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 MatureStudent36)
    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?
    Explain to me why a system that gives the average person from the top 1% 150 times more wealth than the average person from the bottom 50% is superior to a system where they have only 100 times more wealth and the difference is used to pay back debts and put an end to austerity? Is the potential of having 100 times more wealth than your peers not enough of an incentive to succeed?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alex-Torres)
    I think society should be fairer and reduce poverty.
    Read the attached article.
    What do you think?
    Attached Images
  1. File Type: pdf Pogge - Real World Justice - Journal of Ethics.pdf (180.9 KB, 93 views)
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    We should be helping other countries develop economically which includes reforming various International Organisations for example the World Bank
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)

    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.
    Yes, despite the ruling party still using the word "communist", the China system has little to do with socialism - it's more like a kind of state corporate model, with tolerance of private wealth and corrupt oligarchies, which is widespread in Asia and also (increasingly) in other parts of the world.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Redolent)
    Explain to me why a system that gives the average person from the top 1% 150 times more wealth than the average person from the bottom 50% is superior to a system where they have only 100 times more wealth and the difference is used to pay back debts and put an end to austerity? Is the potential of having 100 times more wealth than your peers not enough of an incentive to succeed?

    Because its equal and therefore it's fare.
    what you're proposing is not equal and not fare.

    look at the rich list fir the UK. It's not full of the aristocracy. It's continually changing. History is full of examples of riches to rags story's as well of rags to riches.

    these people are already getting heavily taxed and your advocating keep on hitting them.

    why don't you come out and say what you really mean. You want something that somebody else has got and you don't want to work for it. You want to take away money that will be used as capital for investments that will create growth and jobs so you can have free money to go to the pub with, or buy clothes and video games with.

    i notice you're under the impression these people are given the money. They're not. They've earned it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    why the shock
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SamHedges)
    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.
    Fair enough though if you talk the new network in some instances they will buy you out (may only be for expensive contracts though).

    My wider point though is that people need to make capitalism work for them by exploiting competition. It may be less convenient however the result is 9 pieces of toilet paper at a similar quality to Andrex for 98p (a quarter of the price as in Tesco).
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    personally I don't see the problem of a small percentage of the population holding a large proportion of the countries wealth. the CEO of a large company is going to earn more than the person cleaning their office, because there are more people who can do the cleaners job.

    there is always going to be wage inequality. if the person above you earns the same, why would you bother progressing. if starting a successful business is going to earn you the same as working for somebody else, why bother?
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    The World Bank, the IMF etc should reduce the debt of developing nations
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by laserocrates)
    how much do you earn in a year?
    I work for myself, I'd rather not say how much I earn. Lets just say I'm not exactly struggling for money
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lucaf)
    personally I don't see the problem of a small percentage of the population holding a large proportion of the countries wealth. the CEO of a large company is going to earn more than the person cleaning their office, because there are more people who can do the cleaners job.

    there is always going to be wage inequality. if the person above you earns the same, why would you bother progressing. if starting a successful business is going to earn you the same as working for somebody else, why bother?
    It's a question of the extreme nature of it. It may be fine for one person to be much richer than another, but if you live in a town where one person owns 99% of everything and everyone else owns a shoebox, might you not think that's a bit of a problem for everyone else? Especially when that one person is able to bribe the town council to do his bidding, has his own police force and can tell you to leave town whenever he likes, hire and fire everyone and prevent anyone else from competing with him?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Because its equal and therefore it's fare.
    what you're proposing is not equal and not fare.

    look at the rich list fir the UK. It's not full of the aristocracy. It's continually changing. History is full of examples of riches to rags story's as well of rags to riches.

    these people are already getting heavily taxed and your advocating keep on hitting them.

    why don't you come out and say what you really mean. You want something that somebody else has got and you don't want to work for it. You want to take away money that will be used as capital for investments that will create growth and jobs so you can have free money to go to the pub with, or buy clothes and video games with.
    You didn't answer my question properly, you have just thrown out vague phrase like "it's not equal and not fair" without explaining why. I'll tell you what's not equal and not fair, the wealthiest 1% having 3 times more wealth than the bottom 50%, or 150 times more on average. They're already getting heavily taxed? My heart bleeds for them. They're actually getting taxed pretty proportionately compared to the amount of wealth they have and they would have it cut down even further. If the richest 1% had just 100 times more wealth on average than the poorest 50%, there would still plenty of incentive to succeed, because that's still an obscene amount of wealth. The world wouldn't fall to pieces.

    On the point of your last paragraph, you know what, as far as my life is concerned I don't really care. I live a comfortable middle class life in a nice town and it is enough for me. I'm not asking for the government to give me anything more than what I have. My problem is that there are people far poorer than me all over the world starving, and the wealthiest 1% are far more capable than I am of fixing that problem without it significantly affecting their quality of life. And they've managed to trick millions of people into thinking things are okay as they are, because it's bad to "punish the successful" by giving them 10,000% more wealth than the majority of others instead of 15,000% more.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    The guy in the second video seems to be unable to differentiate between wealth and income

    Income is the inflow of money whereas wealth is the total assets.

    Wealth is always going to be distributed much more unequally and it gives entirely the wrong image to refer to it as income.

    It is not possibly to redistribute wealth. However, after taxes (progressive system) the distribution of income is much more equal.

    I am not saying I agree with this inequality but this has given the video zero credibility in my eyes.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Morgsie)
    We should be helping other countries develop economically which includes reforming various International Organisations for example the World Bank

    We already are. And then in economic strife we hark back to the glory days of heavy industry and try and propose protectionist policies to secure british jobs.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    We already are. And then in economic strife we hark back to the glory days of heavy industry and try and propose protectionist policies to secure british jobs.
    Free Trade is the way to go. I am against the proposals to cut the International Development Budget
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    A lot of people only become so rich because of things we ourselves do e.g. footballers earn millions because people pay to buy expensive tickets to football matches.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Yes, despite the ruling party still using the word "communist", the China system has little to do with socialism - it's more like a kind of state corporate model, with tolerance of private wealth and corrupt oligarchies, which is widespread in Asia and also (increasingly) in other parts of the world.
    It'll change. Most successful nations start off like that. Germans staterted off like that in the early 20th cetury with the Werkbund, Korea with the Chaebol and Japan with the Karetzu. Look at other examples throughout history. People yearm for democracy and it'll come through eventually. That's why China keeps a close eye on it's disidents.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Redolent)
    You didn't answer my question properly, you have just thrown out vague phrase like "it's not equal and not fair" without explaining why.

    I really can't make this anymore simpler. If you start treating people differently because of who or what they are. It's not equal. You're saying let's try and take from the rich. Why not say, lets try and take from the Jew/Black/Asian/Gay. It is fare as these people pay more in taxes than you and I do (45% tax rate, bigger hit on inheritance tax and have to gamble their money not somebody elses.)

    I'll tell you what's not equal and not fair, the wealthiest 1% having 3 times more wealth than the bottom 50%, or 150 times more on average.

    We all have control over our own destiny.

    They're already getting heavily taxed? My heart bleeds for them. They're actually getting taxed pretty proportionately compared to the amount of wealth they have and they would have it cut down even further.

    I'd agree with your statement above if we were all paying a flat tax rate, but we're not. So no, they are getting taxed disproportioally.


    If the richest 1% had just 100 times more wealth on average than the poorest 50%, there would still plenty of incentive to succeed, because that's still an obscene amount of wealth. The world wouldn't fall to pieces.

    Probably not, but the wheels of commerce would certainly slow down as we're penalising success. Remember that when these people are successful, it has a knock on effect. Even the bottom 50% have seen dramatic improvements in their take home pay, life expectancy etc etc etc.

    On the point of your last paragraph, you know what, as far as my life is concerned I don't really care. I live a comfortable middle class life in a nice town and it is enough for me.

    I figured that you were a champagne socialist. You have no drive, or ambitionn. That's you're personal choice. But some people want to better themselves, and some will be very successful.

