Do you have a problem with the Super Rich in UK?

Do you have a problem with the Super Rich in UK?

Author
Discussion

mybrainhurts

90,809 posts

254 months

Saturday 24th January 2015
quotequote all
This thread would go down well in the Guardian....hehe

anonymous-user

53 months

Saturday 24th January 2015
quotequote all
Nobody wants to pay more taxes but the facts are that more equitable countries like Norway Sweden and Denmark have the happiest people.

Countries like the UK and USA with larger wealth gaps have less happy people and more social problems like drug abuse, teenage pregnancy and more disengaged members of the population.

Spend some time in these countries and you'll soon see the clear social benefits of narrowing the wealth gap.

NRS

22,078 posts

200 months

Saturday 24th January 2015
quotequote all
el stovey said:
Nobody wants to pay more taxes but the facts are that more equitable countries like Norway Sweden and Denmark have the happiest people.

Countries like the UK and USA with larger wealth gaps have less happy people and more social problems like drug abuse, teenage pregnancy and more disengaged members of the population.

Spend some time in these countries and you'll soon see the clear social benefits of narrowing the wealth gap.
They just tax as much as they can for everyone though, biggrin It does annoy me sometimes, in that I could buy a lot more stuff if I was elsewhere, but to be honest I do enjoy the equality here. It's strange going back to the UK to visit and seeing the very obvious difference in class that you don't get here.

randomeddy

1,430 posts

136 months

Sunday 25th January 2015
quotequote all
The problem I have with the 'super rich' is when SOME of them spend utterly ridiculous amounts of money on tat.
Bernie Ecclestones daughter spent £1m on a bath,it was carved out of a huge single piece of crystal.
There was a series on about a top hotel in London,one of their clients was something to do with Tate&Lyle sugar.When he stayed in the hotel he had it re-decorated the way he wanted it,even if he was there for a couple of days.

Is it for tax reasons that they have to spend their wealth?

2 sMoKiN bArReLs

30,230 posts

234 months

Sunday 25th January 2015
quotequote all
randomeddy said:
The problem I have with the 'super rich' is when SOME of them spend utterly ridiculous amounts of money on tat.
Bernie Ecclestones daughter spent £1m on a bath,it was carved out of a huge single piece of crystal.
There was a series on about a top hotel in London,one of their clients was something to do with Tate&Lyle sugar.When he stayed in the hotel he had it re-decorated the way he wanted it,even if he was there for a couple of days.

Is it for tax reasons that they have to spend their wealth?
Why would that bother you in the slightest? They are spreading the wealth

theaxe

3,557 posts

221 months

Sunday 25th January 2015
quotequote all
randomeddy said:
There was a series on about a top hotel in London,one of their clients was something to do with Tate&Lyle sugar.When he stayed in the hotel he had it re-decorated the way he wanted it,even if he was there for a couple of days.
I'm pretty sure that was "Inside Claridge's" featuring regular guest Jose ‘Pepe’ Fanjul. They didn't redecorate as much as store some clothes and the odd bit of furniture for him.

It's not that unusual, I had a friend who worked a couple of days in the city and his regular hotel (no where near the Claridge's level) used to keep a rack of his clothes ready for his visits.

2 sMoKiN bArReLs

30,230 posts

234 months

Sunday 25th January 2015
quotequote all
theaxe said:
randomeddy said:
There was a series on about a top hotel in London,one of their clients was something to do with Tate&Lyle sugar.When he stayed in the hotel he had it re-decorated the way he wanted it,even if he was there for a couple of days.
I'm pretty sure that was "Inside Claridge's" featuring regular guest Jose ‘Pepe’ Fanjul. They didn't redecorate as much as store some clothes and the odd bit of furniture for him.

