Distribution of wealth

One of the main problems is that much of the wealth is concentrated into a small minority and retain that wealth throughout the generations and thus there offspring have far better chances in life through in particular private school through virtue of their ancestors.

I know next to nothing about politics but I had some thoughts on the distribution of wealth in the UK.

When people view statistics on the distribution of wealth, comments such as "it's unfair" or "it's unjust" are not uncommon. But surely we should expect that? I would assume that wealth is inversely proportional to the number of people.

Thoughts?

I agree to some extent. You would expect some to earn more than others. However, I think that the key question is social mobility. If you have more money, you can invest more. Just a quick glance at basic bank accounts shows that if you have more than £5000, for example, to invest, then you earn a bigger interest rate. On a broader scale, that means that those with more money are able to make more money. The question is whether somebody with little money can make that step to having money to invest. That is why people think it's unfair or unjust, because it's so easy to get trapped in a low income cycle...

Inequality is detrimental to the health of our economy and to the livelihoods of ordinary people. Not only this, but is a reflection of the fundamental injustice and unfairness of a capitalist economy.

For example, in the UK, a CEO can expect to earn 50-150 times as much money as the lowest paid worker in his company. Does the CEO work 100 times harder than the average-salaried employee? Of course not - so why does he deserve that pay scale?

Or, let's take another example. The richest people in our country earn money through investments, which require absolutely no work at all - they simply place bets on the hard work of other people. This nets them insane profits, yet they don't have to work for that money themselves. And, if those investments go wrong as they did in 2008, the government bails them out.

There are bankers and businessmen living extravagant lifestyles in London while other families are struggling to feed themselves. Inequality and poverty are scandals of the 21st century.

Inequality is detrimental to the health of our economy and to the livelihoods of ordinary people. Not only this, but is a reflection of the fundamental injustice and unfairness of a capitalist economy.

For example, in the UK, a CEO can expect to earn 50-150 times as much money as the lowest paid worker in his company. Does the CEO work 100 times harder than the average-salaried employee? Of course not - so why does he deserve that pay scale?

Or, let's take another example. The richest people in our country earn money through investments, which require absolutely no work at all - they simply place bets on the hard work of other people. This nets them insane profits, yet they don't have to work for that money themselves. And, if those investments go wrong as they did in 2008, the government bails them out.

There are bankers and businessmen living extravagant lifestyles in London while other families are struggling to feed themselves. Inequality and poverty are scandals of the 21st century.

Just tell me this guys. Why is it fair a retired banker earns more than cleaner who works 12 hour days on zero hour contracts for her whole life while trying to support her two kids? Why is it fair that the richest merely inherit their wealth while the rest of us work for it?

It's not fair. The working class are the wealth creators and the investors are the wealth holders - it isn't fair and it needs to change.

Partly true . Wealth is concentrated on a small minority, however its rarely the same people. That grouping continually changes. The Van der Belts and Carnegies of yesterday aren't the in top place now.

Capital continues to flow. Some keep their money, others loose it. As they loose it, others replace them.

How many of the FT top 100 come from landed aristocracy? The answer is not many. Bernie Eccleston for example is wealthy, but I doubt his children or future generations will be as wealthy.

This is 2014. not 1914.

A good point but that logic pertains to extreme wealth. Generally we are talking about the 'upper class'. Not famously rich but nevertheless they'll be wealthy enough to send there children to private schools and their children's children etc. (not that that is a bad thing in itself) Wealth does carry on. This is best scene in the 'political elite' in the UK and Japan.