Income/wealth inequality in the UK

simon12 · Jul 20, 2017

There is alot about at the moment about how the wealth gap is rising between rich and poor and its almost universally shown as a bad thing. So I am asking is it?
1st point someone having more money than you doesn't hurt you in anyway.
Wealthier people earn more and spend more therefore pay much more tax so you don't have to and you can benefit from government services you didn't pay for they did.
If people could not get rich they wouldn't spend the time and effort inventing and supplying the products we all use ie smart phones, computers and braumeisters.
As the rich get richer the poor get richer to, because how they get rich usually involves employing more people and the tax thing already mentioned.
On the down side
The super rich can use there wealth to influence politics in the wrong direction (ie campaign for lower benefits so they can pay less tax).
Getting rich can mean (not always) exploiting workers but in the UK we has strict employment laws so unlikely in the UK.
The rich can consume to much of something pushing prices up (in a supply and demand economy) is the 1 way I can think they directly are bad for the poor. The only example I can think of is housing.

Short video by everyone favourite politician
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdR7WW3XR9c[/ame]

What do you guys think? Note I do not consider myself rich or poor.

pms67 · Jul 20, 2017

She's a Cow!
Close this thread !

Fil · Jul 20, 2017

Aye "I'm all right Jack F*ck the rest of you!!" was Thatchers message, the evil harridan.. Congrats on your wealth or perhaps its only ambition atm, either way i hope you fully achieve your goals and fully enjoy the result. But as wealth is a comparative/relative measurement, in order to be rich you NEED a significant number of poorer folk in order to validate your financial status as without them your just the pauper.

clerical staff get bonuses for denying claims for incapacity benefitson clinical grounds, foodbanks are already running out of food faster than they can find it, city streets have evidence of more homeless people every time i walk em and a greater disparity of wealth is a good thing??

chub1 · Jul 20, 2017

B#####d woman.Glad she's dead,*****.:twisted::twisted::twisted::twisted:

chewie · Jul 20, 2017

Off course a lot of the super wealthy bugger of to another country to escape paying any tax to the very country that gave them there start.

simon12 · Jul 20, 2017

Fil said:
Aye "I'm all right Jack F*ck the rest of you!!" was Thatchers message, the evil harridan.. Congrats on your wealth or perhaps its only ambition atm, either way i hope you fully achieve your goals and fully enjoy the result. But as wealth is a comparative/relative measurement, in order to be rich you NEED a significant number of poorer folk in order to validate your financial status as without them your just the pauper.

clerical staff get bonuses for denying claims for incapacity benefitson clinical grounds, foodbanks are already running out of food faster than they can find it, city streets have evidence of more homeless people every time i walk em and a greater disparity of wealth is a good thing??

I regret adding the Maggie video as it has just added dislike to the point am making I am not a fan of her myself at all but think she had a good point in this case. As for the 1st half of what you said the wealthy need people to be poor so they are rich because people can only be rich or poor comparatively to me makes no sense as being rich still doesn't hurt the poor.
As for the second half people being rich does not cause homelessness or a need for food banks. If you want to blame the rich for these things please explain how they cause them. People being poor is bad but most of the time people getting rich makes the poor less poor.

Dutto · Jul 20, 2017

I know what "poor" is because I've seen the poverty be found in Africa, India and the Middle East. It's terrible to witness so God only knows what it is like to suffer a life of true poverty.

In the terms understood by someone who really knows what "poor" means, I am incredibly rich because:

o I live in a relatively peaceful and secure country.

o I have food to eat and clean water to drink.

o I have clothing and a place in which to live.

o I have an income.

I thank God that I am fortunate enough to have these things that make me rich.

Here's the conundrum!

Why do the people WE class as "rich" fail to recognise that the poor of
this world require and deserve our help?

PS

With regard to The *****, I know for a fact that she ruined our society (she claimed that it didn't exist even as she ruined it) and I take comfort from the firmly held belief that she is rotting in hell somewhere! :thumb:

Fil · Jul 20, 2017

simon12 said:
I regret adding the Maggie video as it has just added dislike to the point am making I am not a fan of her myself at all but think she had a good point in this case. As for the 1st half of what you said the wealthy need people to be poor so they are rich because people can only be rich or poor comparatively to me makes no sense as being rich still doesn't hurt the poor.
As for the second half people being rich does not cause homelessness or a need for food banks. If you want to blame the rich for these things please explain how they cause them. People being poor is bad but most of the time people getting rich makes the poor less poor.

What i said was being rich/wealthy is a relative status, and since its based on a finite resource. you having it is depriving someone else whos need is probably greater, so yes being richer could and often does hurt those less wealthy.