It's not that unusual, I had a friend who worked a couple of days in the city and his regular hotel (no where near the Claridge's level) used to keep a rack of his clothes ready for his visits.
I once paid £40 extra on the train so I could sit nearer the carriage with the Stella...hehe

boombastictiger

Original Poster:

203 posts

115 months

Sunday 25th January 2015
quotequote all
trashbat said:
boombastictiger said:
So basically i watched a program on bbc called 'The Super Rich and Us', and i was pretty shocked to see how some people hate the rich, for being rich! I am not rich by any means (i plan to be one day), yet i do not have a problem with the rich, and i do not agree that they should pay extortionally more in tax or give their money away to others.
You might or might not agree with it, but a lot of people's idea of functioning society involves varying dilutions of the principle of, 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need'.

That's Marx, by the way, just to enrage any dozing ultra-capitalists, but you can find it encapsulated in much older ideologies than his - most religions, for instance.

So, should you be lucky to have money falling out of your arse, some of which presumably was directly or indirectly extracted from the less fortunate, what are you going to do with it? Gather it in a pile? What use is that?

And if you say something like, reinvest it in your businesses to further advance society, well you can do that and avoid the taxation.
What i found interesting, yet not too surprising considering there are alot of people sponging on benefits, is that a lot of focus was put on the opinions of people who came out with the story of it being unfair or hard done by because they have been working all their life and hardly had any pay rises. From my experience so far of seeing people around me progress to top positions and pay brackets it is those who are incredibly smart, genius, risk takers or those who work super hard late after normal hours and educate themselves constantly who progress and find opportunities in their life. I think if people really wanted to get rich and make good money they would start living in their means and stop blaming others for their mistakes.

droopsnoot

11,807 posts

241 months

Sunday 25th January 2015
quotequote all
As I posted in the thread about the programme, I was surprised to see that someone actually felt it would be reasonable to somehow "take" the wealth from "the 1%" and give to everyone else. Granted that might not be unreasonable in the case of some who have acquired that wealth in a dodgy fashion, but to suggest that all of these people deserve to have their mainly self-earned wealth confiscated seemed ridiculous.

Hackney

6,810 posts

207 months

Sunday 25th January 2015
quotequote all
boombastictiger said:
So basically i watched a program on bbc called 'The Super Rich and Us', and i was pretty shocked to see how some people hate the rich, for being rich! I am not rich by any means (i plan to be one day), yet i do not have a problem with the rich, and i do not agree that they should pay extortionally more in tax or give their money away to others.

I work hard, try not to be lazy and am pushing to create the opportunity for me to make that big pay day. I am 30 but started at the bottem working at 15 stacking , studying and working countless jobs to get where i am today. Among the way i have seen some of my friends do really well for themselves and enter that top 5% of earners, whether because they were smarter, took more risks or were in the right place at the right time, i salut them for getting there and do not feel hard done by.

This leads me on to think that If someone has worked hard and risked so much and made millions or billions along the way, why should they be made to pay more in tax than someone who decided to sit and claim benefits, or have children young, or get in debt and have credit cards? So what if they wanted to pass on all their wealth to kids or grandkids through inheritance, what business is it of anyone else.? People have choices, so if you have kids early thats your decision, if you decide to get drunk everyday thats your choice, if you choose not to work thats your choice, if you go home at 5 everyday thats your choice, if you decide not to take risks in work and life or business thats your choice...surely people should live within their means..

It would be interesting to hear the opinion of pistonheaders on this matter as naturally with the cars on sale here there are a lot of rich and a lot of poor...do you feel hard done by? Do you feel the rich should pay more? Do you think the rich should distribute their wealth to the poor? Do you feel the poor need to be quiet and work harder?
Not sure whether you mean an extortionate amount (more), exponentially more or proportionally more.

An extortionate amount more could apply to billionaires even if they paid the same basic rate. 20% of £20m per year vs 20% of £15,000 per year. Billionaire in question would probably say taxation is extortion anyway. They'd also argue that 50% on some of their money is extortionate when some pay only 20% on all their income... the thieving bar stewards!

