Income/wealth inequality in the UK

[Clint]

....a bit like the national Trust. ...you have a whopping great house and acres of land for which the upkeep is enormous. Invent a patriotic, fuzzy,nice and cozy scheme that gets people to work there for a free dinner as helpers and the general public to pay for..while they have a look round....but on restricted access as the people who own it live there. ..the thing is these stately homes were gifted to the Lords and barons in the first place for "services rendered" and to keep the wealth and land from the commoners.

 

[simon12]

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.

Please explain how people being rich makes people poor, homeless, paid less or get a bad pension. As I stated rich people pay more tax so theres more money for social housing, public sector pay & state pensions. Without the rich there would be more of these problems not less.

 

[simon12]

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.

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

Absolute cobblers of course!

This is supposed to be about UK inequality, but even in this case these people I assume voluntarily entered into this agreement because they wanted to so would they be better off if there were no rich people to employ them. I never claimed wealth directly trickled down only that as the rich pay for government services so the poor can get them for free and that being rich in no way makes the poor poorer.

 

[simon12]

I'm playing devils advocate here and you nearly all disagree but come on some explain exactly how rich people make the poor worse off.

 

[Clint]

It's the divide. The rich are rich in money/land/property...this equals power. Power over the people who have considerably less. The big land owners,estates, lords or who ever...the "rich" I mean, are involved in massive companies and billions of pounds business etc to keep this they need considerably poorer people because if I was just a couple of pounds poorer I wouldn't be poor enough...I'd be comparative.
Yes I agree with Dutto...most of us are rich in the sense we have food, clean water and a roof over our heads...so do the ones at the top of the heap...but their accumulated wealth also brings power and the power to create more wealth.

 

[Fil]

I'm playing devils advocate here and you nearly all disagree but come on some explain exactly how rich people make the poor worse off.

No im not getting drawn in again..

 

[Irishwizard]

Its funny that the Victorian mill owners all lived in big country estates (that the railways often had to go around) and the workers lived in abject poverty.
any canny 21 century businessman wants to make the biggest profits (to keep the shareholders happy) and employ workers on minimum wages and zero hours. Its called capitalism simon. the only caveats to this philosophy were the Quakers, I believe. On another note, the rich rarely get poorer, unless they are really dumb.

 

[Dutto]

This is supposed to be about UK inequality, but even in this case these people I assume voluntarily entered into this agreement because they wanted to so would they be better off if there were no rich people to employ them. I never claimed wealth directly trickled down only that as the rich pay for government services so the poor can get them for free and that being rich in no way makes the poor poorer.

Luckily for us in the UK, we had a couple of generations of fighters that defied the government of their time and held out (against massive odds) for what had been fought for by previous generations.

Many people enter "voluntarily" into what amounts to slavery on the basis that they will be better off ...

... and this in no way makes their reasons for doing so any more palatable than someone who is forced into the same predicament by physical means.

Forcing someone to do something by the use of economical power in no way mitigates the fact that you are still forcing someone to do something against their will.

If you think that this doesn't apply to the UK then dream on! :whistle:

Also, could you please explain exactly where the money, power and influence comes from when you state ...

... "being rich in no way makes the poor poorer." ?

It is a well know mantra of the people in government that "someone has to pay" and at the moment the poor are shouldering too much of this burden!

 

[Dutto]

......... the only caveats to this philosophy were the Quakers, I believe. .........

They were magnificent people in a time when fair-play was a concept not often recognised by UK industrialists ... :thumb:

... but unfortunately, their descendants have now mainly sold out to foreign companies! :nono: :nono:

Most of the UK's Quaker businesses (Cadbury for instance) are now not only owned and operated by overseas companies, but all that is left in the UK is the Trade Name; and the work has been taken away from the UK.

 

[simon12]

It's the divide. The rich are rich in money/land/property...this equals power. Power over the people who have considerably less. The big land owners,estates, lords or who ever...the "rich" I mean, are involved in massive companies and billions of pounds business etc to keep this they need considerably poorer people because if I was just a couple of pounds poorer I wouldn't be poor enough...I'd be comparative.
Yes I agree with Dutto...most of us are rich in the sense we have food, clean water and a roof over our heads...so do the ones at the top of the heap...but their accumulated wealth also brings power and the power to create more wealth.

Exactly the rich need poorer people to work for them or there companies and the poor need rich peoples companies to give them jobs so there lives improve and though the rich get richer the poor also get richer but at a slower rate.

 

[simon12]

Luckily for us in the UK, we had a couple of generations of fighters that defied the government of their time and held out (against massive odds) for what had been fought for by previous generations.

Many people enter "voluntarily" into what amounts to slavery on the basis that they will be better off ...

... and this in no way makes their reasons for doing so any more palatable than someone who is forced into the same predicament by physical means.

Forcing someone to do something by the use of economical power in no way mitigates the fact that you are still forcing someone to do something against their will.

If you think that this doesn't apply to the UK then dream on! :whistle:

Also, could you please explain exactly where the money, power and influence comes from when you state ...

... "being rich in no way makes the poor poorer." ?

It is a well know mantra of the people in government that "someone has to pay" and at the moment the poor are shouldering too much of this burden!

Sorry not sure what you mean in the 1st bit. As for the poor are shouldering to much of the burden what do you mean, nearly half the working age population pay no tax and 300,000 rich people pay 27.5% of all income tax, if we had twice as many people that rich the government would be rolling in cash. source http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ns-pay-no-income-tax-as-burden-on-rich-incre/ .

 

[simon12]

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGooHl2R_Y8[/ame]

 

[Dutto]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You expect ME to listen to a kid who is so wet behind the ears that he thinks BACON comes from a COW?

I refer you to the Parable of the Talents where the making of profit is not something to be condemned and then to what the wealthy should do with their wealth.

"I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Which was a response to a young rich man who had asked what he needed to do in order to inherit eternal life.

These sayings may be a lot older than the kid who thinks that bacon comes from a cow but they are STILL valid! :thumb:

 

[simon12]

He doesn't think bacon comes from a cow he thinks theres cheese in a BLT, he states he milked it and made cheese. As for the parable of the talents (Mathew 25 14-30) my interpretation (and I believe the mainstream one) is he is using a money example to describe the gifts God has given us to further his goals and does not have anything to do with money. As for the rich entering heaven and the camel going through the eye of a needle I could put it better than my ESV study bible notes "Matt. 19:23 only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven. Wealth fools a person into thinking that he or she is self-sufficient apart from God. The general attributes of the “rich” are the opposite of those of a “child” (see 18:1–5; 19:13–15).
Matt. 19:24 camel. The largest land animal in Palestine. the eye of a needle. The smallest opening. Jesus paints a picture of something impossible in order to illustrate that even the seemingly impossible is possible with God." Though I am not sure why you mention either bible verse.

 

[Dutto]

He doesn't think bacon comes from a cow he thinks theres cheese in a BLT ........

I'm not sure which is worse! A kid who thinks that there is cheese in a "Bacon, Lettuce and Tomato Sandwich" (the clue is in the name) or presenting him as an expert on wealth.

Either way, what he knows about the distribution of wealth comes more from a book than from life.

Why quote sayings from the Bible? They are as valid now as they were at the time they were made.


BTW

1. In Biblical times a "talent" was a measure of money not a measure of how much a person could impress Simon Cowell.

2. In Judaism, an elephant passing through the eye of a needle was used to demonstrate thoughts that cannot connect to reality. It is thought that the use of a camel is to explain something to someone who had never seen an elephant; but who would realise the ludicrous nature of passing one through the eye of a needle.

3. "It is God's will." is and has always been, used by the rich to explain their status to the poor. Which is why the parable of the Good Samaritan is such a powerful demonstration of how the wealthy should behave.

 

[Fil]

ok,

#1 the total wealth available within any economic area represented by the label 'money supply' is a fixed value at any given time.

or if you lock the doors on a bar, the maximum the till can take is the sum of the collective wealth of the folk in the bar including their access to credit.

while the total wealth can grow and shrink, this is a result of transactions, and the rate, magnitude, and critically the attributes such as profit and equity of transactions will dictate the rate at which the sum wealth or value will grow or shrink.

no bar anaolgy for that im afraid.

but fuel an ecconomy with inequitable and highly profitable transactions such as the usury demonstrated by payday loans and the appearance of wealth generated is false and inflationary as it adds no real value and simply siphons wealth from the poorer elements to feed the richer.. Now this is what you conjure in my mind when you speak of getting rich quick.. If you plan and applaud the generation of wealth through the business of equitable transactions and can earn a healthy profit that would earn a smile from Adam Smith good on ya and power to you.

problem is we live in a world of payday loans and the ethical business person just cant compete with the utter Kunts who will employ folk on zero hour contracts and give them 2-3 shifts a week..

 

[Dutto]

I noticed these when considering the "problems" (?) of excessive wealth:

1. Wealth can be enjoyed, but do not let it distract you.
Wealth can give us pleasure in life, but it can also be a distraction from what is truly important. Wealth is merely a worldly matter because it will not follow you into the afterlife. Be on guard against greed. Do not save and hoard great sums of money; distribute it to those who are in need of it.

2. It is never acceptable to earn a living by doing wrong.
People must earn their wealth in a lawful way. It is not to be earned by selling or buying things that is forbidden or by engaging in illegal activities.

3. Practice charity toward the poor and those in need.
One of the pillars of society is the giving of wealth to charity.

4. Do not fear poverty.
In days of old, some cultures would kill their own children in fear of poverty whereas other cultures believe the fear of poverty is seen as not trusting in God. Poverty is not to be feared or despised.