    In fact a quick look at the top ten of the UKs richest people.
    http://www.richest-people.co.uk/the-top-100/
    Shows only 1 member of the aristocracy. But he's done well to keep hold of his money as there's plenty of the aristocracy that have lost it.
    Take a look at Number 7. Where he was born and why he changed his nationality. You can also read up on some very wealthy French people walking away from France.

    Interestingly enough they pretty much all seem to give a large chunk of their wealth away to desrving causes.


    I'm not asking for the government to give me anything more than what I have.

    Well you are, as you're asking for a tax cut yourself to be financed by taking even more money from people who are already give proportionally more than you.

    My problem is that there are people far poorer than me all over the world starving, and the wealthiest 1% are far more capable than I am of fixing that problem without it significantly affecting their quality of life.

    But they already do. I'll bet money that you however don't do anything. You like the idea of helping somebody else, but you'd much rather somebody else did it on your behalf.

    And they've managed to trick millions of people into thinking things are okay as they are, because it's bad to "punish the successful" by giving them 10,000% more wealth than the majority of others instead of 15,000% more.

    The only people who think it's unfair are those with sour grapes are those who are unwilling to be truthful and admit that they want some of it.
    If you're so bothered why don't you try and move out of your comfort zone, become successfull so you can be in charge of a big organisation that creates jobs for people and do you're bit for Corporate Social Responsibilty instead of whining about it from Suburbia.

    See above in Bold
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dragonfly07)
    I agree with the OP completely. If it means everyone gets equal pay for equal work, then I would gladly share 90% of my income with other countries. They work for next to nothing, and so do I in comparison to the top 1%.

    If a world like that existed then no one would live in poverty because all jobs would pay enough for survival.
    Your likely to actually be in the top 4% of the worlds earners, and would have to share an incredible 96% of your earnings with people who would, compartively give you little in return. Could you survive on 4% of your current salary?

    Could you buy a weeks meals, let alone rent a house?

    Would you continue working as hard without punishment?

    Besides, if the world did share salaries, the majority of UKs jobs (service, 72%), would disappear, since nobody can afford services, aswell as manufacturing, leaving about the 3% of our employment in the farming or primary industry. So your now living of roughly (4/33) = 0.12% of your previous salary. Factoring in the lower wages of farming workers, the fact that income would drop (everyone has less money), maybe 0.012%.

    The modern world of luxuary - yes survival, aswell as housing, water, etc, is not possible with shared wealth, as everyone has too little to buy anything. Survival is a serious luxuary - over a 3rd of the worlds population are children - just the known population. Over half of children die in undeveloped countries, we simply do not have the food to feed 7 billion people with shared resources. The reality is, that kids and a adults die to farm us food in other countries, then other markets give us luxuaries to spend on other then food. The earth cannot feed all humans, thats why millions die everyday because of starvation.

    Finnaly, you say you work for nothing compared to the 1% - but in reality they don't generally work as hard as you would anyway - they worked early in life and paid the price, early in life, enterprised and went forth, through risk, homelessness, debt, poverty, discouragment, bravely straying from norm and, although not in the top 1%, I believe they worked for (generally) and should therefore be aloud to keep every penny they earn. Not only this, but without the 1%, many people forget that up to 75% of benefits would be striped overnight - due to these people paying that much income tax in percentile - 100%, if you include the fact that these provide your jobs which pay income tax and therefore benefits.

    The top 1% pay for the bottom 75% and I am happy to know I can one day become one, but if I fail, or want to change course, they will support me through benefits. What are your thoughts?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Redolent)
    Explain to me why a system that gives the average person from the top 1% 150 times more wealth than the average person from the bottom 50% is superior to a system where they have only 100 times more wealth and the difference is used to pay back debts and put an end to austerity? Is the potential of having 100 times more wealth than your peers not enough of an incentive to succeed?
    Because you'd see around 50% less of these rich people, mainly because people on the way give up easier if taxed more.

    There is a certain point where enough people strive yet the tax is high enough to overally generate the biggest profit per member of population, and UK|US have hit it on the head. Seen many times over history, increasing(virtually impossible) or lowering this ratio innaturally causes economic crisis.
 
 
 
Poll
If you won £30,000, which of these would you spend it on?

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.