For me a increasing tax rate makes sense. If I was lucky enough to earn the highest rates of taxation I wouldn't be complaining about the tax I paid on it.

Trouble is, the richest are probably using all means at their disposal to pay less tax (as a percentage) than the average man in the street, so talk of them paying higher rates is pointless anyway. Take, for example, Philip Green. He's so good at "business" that he doesn't actually own any, he gets paid nothing and doesn't have a home. Yet he's widely regarded as an incredible success story, who's opinions and advice are sought by government.

No doubt someone will be along to say how the we should all doff our caps (Bob Cratchet-like) to the super rich: if it wasn't for them bestowing their business on us and creating jobs for other people to pay tax; or even though they pay only 1 or 2% income tax it's still a lot more than most people. Perhaps.

BUT THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT.

ETA I do not have a problem with the super rich per se, as long as they pay their dues and don't break the law (not just tax law)

trashbat

6,005 posts

152 months

Sunday 25th January 2015
quotequote all
boombastictiger said:
What i found interesting, yet not too surprising considering there are alot of people sponging on benefits, is that a lot of focus was put on the opinions of people who came out with the story of it being unfair or hard done by because they have been working all their life and hardly had any pay rises. From my experience so far of seeing people around me progress to top positions and pay brackets it is those who are incredibly smart, genius, risk takers or those who work super hard late after normal hours and educate themselves constantly who progress and find opportunities in their life. I think if people really wanted to get rich and make good money they would start living in their means and stop blaming others for their mistakes.
No doubt - and on the earlier Marxist theme, Lenin also said, 'he who doesn't work, doesn't eat'.

However the super-rich generally aren't self-made through hard work, or at the very least not self-maintained through the same. Wealth begets more wealth, comparatively much more easily than starting with nothing, so if you begin with a lot, you can rise further without doing very much at all. That's quite different to the motivating 'on your bike' scenario you describe, and is it what you want to encourage?

There's also the issue that generally for you to win, someone else has to lose. Sometimes it's away behind the curtain, some other foreign economy, but often not. Make a load of money from property, for instance, and chances are your tenants had to pay more because of either you or the mechanisms you use. Make a load of money from selling payday loans and it's a little bit more direct than that. Is that the work of someone who educated themselves, found opportunities, took risks etc, or is that just the deeds of some with money?

boombastictiger

Original Poster:

203 posts

115 months

Sunday 25th January 2015
quotequote all
trashbat said:
boombastictiger said:
What i found interesting, yet not too surprising considering there are alot of people sponging on benefits, is that a lot of focus was put on the opinions of people who came out with the story of it being unfair or hard done by because they have been working all their life and hardly had any pay rises. From my experience so far of seeing people around me progress to top positions and pay brackets it is those who are incredibly smart, genius, risk takers or those who work super hard late after normal hours and educate themselves constantly who progress and find opportunities in their life. I think if people really wanted to get rich and make good money they would start living in their means and stop blaming others for their mistakes.
No doubt - and on the earlier Marxist theme, Lenin also said, 'he who doesn't work, doesn't eat'.

However the super-rich generally aren't self-made through hard work, or at the very least not self-maintained through the same. Wealth begets more wealth, comparatively much more easily than starting with nothing, so if you begin with a lot, you can rise further without doing very much at all. That's quite different to the motivating 'on your bike' scenario you describe, and is it what you want to encourage?

There's also the issue that generally for you to win, someone else has to lose. Sometimes it's away behind the curtain, some other foreign economy, but often not. Make a load of money from property, for instance, and chances are your tenants had to pay more because of either you or the mechanisms you use. Make a load of money from selling payday loans and it's a little bit more direct than that. Is that the work of someone who educated themselves, found opportunities, took risks etc, or is that just the deeds of some with money?
I see what you mean in the sense of some people inherit riches and role around as if they made it all themselves, but as envious as that may be, if you worked super hard and sacrificed your life to gain money, houses and everything inbetween with the intention of passing it onto your children and childrens children as so that they can enjoy life and live to the fullest however they want what business is that of anyone else or what is wrong with that as distastful as it may be to some? The only way i can see it is people are jealous of others who suceed...

