trousers Posted 29 July, 2015 Share Posted 29 July, 2015 Its the top 20% who are getting wealthier and the bottom 20% who are getting screwed. The middle is comparatively unaffected. How do we know one is a direct cause of the other? How do we know that the bottom 20% wouldn't be as 'poor' as they are now if the richest 20% weren't getting richer? (And, yes, I haven't thought this through one jot...just thinking out loud with no attention to intellect whatsoever ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 29 July, 2015 Share Posted 29 July, 2015 Even that is pretty tepid. Far more important is wealth inequality. How does Richard Brandon adding another £10m to his wealth (for example) affect the earning potential of someone in the lowest quintile? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 29 July, 2015 Share Posted 29 July, 2015 How does Richard Brandon adding another £10m to his wealth (for example) affect the earning potential of someone in the lowest quintile? It doesn't directly. You're either happy for some people to get an ever increasing share of national wealth and for some people to get ever less or you aren't. Faux naivete doesn't absolve that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 29 July, 2015 Share Posted 29 July, 2015 You're not coming across as someone prepared to listen to anyone's opinion about anything. On the contrary, it's people's opinions I'm interested in not newspaper articles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 29 July, 2015 Share Posted 29 July, 2015 How does Richard Brandon adding another £10m to his wealth (for example) affect the earning potential of someone in the lowest quintile? When you're disabled, struggling to pay the bills and Gideon is cutting your welfare, Id imagine it grates a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 29 July, 2015 Share Posted 29 July, 2015 On the contrary, it's people's opinions I'm interested in not newspaper articles. But you don't want those opinions based on fiddly awkward things likes facts or statistics. Clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 29 July, 2015 Share Posted 29 July, 2015 It doesn't directly. You're either happy for some people to get an ever increasing share of national wealth and for some people to get ever less or you aren't. Faux naivete doesn't absolve that. So, "national wealth" is finite...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 29 July, 2015 Share Posted 29 July, 2015 When you're disabled, struggling to pay the bills and Gideon is cutting your welfare, Id imagine it grates a bit. Given the richest 1% pay 35% of tax receipts (he said plucking figures out of the air) won't there be more welfare money available to those that need it most the more richer the richest 1% get? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 29 July, 2015 Share Posted 29 July, 2015 So, "national wealth" is finite...? There is only a certain amount of money, if one person has it all then everyone else has none Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 29 July, 2015 Share Posted 29 July, 2015 Given the richest 1% pay 35% of tax receipts (he said plucking figures out of the air) won't there be more welfare money available to those that need it most the more richer the richest 1% get? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 29 July, 2015 Share Posted 29 July, 2015 Given the richest 1% pay 35% of tax receipts (he said plucking figures out of the air) won't there be more welfare money available to those that need it most the more richer the richest 1% get? Ah Reductio ad Absurdum, the more money we let them take the more tax they pay so the more altruistic they must be. That hasn't been tried for a while. Given that wealth is gradually accumulating in an ever smaller number of hands, levels not seen since WW1, perhaps we should let it continue until 1000 families control the majority of the wealth just like good old Victorian times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 29 July, 2015 Share Posted 29 July, 2015 There is only a certain amount of money, if one person has it all then everyone else has none Doesn't it depend what that 'one person' then does with their wealth? The richer they get the more they might give to charity, the more tax they might pay, the more jobs they might create, the more South Coast football teams they might rescue (cheers Markus ), etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 29 July, 2015 Share Posted 29 July, 2015 Ah Reductio ad Absurdum, the more money we let them take the more tax they pay so the more altruistic they must be. That hasn't been tried for a while. Given that wealth is gradually accumulating in an ever smaller number of hands, levels not seen since WW1, perhaps we should let it continue until 1000 families control the majority of the wealth just like good old Victorian times. And trust them to benevolently look after all the rest of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 29 July, 2015 Share Posted 29 July, 2015 (edited) So, "national wealth" is finite...? You do know wealth and wealth creation are not the same right? That would be embarrassing otherwise. Edited 29 July, 2015 by buctootim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 29 July, 