Wealth distribution and its inequality in the Uk.

[Schlong&Stable]

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.

If he paid his employees vastly more than the market average, he'd substantial harm to the market. He'd have all the talent and the stifle competition and innovation.

Also, both Bill gates and Microsoft have done a lot for charity. Far more than people give him credit for. He is a good example of what a rich tycoon should be.

 

[elmarko]

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.

Other nations which have a smaller different between incomes still benefit, as the cost of labour increasing doesn't increase the price of goods at the same rate (as labour is only one factor determining the price of a good).

By that logic why have prices not gone down as wages have decreased in the UK?.

If he paid his employees vastly more than the market average, he'd substantial harm to the market. He'd have all the talent and the stifle competition and innovation.

Also, both Bill gates and Microsoft have done a lot for charity. Far more than people give him credit for. He is a good example of what a rich tycoon should be.

Indeed.

Gates is an oddity, if all billionaires gave as much to charity & pledged to give almost their entire fortune away upon death we wouldn't be in the position we are now (was it 99% he said he's giving away?).

 

[Schlong&Stable]

Warren Buffet has also made huge charitable donations. Not only that, but he put conditions on his donations to make sure they would be used correctly.

I suspect you'll find many of the really wealthy people DO make massive donations to charity. But if you have £100bn and you give away £90bn, you'll have £100bn again pretty soon. A ten-fold increase in wealth is not that difficult to achieve when you've got that much money.

 

[elmarko]

Warren Buffet has also made huge charitable donations. Not only that, but he put conditions on his donations to make sure they would be used correctly.

I suspect you'll find many of the really wealthy people DO make massive donations to charity. But if you have £100bn and you give away £90bn, you'll have £100bn again pretty soon. A ten-fold increase in wealth is not that difficult to achieve when you've got that much money.

I wouldn't go as far as to say many give the kind of proportion (high 90% of total wealth) that Gates & Buffet do or have pledged to.

Overall charitable giving isn't statistically any more common in the higher socio-economic classes so I see no reason to believe it would be for the incredibly wealthy (outside of token small gifts for PR reasons).

The fact the gap between the highest & lowest earners is getting bigger seems to indicate this most certainly isn't the case, it imply's the impact of ultra rich philanthropists isn't significant enough to make any notable impact.

 

[arknor]

Other nations which have a smaller different between incomes still benefit, as the cost of labour increasing doesn't increase the price of goods at the same rate (as labour is only one factor determining the price of a good).

By that logic why have prices not gone down as wages have decreased in the UK?.

Indeed.

Gates is an oddity, if all billionaires gave as much to charity & pledged to give almost their entire fortune away upon death we wouldn't be in the position we are now (was it 99% he said he's giving away?).

but do charitable donations really have the impact the money could make elsewhere?
we all know charities spend a silly amount of money on marketing over half of what they bring in if I remember right.

also there are tax deductions and tax write offs for it which give the incentive?

It would be better if they were given incentives to helping out the area around where they operate from, improving recreation areas and education for the local area, putting on day trips for the poor families that work for them etc

it doesn't take much to make someones life a little bit more enjoyable and the money that would have gone to a charity would have more of an impact on society ?

 

[elmarko]

but do charitable donations really have the impact the money could make elsewhere?
we all know charities spend a silly amount of money on marketing over half of what they bring in if I remember right.

also there are tax deductions and tax write offs for it which give the incentive?

It would be better if they were given incentives to helping out the area around where they operate from, improving recreation areas and education for the local area, putting on day trips for the poor families that work for them etc

it doesn't take much to make someones life a little bit more enjoyable and the money that would have gone to a charity would have more of an impact on society ?

Oh I agree, in a sense.

We should be aiming to structure our society in such a way poverty, homelessness are impossible - the reality is, we are a rich nation & could end UK homelessness in a couple of weeks if we put the resources required to task (leaving only those who wish to live on the streets or those currently unable to help themselves & don't accept the help provided).

Charity is simply patch-work to a broken system to begin with.

If an individual charity is efficient enough to warrant donations entire depends on the charity - some operate at efficiencies well above 95% others much lower.

Really we should be working both abroad & domestically for good causes simultaneously, but we can't ignore where the suffering is worse as the life of a person in the UK ins't any-more valuable than the life of a person in Africa.

 

[Freefaller]

If I can leave a future for my offspring (if I am ever blessed with them) then why shouldn't I be able to? Why not pass on the wealth? Sure, there are ways of doing it more responsibly, i.e. staggered or until they reach a certain age, or even potentially helping them for a deposit for their first home for example.

If someone has inherited a fortune, but does some good with what he has been given, then I see no problem with it. Sure, there are those that flaunt it and just **** it up the wall - but I think most would have learned the value of what they have.

 

[Calabi]

If I can leave a future for my offspring (if I am ever blessed with them) then why shouldn't I be able to? Why not pass on the wealth? Sure, there are ways of doing it more responsibly, i.e. staggered or until they reach a certain age, or even potentially helping them for a deposit for their first home for example.