I think it should be a level playing field, as so that everyone pays the same percentage or tax., not some pay 20 and some 40 upwards. Rich have a rep as some have said that to dodge tax etc, of corse that is wrong, the same way doing any crime is wrong, so as long as people live within the law i see no problem with how they spend their wealth.

Maybe i am wrong or not seeing something deeper to make a society bond and work? Punishing people and making them pay higher pecentage just doesnt sound right..


trashbat

6,005 posts

152 months

Sunday 25th January 2015
quotequote all
boombastictiger said:
I see what you mean in the sense of some people inherit riches and role around as if they made it all themselves, but as envious as that may be, if you worked super hard and sacrificed your life to gain money, houses and everything inbetween with the intention of passing it onto your children and childrens children as so that they can enjoy life and live to the fullest however they want what business is that of anyone else or what is wrong with that as distastful as it may be to some? The only way i can see it is people are jealous of others who suceed...

I think it should be a level playing field, as so that everyone pays the same percentage or tax., not some pay 20 and some 40 upwards. Rich have a rep as some have said that to dodge tax etc, of corse that is wrong, the same way doing any crime is wrong, so as long as people live within the law i see no problem with how they spend their wealth.

Maybe i am wrong or not seeing something deeper to make a society bond and work? Punishing people and making them pay higher pecentage just doesnt sound right..
For the most part, we think we're done with hereditary power structures - no more kings and lords in charge of the peasantry by simple fortune of being born to the right parents, except for a small and increasingly irrelevant house of each. In general we think that shedding that configuration has been a good thing. Many countries even define themselves using their instance of that historical moment. So why encourage the economic equivalent?

As others point out, a huge gap between rich and poor doesn't benefit anyone. Can you imagine living in luxury in an enormous mansion but having to be driven everywhere by armed guards because the rest of the country is falling into criminal ruin? Well it's not that hard - you just need the cash and then you can pick from a wide variety of places around the world where that is the case today.

To that, some people think, 'fk everyone else', and would be happy with that life. Fortunately for those who think that'd be less than ideal way to run everything, our Western European society is at least somewhat disinclined towards that. So, the idea is that the more you make, the more you can afford to return.

Supposedly the richest 1% in Britain - still a load of people - own the same wealth as the poorest 55% combined. At what point does that possibility stop being a useful motivator for success, and become a useless millstone for everyone else?

Edit: Oxfam claimed that five families own 20% of the UK population's wealth.

Edited by trashbat on Sunday 25th January 22:52


Edited by trashbat on Sunday 25th January 23:03

boombastictiger

Original Poster:

203 posts

115 months

Monday 26th January 2015
quotequote all
Z
trashbat said:
or the most part, we think we're done with hereditary power structures - no more kings and lords in charge of the peasantry by simple fortune of being born to the right parents, except for a small and increasingly irrelevant house of each. In general we think that shedding that configuration has been a good thing. Many countries even define themselves using their instance of that historical moment. So why encourage the economic equivalent?

As others point out, a huge gap between rich and poor doesn't benefit anyone. Can you imagine living in luxury in an enormous mansion but having to be driven everywhere by armed guards because the rest of the country is falling into criminal ruin? Well it's not that hard - you just need the cash and then you can pick from a wide variety of places around the world where that is the case today.

To that, some people think, 'fk everyone else', and would be happy with that life. Fortunately for those who think that'd be less than ideal way to run everything, our Western European society is at least somewhat disinclined towards that. So, the idea is that the more you make, the more you can afford to return.

