Richest 1% to own more than rest of world

Cartus said:
I thought the recent BBC documentary 'The Super-rich and us' was very revealing. It would appear we are returning to the time of the Aristocracy where all of the countries wealth lies in the hands of a few individuals. All because our governments have placed their faith in so-called 'trickle down economics'. 'Quantitive Easing' has made the situation worse seeing the 1% grow increasingly wealthier while the rest of us grow poorer.

I think it's scandalous and a political revolution is called for if we are to maintain a decent society. Trouble is, it ain't going to come from any of our politicians anytime soon because they would appear to maintain this deception of the electorate to further their own interests.

I would urge anyone to watch the documentary if they haven't done so already, it opened my eyes.
Click to expand...

I watched it,it was very good (y)

Also a couple of others worth watching,its in 3 parts The Power of Nightmare :)
 
ST4 said:
Human nature, market forces. Any other system has been proven to fail and is open to corruption.
Click to expand...
We haven't really tried any other system*, certainly not with a level enough playing field to say that anything has been proven. And corruption is as endemic in the market forces system as any other, possibly more so as its been demonstrated that it encourages centralisation of power and decision-making by the richest for the interests of themselves.

* could it even be said that the market forces system has even been properly tested? - has there been any attempt to try it without subsidies, tax breaks, protectionism, trade tariffs or a myriad of other state interventions?
 
Exactly.
There has never been a "level playing field".
And calling anyone who is fortunate enough to inherit wealth greedy sounds pretty childish and envious imo.
 
srichards said:
The 1% are anyone that owns 500k of assets which is nothing in the South East. It's an ordinary house that the more sensible of us living up north would pay a fraction of the price for ;)
Click to expand...

We live in an "ordinary" house in Mid Kent, and its current market value is way below £175K. When my folks moved from an "ordinary house" in Greater Manchester to a comparable "ordinary house" in Dover, there was no difference in price.
 
viv1969 said:
Exactly.
There has never been a "level playing field".
And calling anyone who is fortunate enough to inherit wealth greedy sounds pretty childish and envious imo.
Click to expand...

And though out history we had Wars,Revolution,etc we have been lucky in so far in Europe since the end of WWII,but it has been close.
 
Cartus said:
Absolutely spot-on Steve. Let's do away with social security and the NHS and give all the money to the super rich and watch London property prices rise even further while they desperately try to squirrel away the obscene amounts of money they have coming in. It's kind of a return to Victorian values I guess, but it's not what I want society to be like.
Click to expand...

No one gives to the rich. The poor aren't taxed a poverty tax and that money given to rich people. No, the rich pay tax, a lot more of it than poor people. I don't see the issue. Why should 1% of people pay for over 50% of the revenue required to run Britain. How is that fair? Because they can, doesn't mean they should. Because they are in a minority, despite having buying power galore, they cannot effectively vote in a government of their choice despite per head contributing more than anyone else. Doesn't seem fair to me. If votes were based on the amount of income tax you paid, that would be fairer...
 
Cartus said:
That's incorrect. You are saying that anybody who has assets of £500k is in the top 1% of the wealthiest people in the UK? .
Click to expand...

In the world

where the percentage is heavily distorted by billions of people who have a worth of about 2p
 
ST4 said:
No one gives to the rich. The poor aren't taxed a poverty tax and that money given to rich people. No, the rich pay tax, a lot more of it than poor people. I don't see the issue. Why should 1% of people pay for over 50% of the revenue required to run Britain. How is that fair? Because they can, doesn't mean they should. Because they are in a minority, despite having buying power galore, they cannot effectively vote in a government of their choice despite per head contributing more than anyone else. Doesn't seem fair to me. If votes were based on the amount of income tax you paid, that would be fairer...
Click to expand...

Rich 'middle income' earners do pay a lot of tax yes, but the really big earners don't. If you earn £200k per annum you'll probably pay a fair amount of tax but if you earn £30million per annum you'll pay a tiny proportion. How is that fair?

But the point is that the economic practice known as the 'Trickle down' theory is based on not taxing the super-rich, tax breaks if you like. That's why the likes of Amazon, Starbucks and other foreign and UK corporations pay little to no tax at all on their profits. Therefore the very top earners and the lowest earners are paying little to no tax at all, it's all paid by the middle income bracket, the so-called 'squeezed middle'. The super-rich are paying little to no tax at all because our governments somehow believe that will act as a disincentive to economic activity and we'll all be better off if they are allowed to carry on without interference. Except by 'gifting' all this tax money to the super-rich we are just making them richer because our government are creating a tax haven for Russian billionaires for example. It all started with Thatcher but has become significantly more marked since '08 when our governments thought it would be a good idea to print loads of money and give it to rich people.

It's just not benefitting 99.7% of the rest of the population, because the money ends up being spent abroad and not actually fed down to the rest of the UK, it introduces a load of social problems too, rioting and revolution ultimately...
 
Even a wide boy like Caudwell coughs up his taxes. If he can then the others must be forced to.
 
dinners said:
Sadly it just goes to show how many people in this world have nothing.
Click to expand...

This is the key point here I think, and whilst we can moan about the Rich getting richer here (if that is happening) the main thing is how little many many people in the world have. We are extremely lucky to be born and \ or live in this country.
 
don't think it's quite so simple. We are (in the UK) it seems creating a new 'aristocracy' where all of the wealth is concentrated on a few individuals.
Click to expand...

In general those who are getting richer are doing it because they either work hard at it, or have found some way of doing it. What they are not is being created by Government.
In the same way at least some of the poor are in that boat because they are the opposite, and can't be bothered.
(Before anyone leaps to their hind legs, I said IN GENERAL, not in every case).

Reward should be based on working for it, not on simply saying, well, he's working for his cash, so he should be taxed to the hilt so I can sit back and do SFA. In other words why should that wealth be redistributed? Doing that doesn't work, it means no one, or very few can be bothered to try.

Communism, which is what is being described in some posts doesn't work for the above, and many other reasons, so why propose it?
 
Bernie174 said:
In general those who are getting richer are doing it because they either work hard at it, or have found some way of doing it. What they are not is being created by Government
Click to expand...
I think you will find the 'super-rich' pay little to no tax.
 
Cartus said:
You are suggesting that I recite this as a 'mantra' to my children? Well I don't. But they read the newspapers and watch TV themselves. The reality is that young people cannot generally get on the housing ladder and will be leaving college saddled with massive debts. When I was their age, higher education was paid for by the state
Click to expand...
My eldest son was at college for 4yrs, finished 3yrs ago and it was all state funded.
 
nilagin said:
How does that work and where's your evidence?
Click to expand...
The idea is that taxing high earners is a disincentive to productivity and hence why corporations like Amazon and Starbucks pay little to no tax. This is the 'cornerstone' of the economic theory known as 'Trickle down economics'. The loopholes that are exploited by the wealthy companies have been fairly widely reported in the past and some celebrity tax payers like Jimmy Carr for example have been revealed to be taking advantage of them and they're not illegal.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23019514
 
Last edited:
Steve Smith said:
It might be individual success but it's a failure of society to allow it to happen. It's no better than the mediaeval lords and serfs system.


Steve.
Click to expand...
No it's not, if someone has the ability to earn lots of money, good for them, why should their wealth be shared with those that hasn't done the requisite to earn lots of money. I went to school, took exams and got qualifications good enough to get an apprenticeship. On completion of my apprenticeship, I decided I'd had enough of education and decided to remain as I am. My mate however went on to do his degree. 35yrs later we still work for the same company. He earns 2-3 times as much as me as he is now a manager, he has a bigger more expensive house, has more holidays abroad, company cars etc.
He's earned the right so why shouldn't he reap the benefits.
Cartus said:
The idea is that taxing high earners is a disincentive to productivity and hence why corporations like Amazon and Starbucks pay little to no tax. This is the 'cornerstone' of the economic theory known as 'Trickle down economics'. The loopholes that are exploited by the wealthy companies have been fairly widely reported in the past and some celebrity tax payers like Jimmy Carr for example have been revealed to be taking advantage of them and they're not illegal.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23019514
Click to expand...
Amazon and Starbucks are companies not individuals. The loopholes could be used by anyone, the amount you earn is inconsequential. Just Jimmy Carr has more to save from it than the likes of you and I and so not worth the bother.
 
nilagin said:
No it's not, if someone has the ability to earn lots of money, good for them, why should their wealth be shared with those that hasn't done the requisite to earn lots of money. I went to school, took exams and got qualifications good enough to get an apprenticeship. On completion of my apprenticeship, I decided I'd had enough of education and decided to remain as I am. My mate however went on to do his degree. 35yrs later we still work for the same company. He earns 2-3 times as much as me as he is now a manager, he has a bigger more expensive house, has more holidays abroad, company cars etc.
He's earned the right so why shouldn't he reap the benefits.

Amazon and Starbucks are companies not individuals. The loopholes could be used by anyone, the amount you earn is inconsequential. Just Jimmy Carr has more to save from it than the likes of you and I and so not worth the bother.
Click to expand...

I don't think anybody is saying he doesn't? What people are saying is that the more you earn, the more tax you should pay as a percentage of your income.