5. Giving of your wealth is the source of true prosperity.
Spreading wealth is like sowing a seed of grain which grows seven spikes; and in each spike is a hundred grains.

It's a pity that our own society doesn't practise this advice. :thumb:

 

[simon12]

I'm not sure which is worse! A kid who thinks that there is cheese in a "Bacon, Lettuce and Tomato Sandwich" (the clue is in the name) or presenting him as an expert on wealth.

Either way, what he knows about the distribution of wealth comes more from a book than from life.

Why quote sayings from the Bible? They are as valid now as they were at the time they were made.


BTW

1. In Biblical times a "talent" was a measure of money not a measure of how much a person could impress Simon Cowell.

2. In Judaism, an elephant passing through the eye of a needle was used to demonstrate thoughts that cannot connect to reality. It is thought that the use of a camel is to explain something to someone who had never seen an elephant; but who would realise the ludicrous nature of passing one through the eye of a needle.

3. "It is God's will." is and has always been, used by the rich to explain their status to the poor. Which is why the parable of the Good Samaritan is such a powerful demonstration of how the wealthy should behave.

Its common in America to have cheese in a BLT and any other sandwich the same as in subway, anyway you say he is wrong because of sandwich knowledge and age but don't say whats incorrect in his point which is based on statistics.
1 Yes I know what a talent is, its not the best source of of theology but wikipedia says "Traditionally, the parable of the talents has been seen as an exhortation to Jesus' disciples to use their God-given gifts in the service of God, and to take risks for the sake of the Kingdom of God. These gifts have been seen to include personal abilities ("talents" in the everyday sense), as well as personal wealth. Failure to use one's gifts, the parable suggests, will result in judgment.[1]" and even if interpreted as wealth its about using wealth to further Gods kingdom not about a rich poor divide.
2 I agree its hyperbole a camel was the largest animal in Palestine at the time and the eye of a needle the smallest opening.
3 The good samaritan was given as an example of who is my neibour in the context of love your neighbour as yourself using a hated people group (the samaritans) to demonstrate who is your neighbour. How do you get anything about wealth in it?
I agree the bible passages are relevant today but I don't see they are to wealth inequality.

 

[simon12]

ok,

#1 the total wealth available within any economic area represented by the label 'money supply' is a fixed value at any given time.

or if you lock the doors on a bar, the maximum the till can take is the sum of the collective wealth of the folk in the bar including their access to credit.

while the total wealth can grow and shrink, this is a result of transactions, and the rate, magnitude, and critically the attributes such as profit and equity of transactions will dictate the rate at which the sum wealth or value will grow or shrink.

no bar anaolgy for that im afraid.

but fuel an ecconomy with inequitable and highly profitable transactions such as the usury demonstrated by payday loans and the appearance of wealth generated is false and inflationary as it adds no real value and simply siphons wealth from the poorer elements to feed the richer.. Now this is what you conjure in my mind when you speak of getting rich quick.. If you plan and applaud the generation of wealth through the business of equitable transactions and can earn a healthy profit that would earn a smile from Adam Smith good on ya and power to you.

problem is we live in a world of payday loans and the ethical business person just cant compete with the utter Kunts who will employ folk on zero hour contracts and give them 2-3 shifts a week..

Very good point payday loans are a great example of exploitation of the poor buy corporations and someone is getting rich from it, even though the poor know they are paying over the odds and enter voluntarily into the agreement its hard to argue there not exploiting peoples desperation. As for zero hour contracts its not as hard as again people enter into the agreement voluntarily as it makes them better off (less poor) its not perfect for them but if employers couldn't offer them there would be less jobs offered.

 

[simon12]

I noticed these when considering the "problems" (?) of excessive wealth:

1. Wealth can be enjoyed, but do not let it distract you.
Wealth can give us pleasure in life, but it can also be a distraction from what is truly important. Wealth is merely a worldly matter because it will not follow you into the afterlife. Be on guard against greed. Do not save and hoard great sums of money; distribute it to those who are in need of it.

2. It is never acceptable to earn a living by doing wrong.
People must earn their wealth in a lawful way. It is not to be earned by selling or buying things that is forbidden or by engaging in illegal activities.

3. Practice charity toward the poor and those in need.
One of the pillars of society is the giving of wealth to charity.

4. Do not fear poverty.
In days of old, some cultures would kill their own children in fear of poverty whereas other cultures believe the fear of poverty is seen as not trusting in God. Poverty is not to be feared or despised.

5. Giving of your wealth is the source of true prosperity.
Spreading wealth is like sowing a seed of grain which grows seven spikes; and in each spike is a hundred grains.

It's a pity that our own society doesn't practise this advice. :thumb:

I totally agree, if every one lived like this it would be impossible to say the rich have a negative influence on the poor.