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

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

Author
Discussion

trashbat

6,005 posts

152 months

Monday 26th January 2015
quotequote all
My mistake - I thought it was claiming that £500k wealth would put you in the top 1% domestically, but it appears to be talking about globally.

That it puts you in the top 1% globally is of no surprise, given that the UK as a whole is the tenth richest country out of just under 200. It does very little to diminish the idea of wealth inequality, either domestically or globally.

Mosdef

1,733 posts

226 months

Monday 26th January 2015
quotequote all
That was something else I was surprised by. If you look through the report, wealth inequality appears lower in the UK than you might expect. (Pages 115-6)

Current wealth inequality in developed countries and emerging markets:

Very high inequality
top decile share > 70% (USA c1910)

Developed Countries

Hong Kong, Switzerland, United States

Emerging Markets

Argentina, Brazil, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Peru, Philippines, Russia, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey

High inequality
top decile share > 60% (e.g. USA c1950)

Developed Countries

Austria, Israel, Denmark, Norway, Germany, Sweden

Emerging Markets

Chile, China, Colombia, Czech Republic, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan

Medium inequality
top decile share > 50% (e.g. Europe c1980)

Developed Countries

Australia, Netherlands, Canada, New Zealand, Finland, Portugal, France, Singapore, Greece, Spain, Ireland, United Kingdom, Italy

Emerging Markets

United Arab Emirates

Low inequality

Developed Countries

Japan, Belgium

mybrainhurts

90,809 posts

254 months

Monday 26th January 2015
quotequote all
trashbat said:
wealth inequality
If there were wealth equality, nobody would be wealthy. Where would investment come from to generate wealth and jobs in those circumstances? Oh, yes, I forgot, we should all be living in caves and eating potatoes.

And inheritance tax is another name for state theft. Not as bad as it used to be, though. When I was a nipper, you were hit when you died and your wife didn't get your estate free of tax.

boombastictiger

Original Poster:

203 posts

115 months

Monday 26th January 2015
quotequote all
98elise said:
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"?
Very interesting point, should those who are rich be charged higher prices for food, petrol and everything else as well? Of course not, yet why should they be forced to pay an unequal sum in tax?


Pothole

34,367 posts

281 months

Monday 26th January 2015
quotequote all
Abramovich is utter scum and lied cheated and murdered his way to what he has, with government collusion. Why should any one admire that?

trashbat

6,005 posts

152 months

Monday 26th January 2015
quotequote all
mybrainhurts said:
If there were wealth equality, nobody would be wealthy. Where would investment come from to generate wealth and jobs in those circumstances? Oh, yes, I forgot, we should all be living in caves and eating potatoes.
There's a pretty strange set of ideas going on there.

If your idea of 'wealthy' is only ever 'more money than some other sap', then yeah, noone can be wealthy if everyone had the same.

If your idea of 'wealthy' is more like, 'has everything they reasonably desire' or 'lives comfortably by today's Western European standards', then everyone can be wealthy, in theory. On many levels, global wealth isn't finite, some zero sum game. If you think it is, then tell me, is there more or less global 'wealth' now than in the Stone Age?

Where would investment come from? It seems to be your idea that only the already-rich are in a position to invest and generate jobs. So if tomorrow they were all strung up from lamp posts and their riches divvied up amongst the angry unwashed hordes, where would any investment come from? Err, well unless you set fire to your share, everyone?

But you can live in a cave and eat a potato if you like.

(For the hard of thinking, I'm not advocating this extreme scenario by the way, although if you do want to be strung up it can probably be arranged, for a fee)

trashbat

6,005 posts

152 months

Monday 26th January 2015
quotequote all
boombastictiger said:
Very interesting point, should those who are rich be charged higher prices for food, petrol and everything else as well? Of course not, yet why should they be forced to pay an unequal sum in tax?

What do they pay for this food with? Normally, their post-tax income. So if you frame it appropriately, they do pay more for their pint, and quite right too.

That they pay the same at the petrol pump is because the tax in question is regressive; those with more pay proportionally less. The question you might want to ask is why not make all taxes progressive - well aside from the fact that again the income source is taxed, fuel duty for instance has a different set of aims that have nothing to do with income equality.

Mosdef

1,733 posts

226 months

Monday 26th January 2015
quotequote all
trashbat said:
boombastictiger said:
Very interesting point, should those who are rich be charged higher prices for food, petrol and everything else as well? Of course not, yet why should they be forced to pay an unequal sum in tax?

What do they pay for this food with? Normally, their post-tax income. So if you frame it appropriately, they do pay more for their pint, and quite right too.

