly everyone suffers.edh said:
Mrr T said:
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.
I didn't say it was a success - merely a form of redistribution that is within the power of government. I think they meant well but got it badly wrong.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.
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"..
2. Again when I refer to taxes I do not just include income tax and NIC but any loss of benefits. So even if you do not pay tax or NIC, if the post above is correct you loss 90p for every extra £1 you earn, you are effectively being taxed at 90%.
3. Once again its never easy to judge but if you are on low pay and any increase in income will sufferer an effective 90% tax rate I am sure many would not want the extra hours.
fblm said:
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
edh said:
I didn't say it was a success - merely a form of redistribution that is within the power of government. I think they meant well but got it badly wrong.
FredClogs said:
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?k about with countries that have very bad governance either through charity/military or clandestine means? We do it because it's good for us, we do it because it's the right thing to do both economically speaking and morally speaking. Once people are cut adrift from a market place suddenly everyone suffers.Mrr T said:
1. I did not mean it did not pay out a large amount in total just the costs of administration is very high. No independent figures are available but it I have seen estimates that they could be as high as 10% of the total amount returned.
2. Again when I refer to taxes I do not just include income tax and NIC but any loss of benefits. So even if you do not pay tax or NIC, if the post above is correct you loss 90p for every extra £1 you earn, you are effectively being taxed at 90%.
3. Once again its never easy to judge but if you are on low pay and any increase in income will sufferer an effective 90% tax rate I am sure many would not want the extra hours.
Sure - high marginal rates are a disincentive so maybe that's why the Green's "Citizen's Income" makes sense? 2. Again when I refer to taxes I do not just include income tax and NIC but any loss of benefits. So even if you do not pay tax or NIC, if the post above is correct you loss 90p for every extra £1 you earn, you are effectively being taxed at 90%.
3. Once again its never easy to judge but if you are on low pay and any increase in income will sufferer an effective 90% tax rate I am sure many would not want the extra hours.
My experience of tax credits is that the administration of it is daft. I don't think HMRC was the right vehicle for this, and it makes sense for social security payments to come from one agency.
Tax credits work best where people are in stable employment - but in the group that is eligible, there is a fairly large proportion of people who move in & out of work, have seasonal jobs or irregular hours. I don't think HMRC can cope with this at all. The HMRC forms and annual statements are not easy to navigate - lots of people end up with overpayments and owe HMRC thousands. It doesn't appear that HMRC is very good at chasing this money up.
fblm said:
FredClogs said:
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?k about with countries that have very bad governance either through charity/military or clandestine means? We do it because it's good for us, we do it because it's the right thing to do both economically speaking and morally speaking. Once people are cut adrift from a market place suddenly everyone suffers.Do you think Coca Cola have a hard time distributing in Africa (possible they do but it still gets distributed). Nothing speaks louder than commerce and nothing raises people out of poverty quicker than allowing them access to markets.
FredClogs said:
Do you think Coca Cola have a hard time distributing in Africa (possible they do but it still gets distributed). Nothing speaks louder than commerce and nothing raises people out of poverty quicker than allowing them access to markets.
When I was growing up famines were still common place in SE Asia. It's unthinkable today, and the living standards people have there are rapidly rising. None of that was thanks to NGO charities no matter how well meaning they are.
JagLover said:
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.
Mine too. Well, near enough.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.
What they "own" is the oppurtunity to participate in a fast-paced economy, something someone living in the North has less of, and something someone living in (parts of) Asia have less of still.
Land economy is just weird and I can never figure out if it makes sense to have it in the same monetary space as the rest of the economy or not.
Willy Nilly said:
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.
how much more tax than necessary have you paid?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:
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.
FredClogs said:
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.
pork911 said:
FredClogs said:
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.
when the fact is, gaps aren't the main issue.If everyone is improving their lot and the poorest are being removed from absolute poverty, which is the case, then all is well.
