Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

1% of the Population hold 40% of the Wealth. Watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Well, how about we discuss some specific plans then?

    How about we set a cap on the amount people can inherit. On the whole, people do not object to people who are highly productive, innovative or creative becoming rich through their efforts, fame and success. However, most people do think it unfair that their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren, should, through no personal effort, become very rich from birth. People also think inheritance is hard to avoid, because parents will always strive to give their children advantages. At the same time, very large transfers of wealth between generations cause the rise of aristocratic, isolated elites, with complete power over everyone else - with money comes power and a severe threat to democracy and to the idea that society is fair and all can rise.

    Therefore, why not set a limit on how much can be inherited? This idea is supported by some billionaires and very rich people. It could be set at some value like, say, £10m. It is easily arguable that nobody needs more than that to have a very good (unearned) standard of living for life.
    I completely disagree with this. I don't see why people who have worked to earn their money aren't able to pass this down to their children who they love. Tax it hard by all means, but capping it is just wrong
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by green.tea)
    Personally I think pure capitalism suffers from a similar problem to communism. In a communist society a bent taxi driver makes more than a top scientist despite the fact that the scientist contributes far more. In a capitalist society people with potential to contribute end up becoming bankers and making loads of cash. I think cultural attitudes can be changed in a way that puts greater emphasis on esteem that isn't so linked to money. I think Japan is a good example of a society without the aforementioned problems to the same degree as America largely because of cultural attitudes rather than a non capitalist system.
    This.

    The problem is in the definition of the meritocracy i think all of us want to achieve (capitalists and socialists) in that we all want the more highly skilled to earn more because of their greater contribution to society however the flaw in the system currently is the financial contribution to society by bankers is deemed to be greater than the knowledge and technology contribution to society from scientists despite the fact that scientists are of much greater benefit to society as a whole.

    I personally think the solution here is simply to provide incentive's for the creation of technology businesses and educational establishments ect... so that there are more scientific jobs available paying higher salaries to attract talent.

    .........

    OP, whilst your no doubt a very nice person believing that wealth should be distributed equally you appear not to take into account that some people are more skilled than others and are of greater importance to society as a whole. Whilst i agree that i should provide a minimum safety net to those who are incapable i do not believe that it should go beyond the minimum.

    The human race should never be as slow as its slowest member.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Acruzen)
    I completely disagree with this. I don't see why people who have worked to earn their money aren't able to pass this down to their children who they love. Tax it hard by all means, but capping it is just wrong
    Why not go the other way? Why not remove the inheritance taxes and set an upper limit on inheritance? That way we would achieve several things - make the system fairer overall, offer more inducement to people to achieve and pass on and limit the harm to society and individuals caused by massive, massive wealth transfers and "wealth hiding".

    Look, I don't know where the cap should be set, but realistically 99% of the population are never going to pass on more than a few million. I know a great many people fantasise about doing more, but most don't ever get there.
    • Section Leader
    • Political Ambassador
    • Reporter Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    There is no point to have rich people unless it is to the benefit of greater society. To the degree that the rich are too rich and the poor are too poor, wealth redistribution may be applied. It is also worth noting that money is more valuable to the poor than to the rich: £100 to a poor person is a lot, £100 to a rich person is a drop in the ocean - and this translates into value to our economy. Money held by rich people is merely accumulated; money held by the poor is spent. Economically, to the degree that we would benefit from doing so, we should redistribute money from those with a low propensity to spend (i.e., the rich) and give it to those with a high propensity to spend (i.e., the poor and government programs). The effect of this is to raise equality and create a healthier society.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sugar-n-spice)
    Aside from taking the wealth by force Chavezstyle (have I touched a nerve?) what do you propose?
    (Original post by Miracle Day)
    Woahh.. my family are lower class.. I completely want a fairet economic system.. where did I imply I didn't?

    Also, when have I ever negged for social fairness with religion? I barely ever go to that subforum.
    "Fair, no, equal no" it suggests you don't want fairness in the economy.

    Also, to everyone saying how would one implement this idea. Tax large corporations and thus limit their power, allowing small firms to flourish, who will ultimately pay fair tax, as big firms can avoid to do tax avoidance by setting up in Jersey etc...

    Also, we can provide tax reliefs for the poor to allow them to spend more and get money circulating around the economy.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    I'm certainly not denying them the fruit of their parent's and grandparent's wealth - the proposed figure of £10m (just a suggestion - it might be higher or lower) is hardly "denial". The issue is about what is reasonable and just for society as a whole, rather than just the interests of the heirs. However, we could also look at the impact of great wealth on young inheritors, the history of that tends to demonstrate that it hardly does them much good on the whole. However, the main point is what creates a healthy society.
    This is sophistry. Imagine I am a billionaire. You are denying me the fruits of the vast majority of my wealth. To say of this that it's "hardly denial" doesn't make any sense at all.

    Fundamentally it's not your money to take. If I pay my dues on the money when I earn it, what right do you have to take it all from me when I die?

    In any event, I'd like to see how you'd respond to everything else I said, particularly to the problems raised in the video I linked.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    a couple of points there.
    firstly, people like my father have worked hard to get him out of abject poverty. He's not driven by personal wealth. He's been driven by ensuring he's able to make sure that none of his children had to suffer the way he did. He also instilled those values in his children. I'm not driven to succeed by nice holidays and flash cars. I'm driven to make sure my kids have a better start in life than I had......... And so the cycle carriers on.

    secondly your assuming that all of these wealthy people have the cash in the bank. Pretty much all of these wealthy people have assets in the form of successful company's. are you advocating people are forced to break up successful company's? Good bye JCB, BMW, tata etc.

    thirdly you'll see that in many cases these rich people do give money away as part of philanthropic activities. Walk around any campus and you'll see buildings dedicated to them.
    In the case of big companies, it's unusual in most countries for a large company not to be public - therefore the issue would be about passing shares on, which can easily be assessed for value. There are some (not many) very large private companies, but I'm sure a mechanism could be devised to distribute their value without breaking them up as going concerns. I am also not proposing a limit to how much new wealth the heirs accumulate in their own lifetimes - so for example, in the proposal, an heir who received £10m of the value of a large company could continue to control and build the company and gain more wealth during their own lifetime.

    I'm basically suggesting a relatively painless way to break up the old aristocratic wealth which controls huge blocks of land and property and which acts as a permanent obstacle to a meritocratic society. This is especially clear in the US, where multi-generational trusts create a small legion of permanently "idle rich" abstracted from society - the results, a corrupted Congress, frozen political system geared only to the interests of the rich and a crumbling public infrastructure, are plain for all to see.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    This is sophistry. Imagine I am a billionaire. You are denying me the fruits of the vast majority of my wealth. To say of this that it's "hardly denial" doesn't make any sense at all.

    Fundamentally it's not your money to take. If I pay my dues on the money when I earn it, what right do you have to take it all from me when I die?

    In any event, I'd like to see how you'd respond to everything else I said, particularly to the problems raised in the video I linked.
    I'm sorry, I haven't had time yet to look at the video - I will try later.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alex-Torres)
    I found this video interesting, and think he's absolutely right. We're suckers to Corporate businesses and should make an equal more fair society. Thoughts?

    Why is this under Uk Politics?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alex-Torres)
    "Fair, no, equal no" it suggests you don't want fairness in the economy.

    Also, to everyone saying how would one implement this idea. Tax large corporations and thus limit their power, allowing small firms to flourish, who will ultimately pay fair tax, as big firms can avoid to do tax avoidance by setting up in Jersey etc...

    Also, we can provide tax reliefs for the poor to allow them to spend more and get money circulating around the economy.
    One guy said it was fair, I quoted him and corrected his post to not fair. How on Earth does that imply what you're saying?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dez)
    If you look at the world's population chances are you're already in the top 10% (or whatever, exact stats aren't important) of earners already, mainly from being born into an affluent country (i.e. the UK). It's all very well saying the rich corporations should share out their wealth with others, but do you do the same with yours? If you're not happy to give 90% of your cash to developing countries, why should these corporations do the same?
    Within this country, the only reason anyone has wealth is because of our infrastructure, so we as a country are tied together. It we didn't all agree to follow a code of conduct (or close enough) of what we can and can't do, then nobody'd be able to accumulate anything. That simply isn't true of the relationship between countries - in fact, we have armies just in case someone does decide to try and take our stuff.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    I'm sorry, I haven't had time yet to look at the video - I will try later.
    It's only 2 minutes -- I'm not playing that trick where people link a 40 minute video and demand that you watch all of it otherwise you 'lose'. It's just a convenient medium for conveying what I want to say. I can type it out, if it would really help...
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    How is this thread relevant to UK Politics?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Going back to my initial point,

    The country's wealthiest 1% have 3 times more wealth than its poorest 50%.

    So let's say we are worried about interfering with this, because they have worked harder and contributed more to society in order to get that (extremely debatable), is it really so unfair that they should perhaps have just 2 times more wealth than the poorest 50% instead? Instead of accepting them being 150 times wealthier on average, can't we say, isn't being 100 times more wealthy enough? Is that not a step in the right direction?

