Top 1% of Britons own 24% of nation's assets

slowmart

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... dit-suisse

I'm not exactly left leaning in my politics but there's something fundamentally wrong

fat daddy

Slowmart wrote:

I'm not exactly left leaning in my politics but there's something fundamentally wrong

its not fundamentally wrong ... it makes perfect sense .... the richer you are the more you own/have/are worth ..... if they they owned the same amount as the bottom 1% then there wouldn't be a top or bottom 1% everyone would be the same

I am sure you own more stuff than people less well off than you ... is that wrong ?

or is it just unfair in the eyes of the people that are not as well off as you ?

Life just isn't fair .... but then, who said it had to be ?

Stevo_666

Slowmart wrote:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/nov/22/brexit-vote-uk-household-wealth-credit-suisse

I'm not exactly left leaning in my politics but there's something fundamentally wrong

And they pay 27.5% of the nations tax at the last count so not exactly that far out of whack is it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/26/nearly-half-of-britons-pay-no-income-tax-as-burden-on-rich-incre/

Any chance you might be one of the 300,00?

Stevo_666

fat daddy wrote:

its not fundamentally wrong ... it makes perfect sense .... the richer you are the more you own/have/are worth ..... if they they owned the same amount as the bottom 1% then there wouldn't be a top or bottom 1% everyone would be the same

I am sure you own more stuff than people less well off than you ... is that wrong ?

or is it just unfair in the eyes of the people that are not as well off as you ?

Life just isn't fair .... but then, who said it had to be ?

How true - unfortunately some people never have and never will get it.

DeVlaeminck

No life isn't fair - surely it would be better if it were though ? Fair wouldn't necessarily mean we all had the same amount of money but it would almost certainly mean a small minority didn't own so much.

slowmart

I suppose it's which lens you use to view the disparity of income as I'm usually totally chilled and hard to get a rise from but one thing that would get me from 0 to 60mph in a second would be a throw away comment such as "your lucky to have ......" or "that' s lucky" ......well to paraphrase a golfer, gee the harder I work the luckier I get". That's not to say I don't appreciate what I have.

But I don't subscribe to the view that it's acceptable to say " it's not fair but so what" which to me is the equivalent of "normalising" the behavior of The Donald. You can't accommodate inconsiderate or rude behavior simple because "it's who he is and he won't change" excuses as it just perpetuates the problem and lowers the threshold for behaviors and situations.

Then I suppose the tax burden weighs equally on each individual according to income for supporting the weakest in society which is a great concept but equally as flawed as the top end of the system and wealth distribution as it provides a lifestyle choice for too many.

chris_bass

It isn't really a fair comparison, one end has a limit (zero) whereas the other does not.

DeVlaeminck

Slowmart wrote:

I suppose it's which lens you use to view the disparity of income as I'm usually totally chilled and hard to get a rise from but one thing that would get me from 0 to 60mph in a second would be a throw away comment such as "your lucky to have ......" or "that' s lucky" ......well to paraphrase a golfer, gee the harder I work the luckier I get". That's not to say I don't appreciate what I have.

Ah right I get it so Prince Charles works several hundred times harder than your average care worker ?

florerider

is the number of people who do not pay tax an indicator of fairness in itself?

secretsam

Don't worry, Brexit will magically make it all better.

airborne_warrior

Have no problem with rich people making money and acquiring assets. They usually have drive, brains and employ people. I do have a problem with poor people scrounging off the state though cause they can't be arsed to get a job.

Yes, I know not all poor people are scroungers.

Dry your eyes.

slowmart

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

I suppose it's which lens you use to view the disparity of income as I'm usually totally chilled and hard to get a rise from but one thing that would get me from 0 to 60mph in a second would be a throw away comment such as "your lucky to have ......" or "that' s lucky" ......well to paraphrase a golfer, gee the harder I work the luckier I get". That's not to say I don't appreciate what I have.

Ah right I get it so Prince Charles works several hundred times harder than your average care worker ?

No, I'm not Prince Charles, I'm a small business owner so add the risk and context of providing personal guarantees against all your personal assets should the deal go wrong should realign any left leaning bias your exhibiting.

mamba80

Slowmart wrote:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/nov/22/brexit-vote-uk-household-wealth-credit-suisse

I'm not exactly left leaning in my politics but there's something fundamentally wrong

you clearly are a leftie Corbynite.

i could nt give a 4 x who owns what.
what matters is that schools, transport, NHS etc etc are funded properly and the only why to do that is greater efficiency and i guess we must be close to that holy grail..... and /or increased tax take and that means higher taxes and/or more people paying tax and unfortunately, though a lot of britons are in work & pay tax, they get back more in working benefits, HB etc
so, we ve avg company ftse director on 5m per year, avg ftse pay of their workers ...30k ?

its this inequality that has led to brexit and Trump, even T May has "said" she recognises it as a huge problem.....

Thick Mike

Crikey, that was a defensive set of posts!

I'm sure everyone here works very hard and deserves every bean they amass. We are talking about the population as a whole here, not any one specific person. Let's not make policy based on your (or my) personal story because it does not represent the population as a whole.

I'd say that many people are rich because their parents were rich and they have had a privilidged upbringing and they have also inherited wealth...not everyone, but many of them.

rjsterry

Airborne Warrior wrote:

Have no problem with rich people making money and acquiring assets. They usually have drive, brains and employ people. I do have a problem with poor people scrounging off the state though cause they can't be arsed to get a job.

Yes, I know not all poor people are scroungers.

Dry your eyes.

Out of interest, where do you sit on a landowner taking a subsidy for leaving some land fallow, rather than farming or developing it? When is taking advantage of some offer of government money or tax break OK and when is it scrounging?

Stevo_666

Et voila, the solution to this inequality

bianchimoon

rjsterry wrote:

Airborne Warrior wrote:

Have no problem with rich people making money and acquiring assets. They usually have drive, brains and employ people. I do have a problem with poor people scrounging off the state though cause they can't be arsed to get a job.

Yes, I know not all poor people are scroungers.

Dry your eyes.

Out of interest, where do you sit on a landowner taking a subsidy for leaving some land fallow, rather than farming or developing it? When is taking advantage of some offer of government money or tax break OK and when is it scrounging?

same with hedgerows, they can get £9.60 per metre for 'restoring' hedgerows... farmers know, it's money for old hedges.
Perhaps one day the government will pay me to not do my job a few days a week, or maybe I can create a product that no one wants and get paid for that to? The land owning/farming gravy train... If only the average worker knew the half of it. The only info you get on country file etc, is the relatively poor 'tenant' farmers who get the leftovers where there's not much money to be made hillside sheep farming, dairy herds etc, land 'kindly' rented to them by the land owners taking the cream from grants and subsidies. But hey, that's farming life for you

slowmart

mamba80 wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/nov/22/brexit-vote-uk-household-wealth-credit-suisse

I'm not exactly left leaning in my politics but there's something fundamentally wrong

you clearly are a leftie Corbynite.

i could nt give a 4 x who owns what.
what matters is that schools, transport, NHS etc etc are funded properly and the only why to do that is greater efficiency and i guess we must be close to that holy grail..... and /or increased tax take and that means higher taxes and/or more people paying tax and unfortunately, though a lot of britons are in work & pay tax, they get back more in working benefits, HB etc
so, we ve avg company ftse director on 5m per year, avg ftse pay of their workers ...30k ?

its this inequality that has led to brexit and Trump, even T May has "said" she recognises it as a huge problem.....

The concept of the NHS is flawed and not sustainable. Look at the cost of accessing drugs and treatment for proof that the increasing burden of the elderly and self induced medical conditions will guarantee that outcome. The only thing is no one will get a grip and sort the issue out. Bevans dream was a safety net for the weakest in society to be cared for, both in the NHS and state support.

Btw those PLC'c who pay dividends on their shares held by everyone's pension funds mean their growth needs to be sustainable. What's the alternative?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 11690.html

Tax people past the points they perceive as fair and they will either move abroad or evade or mitigate their tax burden.

And to lay the success of Brexit and trump at the feet of the pay structure of PLC's is simplistic and makes no allowance for

Globalisation and the displacement of core industries of the U.K. and US
The shift from skilled manufacturing jobs to service provision, call centres and the low skill entry renumeration.
The corrupt nature of politics
The self interest of those in power who abuses lead to disengagement of the population
The gullible nature of the thickest of society.
British right wing press whipping up xenophobia
Stoke fears and divide to rule. Hitler, Trump, Farage etc

rjsterry

mamba80 wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/nov/22/brexit-vote-uk-household-wealth-credit-suisse

I'm not exactly left leaning in my politics but there's something fundamentally wrong

you clearly are a leftie Corbynite.

i could nt give a 4 x who owns what.
what matters is that schools, transport, NHS etc etc are funded properly and the only why to do that is greater efficiency and i guess we must be close to that holy grail..... and /or increased tax take and that means higher taxes and/or more people paying tax and unfortunately, though a lot of britons are in work & pay tax, they get back more in working benefits, HB etc
so, we ve avg company ftse director on 5m per year, avg ftse pay of their workers ...30k ?

its this inequality that has led to brexit and Trump, even T May has "said" she recognises it as a huge problem.....

Think you might be aiming a bit high, there. Let's take Dixons Carphone: I don't have an overall average, but this link would suggest a fair bit lower than £30K/year.

http://www.indeed.co.uk/cmp/Dixons-Carphone/salaries

okgo

Isn't the threshold where you go from being a drain to a contributor quite high? I.e. most people who think they're paying their way and hate financing the dole culture probably are not above that number anyway. Its nearly 50k if I remember correctly.

rjsterry

okgo wrote:

Isn't the threshold where you go from being a drain to a contributor quite high? I.e. most people who think they're paying their way and hate financing the dole culture probably are not above that number anyway. Its nearly 50k if I remember correctly.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15843746

DeVlaeminck

okgo wrote:

Isn't the threshold where you go from being a drain to a contributor quite high? I.e. most people who think they're paying their way and hate financing the dole culture probably are not above that number anyway. Its nearly 50k if I remember correctly.

Purely in terms of tax and spend maybe but many would argue that your ordinary worker is producing the profits which end up in the hands of the rich who are paying all this tax. So yes the wealthy pay more tax - I'd rather argue that if there was a fairer distribution of wealth then they wouldn't have to.

mr_goo

DeVlaeminck wrote:

No life isn't fair - surely it would be better if it were though ? Fair wouldn't necessarily mean we all had the same amount of money but it would almost certainly mean a small minority didn't own so much.

Well said.

airborne_warrior

rjsterry wrote:

Airborne Warrior wrote:

Have no problem with rich people making money and acquiring assets. They usually have drive, brains and employ people. I do have a problem with poor people scrounging off the state though cause they can't be arsed to get a job.

Yes, I know not all poor people are scroungers.

Dry your eyes.

Out of interest, where do you sit on a landowner taking a subsidy for leaving some land fallow, rather than farming or developing it? When is taking advantage of some offer of government money or tax break OK and when is it scrounging?

What I would say it the UK is far better off having more rich people who are greedy than poor people who are greedy.

cycleclinic

Go back a few of hundred years and the top 1% owned everything.

We get ibessed about fairness but soceity is much faier than a few generations ago. We always expect linear progression in social issues. It does not work that way never has never will. Soveity never will be fair.

A paper was published a number of years ago. It used the mathatics of how polymer molecules tangle to model how money moves and gets tangled are the few. No matter how the author tweeked the parameters money always tangled around the few. If you think about having money allows you to make money. It always flows to the few. No one can change that. We want an impossible goal.

mamba80

thecycleclinic wrote:

Go back a few of hundred years and the top 1% owned everything.

We get ibessed about fairness but soceity is much faier than a few generations ago. We always expect linear progression in social issues. It does not work that way never has never will. Soveity never will be fair.

A paper was published a number of years ago. It used the mathatics of how polymer molecules tangle to model how money moves and gets tangled are the few. No matter how the author tweeked the parameters money always tangled around the few. If you think about having money allows you to make money. It always flows to the few. No one can change that. We want an impossible goal.

this is true but there are things a Gov can do to distribute the funds a little more fairly, so Hammond is reversing some cuts to uni credit, allowing people to keep more money when working extra hours, raising min wage..... he could do a lot more if he reversed the IHT cuts - so even the Tories recognise they ve gone to far.......

Cutting community social care put huge demands on your local hospital, if your wealthy this doesn't effect you, for most on here, it will, its also an incredibly stupid and wasteful thing to do.
Building more social housing means instead of paying large rents to private landlords and tax payers funding this via HB, people can have more money in their pockets and some will save and move up the housing ladder.
Better education can mean people get better jobs, earn more pay more tax, commit less crime, lead healthier lifestyles, make more informed voting decisions.....

okgo

Mr Goo wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

No life isn't fair - surely it would be better if it were though ? Fair wouldn't necessarily mean we all had the same amount of money but it would almost certainly mean a small minority didn't own so much.