Except for those who want to make something sound bad to exploit it for ideological/political purposes.
turbobloke said:
pork911 said:
FredClogs said:
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.
when the fact is, gaps aren't the main issue.If everyone is improving their lot and the poorest are being removed from absolute poverty, which is the case, then all is well.
Except for those who want to make something sound bad to exploit it for ideological/political purposes.
You would be surprised (or maybe not) at just what the human body can endure, to claim that the only measure of poverty is some arbitrary dietary requirement and base line level core body temperature is ridiculous - it's all relative.
pork911 said:
FredClogs said:
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.
And the idea that people "make" money is also a nonsense, money is never "made" by private enterprise, the amount of money available is only ever increased by two means, inflationary growth and governments printing/borrowing money. The last 10 years has seen more money printed (borrowed) than in almost any time in human history (coinciding with western governments trying very hard to control inflation) and yet during that same time the wealth gap has widened, there is only one conclusion we can draw from this isn't there?
pork911 said:
Willy Nilly said:
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.
how much more tax than necessary have you paid?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.
FredClogs said:
There is no measure of absolute poverty, there is only ever, and only ever will be relative poverty. The man who is starving is wealthier than the man who is starving and has malaria.
You would be surprised (or maybe not) at just what the human body can endure, to claim that the only measure of poverty is some arbitrary dietary requirement and base line level core body temperature is ridiculous - it's all relative.
Ask the person at the bottom if they are more concerned about relative poverty or absolute poverty...You would be surprised (or maybe not) at just what the human body can endure, to claim that the only measure of poverty is some arbitrary dietary requirement and base line level core body temperature is ridiculous - it's all relative.
FredClogs said:
What do you mean? I think it might be a zero sum game, don't you? Or are you going to be buried with your loot for use in the next life?
And the idea that people "make" money is also a nonsense, money is never "made" by private enterprise, the amount of money available is only ever increased by two means, inflationary growth and governments printing/borrowing money. The last 10 years has seen more money printed (borrowed) than in almost any time in human history (coinciding with western governments trying very hard to control inflation) and yet during that same time the wealth gap has widened, there is only one conclusion we can draw from this isn't there?
I'm sure there is only one conclusion that YOU can draw - doesn't mean that it is the correct one.And the idea that people "make" money is also a nonsense, money is never "made" by private enterprise, the amount of money available is only ever increased by two means, inflationary growth and governments printing/borrowing money. The last 10 years has seen more money printed (borrowed) than in almost any time in human history (coinciding with western governments trying very hard to control inflation) and yet during that same time the wealth gap has widened, there is only one conclusion we can draw from this isn't there?
At the same time that wealth inequality has (apparently) increased, absolute poverty has declined, what conclusion do you draw from that?
FredClogs said:
There are lots of charities and NGOs doing very valuable and useful work all over Africa and beyond, I think your cynicism is a little convenient.
And how many of them have a ceo on less than six figures basic pay?Most charities are a very lucrative stress free job for the upper half of their staff.
(I give rather a lot to charity, but only to those whose ceo earns less than me)
FredClogs said:
There is no measure of absolute poverty, there is only ever, and only ever will be relative poverty.
There's a definition which is as useful as the arbitrary percentages involved in the nebulous made-up concept of relative poverty - which can be eradicated when everyone earns nothing. Like wealth gap condiderations, relative poverty is synthetic and unhelpful. Also like wealth gaps, even when apparently solved or fixed it can still reflect penury for all.Absolute poverty is defined as a condition characterised by severe deprivation of basic human needs including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information. This is being eradicated, and that alone makes relative poverty the choice of political agitators who exploit the poor to gain power.
FredClogs said:
The man who is starving is wealthier than the man who is starving and has malaria.
Presumably that's your own redefinition of relative poverty.Willy Nilly said:
pork911 said:
Willy Nilly said:
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.
how much more tax than necessary have you paid?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.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff