The rich - poor gap
Discussion
It seems the issue of the 'rich vs poor gap widening' as reported in the media over the years is getting 'worse'.
The rich seeing an ever increasing income whilst the poor seeing an increasing struggle as they fight against inflation and much lower salary increases (if these occur at all at their job levels).
So what realistic action could be taken to resolve the matter and would it be 'good' for Britain?
A few questions to liven up the discussion :
... Does the gap have to exist in order people work harder and make something of themselves?
... Do the rich have too much control over the UK's wealth, ensuring that even through times of recession they still make every increasing amounts of income?
... If unchecked/uncontrolled what is to stop the rich soaking up 'too much' of the UK wealth leaving the remainder population in 'poverty'?
The rich seeing an ever increasing income whilst the poor seeing an increasing struggle as they fight against inflation and much lower salary increases (if these occur at all at their job levels).
So what realistic action could be taken to resolve the matter and would it be 'good' for Britain?
A few questions to liven up the discussion :
... Does the gap have to exist in order people work harder and make something of themselves?
... Do the rich have too much control over the UK's wealth, ensuring that even through times of recession they still make every increasing amounts of income?
... If unchecked/uncontrolled what is to stop the rich soaking up 'too much' of the UK wealth leaving the remainder population in 'poverty'?
Edited by AA999 on Wednesday 16th April 15:51
The labour market is saturated. The only real prospect of changing that is to stop unskilled immigration.
Share holders who invest in business do not want this as it reduces their profits.
No share holders results in no investment.
Vicious circle.
So, if we are going to reduce profit margins for share holders what incentive is there? What is it about our country that incentivises share holders when profit is cut?
Share holders who invest in business do not want this as it reduces their profits.
No share holders results in no investment.
Vicious circle.
So, if we are going to reduce profit margins for share holders what incentive is there? What is it about our country that incentivises share holders when profit is cut?
doogz said:
Where is the line?
I'm curious to know if I'm rich or poor, as it seems you have to be one or the other.
Its a good question.I'm curious to know if I'm rich or poor, as it seems you have to be one or the other.
I don't think I could put a number on income as to when one is deemed poor or whereby one is deemed rich.
I think its fair to say that incomes over £50,000 per year are very much considered rich. But how an individual chooses to spend their 'richness' to provide them with long term wealth is another issue I would have thought.
Maybe its fair to say that incomes lower than £15,000 per year can be considered 'poor'?....after taking off taxes, VATs, food, rent/mortgage etc. there's not much left...in UK terms that is.
Where the media draw the line between those values I do not know.
AA999 said:
Its a good question.
I don't think I could put a number on income as to when one is deemed poor or whereby one is deemed rich.
I think its fair to say that incomes over £50,000 per year are very much considered rich. But how an individual chooses to spend their 'richness' to provide them with long term wealth is another issue I would have thought.
Maybe its fair to say that incomes lower than £15,000 per year can be considered 'poor'?....after taking off taxes, VATs, food, rent/mortgage etc. there's not much left...in UK terms that is.
Where the media draw the line between those values I do not know.
This depends massively on where you live also - A £50k salary goes an awful lot further in (for example) Norfolk than it does in London.I don't think I could put a number on income as to when one is deemed poor or whereby one is deemed rich.
I think its fair to say that incomes over £50,000 per year are very much considered rich. But how an individual chooses to spend their 'richness' to provide them with long term wealth is another issue I would have thought.
Maybe its fair to say that incomes lower than £15,000 per year can be considered 'poor'?....after taking off taxes, VATs, food, rent/mortgage etc. there's not much left...in UK terms that is.
Where the media draw the line between those values I do not know.
Interesting new treatise by a (left leaning) French economist published recently.
WHile I do not agree with his proposed solutions of very large taxes on wealth, his reasoning is simple enough:
There has developed a large difference between the tax on income and the taxes on capital returns;
if captial returns (ie rent for example) exceed economic growth, the gap between wealth and earnings widens at an accelerated rate.
In a nutshell, income tax is too high, inheritance and capital gains taxes are too low.
WHile I do not agree with his proposed solutions of very large taxes on wealth, his reasoning is simple enough:
There has developed a large difference between the tax on income and the taxes on capital returns;
if captial returns (ie rent for example) exceed economic growth, the gap between wealth and earnings widens at an accelerated rate.
In a nutshell, income tax is too high, inheritance and capital gains taxes are too low.
foreright said:
This depends massively on where you live also - A £50k salary goes an awful lot further in (for example) Norfolk than it does in London.
