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
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.
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'?
I'll be the first to admit that the majority of my 'wealth' has been from inheritance, and I am pretty sure without this I would be one of the many that would be in a position of financial struggle.
But I have had comments thrown my way in the past questioning whether a person should morally have so much wealth (not that I am claiming to be hugely wealthy of course), just putting forward some of the comments I have received.
Questions such as; is it morally fair for one person to own so much more money/assets than another human in the same society. (Very lefty stance of course).
There is also the issue that for the rich to be classed as rich then there needs to be a significant amount of poor (very crass statement of things I know).
A large amount of poor ensures that product prices are kept within limits of the majority and enables the rich to splash out in a way that separates them high above the rest (again a crass statement of things).
Is there a danger of the rich soaking/grabbing up too much of the UK's wealth and leaving too little for the rest?
But I have had comments thrown my way in the past questioning whether a person should morally have so much wealth (not that I am claiming to be hugely wealthy of course), just putting forward some of the comments I have received.
Questions such as; is it morally fair for one person to own so much more money/assets than another human in the same society. (Very lefty stance of course).
There is also the issue that for the rich to be classed as rich then there needs to be a significant amount of poor (very crass statement of things I know).
A large amount of poor ensures that product prices are kept within limits of the majority and enables the rich to splash out in a way that separates them high above the rest (again a crass statement of things).
Is there a danger of the rich soaking/grabbing up too much of the UK's wealth and leaving too little for the rest?
turbobloke said:
What does that mean exactly?
Totally 'open' interpretation to anyone giving an answer, as I guess it will mean different things to different people.I fully accept this is a very leftist topic and I knew it would generate a number of comments here on PH
I am not a lefty by the way, but I am just throwing a few questions up in the air regardless of swing.
I don't know if there is a fair solution to the above or not.
avinalarf said:
It seems to me some are missing a most important point.
We live in a capitalist society that relies on the creation of wealth ,the paradox is that those that create the wealth also often create the opportunities for others to have jobs to pay their way in life,whilst providing a safety net for the physically and mentally challenged.
Although flawed it has worked fairly well but in times of crisis,such as in the past 10 years,this model has become strained to breaking point.
I have spoken about a "fair" society,one which values those that are the backbone of that society,the nurses,the teachers,the housewife,the ordinary working man and woman.
We need these people to maintain our society and they are entitled to feel valued and to receive adequate renumeration for their work that allows them a reasonable standard of living.
So either we pay them more and they can then contribute more,or we pay them peanuts and then have to subsidise them to maintain their living standards,it's one or t'other.
We also now live in a global economy and with the ease of migration of labour that also has exacerbated the problems.
It might not and possibly should not mean that the wealthier members of our society should be highly taxed but I just do not know where else the money is supposed to come from.
Would a fairer system to be to always have a 'bandwidth' of earnings within a company?We live in a capitalist society that relies on the creation of wealth ,the paradox is that those that create the wealth also often create the opportunities for others to have jobs to pay their way in life,whilst providing a safety net for the physically and mentally challenged.
Although flawed it has worked fairly well but in times of crisis,such as in the past 10 years,this model has become strained to breaking point.
I have spoken about a "fair" society,one which values those that are the backbone of that society,the nurses,the teachers,the housewife,the ordinary working man and woman.
We need these people to maintain our society and they are entitled to feel valued and to receive adequate renumeration for their work that allows them a reasonable standard of living.
So either we pay them more and they can then contribute more,or we pay them peanuts and then have to subsidise them to maintain their living standards,it's one or t'other.
We also now live in a global economy and with the ease of migration of labour that also has exacerbated the problems.
It might not and possibly should not mean that the wealthier members of our society should be highly taxed but I just do not know where else the money is supposed to come from.
So that when a company grows and makes higher and higher profit levels, that the top 1% of the boss levels do not cream that up in bonuses and salary, but instead have a distinct percentage gap between the top paid and the bottom paid levels.
In effect say that the gap had to be 80%....meaning that somebody on £20,000 per year at 'bottom level' salary within that company would result in nobody being able to take any more than £100,000 at the 'top levels' (a sustained gap of 80% = £80,000 in this case). If the company does better in the future it is not just a result of the bosses, it is a result of all that work in the company, so that if the bosses wish to increase their take from the company then it would also mean raising the 'bottom level' to keep the 80% gap.
This method would constrain the top whilst also giving incentive for everyone in the company to work hard and bring home a 'balanced' salary.
Just an idea in principal of course!
Siscar said:
So then you split the company into two, one employing your lower paid people £20k-£100k, the other employing your higher paid £101k to £1m.
It's also meaningless, what is wrong with the person running a company that employs 1,000 people earning £15k a year themselves earning £1m? If by their skills they have 1,000 people in employment that otherwise wouldn't be then what is the problem?
Not sure how it would be splitting in to two.It's also meaningless, what is wrong with the person running a company that employs 1,000 people earning £15k a year themselves earning £1m? If by their skills they have 1,000 people in employment that otherwise wouldn't be then what is the problem?
All employees to be within a certain bandwidth of salary scale with one another. The top levels not being able to split away from the rest through insane bonuses or crazy salaries. And if they wish to get those sorts of huge levels then they would have to be sure the company can support the fact that they would in turn have an obligation to increase the lowest paid levels to be within 80% of the top levels.
The 'split in two' comment more applies to your last sentence, with the top being on £1m and the rest being on £15k.
But again, its just a simple idea, that would most probably never take off.. call it stupid or whatever, but it was just to propose a 'fairer' system possibly.
I am not anti-rich by the way, it would be hypocritical of me to take that position. I do however have concerns over how large the gap is according to common reports that we see in the media.
My fear is that if the gap becomes too large then we may see a proper broken society in the UK. With huge resentment building in to action by the growing amount of those that feel they are being trampled on by the power of the rich.
turbobloke said:
And then there's tomorrow...
I think the point he may be getting at is that even tomorrow the top end rich will soak that up too, to leave little remaining for the rest to divide out.Taking a snap shot in time to simplify things can be one way to look at it. But obviously the entire complexity of nation's/world economies from day to day may be impossible to explain within the space allowed on our PH forum
I also think that we need a system that allows individuals to become 'rich' (that is capitalism) and that this system depends on the majority to be 'poor'.
But like one poster mentioned above, is the balance too heavily weighted in favour of the rich, meaning that the majority poor are not left with enough 'available wealth' (at any given moment in time) to create a prosperous UK ?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff