[Fward]

(Original post by politics_student)
Can you clarify, please?

Even the people who do not contribute anything to society?

It's a bit unfair, considering the "top 1%" may put a lot of effort into building and maintaining the wealth, for the government to spread it to people who may not deserve it.

I think the argument is that for the majority of the 1%, they don't put a lot of effort in and get their wealth through family connections and status...whereas many people who put a hell of lot of effort into achieving the exact same thing, can't achieve it because they have no connection in the 'higher' end of society...

[The Hedonist]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qi8clPrg7kc

[fuzznbass]

(Original post by Shani)
The point I was getting at, and the point you seem to be missing, is that "the rich" seem to think they're hard done by, they have it hard, they deserve every penny they have (*) and "the poor" deserve every penny they don't have.

Reality and society [the society they owe everything to - as without them, they'd have nothing] means they're deluded.

* Some, of course, will deserve what they have, whilst some don't deserve it at all.

Well many rich are unfairly demonised, but others aren't yes, I'm not saying that rich people don't owe a lot to society- they do. I'm saying that a lot of them give back which a lot of people choose to ignore.

http://www.businessinsider.com/most-...eorge-soros-25

So these people are deluded ?

[MagicNMedicine]

I agree.

In the Soviet Union there were a lot of haters who begrudged the fact that the elite who worked for The Party and committed their lives for The Party were entitled to more than other people.

But the way I see it it just inspires others to make the sacrifice for the Fatherland that the 1% who were willing to did, so that they could enjoy the same privileges.

[Iron Lady]

Nothing.

[Spungo]

80-20 rule.
It's that way just because that's the way it has to be. It's the only stable situation. If you displaced it and gave every single person in the world exactly the same amount of wealth, it wouldn't take long for the wealth to redistribute itself back into 80-20, through war, manipulation, etc etc.

[Shani]

(Original post by fuzznbass)
Well many rich are unfairly demonised, but others aren't yes, I'm not saying that rich people don't owe a lot to society- they do. I'm saying that a lot of them give back which a lot of people choose to ignore.

http://www.businessinsider.com/most-...eorge-soros-25

So these people are deluded ?

lol Whilst some of them, and of the other in the "1%" will have donated from the goodness of their hearts, the reality is, for the majority of those that donate, it's a drop in the ocean and a nice bit of publicity. The #1 on that list donated 2%. There will be many "average joes" who donates much, much more than that.

So, whilst it's good that they do donate, I personally wouldn't hold them on a pedestal for it.

I agree that some rich are demonised and shouldn't be. However, on the same token, many of "the poor" are also demonised and are told "it's your own fault you're not in the 1%" when for most, it's no one's fault other than lady luck.

[fuzznbass]

(Original post by Shani)
lol Whilst some of them, and of the other in the "1%" will have donated from the goodness of their hearts, the reality is, for the majority of those that donate, it's a drop in the ocean and a nice bit of publicity. The #1 on that list donated 2%. There will be many "average joes" who donates much, much more than that.

So, whilst it's good that they do donate, I personally wouldn't hold them on a pedestal for it.

I agree that some rich are demonised and shouldn't be. However, on the same token, many of "the poor" are also demonised and are told "it's your own fault you're not in the 1%" when for most, it's no one's fault other than lady luck.

Notice how one of them made their fortune through organ transplant medicine, another set up biomed research foundation, another open society foundation. They can do a lot of good because of their money. I agree many poor are demonised but not by the 1%, usually by knee jerk reactions from ordinary people- i.e people knocking 'dole scroungers'.

[George231086]

It's funny how certain things in wider society are acceptable which if scaled down to say a group of ten people would not be acceptable. For example, suppose you had ten people living on an island, one of which has mountains of food, 100 beds and enough fuel to keep themselves warm for 100 years. The other 9 people have just enough food to keep them going, a few leaves they've managed to put together to make a bed and sufficient fuel to keep them warm if they only use it sparingly.

Most people would look at such a situation as being inherently unfair. When there is enough for everyone to eat well, sleep comfortably and stay warm, why is that selfish guy hogging it all?

Now let's say the guy is willing to share a little. He will give each person a little more food, fuel etc, but in exchange they have to work 40 hours a week growing crops and mining coal. He is then given the proceeds of this work and hands back a few potatoes and lumps of coal. Maybe the people should just grow the crops for themselves? Oh no, they can't as he owns the land and mines. Still seems unfair to me.

I've got no problem with people earning a good wage and becoming wealthy, but I can't understand how somebody earning a million a year can't afford to contribute through tax to help the less wealthy. Considering that many of these less wealthy people may actually be that way because they are paid the bear minimum to work the maximum amount of hours creating the wealth of the millionaire.

[Barden]

(Original post by ruperts)
The economy would fall to pieces. It would be absolute chaos. It's obviously completely unrealistic, but the point is that it demonstrates how even "the 99%" in this country is very rich in comparison with the rest of the world despite not working any "harder" etc., and that if you support wealth redistribution then you are essentially supporting having your own 'luck' dissected and spread across the world.

Well obviously we wouldn't be using a market economy if wealth was evenly distributed. So the point that the economy would crumble is moot: there would be no market economy to fall apart.

[Barden]

(Original post by George231086)
It's funny how certain things in wider society are acceptable which if scaled down to say a group of ten people would not be acceptable. For example, suppose you had ten people living on an island, one of which has mountains of food, 100 beds and enough fuel to keep themselves warm for 100 years. The other 9 people have just enough food to keep them going, a few leaves they've managed to put together to make a bed and sufficient fuel to keep them warm if they only use it sparingly.

Most people would look at such a situation as being inherently unfair. When there is enough for everyone to eat well, sleep comfortably and stay warm, why is that selfish guy hogging it all?

Now let's say the guy is willing to share a little. He will give each person a little more food, fuel etc, but in exchange they have to work 40 hours a week growing crops and mining coal. He is then given the proceeds of this work and hands back a few potatoes and lumps of coal. Maybe the people should just grow the crops for themselves? Oh no, they can't as he owns the land and mines. Still seems unfair to me.

I've got no problem with people earning a good wage and becoming wealthy, but I can't understand how somebody earning a million a year can't afford to contribute through tax to help the less wealthy. Considering that many of these less wealthy people may actually be that way because they are paid the bear minimum to work the maximum amount of hours creating the wealth of the millionaire.

But if everyone just worked harder, they could all own the land and the mines! This makes so much more sense

/sarcasm

[Shani]

(Original post by fuzznbass)
Notice how one of them made their fortune through organ transplant medicine, another set up biomed research foundation, another open society foundation. They can do a lot of good because of their money. I agree many poor are demonised but not by the 1%, usually by knee jerk reactions from ordinary people- i.e people knocking 'dole scroungers'.

Indeed, they certainly can and do do a lot of good, I'm not disputing that fact at all.

In the same way each of the 1% shouldn't be tarred with the same brush, neither should the 99%.

Not all of the 1% are rich snobs who couldn't give a toss about poor folk.

Neither are all of the 99% poor idiots who deserve crumbs.

Swings and roundabouts.


I guess what's really got my goat with the most recent budget is that the 1% got a tax cut, whilst I, once again for the... 3rd? 4th? year running see my household income in real terms cut. Again.

I'm a married mum of 3, and when KFC are now charging £13.99 PLUS £2.84 for a boneless bargain bucket whilst Mr 1% gets his tax break and laughs in my face, I just want to spit in his face.

[Herr]

(Original post by Shani)

What I do wish though, is that the 1% would quit telling the 99% "we're all in it together" when that's clearly not the case.

We don't... it's the politicians that keep telling it to you

[Herr]

(Original post by fuzznbass)
Many of the rich are/have pledging their fortunes away- Gates, Buffett, Bannatyne, Carnegie. Many rich feel a duty to do so.

Oh, you could say it's all a lie just to toy/screw us ordinary working folk over of course if you still want to.

There are very little evidence to suggest that the rich are *giving away* their money... many of them are placing it in foundations or trust funds.... quite often for the sole purpose of escaping estate duties.

Suddenly when you lift the veil of those foundations you'd realize what the real story is.

Either way it isn't all their monies that go into those foundations where they claim they would give away 99% of it, it rarely ever means that they are donating 99% of it to charity.

[fuzznbass]

(Original post by Shani)
Indeed, they certainly can and do do a lot of good, I'm not disputing that fact at all.

In the same way each of the 1% shouldn't be tarred with the same brush, neither should the 99%.

Not all of the 1% are rich snobs who couldn't give a toss about poor folk.

Neither are all of the 99% poor idiots who deserve crumbs.

Swings and roundabouts.


I guess what's really got my goat with the most recent budget is that the 1% got a tax cut, whilst I, once again for the... 3rd? 4th? year running see my household income in real terms cut. Again.

I'm a married mum of 3, and when KFC are now charging £13.99 PLUS £2.84 for a boneless bargain bucket whilst Mr 1% gets his tax break and laughs in my face, I just want to spit in his face.

How many of the 1% do you know, I know that its tough, I used to get £215 a week post tax and that was after my tax was lowered but doesn't mean I hate the rich. Its just the way things work. I think that though big companies should pay staff more- kinda like a minimum wage for them.

[Herr]

(Original post by HJFSS)
...until they lobby for tax breaks, and get tax cuts, and set up tax havens overseas, and claim expenses on trivial items, and and and...

There are so many ways to dodge paying taxes if you're rich it's not even funny.

There is nothing wrong with finding ways and means to pay less taxes.

Everyone does it in one way or another.

[Shani]

(Original post by fuzznbass)
How many of the 1% do you know, I know that its tough, I used to get £215 a week post tax and that was after my tax was lowered but doesn't mean I hate the rich. Its just the way things work. I think that though big companies should pay staff more- kinda like a minimum wage for them.

I wouldn't say I hate the rich at all. I hate some attitudes attributed mostly to the rich. And I hate politicians. But not the rich as a whole

I totally agree that some people should be paid more than others. Effort, skill and supply and demand are all factors that should be taken into account. What I don't agree with is the "make the rich richer and poor poorer" sentiment.

[fuzznbass]

(Original post by Shani)
I wouldn't say I hate the rich at all. I hate some attitudes attributed mostly to the rich. And I hate politicians. But not the rich as a whole

I totally agree that some people should be paid more than others. Effort, skill and supply and demand are all factors that should be taken into account. What I don't agree with is the "make the rich richer and poor poorer" sentiment.

Agreed

[nmudz_009]

(Original post by Lulamae)
Many f you may be aware of the documentary film "The One Percent" that talks about the widening gap of wealth in which 1% of the population earns high amounts of money (42% of all wealth) and rest remain 'mediocre.'

I haven't seen the cocumentary, but I have a general question: Why do people hate this fact s much and consider it unfair? Shouldn't it just cause us to work harder and try to get into those 1 percent (should we want to)?

I don't quite understand where all the anger is coming from.

There's a factor of luck involved as well. It's possible that much of the worlds population works very hard for themselves many of them as much as the one %. It's takes a certain amount of luck to be at the right place at the right time and strike gold and make it. I don't see how you can hate someone for being lucky, millions of people do pay a pound for a lottery ticket hoping to make it big without any work at all. Should we not hate them too?

[Tahooper]

(Original post by ruperts)
try dividing world GDP by world population and see how much everybody ends up with.

6840507003 (world population) / 6312000000 (world GDP) = 1.08373051

Did I do something wrong?