Yes location is a huge factor, but also, for the rich it would be a choice and for the poor it would be a case of take what you can get.In that respect can location be considered a like-for-like comparison in terms of 'financial situation'?
johnfm said:
Interesting new treatise by a (left leaning) French economist published recently.
The French seem busy dissappearing up their own left leaning arses to be capable of rational thought.Wasn't the latest wheeze to 'ban' work emails (possibly only certain union members I grant you) after 6pm? Up s
t creek and starting a fire in the canoe using the paddles as kindling.AA999 said:
Its a good question.
I don't think I could put a number on income as to when one is deemed poor or whereby one is deemed rich.
I think its fair to say that incomes over £50,000 per year are very much considered rich. But how an individual chooses to spend their 'richness' to provide them with long term wealth is another issue I would have thought.
Maybe its fair to say that incomes lower than £15,000 per year can be considered 'poor'?....after taking off taxes, VATs, food, rent/mortgage etc. there's not much left...in UK terms that is.
Where the media draw the line between those values I do not know.
Unscientific I know, but in the 1970s I was a printer and on the union 'committee', looking after the accounts.I don't think I could put a number on income as to when one is deemed poor or whereby one is deemed rich.
I think its fair to say that incomes over £50,000 per year are very much considered rich. But how an individual chooses to spend their 'richness' to provide them with long term wealth is another issue I would have thought.
Maybe its fair to say that incomes lower than £15,000 per year can be considered 'poor'?....after taking off taxes, VATs, food, rent/mortgage etc. there's not much left...in UK terms that is.
Where the media draw the line between those values I do not know.
The left-wing father of the chapel- shop steward - reckoned that the rich should be taxed more and the rest should benefit from it. His idea of 'rich' was not what many on here would consider.
He had no problems with people earning £100 to £150 a week if they worked hard - he was a real grafter by the way and took pride in his work. This at a time when the wage from printers was around £30pw and the average wage, in London, was a bit over £20. So he was happy for a range of 5-6 times average wage not to be classed as rich.
Average pay nowadays is around £30k, but that's not average for 'workers', so perhaps £25k. So a left-wing socialist was of the opinion that you would not be rich today if you were earning £150k.
His opinions were those of the corporate socialists of the time.
John145 said:
The labour market is saturated. The only real prospect of changing that is to stop unskilled immigration.
It's not just that though. Unskilled immigration isn't a threat to skilled workers, yet skilled jobs seem to pay poor wages these days. In my industry you need to be a senior manager to have a wage that's in line with the price of a starter home. It's not so much the rich-poor gap that's the problem as the gap between what an ordinary person gets paid and what it costs to live an ordinary life. I can't work out where the money is coming from to cover these costs and thus perpetuate them.BenM77 said:
Check some numbers on this budget calculator. If you're on £16000 a year with 2 kids they make your money up to £22500. Take home.
If you have 3 kids that goes up to £25,900.
I would say that people are well looked after in this country.
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17442946If you have 3 kids that goes up to £25,900.
I would say that people are well looked after in this country.
AA999 said:
... Does the gap have to exist in order people work harder and make something of themselves?
The gap does the exact opposite of this.In an ideal world you have a natural spread of people with different incomes; a few poor, some a little bit tight, lots in the middle, some comfortably off and a few rich - a typical bell curve. When the circumstances for this exist, it makes it easier for someone to make something of themselves and work their way up the scale.
What the gap implies is that there are less and less in that middle section - everyone is becoming polarised towards either the rich or poor end. Jumping all the way across that gap becomes very difficult or impossible.
It's important to note that the gap is the symptom, not the cause. The actual causes are varied and complicated but one example is high house prices and rents - if you are stuck renting it becomes very difficult to ever save up enough for the deposit required to buy which means your cash ends up in the pockets of those who were lucky enough to have the assets to buy in the first place, perpetuating the situation.
Mr Will said:
... one example is high house prices and rents - if you are stuck renting it becomes very difficult to ever save up enough for the deposit required to buy which means your cash ends up in the pockets of those who were lucky enough to have the assets to buy in the first place, perpetuating the situation.
Exactly my situation. Meanwhile I pay tax so that people who are theoretically worse off that me can have a roof over their head for nothing. I'm subsidising both those below and above me!MitchT said:
Mr Will said:
... one example is high house prices and rents - if you are stuck renting it becomes very difficult to ever save up enough for the deposit required to buy which means your cash ends up in the pockets of those who were lucky enough to have the assets to buy in the first place, perpetuating the situation.
Exactly my situation. Meanwhile I pay tax so that people who are theoretically worse off that me can have a roof over their head for nothing. I'm subsidising both those below and above me!Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff