Wealth distribution and its inequality in the Uk.
- Thread starter Efour
- Start date
You do realise that so called 1% is a huge range. To get into the 1% you have to earn about £150k, so the hating of the 1% range from people on £150k to multi million pound earners. Dont get me wrong £150k obviously a very large salary but I dont think they are the ones people are talking about.
I am happy to pay my taxes, I wouldnt say I am really happy.
Last edited:
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
And this is absolutely a problem we must look to solve - I agree with you.
But the problem is that there are people who do not earn a living a wage, not that some other people earn lots more money.
How do you intend on doing that?
Lets consider this, the vast majority of the super rich are super rich in one of two ways, either they inherited a base or built up land (such as the duke of Westminster) or they set up a small company which subsequently went huge (Gates, Zuccenburg -or however you spell it...). Both those mean the vast majority of their wealth isn't really removeable by them or the government.
Should Microsoft really only be allowed to make a 10m profit? How on earth would you realistically be able to do that without opening them up to bancrupcy due to the margins? How about allowing companies to make a small percentage profit, such as 2%? In which case that covers the majority of profits from the biggest companies (or very close to). If you're selling and spending billions 2% is a very big number.
Is bill gates greedy because he wantsto keep a share of a company he set up? Should he have to relinquish those shares and glhand the money over the governments because some people don't think it's "fair" that he set up a successful company?
Associate
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2007
- Posts
- 2,184
- Location
- Abingdon
It annoys me that people like you are annoyed about things they don't understand.
Yes, the tax free threshold went up, but then the rate at which you start paying 40% tax was also lowered so, in effect, it was a tax INCREASE on higher rate tax payers.
According to that website you linked to, I actually pay 39.2% tax overall, probably more due to loosing child benefit this year too, but who cares about that though eh? Just so long as people who inherit their wealth can sit around all day not paying any tax so those of us who work hard can pay for all the things they don't have to.
Are you advocating some form of demurrage for funds above an arbitrary net worth threshold?
Associate
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2007
- Posts
- 2,184
- Location
- Abingdon
I think that's what we've been talking about, yes.
Seems i turn much more socialistic the older i get...
Probably more like this:
Get older, but don't earn much on the way? Become more socialist.
Get older, but earn megabucks on the way? Become more capitalist.
And? Why does that mean I should pay more? I was the one who put the effort in to nuture and grow my company to what it is today, nobody else.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2003
- Posts
- 5,510
- Location
- Worthington-on-sea
[TW]Fox;25082716 said:
Exactly the point I've been trying to make. However, it seems to be ignored in favour of complaining about rich people.
are you rich enough to be one of the people being talked about? It seems no one has a problem with wealth just people who hoard massive amounts the 1% who wouldn't miss a few % of what they have and it would make a massive difference to the people at the bottom on minimum wage.
how anyone can think the minimum wage is high enough is beyond me when they struggle every day to make ends meet
No, im not, however, the point im trying to make is if these people earned their vast fortunates, why should anyone have the audacity to tell them they should hand it back out?
It's high enough for anyone who does not have to work/live on it.
no one said they should hand anything back? just they take an unfair amount when people at the bottom are struggling to stay afloat.
they didn't earn their vast billions single handedly.
I don't really care tbh if it carries on at the same rate eventually the majority will do something about it and it won't be pretty.
we might not be alive to see it but it will happen eventually if nothing changes
Last edited:
well if your wage is not a living wage then you are basically being screwed.
So if someone starts a company, employs talented people who perform well, and as such get paid well, the company thrives and the owner reaps the rewards... who exactly gets exploited?
probably the people on 0 hour contracts at minimum wage that do the little stuff like cleaning , security and what not
let's not forget about the mass exploitation of apprentices either and all the people companies like tesco , pound shops etc had working for nothing with no chance of a job at the end
that company likely wouldn't be owned by someone wealthy enough to be in the 1% that own the majority anyway
Last edited:
Exactly.
And if people think theyre being exploted and not paid enough, well, they are free to start their own company. then theyd understand its not as easy as sitting behind a desk and letting the cash roll in.