2015 Share Posted 29 July, 2015 You do know there is no correlation between wealth and wealth creation right? That would be embarrassing otherwise. I'm forever embarrassing myself on internet football forums with my lack of economics knowledge, so there's every chance I didn't know that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 29 July, 2015 Share Posted 29 July, 2015 Doesn't it depend what that 'one person' then does with their wealth? The richer they get the more they might give to charity, the more tax they might pay, the more jobs they might create, the more South Coast football teams they might rescue (cheers Markus ), etc... Of course, but a person on minimum wage probably puts every penny back into the economy whereas a billionaire will probably put a fraction back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 29 July, 2015 Share Posted 29 July, 2015 I'm forever embarrassing myself on internet football forums with my lack of economics knowledge, so there's every chance I didn't know that Actually that statement was a bit bold so I edited it Still largely true though. Wealthy people tend to want to protect their wealth so hoard it by investing in established brands or tangibles like property. Its rare for venture capital to come from wealthy people. There is a strong argument that more very rich people you have and the more poor then the lower the level of entrepreneurship and wealth creation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 29 July, 2015 Share Posted 29 July, 2015 There is only a certain amount of money, if one person has it all then everyone else has none Not exactly true. The amount of money in circulation is increased as necessary but it gets very complicated. It is all controlled (supposedly) by The Bank of England and there are different types of money, M0, M1, M3 and so on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 29 July, 2015 Share Posted 29 July, 2015 OK, I'm won over. So how rich should we allow rich people to get? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 29 July, 2015 Share Posted 29 July, 2015 OK, I'm won over. So how rich should we allow rich people to get? Funny how you always seem very keen to look at it from that direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 29 July, 2015 Share Posted 29 July, 2015 OK, I'm won over. So how rich should we allow rich people to get? It all depends on what you mean by 'wealth'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 29 July, 2015 Share Posted 29 July, 2015 It all depends on what you mean by 'wealth'. He didn't use the word wealth. He used the word rich.Can't you read the English language of English as taught by English teachers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 29 July, 2015 Share Posted 29 July, 2015 Not exactly true. The amount of money in circulation is increased as necessary but it gets very complicated. It is all controlled (supposedly) by The Bank of England and there are different types of money, M0, M1, M3 and so on. They can print more but at any one time there is only a certain amount of money. If some has a billion of the stuff then they have taken that off other people, they have not created anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 29 July, 2015 Author Share Posted 29 July, 2015 The rich are bloody marvellous, they waste so much money on buying stupidly expensive cars and adding pointless ''cinema rooms'' to their overpriced mansions that you have to wonder just how many working people would be on the dole if they did not exist. So I say God bless all those Bentley drivers and 85'' UHD TV owners out there - for the rich are leaving we poor a much more desirable world to inherit one day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 29 July, 2015 Share Posted 29 July, 2015 They can print more money but at any one time there is only a certain amount of money. If some has a billion of the stuff then they have taken that off other people, they have not created anything. Not so. Not since we left the gold standard anyway. If someone builds a house from scratch then where has the value of that house come from? The BofE controls the supply of money with one eye on inflation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 29 July, 2015 Share Posted 29 July, 2015 He didn't use the word wealth. He used the word rich.Can't you read the English language of English as taught by English teachers? They obviously didn't teach you that the rich are wealthy or that being wealthy makes you rich. They have taught you knowledge but not understanding. Both words have been used extensively on here. Seriously, you have a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 29 July, 2015 Share Posted 29 July, 2015 Not so. Not since we left the gold standard anyway. If someone builds a house from scratch then where has the value of that house come from? The BofE controls the supply of money with one eye on inflation. If some builds a house it is worth whatever it is worth regardless of how much money is in circulation. That's irrelivant anyway, if someone has built a house the wealth they have created is the house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 29 July, 2015 Share Posted 29 July, 2015 For those that believe a