Wealth distribution and its inequality in the Uk.

[Efour]

Things like that make out that the only way a person can become wealthy is by screwing over their employees, which is a load of bullcrap.

True, but i would guess for every person that doesn't get screwed, one did at some point in the chain. Again its not these, Cameron voice, "hard working" people that are the issue its the 1%

I like all this talk about a living wage both here and in Westminster. Its a step in the right direction and more what i consider wealth distribution to be all about.

 

[arknor]

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.

so easy for someone on minimum wage that works to survive to just quit their job , forget about their bills , rent , food etc and just start their own company with their 0 bank balance.

not everyone has parent's wealthy enough that they can afford to let their adult son/daughter live with them for free or a tiny contribution either.

FYI I am not minimum wage so it would likely not effect me at all but I do know a lot of people at the very bottom that struggle every day to make ends meet.

 

[krooton]

What stops The Living Wage from just pushing up the price of pretty much everything, offering no real net benefit?

 

[pitchfork]

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.

The only freedom you have in this country is the freedom to try and the freedom to starve.

 

[kindai]

so easy for someone on minimum wage that works to survive to just quit their job , forget about their bills , rent , food etc and just start their own company with their 0 bank balance.

Exactly my point. It's not easy to start or maintain a company. At some point, someone had to take the risk of starting up. The person who employs them took the financial gamble. Now, if that gamble has paid off, they should be allowed to reap the rewards.

 

[arknor]

What stops The Living Wage from just pushing up the price of pretty much everything, offering no real net benefit?

people charge what they believe people can afford so prices generally are not related to what the people at the very bottom earn and the basics they struggle to afford would likely stay the same

Exactly my point. It's not easy to start or maintain a company. At some point, someone had to take the risk of starting up. The person who employs them took the financial gamble. Now, if that gamble has paid off, they should be allowed to reap the rewards.

and as the gap widens even further crime levels will rise as people are forced to steal to survive , riots will break out and change will be forced.
it might not happen for 100 years but it will eventually happen if nothing changes

 

[Efour]

What stops The Living Wage from just pushing up the price of pretty much everything, offering no real net benefit?

what stopped minimum wage doing it ?

you are right tho its all BS smoke and mirrors, give Joe blogs 20 quid a week more it will only end up on the share prices of Tesco or a Tobacco company.

 

[elmarko]

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?

Because they didn't earn it in isolation, they simply distributed the rewards of the labour to the members of the organisation grossly unevenly.

You make it sound like those at the top do all of the work (which is frankly hilarious).

 

[arknor]

what stopped minimum wage doing it ?

you are right tho its all BS smoke and mirrors, give Joe blogs 20 quid a week more it will only end up on the share prices of Tesco or a Tobacco company.

joe bloggs would be happy and the money would keep moving through the economy rather than stagnating in someone's bank account

let's face it the 1% would likely end up with most of it back anyway eventually so they wouldn't be losing as much as it appeared the money would just slowly move back up the chain rather than stay up at the top

 

[kindai]

Because they didn't earn it in isolation, they simply distributed the rewards of the labour to the members of the organisation grossly unevenly.

You make it sound like those at the top do all of the work (which is frankly hilarious).

In which case, why don't you go start up a company where you fix this problem, lead by example and all that

 

[Efour]

Exactly my point. It's not easy to start or maintain a company. At some point, someone had to take the risk of starting up. The person who employs them took the financial gamble. Now, if that gamble has paid off, they should be allowed to reap the rewards.

I don't think anyone is attacking you, maybe envious of you for your success in whatever it is you do. You don't seem to happy with it though. Have you considered selling up and getting a regular 9-5. Would be harsh on the employees but that's not really your problem.

Of course id retract that in a heartbeat if you actually did come into that mystical 1%.

 

[Efour]

joe bloggs would be happy and the money would keep moving through the economy rather than stagnating in someone's bank account

let's face it the 1% would likely end up with most of it back anyway eventually so they wouldn't be losing as much as it appeared the money would just slowly move back up the chain rather than stay up at the top

i just had a Karl Marx moment... i feel like im 17 again

 

[elmarko]

In which case, why don't you go start up a company where you fix this problem, lead by example and all that

How would starting up a singular company address UK wide wage distribution in any meaningful way?.

A company's core motivation is profit, my concern for the social impact of wealth distribution isn't an economic argument alone but also an ethical consideration.

The two priorities are at odds.

Nice avoidance btw .

 

[Amp34]

Their paychequet as big as yours?