Supposedly the richest 1% in Britain - still a load of people - own the same wealth as the poorest 55% combined. At what point does that possibility stop being a useful motivator for success, and become a useless millstone for everyone else?

Edit: Oxfam claimed that five families own 20% of the UK population's wealth
I see how a gap in wealthy and poor can be a problem, but in the UK i do not think it is anywhere near as bad in an impact sense as say many countries like Somalia and India even, where the poor literally live in slums/tin huts, and the rich have massive mansions and cars.

Looking at things in the UK, mainly London i think the difference is that the poor/middle class may only be able to buy an old budget car or take out finance to buy a new car (matter or choice), whereas the rich can buy 10 ferraris...if abiding to speed limits and the law both will still get from a to b in the same time. Poor might have to shop in lidl, aldi, primark and stick to no thrills label, whereas rich can go to waitrose, wholefoods, harrods and co.. Yet both are just as healthy (matter of opinion) and both can eat well. In England i do not feel that the rich have a negative effect on my life, i do not see special lanes for their cars on motorways and i do not see special ques for them in shops (maybe 1st class desk at airports).

I guess there are benefits of having more disposable income let alone being rich, but people have to be responsible as well surely? Why have a child if they cannot afford to and then complain that they cannot go to restaurants because it is expensive? Why buy stuff you cannot afford? Why not work more than 1 job to get extra money instead of going out on the weekends? I know so many people who grind their life away juggling 2-3 jobs trying to achieve their goals. Again myself growing up in a poor/middle class family when i reached 15 i decided to work to buy those £70 pair of trainers i wanted, stacking lorries or whatever the money was money.

I agree we all have to help sort the issues in the country, but surely that means the poor as well? Instead of people sitting on benefits sponging off hard working peoples money and not going anywhere in their lives why not work even the most basic jobs and build up. Instead of having a kid why not wait and try and save some money first? I think it is a bit too easy just to go to the rich and say give us more money, i think it could be dangerous as well as the rich will in their minds feel as if they have more rights and power as they are paying a higher percentage, a bit like higher stake holders in a business. This is really the mindset of the hunger games (they used this as an example in the documentary to scare us).! Atleast if everyone is paying the same percentage all are equal?

Edited by boombastictiger on Monday 26th January 00:27


Edited by boombastictiger on Monday 26th January 00:30

The Moose

22,820 posts

208 months

Monday 26th January 2015
quotequote all
randomeddy said:
The problem I have with the 'super rich' is when SOME of them spend utterly ridiculous amounts of money on tat.
Bernie Ecclestones daughter spent £1m on a bath,it was carved out of a huge single piece of crystal.
There was a series on about a top hotel in London,one of their clients was something to do with Tate&Lyle sugar.When he stayed in the hotel he had it re-decorated the way he wanted it,even if he was there for a couple of days.
What a totally bizarre view to have confused

By spunking that money on those things means there is more money going around in the system for everyone else as opposed to just sitting as a number in a bank somewhere.

Surely that has to be good for the economy and for the people who don't have 9 or 10 figure bank balances?

98elise

26,364 posts

160 months

Monday 26th January 2015
quotequote all
Hackney said:
boombastictiger said:
So basically i watched a program on bbc called 'The Super Rich and Us', and i was pretty shocked to see how some people hate the rich, for being rich! I am not rich by any means (i plan to be one day), yet i do not have a problem with the rich, and i do not agree that they should pay extortionally more in tax or give their money away to others.

I work hard, try not to be lazy and am pushing to create the opportunity for me to make that big pay day. I am 30 but started at the bottem working at 15 stacking , studying and working countless jobs to get where i am today. Among the way i have seen some of my friends do really well for themselves and enter that top 5% of earners, whether because they were smarter, took more risks or were in the right place at the right time, i salut them for getting there and do not feel hard done by.