growing divide between very rich and very poor to be a bad thing, what do they think should be done to address the issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 29 July, 2015 Share Posted 29 July, 2015 Funny how you always seem very keen to look at it from that direction. I would go even further and say its hilarious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 29 July, 2015 Share Posted 29 July, 2015 If some builds a house it is worth whatever it is worth regardless of how much money is in circulation. That's irrelivant anyway, if someone has built a house the wealth they have created is the house. They have created something that can be sold, just the same as someone who grows food, for example. This goes to the root of economic theory, supply of money and supply of good ad so forth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 29 July, 2015 Share Posted 29 July, 2015 They have created something that can be sold, just the same as someone who grows food, for example. This goes to the root of economic theory, supply of money and supply of good ad so forth. So if someone makes a million by buying and selling some shares, what exactly have they created? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 29 July, 2015 Share Posted 29 July, 2015 They obviously didn't teach you that the rich are wealthy or that being wealthy makes you rich. They have taught you knowledge but not understanding. Both words have been used extensively on here. Seriously, you have a problem. The sense of being rich is hugely different to the concept of being wealthy, or having/acquiring wealth. Either way, Trousers said rich. I thought you knew about the language of English as taught by English teachers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 29 July, 2015 Share Posted 29 July, 2015 So if someone makes a million by buying and selling some shares, what exactly have they created? Nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 29 July, 2015 Share Posted 29 July, 2015 Nothing. Exactly, so wealth creators are people who add value to our lives, not people who make themselves rich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 29 July, 2015 Share Posted 29 July, 2015 Exactly, so wealth creators are people who add value to our lives, not people who make themselves rich. Wealth and rich meaning different things, eh? Fancy that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solentstars Posted 29 July, 2015 Share Posted 29 July, 2015 the era of progressive taxation changed in the 1980s and the top 1% have never had it so good and its funny how the us and uk have the biggest gaps between rich and poor in western economy s ,and that money is being hoarded rather than put into productive use which help the real economy.what ever happened to the progressive party's which use to address these problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 29 July, 2015 Share Posted 29 July, 2015 Doesn't it depend what that 'one person' then does with their wealth? The richer they get the more they might give to charity, the more tax they might pay, the more jobs they might create, the more South Coast football teams they might rescue (cheers Markus ), etc... Trickle down economics, doesn't work. It's a myth peddled by the rich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 29 July, 2015 Share Posted 29 July, 2015 For those that believe a growing divide between very rich and very poor to be a bad thing, what do they think should be done to address the issue? Difficult, but I pay tax at the higher rate, have a family, and have been hit pretty hard since 2008, and that's fine. However, if the rich are asked to pay more, then apparently that's a bad thing. It would be nice if we were treated similarly by the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 29 July, 2015 Share Posted 29 July, 2015 Wealth and rich meaning different things, eh? Fancy that. Not really, if you are wealthy you are rich, the problem is the disparity between the people creating the wealth and the people getting rich. Some wealth creators are wealthy, but more and more in today's world it seems the people getting really wealthy are the people/companies who create nothing and just play the system - the agents, salesmen, speculators etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 29 July, 2015 Share Posted 29 July, 2015 Trickle down economics, doesn't work. It's a myth peddled by the rich. Depends on your definition of trickle down economics? If more money is earned by a very rich individual, increasing the tax they pay and the money they spend in the economy, does that not have a wider benefit? Obviously doesn't apply in all cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 29 July, 2015 Share Posted 29 July, 2015 Difficult, but I pay tax at the higher rate, have a family, and have been hit pretty hard since 2008, and that's fine. However, if the rich are asked to pay more, then apparently that's a bad thing. It would be nice if we were treated similarly by the government. So an increase in the tax rate for those that have an annual income greater than £1m for example? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 29 July, 2015 Share Posted 29 July, 2015 OK, I'm won over. So how rich should we allow rich people to get? A better question is: how much inequality is too much? There are some good data on this including some economic analyses of the 1929 crash (by Joe Stiglitz and others) which plot the rise of inequality leading up to it and its decline afterwards. The over-accumulation of wealth by an ever smaller number creates enormous problems. Consumption itself is not enough; wealth has to be protected in ever more risky, yet, at the time, seemingly sure-fire ways (stoking the stock market bubble before 1929 and the derivatives bubble in 2008). This leads Stiglitz to conclude that there is an answer to this question. And the bad news is, even after the fallout of the great recession, we're still around the 1929 levels of the kind of unequal toxicity that brings us all down, the wealthy included. As you commute into London ever day, you'll see evidence of that all around you. So do I. I walk to my coffee shop each morning through what's always been a working class neighbourhood where no house costs less than £1million. What does that tell you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 29 July, 2015 Share Posted 29 July, 2015 So an increase in the tax rate for those that have an annual income greater than £1m for example? Put them on PAYE, and charge them the same rate as me. Seems perfectly fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 3 August, 2015 Author Share Posted 3 August, 2015 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11775481/Even-if-Labour-recovers-from-Corbynmania-it-may-well-be-doomed.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 3 August, 2015 Share Posted 3 August, 2015 I refuse to believe they would be stupid enough to elect him as leader - I can only assume their members are taking the p!ss out of the opinion polls. When one of the other candidates win by a landslide it will be portrayed as a great victory - a new Labour moving back to the centre, great for business etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 3 August, 2015 Share Posted 3 August, 2015 I like Corbyn and think he'd be wildly popular among maybe 25% of the electorate but wouldn't catch enough floating voters to be electable. I cant stand Yvette Cooper and Andy Burnham - to me they represent all that is wrong with modern politics, career focussed, insubstantial, stand for nothing except popularity. Liz Kendall for me, although I cant work out if that is just because I fancy her a bit, or whether its a real informed opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 4 August, 2015 Author Share Posted 4 August, 2015 Jeremy Corbyn may well win this vote because he seems very popular among Labour party activists and others who are also much interested in political ideology. This seems quite clear now. The problem for Labour and British democracy is that, rightly or wrongly, most of our people don't give a flying fig about ideology and instead vote pragmatically for political parties whom they consider are most likely to further their own interests and/or manage their economy most efficiently. This relative disinterest in political radicalism - an attitude sometimes described as 'reasonableness' by historians - is one of the principle reasons why we here had no violent revolution that was even nearly comparable to the one France or Imperial Russia experienced in the 18th and 20th centuries. It may be this (very British) attitude can trace its origins as far back to our Civil War of the 1640's or even the national trauma of the Reformation in Tudor times. Be that as it may, it seems to me that we are an innately moderate people, a people therefore who will almost certainly reject a ideology driven party in 2020 - quite decisively in all probability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 11 August, 2015 Share Posted 11 August, 2015 YouGov poll gives Corbyn 53%. Labour will become a protest party, not one that governs and can be held accountable. The Tories must think they've won the lottery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 11 August, 2015 Share Posted 11 August, 2015 I refuse to believe they would be stupid enough to elect him as leader. Two words; Miliband. Ed. The labour hierarchy know they're in for the long haul. Corbyn will do just fine as the next sacrificial lamb to the slaughter, then they'll probably get David Miliband to ride in on his white charger for the election after next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 12 August, 2015 Share Posted 12 August, 2015 He won't win, Lord T - don't trouble your ukippy little head with that thought. As Corbyn appears to be in the position (if polls are to be believed) that he could possibly accrue sufficient votes to be elected without subsequent ballots, I wonder whether your cocky, over-confident predictions that he will not win are looking a little shaky? Perhaps you have not taken sufficient account of the number of people who have either joined the Labour Party from the left to vote for him, or those from other Parties who will vote for him in order to scupper Labour's chances in the next General Election. I'll certainly be giving him my wholehearted support and know of several friends who will do so too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now