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

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

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Talking about income inequality is fair enough but talking about wealth inequality is missing the point. Wealth equality doesn't matter.

    Wealth is just the amount of assets you hold. You can live a champagne lifestyle without being wealthy if you have a big income and spend it all. What matters is people's living standards and that is determined by income. If somebody is relatively poor but each year they earn enough money to live a comfortable life then there is not a problem. The fact they don't stash away money so they can sit on piles of assets isn't suprising.

    You will never achieve wealth equality because even if you tried to redistribute it the poor people would just sell the assets back to the rich. Poor people don't want to hold long term bonds, if you took these off the rich and gave them to them they would cash them in and live a more comfortable lifestyle today.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nick1sHere)
    I work for myself, I'd rather not say how much I earn. Lets just say I'm not exactly struggling for money
    I ask because if you're earning less than the upper 30thousands (the GDP of the UK) and owned less than the top 15% percentile in property (within which is the mean ownership and higher), you would, like a lot of people I ask, rather have more than other people than have more overall. Do you feel this way, and why?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sternumator)
    Talking about income inequality is fair enough but talking about wealth inequality is missing the point. Wealth equality doesn't matter.

    Wealth is just the amount of assets you hold. You can live a champagne lifestyle without being wealthy if you have a big income and spend it all. What matters is people's living standards and that is determined by income. If somebody is relatively poor but each year they earn enough money to live a comfortable life then there is not a problem. The fact they don't stash away money so they can sit on piles of assets isn't suprising.

    You will never achieve wealth equality because even if you tried to redistribute it the poor people would just sell the assets back to the rich. Poor people don't want to hold long term bonds, if you took these off the rich and gave them to them they would cash them in and live a more comfortable lifestyle today.
    Well said.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Redolent)
    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.
    Fine, let's confiscate a million pounds from a British businessman and hand it out to the inhabitants of some Zimbabwean village. Do you really think they'll have time to do anything meaningful with the money before having to give it up to a corrupt oligarch? You might feed the villagers for a week, but ultimately you wouldn't really be helping anyone escape the cycle of poverty.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arbolus)
    Fine, let's confiscate a million pounds from a British businessman and hand it out to the inhabitants of some Zimbabwean village. Do you really think they'll have time to do anything meaningful with the money before having to give it up to a corrupt oligarch? You might feed the villagers for a week, but ultimately you wouldn't really be helping anyone escape the cycle of poverty.
    Again. Well said.

    I feel that some posters on here need to get out a bit more and read a book on economics. Capitalism has improved everybodys lives.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    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.)
    You can't help being a Jew/black/Asian/gay, and it is not a necessary characteristic of being one of those things that you thereby deprive others of resources. Completely nonsensical comparison.

    Targeting blacks/Asians/gays in just about anything is bad because it is important to live and let live and people cannot help what they are. Greed, however, can be helped, and a rich man's greed can effectively doom a poor man to death. I'm not a radical but I do think more should be done to change this.

    We all have control over our own destiny.
    Not as much as you seem to think.


    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.
    They're not because of things like regressive taxes. In this country a person's % wealth roughly corresponds to the % of the tax burden they bear. I gave you sources for this info in another thread.

    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.
    A lot improvements for those on the bottom have actually come at the hands of trade unions and mildly left-wing ideals among those in power, not laissez-faire capitalism.


    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.
    Unbelievable. You're accusing an 18 year old boy who works part time on supermarket checkouts making barely above minimum wage, of being a "champagne socialist". You couldn't make it up. I have plenty of drive and ambition and I'm not going to sit around be insulted by someone like you for taking an interest in the way the world works. I have no idea how you extrapolated any of that from what I wrote but it's completely wrong and offensive at that. Grow up and stop being so condescending.


    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.
    I'm not asking for a tax cut for myself, I specfically said my situation is fine. Why has this turned into a personal attack on me anyway? Would you like to tell me a load of details about your background so I can attack you on it?

    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.
    Because I'm 18 years old and I'm barely out of school. I have good intentions for what I'm going to do if I ever do become successful. Don't be so patronising.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    It is in everyone best interest to make the middle class as large as possible. When this happens everyone is richer due to huge amounts of sales etc.
    All they need to do is cap shares and stocks, and massively tax the rich and then reinvest the money, not piss it away on benefits (UK) or the armed forces (USA).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sternumator)
    Talking about income inequality is fair enough but talking about wealth inequality is missing the point. Wealth equality doesn't matter.

    Wealth is just the amount of assets you hold. You can live a champagne lifestyle without being wealthy if you have a big income and spend it all. What matters is people's living standards and that is determined by income. If somebody is relatively poor but each year they earn enough money to live a comfortable life then there is not a problem. The fact they don't stash away money so they can sit on piles of assets isn't suprising.

    You will never achieve wealth equality because even if you tried to redistribute it the poor people would just sell the assets back to the rich. Poor people don't want to hold long term bonds, if you took these off the rich and gave them to them they would cash them in and live a more comfortable lifestyle today.

    What matters is people's living standards and that is determined by income.
    No. Wealth matters.
    Ever tried to take out a loan without having fixed assets, or by using a guarantor with fixed assets?

    Wealth matters a great deal because you can leverage it.

    If I get fired tomorrow, or I break my leg and cannot work and lose my job as a result, and I have NO wealth, then I'm screwed.

    If I have wealth, then I can either sell my assets OR leverage those assets to get money temporarily.

    To say that wealth inequality is missing the point demonstrates that you yourself are missing the point.

    Poor people don't want to hold long term bonds, if you took these off the rich and gave them to them they would cash them in and live a more comfortable lifestyle today
    I wonder if people like you who hold opinions like these actually know poor people? I don't mean saying hi or hello, or passing them on the street, I mean know them, their family, and their backgrounds.

    The vast majority of people understand holding assets for a rainy day. I can guarantee you, that they would not run to cash them to live a comfortable lifestyle - obviously they would use it to pay off bills and such, but they won't be popping champagne every day.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Enterpriser)
    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.
    Fair enough. But I have no doubt there are plenty being taxed at that ideal point who are both powerful and pushing to have it lowered, and that needs to be resisted.

    (Original post by Arbolus)
    Fine, let's confiscate a million pounds from a British businessman and hand it out to the inhabitants of some Zimbabwean village. Do you really think they'll have time to do anything meaningful with the money before having to give it up to a corrupt oligarch? You might feed the villagers for a week, but ultimately you wouldn't really be helping anyone escape the cycle of poverty.
    This is kind of missing the point. This isn't about giving more money to people to spend frivolously. We all know the phrase, "give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."

    The essence of that is that by providing people with the infrastructure they need to succeed, which can be anything from education to transport links to capital in general, they will be more able to sustain themselves. Currently there are plenty of people who do not have that opportunity. Zimbabwe is a bad example because there are a lot of social and political troubles in that country, but there are plenty of projects that badly need money and would use it well.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jimbo1234)
    It is in everyone best interest to make the middle class as large as possible. When this happens everyone is richer due to huge amounts of sales etc.
    All they need to do is cap shares and stocks, and massively tax the rich and then reinvest the money, not piss it away on benefits (UK) or the armed forces (USA).
    Not sure exactly what you mean by the "middle class", but there is extensive evidence that the best class to enrich on behalf of the economy is the poor - they will spend money immediately, boosting demand at a rapid rate. Better-off people tend to save and stockpile more, which does have beneficial effects in the long-run, but is slower.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Excellent videos, hadn't seen them before, but they certainly demonstrate how ****ed up things are.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Redolent)
    You can't help being a Jew/black/Asian/gay, and it is not a necessary characteristic of being one of those things that you thereby deprive others of resources. Completely nonsensical comparison.

    Not really. You're asking to penalise success on the basis of what somebody is.


    Targeting blacks/Asians/gays in just about anything is bad because it is important to live and let live and people cannot help what they are. Greed, however, can be helped, and a rich man's greed can effectively doom a poor man to death. I'm not a radical but I do think more should be done to change this.

    Nice heart wrenching statement. But we don't live in the 19th Century anymore. You've made the assumption that the rich are greedy. Have a look at the UKs top 100 rich list again. Greedy people don't give money away to charity. Successful people with a sense of community spirit do.


    Not as much as you seem to think.




    They're not because of things like regressive taxes. In this country a person's % wealth roughly corresponds to the % of the tax burden they bear. I gave you sources for this info in another thread.

    No idea what you're trying to say here. If I'm rich and successful and paying 45% tax, whilst others are in a lower tax bracket, then I'm paying a disproportiante amount of tax.


    A lot improvements for those on the bottom have actually come at the hands of trade unions and mildly left-wing ideals among those in power, not laissez-faire capitalism.

    Agree with your statement from between 1900 to 1960. After that the unions lost their way in the UK big time. Had they been a bit more like German trade Unions we may still have a home grown car industry for example. You say your 18. Ask your parents about the winter of discontent. Uncollected rubbish, power shortgaes, un buried dead etc etc etc.


    Unbelievable. You're accusing an 18 year old boy who works part time on supermarket checkouts making barely above minimum wage, of being a "champagne socialist". You couldn't make it up. I have plenty of drive and ambition and I'm not going to sit around be insulted by someone like you for taking an interest in the way the world works. I have no idea how you extrapolated any of that from what I wrote but it's completely wrong and offensive at that. Grow up and stop being so condescending.