Well said.

Can't think of anything worse.

rjsterry

Airborne Warrior wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Airborne Warrior wrote:

Have no problem with rich people making money and acquiring assets. They usually have drive, brains and employ people. I do have a problem with poor people scrounging off the state though cause they can't be arsed to get a job.

Yes, I know not all poor people are scroungers.

Dry your eyes.

Out of interest, where do you sit on a landowner taking a subsidy for leaving some land fallow, rather than farming or developing it? When is taking advantage of some offer of government money or tax break OK and when is it scrounging?

What I would say it the UK is far better off having more rich people who are greedy than poor people who are greedy.

Because...? Better off how?

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

Airborne Warrior wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Airborne Warrior wrote:

Have no problem with rich people making money and acquiring assets. They usually have drive, brains and employ people. I do have a problem with poor people scrounging off the state though cause they can't be arsed to get a job.

Yes, I know not all poor people are scroungers.

Dry your eyes.

Out of interest, where do you sit on a landowner taking a subsidy for leaving some land fallow, rather than farming or developing it? When is taking advantage of some offer of government money or tax break OK and when is it scrounging?

What I would say it the UK is far better off having more rich people who are greedy than poor people who are greedy.

Because...? Better off how?

It's just prejudice against the poor.

In his mind, greedy poor people don't work hard, just want hand outs, whereas rich people work harder to earn more money.

He'd rather the poor to stay poor rather than do their best not be...

haydenm

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Airborne Warrior wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Airborne Warrior wrote:

Have no problem with rich people making money and acquiring assets. They usually have drive, brains and employ people. I do have a problem with poor people scrounging off the state though cause they can't be arsed to get a job.

Yes, I know not all poor people are scroungers.

Dry your eyes.

Out of interest, where do you sit on a landowner taking a subsidy for leaving some land fallow, rather than farming or developing it? When is taking advantage of some offer of government money or tax break OK and when is it scrounging?

What I would say it the UK is far better off having more rich people who are greedy than poor people who are greedy.

Because...? Better off how?

It's just prejudice against the poor.

In his mind, greedy poor people don't work hard, just want hand outs, whereas rich people work harder to earn more money.

He'd rather the poor to stay poor rather than do their best not be...

I'd imagine he is thinking that technically we would be better off as they pay tax, which rather depends on how greedy they are.

Most arguments depend on your view of poor and rich people really, a lot people have a romantic view of poor people working hard and being held down, the same people might have a view that rich people are stealing all the money and keeping it for themselves.

Other people think all poor people are scroungers and rich people are hard working.

Both are ridiculously simplistic. I try to remind myself that hating rich people for rich is the same as hating poor people for being poor, we can't be prejudice against people because I don't like them. We need to make it possible for rich people to become rich and stay rich (whilst paying taxes), I would hate to live somewhere that prevented me from becoming rich through hard work. That doesn't stop us looking after the poor and vulnerable, inequality isn't interchangeable with poor standard of living.

The reason why things flipflop between good and bad for rich and poor is because everyone is incapable of thinking about things sensibly and have to be polarised before we have a say

I'm not sure where I'm going with this anymore...

dinyull

People who judge the poor need to spend a day in their shoes.

About 4 years back the company I worked for got liquidated, in the process I went unpaid for 3 months prior to it disbanding and had to apply for my missed wages and redundancy package from a govt insurance fund. Luckily I had savings to fall back on as it took another 10 weeks before I received a penny.

In the meantime I was down the job centre just after the introduction of universal credit and told because of the new scheme I'd only receive job seekers for 4 months as I'd only paid in so much since it's introduction (I had worked since leaving school for the past 13 years).

It was disgusting going in there for 15 mins once a week - people with absolutely nothing getting sanctioned (docked pay) over petty sh*te. Place just dragged the life out of you and their advisers were an absolute joke looking down at everyone who entered the place.

The reason I was out of work was because of govt cuts - I'm sure a lot of others in there were in the same boat too - and there was sweet fa on the job front. Not one reply to job applications over 3 months of sending out application forms each and every day.

Luckily a friend recommended me to their boss and I got a job off the back of that. Will do everything I can to never go back and have to claim.