That they pay the same at the petrol pump is because the tax in question is regressive; those with more pay proportionally less. The question you might want to ask is why not make all taxes progressive - well aside from the fact that again the income source is taxed, fuel duty for instance has a different set of aims that have nothing to do with income equality.
The logistics of making every tax progressive make it impossible to do so (realistically). And taxing the population to that extent would probably act as a disincentive to work harder/earn more. It kind of feels that way already, combined NICs for employer and employee are at ridiculous levels and whilst I'm not super rich by any means, the way revenue is spent by the government makes me want to give it as little as possible. Continental countries are generally worse but the UK seems to have a very strange attitude towards wealthy people, seeing them as being there to be milked for the benefit of the ungrateful.

trashbat

6,005 posts

152 months

Monday 26th January 2015
quotequote all
Mosdef said:
The logistics of making every tax progressive make it impossible to do so (realistically). And taxing the population to that extent would probably act as a disincentive to work harder/earn more. It kind of feels that way already, combined NICs for employer and employee are at ridiculous levels and whilst I'm not super rich by any means, the way revenue is spent by the government makes me want to give it as little as possible. Continental countries are generally worse but the UK seems to have a very strange attitude towards wealthy people, seeing them as being there to be milked for the benefit of the ungrateful.
It's lots of things, but high up there is a choice between whether you emphasise the individual - the American Dream, if you like, that everyone can make it on their own - or some greater cohesive group normally thought of as 'society'.

It'll always be subjective, but I disagree with the last bit of your analysis, and think that the UK - maybe not in taxation but in prevailing attitude - has gone from being quite civic minded to being mostly focused on the self, to the detriment of most other people. Look at the bulk of the threads on here (mostly the results, but sometimes those people themselves) to see it in action.

As fictional President Bartlett once said, "It doesn't matter if most voters don't benefit. They all believe that someday they will. That's the problem with the American dream. It makes everyone concerned for the day they're gonna be rich."

Wolfer

185 posts

126 months

Monday 26th January 2015
quotequote all
Not read all the thread.

Super Rich, Rich, Wealthy, well off, better off than me. None of it really bothers me. I'm even at the point now where the ones on benefits that have never worked and never will but yet are better off than me don't bother me anymore.

I have tried, that's the main thing. Even when you are up there it can all come tumbling down.

Looks like I may (at knocking on 40) be getting a break, and my hard work and dedication with my work has been noticed. Now it's been noticed, and it looks like I may do better, I'm not that bothered, other things have changed.

I've always looked at other people doing well as good, good for them, I am not jealous.

I have friends though (and some family) that have said things like "they make me sick with all their money" and "alright for some" and worse, when someone reasonably well off has something that has gone wrong "oh well, they can afford it".....things like that annoy me.




boombastictiger

Original Poster:

203 posts

115 months

Tuesday 27th January 2015
quotequote all
Mosdef said:
The logistics of making every tax progressive make it impossible to do so (realistically). And taxing the population to that extent would probably act as a disincentive to work harder/earn more. It kind of feels that way already, combined NICs for employer and employee are at ridiculous levels and whilst I'm not super rich by any means, the way revenue is spent by the government makes me want to give it as little as possible. Continental countries are generally worse but the UK seems to have a very strange attitude towards wealthy people, seeing them as being there to be milked for the benefit of the ungrateful.
If everyone pays the same rates in tax then wont this mean that everyone is contributing equal percentages of their income? If people pay different percentages wont this widen the mental gap on inequality in the sense that those who pay higher percentages will feel as if they own or have greater rights?

marcosgt

11,011 posts

175 months

Tuesday 27th January 2015
quotequote all
I didn't see it, so I have no problem with it.

I suspect I'd have been a bit annoyed at it if I'd watched it as they seemed to focus on a lot of braying morons who clearly had inherited wealth, rather than achieved it through a skill or effort, judging from the trailer I saw, which led to me not watching it.

I don't think people care if others are rich, it's those who like to show off their wealth (and consider they're somehow better because they're rich) who annoy people.

I don't know many rich people, but the richest people I do know are very down to earth and extremely pleasant.

I suspect they'd have little time for some of the people I saw in the trailer, either.

M.

silverous

1,008 posts

133 months

Tuesday 27th January 2015
quotequote all
Pothole said:
Abramovich is utter scum and lied cheated and murdered his way to what he has, with government collusion. Why should any one admire that?
I don't know enough about Abramovich to comment but what I will say is that there are different ways of amassing wealth and I suspect a certain amount of luck/being in the right place at the right time helps (note: helps, I still think you need some basic ingredients) in most if not all cases.

I wonder how often people that have amassed wealth had to bend the rules here and there to some degree or other (up to and including fraud, murder, theft, collusion etc.).

When you hear people moaning about fat cats or "bosses" I don't think they have any appreciation of the risks, stresses, and skills required to be there - people that have put their house on the line to start a business, or who are responsible for running a hospital etc. These are human beings, they ought to be good at those things to get there but could the same people moaning about their pay do the job? Would they want the stress and responsibility ? Be careful what you wish for, money often brings problems/issues of its own.....

marcosgt

11,011 posts

175 months

Tuesday 27th January 2015
quotequote all
I think 'Fat Cats' generally applies to people who've worked in big companies all their lives, raking in huge bonuses for doing their jobs or those who've ridden the privatisation wave from an civil service job (effectively) into a corporate directorship, not those who've made a fortune running their own business off the back off a remortgaged home.