    You clearly stated that you were from a comfortable middle class and we're happy to stay at that. As such you are lacking drive and ambition to better yourself. Again, take a look at the UK top 100 rich list. Many of those came from ordinary back grounds and were successful. If everybody took the attitude of not bettering themselves they'd be no growth.



    I'm not asking for a tax cut for myself, I specfically said my situation is fine. Why has this turned into a personal attack on me anyway? Would you like to tell me a load of details about your background so I can attack you on it?

    In affect you are asking for a tax cut in real terms as you're after taking money away from one group of people to give to others.

    My details. Parents grew up in Poverty, bettered themselves to become upper working class. I'm now moved from upper working class to middle class. Paying my own way through a Postgrade to enhance my earnings potential even further, financed by a period of time in a hot sandy place with lots of people going Allah Akbar whilst being surrounded by real poverty. i.e. kids starving to death.

    I have worked hard to better myself through self discipline and motivation and will be damned if I'll see the fruits of my labour given away to somebody who had the same, if not better chances as me and failed to make a go of it.

    I used to be as idealistic as you, but I got annoyed with people being rewarded for being lazy. I'll bend over backwards to help somebody who's fallen on hard times, but I refuse to help the feckless.




    Stop acting like you know me because you're talking a load of ****.


    Because I'm 18 years old and I'm barely out of school. I'm going to university in a few months. I'm working to better myself and I have good intentions for what I'm going to do if I ever do become successful. You're lucky I even dignified this ridiculously patronising dross you're spouting with a response. Try debating properly instead of resorting to personal attacks based on your prejudices against those who don't share your views.
    It's good you're off to University. It's a life changer. You'll get to see some of the real world from that point. You may even realise that you've never even be personally attacked.
    ..
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Not sure exactly what you mean by the "middle class", but there is extensive evidence that the best class to enrich on behalf of the economy is the poor - they will spend money immediately, boosting demand at a rapid rate. Better-off people tend to save and stockpile more, which does have beneficial effects in the long-run, but is slower.
    The 80's and 90's saw the majority of the working class population move up the ladder to middle class.

    In a traditional sense I'd agree with you, but that's using traditional industry as a basis for growth. We've moved away from that and it's innovation that gets the growth now, so we need more middle classes.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alex-Torres)
    I think society should be fairer and reduce poverty.
    But fairer, unlike more equal, is a subjective judgement. To you, it may seem fair that income or wealth is redistributed from the wealthiest to the poorest, as those with the most have a responsibility to the poorest. On the other hand, I would consider too extreme redistribution to be immoral, as it is effectively penalising those who are successful and giving wealth they have earned/created to those who arguably do not deserve it.
    Furthermore, if inequality was to be significantly reduced, then many of the very rich would leave, resulting in a worse situation for everyone.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nick1sHere)
    I work for myself, I'd rather not say how much I earn. Lets just say I'm not exactly struggling for money
    If you don't mind telling me, what is the work that you do? (as you are self employed).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Matt:))
    But fairer, unlike more equal, is a subjective judgement. To you, it may seem fair that income or wealth is redistributed from the wealthiest to the poorest, as those with the most have a responsibility to the poorest. On the other hand, I would consider too extreme redistribution to be immoral, as it is effectively penalising those who are successful and giving wealth they have earned/created to those who arguably do not deserve it.
    Furthermore, if inequality was to be significantly reduced, then many of the very rich would leave, resulting in a worse situation for everyone.
    I'm sorry for putting this one in again. And as Chian keeps getting used aswell as an example by convieniently ignoring the gap in wealth over there.

    An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

    The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan".. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

    After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

    The second test average was a D! No one was happy.
    When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

    As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

    To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. Could not be any simpler than that. (Please pass this on) These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:

    1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

    2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

    3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

    4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

    5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    The 80's and 90's saw the majority of the working class population move up the ladder to middle class.

    In a traditional sense I'd agree with you, but that's using traditional industry as a basis for growth. We've moved away from that and it's innovation that gets the growth now, so we need more middle classes.
    There are plenty of poor people around at the moment, we are in a profound economic depression - real incomes have plunged for most people during the last few years, apart from the very wealthy and very high income earners.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    who has the other 60%
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    There are plenty of poor people around at the moment, we are in a profound economic depression - real incomes have plunged for most people during the last few years, apart from the very wealthy and very high income earners.
    They have more disposable income.

    Real incomes have dropped becuase we've been living beyond our means. So in reality we're just adjusting to what are means are.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    We're in the UK are we not? This forum group is UK politics, so why use american data, where, insidently, the distribution is higher then the UK?
 
 
 
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.