    It's not like that's going to destroy all incentive to succeed and make a contribution to society. I'm sure the whole of the bottom 50% of society would love a chance to become part of the 1%, and multiply their wealth by 100, so why is that not enough? This isn't about taxing them until there is no incentive left to succeed, it's about taking small steps in a more even direction and re-evaluating whether it has improved the situation. I'm almost certain it would. The societal benefits of higher levels of economic equality are well documented and include lower crime rates, better health, higher level of life satisfaction and a better sense of community.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Morgsie)
    How is this thread relevant to UK Politics?
    Because corporate businesses also dictate UK Politics.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SamHedges)
    I was thinking earlier how we're so often swindled by big business. Companies charge what they like without regulation and the consumers are left to suffer. I got thinking about this because of my contract increasing by about 70p per month due to inflation, what affect does inflation have on the cost of making phone calls, browsing or sending a text? It's just an excuse to rinse me for more money.

    It's the same with most big businesses though, a few months back a law was brought in to prevent insurers discriminating by gender, instead of making men's insurance cheaper and meeting halfway, they just bring women's up to the same level and take the profit. Bankers continue to enjoy million pound bonuses whilst interest rates continue to fall and on a smaller level, I was just reading about how ink cartridges were produced at about a twentieth of what they're sold for.
    Your correct that these businesses are trying to extract further profit from you however that is why competition occurs. When 3 raise their price you switch to Giff-Gaff or Tesco, when they raise their prices you switch again. Why should these businesses be blamed when in this case it appears you are not exploring your options (make the capitalist system work for you, not the other way around).

    You are correct and it was no surprise however this is also a regulatory failure because it is the role of government to set the rules (even i accept a purely free market does not work), had a simple rule being created then that would not have occurred.

    (Original post by Alex-Torres)
    Well China's economic growth seems to be working through the work of Communism, but like I have said several times, I AM NOT ARGUING FOR COMMUNISM, BUT FOR FAIRNESS.
    If you believe that China is remotely communist then i suggest that you improve your knowledge of economics. China was for a time a command economy (more socialist than communist) however in the late 1970's it began a serious of reforms to create a market economy which is what it is today.

    I'd also note that it was not a communist who China voted the greatest man of the 20th century, it was the Scottish civil servant who created the pristine capitalist nation of Hong Kong and forever changed Asia.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nick1sHere)
    Why work hard, my money will all be shared with everyone and I'll be left in the same position as them
    how much do you earn in a year?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Your correct that these businesses are trying to extract further profit from you however that is why competition occurs. When 3 raise their price you switch to Giff-Gaff or Tesco, when they raise their prices you switch again. Why should these businesses be blamed when in this case it appears you are not exploring your options (make the capitalist system work for you, not the other way around).
    I would but to leave I have to buy myself out of the contract and the money I'd save would be negated by the amount I'd have to pay out.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alex-Torres)
    Because corporate businesses also dictate UK Politics.
    This got negged but it's true, corporations pay to keep political parties afloat, their donations are more or less essential. That means political parties become accountable to these groups and voters often become secondary. It's extremely naive to think these corporations are donating so much for reasons other than self-benefit.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    In the case of big companies, it's unusual in most countries for a large company not to be public - therefore the issue would be about passing shares on, which can easily be assessed for value. There are some (not many) very large private companies, but I'm sure a mechanism could be devised to distribute their value without breaking them up as going concerns. I am also not proposing a limit to how much new wealth the heirs accumulate in their own lifetimes - so for example, in the proposal, an heir who received £10m of the value of a large company could continue to control and build the company and gain more wealth during their own lifetime.

    I'm basically suggesting a relatively painless way to break up the old aristocratic wealth which controls huge blocks of land and property and which acts as a permanent obstacle to a meritocratic society. This is especially clear in the US, where multi-generational trusts create a small legion of permanently "idle rich" abstracted from society - the results, a corrupted Congress, frozen political system geared only to the interests of the rich and a crumbling public infrastructure, are plain for all to see.
    Share holders own big corporations . Be it individuals or pension funds. It's their money that's being out at risk. Sometimes it works well and those investors make money, but equally sometimes they loose money.

    the public ownership however doesn't always happen. Tata, BMW, JCB etc are still family owned entities as are an awful lot of the German Firms.


    what you're however proposing is penalising success by taking away some of that value. Why would you do that other than to re distribute wealth to the less successful?
 
 
 
Poll
Which web browser do you use?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.