Sure, some people DO work hard to earn lots of money, but an awful lot didn't and got where they are by luck, manoeuvring or even nefarious means.

One thing I've frequently noticed is that once you get a 'director' or "C" in your title, it's pretty easy to move up or across, no matter how utterly inept you prove to be. It's almost as if people suddenly lose the ability to judge an applicant if they see a previous role was a "CxO" or a "Director".

Obviously, there are lots of very competent people working at high levels, deserving of high incomes, but there are also a lot who are neither and, as with politicians of all hue, there's very little culture of personal responsibility amongst such people.

M

silverous said:
I wonder how often people that have amassed wealth had to bend the rules here and there to some degree or other (up to and including fraud, murder, theft, collusion etc.).

When you hear people moaning about fat cats or "bosses" I don't think they have any appreciation of the risks, stresses, and skills required to be there - people that have put their house on the line to start a business, or who are responsible for running a hospital etc. These are human beings, they ought to be good at those things to get there but could the same people moaning about their pay do the job? Would they want the stress and responsibility ? Be careful what you wish for, money often brings problems/issues of its own.....

Pothole

34,367 posts

281 months

Tuesday 27th January 2015
quotequote all
silverous said:
Pothole said:
Abramovich is utter scum and lied cheated and murdered his way to what he has, with government collusion. Why should any one admire that?
I don't know enough about Abramovich to comment but what I will say is that there are different ways of amassing wealth and I suspect a certain amount of luck/being in the right place at the right time helps (note: helps, I still think you need some basic ingredients) in most if not all cases.

I wonder how often people that have amassed wealth had to bend the rules here and there to some degree or other (up to and including fraud, murder, theft, collusion etc.).

When you hear people moaning about fat cats or "bosses" I don't think they have any appreciation of the risks, stresses, and skills required to be there - people that have put their house on the line to start a business, or who are responsible for running a hospital etc. These are human beings, they ought to be good at those things to get there but could the same people moaning about their pay do the job? Would they want the stress and responsibility ? Be careful what you wish for, money often brings problems/issues of its own.....
I'm not totally naive, I just wonder why we're expected to laud and fete filth. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-ord...

mybrainhurts

90,809 posts

254 months

Tuesday 27th January 2015
quotequote all
trashbat said:
mybrainhurts said:
If there were wealth equality, nobody would be wealthy. Where would investment come from to generate wealth and jobs in those circumstances? Oh, yes, I forgot, we should all be living in caves and eating potatoes.
There's a pretty strange set of ideas going on there.

If your idea of 'wealthy' is only ever 'more money than some other sap', then yeah, noone can be wealthy if everyone had the same.

If your idea of 'wealthy' is more like, 'has everything they reasonably desire' or 'lives comfortably by today's Western European standards', then everyone can be wealthy, in theory. On many levels, global wealth isn't finite, some zero sum game. If you think it is, then tell me, is there more or less global 'wealth' now than in the Stone Age?

Where would investment come from? It seems to be your idea that only the already-rich are in a position to invest and generate jobs. So if tomorrow they were all strung up from lamp posts and their riches divvied up amongst the angry unwashed hordes, where would any investment come from? Err, well unless you set fire to your share, everyone?

But you can live in a cave and eat a potato if you like.

(For the hard of thinking, I'm not advocating this extreme scenario by the way, although if you do want to be strung up it can probably be arranged, for a fee)
You brought up wealth INEQUALITY.

Equality = everyone equal.

To that, I was responding.

If you meant a "sort of" inequality, you should have said so, thus saving the tips of my fingers from wearing out on this keyboard.

z4RRSchris99

11,218 posts

178 months

Tuesday 27th January 2015
quotequote all
are there any countries that don't have any kind of social security safety net?

obviously some of the african countries rely heavily on overseas aid, but is there still a social spend?

trashbat

6,005 posts

152 months

Tuesday 27th January 2015
quotequote all
mybrainhurts said:
You brought up wealth INEQUALITY.

Equality = everyone equal.

To that, I was responding.

If you meant a "sort of" inequality, you should have said so, thus saving the tips of my fingers from wearing out on this keyboard.
I read your post. And I said equality doesn't get rid of being wealthy (or not)

Hackney

6,810 posts

207 months

Tuesday 27th January 2015
quotequote all
98elise said:
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"?
No.

Taxation and spending your disposable income are two different things.

Hackney

6,810 posts

207 months

Tuesday 27th January 2015
quotequote all
z4RRSchris99 said:
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)
By "undeserving poor" do you mean people who don't deserve to be poor? Who does?