Again with any given economy the money supply is a constraint so separating more money from the less advantaged and giving it to the wealthy in tax breaks or benefit cuts thus increasing the gap between rich n poor is again going to remove more resources from the poor making their lives harder/shorter. and generally speaking to the detrement.

Unless born into it your chances of actually becoming rich are getting more n more limited, educations no longer an entitlement, so professions are pricing out the riffraff again..

the old entrepreneur creates wealth argument falls flat on the face of evidence as most such entrepreneurs have been exposed and outed as simple parasitic asset strippers, and those that havent yet 'tick, tock'

Thats not saying that some folk cant shine and build something new and good and benefit both themselves their workforce and the wider community, but can you fill a hand counting such folk ?

simon12 · Jul 20, 2017

Cheers fil this is exactly the type of debate I wanted, to answer your points:

What i said was being rich/wealthy is a relative status, and since its based on a finite resource. you having it is depriving someone else whos need is probably greater, so yes being richer could and often does hurt those less wealthy.

Being wealthy is based on 1 resource money which is not finite as more exists all the time. If I invented the next massive gadget that everyone wants and become rich from it how have I deprived anyone else of this money?

Again with any given economy the money supply is a constraint so separating more money from the less advantaged and giving it to the wealthy in tax breaks or benefit cuts thus increasing the gap between rich n poor is again going to remove more resources from the poor making their lives harder/shorter. and generally speaking to the detrement.

Similar to the previous point someone being rich does not take money directly from the poor. Using the same example when I get rich from selling my new must have gadget the only money I take from the poor is from those who buy it because they value it more than the money.

Unless born into it your chances of actually becoming rich are getting more n more limited, educations no longer an entitlement, so professions are pricing out the riffraff again..

I would argue the opposite that as the wealth gap has widened access to university education for the poor has got better and better.

the old entrepreneur creates wealth argument falls flat on the face of evidence as most such entrepreneurs have been exposed and outed as simple parasitic asset strippers, and those that havent yet 'tick, tock'

Yes there are people like that but I don't think most by a long shot, do you have some examples?

Thats not saying that some folk cant shine and build something new and good and benefit both themselves their workforce and the wider community, but can you fill a hand counting such folk ?

Every private sector employer contributes buy paying there employees and paying taxes to the government which benefits there employees and the wider community.

Chippy_Tea · Jul 20, 2017

Oh Dear the halo has slipped a little further, i echo Duttos earlier sentiments.

Margaret Thatcher suggested threatening Saddam with chemical weapons

The formerly top secret correspondence was between the then UK prime minister and US defence secretary **** Cheney.
Mrs Thatcher told Mr Cheney the US should consider retaliating "in like manner" if Iraq used chemical weapons.
But President George HW Bush said such a move would "put the US in the wrong in world opinion".
Under the leadership of Saddam Hussein, Iraq invaded the Gulf state of Kuwait in August 1990.
'World opinion'
The correspondence, released by the National Archive, details conversations Mrs Thatcher held with President Bush and Mr Cheney before she was forced from office in November 1990, as the countries considered their response to the invasion.
According to a September 1990 account of a meeting with President Bush in New York: "The prime minister asked what we would do in the event of an Iraqi attack with CW [chemical weapons] or BW [biological weapons].
"The president said that world opinion would eat Saddam Hussein for lunch if he resorted to this. The prime minister doubted whether Saddam Hussein would be deterred by world opinion. Did the US itself have CW in the area to act as a deterrent?
"The president said that use or threatened use of CW would only put the US in the wrong with world opinion. It would be better to launch an all-out conventional attack and wipe Saddam Hussein off the face of the earth."
The memo adds that President Bush described reports in the UK press that the US could possibly use nuclear weapons against Iraq as not "at all helpful".
In a subsequent conversation with Mr Cheney the prime minister said she was: "Very worried about Iraq's CW and BW capability. She believed that Saddam Hussein would use them, and we had to decide what our response would be.
"If we wished to deter a CW attack by threatening to retaliate in like manner, we must have CW weapons available."
Mr Cheney said "no final decision had been taken on how to respond" to a chemical weapons attack.
He said that "the president had a particular aversion to chemical weapons", adding: "The US military commanders were not keen on them, because American forces had no experience of using them and many of the weapons themselves were outmoded."
By the time the UK joined US-led coalition forces taking military action against Iraq in January 1991, John Major had replaced Mrs Thatcher as prime minister.
Fierce fighting continued until 28 February 1991 when Iraq, whose military capability had by now been seriously harmed, agreed to a ceasefire.
In 1993 the UK and the US signed a convention outlawing the production and use of chemical weapons. They are among 192 countries to have ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention.
In 2003 Prime Minister Tony Blair used allegations that Iraq still had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons as part of his case for supporting the US-led invasion of the the country, which led to the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
The chief US weapons inspector later concluded that Iraq had no stockpiles of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons at the time of the invasion.
1 hour ago BBC

Fil · Jul 20, 2017

Simon Think we need a bar, patient bar staff and an 80's style wad to pay the tab in order to blow this one out of the water, Only allowed a malt whiskey when agreeing on something...