And on point 2, do you really think that those on minimum wage have access to the same tax avoiding trickery that the wealthy have? Now I've heard it all.....
 
nilagin said:
The loopholes could be used by anyone, the amount you earn is inconsequential. Just Jimmy Carr has more to save from it than the likes of you and I and so not worth the bother.
Click to expand...


If, like most of the population you have PAYE deducted at source, just explain how you avoid that?
 
I think you will find the 'super-rich' pay little to no tax.
Click to expand...

I think you'll find that some don't, but the majority do. But nothing like a bit of stereotyping is there.
There does seem to be a lot of envy rather than realism around.

On the other hand, some of the so called poor, those who's income is crime, or ebay, who are in fact earning a great deal don't pay tax.

Either way, why should someone who works hard and is successful pay more as a percentage of their income to those who can't be arsed to work, or make out they are poor, but are earning a lot through the back door?

I earn a lot more than the minimum or average wage. I do so because I worked hard to learn a new trade. I left school with a couple of O levels, spent 20 years in the Police and left qualified as nothing. I'm sorry, but it grips my poo when I hear the left wing nanny state pinko poncy arguments that the if you've worked hard and made something of your life, you should loose it to pay for someone who can't be bothered.
 
Last edited:
Rapscallion said:
the more you earn, the more tax you should pay as a percentage of your income.
Click to expand...

Why though, if you're not using any more of the resources?
If they have a larger house, then they'll be paying Council Tax accordingly; they'll have paid more in Stamp Duty etc.
If they have an expensive, powerful car, then they'll have paid VAT and ongoing road fund licence, fuel duty accordingly.
If they get sick and use the NHS they've pain NI....and chances are they'll choose to pay out of their own pocket and go private.
So why should they pay more in income tax?
Serious question btw.

And yes, EVERYONE can use the same "tax avoiding trickery" if they, or someone they know, knows how.
 
viv1969 said:
Why though, if you're not using any more of the resources?
If they have a larger house, then they'll be paying Council Tax accordingly; they'll have paid more in Stamp Duty etc.
If they have an expensive, powerful car, then they'll have paid VAT and ongoing road fund licence, fuel duty accordingly.
If they get sick and use the NHS they've pain NI....and chances are they'll choose to pay out of their own pocket and go private.
So why should they pay more in income tax?
Serious question btw.

And yes, EVERYONE can use the same "tax avoiding trickery" if they, or someone they know, knows how.
Click to expand...

Why - for no other reason than I believe it just the right thing to to.

And Hugh identified the real issue re tax avoidance - how does that work for those that have PAY deducted at source?
 
Anyone would think that with someone earning loads of money means there is none left for everyone else to earn.
Get real and stop the jealousy.
On my basic wage I fall into the 23% tax bracket or whatever it is. If I work enough overtime I pay 40% on some of it. The same rules apply for anyone else.
As Ruth pointed out, the rich still pay tax by other means when they spend their money which benefits others instead of just on more tax which benfits fewer.
 
Why - for no other reason than I believe it just the right thing to to.
Click to expand...

Would it be the right thing to do for you as well?
If so, put your cash where your typing fingers are and pay everything you earn above the minimum wage to the poor. Is that the right thing to do? Do you do it? Or should it just mean everyone else?
 
nilagin said:
As Ruth pointed out, the rich still pay tax by other means when they spend their money which benefits others instead of just on more tax which benfits fewer.
Click to expand...


As do you when you spend your wages. I simply think its not unreasonable that everybody pays the same % income tax, as prescirbed by law. On their income ;)

I'm not sure how paying tax benefits fewer people?
 
Bernie174 said:
Would it be the right thing to do for you as well?
If so, put your cash where your typing fingers are and pay everything you earn above the minimum wage to the poor. Is that the right thing to do? Do you do it? Or should it just mean everyone else?
Click to expand...

Yes, I am an upper bracket tax payer.

EDIT, and personally I believe the lower threshold on paying any income tax should be raised. And I know that means I will pay more tax.
 
Rapscallion said:
Do you really believe in flat tax structure as opposed to a progressive tax?
Click to expand...

No, not at all...never said I did.
But I also don't agree with taxing the arse off the super wealthy just because they're wealthy.
 
viv1969 said:
No, not at all...never said I did.
But I also don't agree with taxing the arse off the super wealthy just because they're wealthy.
Click to expand...

OK, but if you are not against it, then are you for the wealthy paying more tax as a percentage of their income?
 
Bernie174 said:
So yes you are paying everything above the minimum wage to the poor are you?
Click to expand...

Never argued or proposed that anyone should, but I do know troll when I see one....


EDIT, do you mind pointing out where I suggested that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top