A great speech and kind true, however it doesnt cover the useless statement wheeled out at times like this that "the richly benefit more from society than the poor". For example the rich could have afforded to pay for security to look after the factory, the rich could have (did and still do in many places, including the UK) built the roads and railways to transport their goods to town. The poor would be the ones who couldn't defend themselves against the roving bands, who couldn't use the private transport systems. Taxes from the rich factory owners would be used, instead of paying for private infrastructure and security, to pay for communal infrastructure and security, helping the poor. They also provide goods for the poor to increase their standards of living over what they could have made on their own. In return the poor give money and work to the rich in trade for the goods, money which was treladed for work by the rich in the first place.

At worst it's of equal benefit for the majority of the rich and poor,at best the poor get a much better deal. Just look at history, the rich will always be rich, the poor used to starve and freeze to death (if they could afford medication to get to adulthood in the first place), now being poor still means, for the vast majority in the UK, a non leaking roof over your head, heat in winter and food in your belly.

 

[FoxEye]

Exactly my point. It's not easy to start or maintain a company. At some point, someone had to take the risk of starting up. The person who employs them took the financial gamble. Now, if that gamble has paid off, they should be allowed to reap the rewards.

Surely that sentence should finish "within reason".

There are plenty of things we don't want our successful business owners to be doing, despite the fact that they'd be perfectly legal, and within their rights to do so.

Firing your entire UK call center staff and outsourcing to India is one such example. Like BT, Sky, TalkTalk, have done.

I'm sure they'd say "We're just reaping the rewards of our hard work in steering the company to increased profitability," as they withdraw their 6-digit managerial salaries.

Nobody should be prevented from reaping the rewards of their own hard work, I agree. But at what point have you been fairly recompensed for your work? You took an initial risk, and maybe struggled for a couple years. Now you're successful, does that mean you're entitled to a lifetime of affluence, with no social responsibility to others?

Whilst I'm not saying that wealthy people should be obliged to pay disproportionally more than the rest of us, I do find it odd that some wealthy people feel no moral obligation to the rest of society. Esp their own employees.

 

[Amp34]

what stopped minimum wage doing it ?

you are right tho its all BS smoke and mirrors, give Joe blogs 20 quid a week more it will only end up on the share prices of Tesco or a Tobacco company.

I'm sure there are studies that show it did just that...

I'm not against increasing minimum wage (I'm also for a much higher tax free allowance, tax should kick in at a rate just above minimum living costs, say £13-15k) however the idea it didn't cause prices to rise isn't as clear cut as many suggest.

 

[Calabi]

Another way to look at is. The more rich people there are and the more tax they are paying, then they think they own government, or have more right to have things their way than everyone else. Even if their opinions are false or bad for themselves and everyone else(environment destruction?).

A companies core motivation isnt always profit its whatever the owners want it to be.

The rich wont always be rich the poor neither. Everyone will always die. There's no natural order except that. We've been living in more equitable communities for thousands of years. Its just now everyone believes the rich man and his economist friends when they say "only we can save you and this is the natural order"(and they have to rewrite history to make it that way).

 

[Radiation]

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?

The 10 million cap is for people not companies and it's money in the bank not land, the issue is they shouldn't have sucked up all our wealth in the first place, bill gates wouldn't have even got that much if he paid his workers more and sold us stuff for less, all while the business makes a fair and healthy profit for reasonable growth.

 

[Sudden]

The 10 million cap is for people not companies and it's money in the bank not land, the issue is they shouldn't have sucked up all our wealth in the first place, bill gates wouldn't have even got that much if he paid his workers more and sold us stuff for less, all while the business makes a fair and healthy profit for reasonable growth.

So when you say money in the bank, does that mean hard cash? Or would it include stocks, bonds etc.?

If you are saying that the business should have sold products for less, do you mean that the govt. should start fixing prices for non-essential products sold to users and businesses?

 

[arknor]

The 10 million cap is for people not companies and it's money in the bank not land, the issue is they shouldn't have sucked up all our wealth in the first place, bill gates wouldn't have even got that much if he paid his workers more and sold us stuff for less, all while the business makes a fair and healthy profit for reasonable growth.

they would just have less available wealth and more assets meaning they own even more than they do now? although maybe that would bring in more competition but as we know the biggest companies often don't really compete anyway they have monopolies

Another way to look at is. The more rich people there are and the more tax they are paying, then they think they own government, or have more right to have things their way than everyone else. Even if their opinions are false or bad for themselves and everyone else(environment destruction?).

politics and profits are they really separate ? or just a tool the wealthy exploit