Clint · Jul 20, 2017

The UK is stitched up with tory aristocracy and all their cronies....by birth or paid. The rich will always be rich at the cost of the poorer..or the workers. The poorest..ie people on the streets,no food etc will be left as such,the workers will be squeezed for lower incomes,crap pensions and longer hours. ..the whole country is rotten to the core.

bigbud78 · Jul 20, 2017

I have no issue with people earning any amount of money as long as they pay their tax, until the politicians are sorted out it'll never chance though will it.

Dutto · Jul 20, 2017

I have often heard the very rich defending their status on the basis that "Wealth trickles down and everyone benefits."

This is absolute cobblers of course!

I've visited Monaco on a number of occasions and one time I got talking to a Philippine couple who were hired as servants on one of the multi-million pound yachts moored in the harbour.

I am not shy in asking how other people are getting along and we got talking about the work they did, how often the boat went sailing, their wages, living conditions etc. In brief:

o They were paid a wage that even in the Philippines was regarded as being "basic", but as they lived onboard and even bought their own food, they still managed to send some money to their family back home.

o The boat had been out of the harbour on only two occasions in the previous twelve months.

o When the boat was at sea the Owner brought his own Cook with him. The Cook arrived with the provisions required for the trip and when at sea the servants were expected to eat the leftovers from whatever the Owner, his family and/or his guests didn't eat.

o The servants were not allowed home to the Philippines until they had completed one year of service. The Owner then paid their fare home but didn't always have them back; plus any hint of dissatisfaction during their service year and they were sacked without severance pay.

These people were little short of being slaves. :doh:

I saw no evidence that they were benefitting from "the trickle down effect" so I reiterate ... :lol: :lol: :lol:

Absolute cobblers of course!

Oneflewover · Jul 20, 2017

^^^ well said Dutto. The 'trickle down' effect is indeed cobblers. The rich get richer through exploiting and manipulating the poor. This is so patently obvious. Perhaps we should ask Philip green's ex employees, for example, about the 'trickle down ' effect?

Leon103 · Jul 20, 2017

How much money do you need to be classed as rich?

BeerCat · Jul 21, 2017

Castro died with nearly 10 million. Would he be described as rich? What about the people of Cuba? He does not seem to of had wealth redistribution in his manifesto.

Dutto · Jul 21, 2017

Leon103 said:
How much money do you need to be classed as rich?

None at all if you have good health, peace, paid work, food, clothing, shelter, freedom of speech and freedom of movement.

However, honesty, fairness and tolerance of others are British traits that are fast disappearing; ... :nono:

... but with a bit of luck, the general public will realise this and demand better. :thumb:

Clint · Jul 21, 2017

Money,land = wealth = power.

Dutto · Jul 21, 2017

Clint said:
Money,land = wealth = power.

Agreed! The true value of being rich is the amount of power you can exert on others ...

... and EVERY wealthy person primarily uses this power to ensure that they stay wealthy.

It is a fact of life that the less you have the more inclined you are to share your meagre "wealth" with others. The "Widow's mite." actually does exist.

However, another truism is that "Turkeys don't vote for Christmas." and I have yet to see a wealthy person give away enough of their wealth to ensure that they are in any way poor!

BTW

Here's a great wheeze for the rich.

Remember "Inheritance Tax" whereby your wealth is distributed if you die?

Cobblers again!

A work of art can be "donated" to the government as payment for inheritance tax; but on the basis that "we have nowhere to put it", the work of art stays in the same place and can still be enjoyed by the friends and family of the deceased, even though it actually belongs to the nation.

Income/wealth inequality in the UK

Help Support The Homebrew Forum:

Landlord.

Senior Member

Landlord.

Junior Member

Landlord.

Landlord.

Landlord.

Landlord.

Landlord.

Landlord.

Landlord.

Forum jester...🏅🏆

Regular.

Landlord.

Landlord.

Landlord.

Landlord.

Landlord.

Forum jester...🏅🏆

Landlord.

Similar threads

Join the conversation!

Join today and get all the highlights of this community direct to your inbox. It's FREE!