This leads me on to think that If someone has worked hard and risked so much and made millions or billions along the way, why should they be made to pay more in tax than someone who decided to sit and claim benefits, or have children young, or get in debt and have credit cards? So what if they wanted to pass on all their wealth to kids or grandkids through inheritance, what business is it of anyone else.? People have choices, so if you have kids early thats your decision, if you decide to get drunk everyday thats your choice, if you choose not to work thats your choice, if you go home at 5 everyday thats your choice, if you decide not to take risks in work and life or business thats your choice...surely people should live within their means..

It would be interesting to hear the opinion of pistonheaders on this matter as naturally with the cars on sale here there are a lot of rich and a lot of poor...do you feel hard done by? Do you feel the rich should pay more? Do you think the rich should distribute their wealth to the poor? Do you feel the poor need to be quiet and work harder?
Not sure whether you mean an extortionate amount (more), exponentially more or proportionally more.

An extortionate amount more could apply to billionaires even if they paid the same basic rate. 20% of £20m per year vs 20% of £15,000 per year. Billionaire in question would probably say taxation is extortion anyway. They'd also argue that 50% on some of their money is extortionate when some pay only 20% on all their income... the thieving bar stewards!

For me a increasing tax rate makes sense. If I was lucky enough to earn the highest rates of taxation I wouldn't be complaining about the tax I paid on it.

Trouble is, the richest are probably using all means at their disposal to pay less tax (as a percentage) than the average man in the street, so talk of them paying higher rates is pointless anyway. Take, for example, Philip Green. He's so good at "business" that he doesn't actually own any, he gets paid nothing and doesn't have a home. Yet he's widely regarded as an incredible success story, who's opinions and advice are sought by government.

No doubt someone will be along to say how the we should all doff our caps (Bob Cratchet-like) to the super rich: if it wasn't for them bestowing their business on us and creating jobs for other people to pay tax; or even though they pay only 1 or 2% income tax it's still a lot more than most people. Perhaps.

BUT THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT.

ETA I do not have a problem with the super rich per se, as long as they pay their dues and don't break the law (not just tax law)
Does it bother you that when the super rich buy a pint of beer they only pay the same price as you?

If not why is paying more for government services "paying their dues"?





z4RRSchris99

11,218 posts

178 months

Monday 26th January 2015
quotequote all
when I'm king everyone pays the same flat rate, we remove benefits and those who don't work starve or steal.

we then lock them up and send them to Australia..

(I have no problem with the rich, I have a problem with the undeserving poor)

Mosdef

1,733 posts

226 months

Monday 26th January 2015
quotequote all
el stovey said:
Nobody wants to pay more taxes but the facts are that more equitable countries like Norway Sweden and Denmark have the happiest people.

Countries like the UK and USA with larger wealth gaps have less happy people and more social problems like drug abuse, teenage pregnancy and more disengaged members of the population.

Spend some time in these countries and you'll soon see the clear social benefits of narrowing the wealth gap.
I think you might be exaggerating the levels of happiness (and equality of wealth distribution) in the Nordics; in 2013 and 14 there were plenty of riots involving immigrants and many of the areas in which they live have become like the ghettos in Paris, albeit probably slightly smaller at present. I've spent quite a bit of time in Sweden and I wouldn't say they're particularly happy and it's not a particularly easy society to integrate with.

David Smith's article in the Sunday Times was interesting and even according to Oxfam, wealth is more equally distributed in the UK than in the Nordics, Germany etc.

"I don’t know what was more irritating, Oxfam’s inequality research or most of the media’s uncritical reporting of it. An extrapolation that in 2016 the richest 1% will own half the world’s wealth got much more coverage than it deserved.

Scant mention was made of the fact that, while now rising, global wealth inequality is lower now than in 2000. Or that to be in what Oxfam calls “a small wealthy elite” you need just to have paid off your mortgage on a London house worth a little above the average; the threshold for being in the top 1% is net wealth of £528,000.

Despite this, according to Credit Suisse’s Global Wealth Report, Oxfam’s main source, Britain is a medium inequality country, with wealth more evenly distributed than in Sweden, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Austria, America, Switzerland and more than 20 big emerging economies, including all the Brics (Brazil, Russia, India and China).

Worst, though, is Oxfam’s view of wealth creation. The “small wealthy elite” who own or run businesses did not get where they are by talent and enterprise and creating jobs for others, it says, but by exploitation and political lobbying. The spirit of Dave Spart, Private Eye’s legendary left-wing activist, lives on.

Oxfam’s research will affect people in different ways. For me, while I am happy to give to Save the Children, the British Red Cross, Christian Aid and Voluntary Service Overseas, I don’t give to Oxfam."


trashbat

6,005 posts

152 months

Monday 26th January 2015
quotequote all
Mosdef said:
David Smith's article in the Sunday Times was interesting and even according to Oxfam, wealth is more equally distributed in the UK than in the Nordics, Germany etc.

...

Scant mention was made of the fact that, while now rising, global wealth inequality is lower now than in 2000. Or that to be in what Oxfam calls “a small wealthy elite” you need just to have paid off your mortgage on a London house worth a little above the average; the threshold for being in the top 1% is net wealth of £528,000.
Got a source for that? Because even at a cursory glance, it appears to be total balls.

Graun article said:
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2012/dec/03/riche...

The entry level into the top 10% of wealthy households is currently £967,000 in net assets, the ONS said, while membership of the top 1% comes with assets of £2.8m or above.
Maybe if there are five and a half equally wealthy people in this household?

It also refers to an Oxfam claim about global wealth, but whinges about the press coverage instead of bothering to actually refute it.

The Oxfam claim in question was, "the wealth of the 1% richest people in the world amounts to $110tn (£60.88tn), or 65 times as much as the poorest half of the world", or if you prefer, "[the] richest 85 people across the globe share a combined wealth of £1tn, as much as the poorest 3.5 billion of the world's population"

Mosdef

1,733 posts

226 months

Monday 26th January 2015
quotequote all
trashbat said:
Mosdef said:
David Smith's article in the Sunday Times was interesting and even according to Oxfam, wealth is more equally distributed in the UK than in the Nordics, Germany etc.

...

Scant mention was made of the fact that, while now rising, global wealth inequality is lower now than in 2000. Or that to be in what Oxfam calls “a small wealthy elite” you need just to have paid off your mortgage on a London house worth a little above the average; the threshold for being in the top 1% is net wealth of £528,000.
Got a source for that? Because even at a cursory glance, it appears to be total balls.

Graun article said:
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2012/dec/03/riche...

The entry level into the top 10% of wealthy households is currently £967,000 in net assets, the ONS said, while membership of the top 1% comes with assets of £2.8m or above.
Maybe if there are five and a half equally wealthy people in this household?

It also refers to an Oxfam claim about global wealth, but whinges about the press coverage instead of bothering to actually refute it.

The Oxfam claim in question was, "the wealth of the 1% richest people in the world amounts to $110tn (£60.88tn), or 65 times as much as the poorest half of the world", or if you prefer, "[the] richest 85 people across the globe share a combined wealth of £1tn, as much as the poorest 3.5 billion of the world's population"
On what basis does that appear to be 'total balls'? The source is the one he cited in his article; the Credit Suisse report on global wealth: https://publications.credit-suisse.com/tasks/rende...

Extract below:

"To determine how global wealth is distributed across households and individuals – rather than regions or countries – we combine our data on the level of household wealth across countries with information on the pattern of wealth distribution within coun- tries. our estimates for mid-2014 indicate that once debts have been subtracted, a person needs only usD 3,650 to be among the wealthiest half of world citizens. however, more than usD 77,000 is required to be a member of the top 10% of global wealth holders, and usD 798,000 to belong to the
top 1%."

Not sure how the above can be misinterpreted?