If someone has inherited a fortune, but does some good with what he has been given, then I see no problem with it. Sure, there are those that flaunt it and just **** it up the wall - but I think most would have learned the value of what they have.

You shouldn't need to pass on any wealth. The society shouldn't be so lacking in support for its citizens that it can hardly qualify as a society. Hand down heirlooms and treasured items but money shouldnt be an issue in civilized society.

The evidence is that is a small minority of the rich a really tiny minority do good with it. And even the good can do damage with it. A rich person in Africa with the wrong policies can do a lot of damage. It ridiculous we have to rely on rich people, and we have to hope their the right ones, the smart ones. Plus its infantalizing.

 

[Freefaller]

Yes but that's why people do - because the infrastructure doesn't allow for people to generate their own wealth easily.

 

[elmarko]

If I can leave a future for my offspring (if I am ever blessed with them) then why shouldn't I be able to? Why not pass on the wealth? Sure, there are ways of doing it more responsibly, i.e. staggered or until they reach a certain age, or even potentially helping them for a deposit for their first home for example.

If someone has inherited a fortune, but does some good with what he has been given, then I see no problem with it. Sure, there are those that flaunt it and just **** it up the wall - but I think most would have learned the value of what they have.

I can understand what you mean & I'm sure you would provide a great upbringing for a child, but look at it from the other side of the coin.

What if you had a couple of children & by a series of unfortunate events they lost both parents & along with the material wealth you & your partner posses.

Would you want to know they are provided for & able to be given an equally good start in life?, or would it be a case of "tough luck!" like many currently experience by having the misfortune to either lack both parents or ones capable of aiding them.

Personally, I'd like to know regardless as to what happens to the parents a child is given a great chance to succeed in life (at least at an economic level).

If you did have children they should be provided for & aided in development regardless as to how economically stable you are I'd argue.

Yes but that's why people do - because the infrastructure doesn't allow for people to generate their own wealth easily.

Of course, I would't advocate the abolition of inheritance without putting in place an alternative method.

Ideally one which enables all children to get a foothold in life instead of just the privileged few, it's not about wanting to take from one group out of economic spite - it's about wanting to ensure all receive a helping hand in life.

 

[Amp34]

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.

Bill gates salary probably didn't even measure on his wealth. I also bet he doesn't have more than a few million in his bank account for periods longer than a week or so. Same goes for many others, their wealth is not in liquid assets but significant shares of companies they have set up. So again how do you plan on capping it? Force owners to give significant parts of their companies away when they reach a certain stake? Force companies to remain below a certain market cap? Remove the stock market entirely? The latter two would work well, no more billion pound projects as no company would be able to afford it. Just imagine an oil company capped at say 100million value, there goes all the wells drilling for oil and gas as it wouldn't be able to afford to drill a single offshore well.

They "sucked" up all the wealth because their companies were so successful, because they provided products people wanted...

 

[Freefaller]

I can understand what you mean & I'm sure you would provide a great upbringing for a child, but look at it from the other side of the coin.

Thanks, I'd hope I would to!

What if you had a couple of children & by a series of unfortunate events they lost both parents & along with the material wealth you & your partner posses.

Would you want to know they are provided for & able to be given an equally good start in life?, or would it be a case of "tough luck!" like many currently experience by having the misfortune to either lack both parents or ones capable of aiding them.

Of course I'd want to make sure they had a good life or able to get a good start to life - but surely they'd get what I left for them in my will?

Personally, I'd like to know regardless as to what happens to the parents a child is given a great chance to succeed in life (at least at an economic level).

You're right - but the problem is there will always be those that work harder and achieve more (and deserve to achieve more) than others. If people are blighted with an unfair condition then of course it is our responsibility to help them. What worries me about this model is that the lazy ones just go on for the ride rather than pulling their weight.

Ultimately everyone seeks to enhance their life as much as possible, and be able to life the life they want - some try and take it without working, some work for it, some just about get by and just are happy with the status quo.

 

[elmarko]

Thanks, I'd hope I would to!

Of course I'd want to make sure they had a good life or able to get a good start to life - but surely they'd get what I left for them in my will?

Well, it's what I was talking in theory - to give the example of another set of parents who simply possessed no independent wealth.

You're right - but the problem is there will always be those that work harder and achieve more (and deserve to achieve more) than others. If people are blighted with an unfair condition then of course it is our responsibility to help them. What worries me about this model is that the lazy ones just go on for the ride rather than pulling their weight.

Ultimately everyone seeks to enhance their life as much as possible, and be able to life the life they want - some try and take it without working, some work for it, some just about get by and just are happy with the status quo.

Well, that's part of increasing economic equality.

Building people up with genuine self-esteem helps promote self-reliance, it encourages engagement in society & contribution.

A child growing up in poverty in a crime ridden hell-hole becomes disengaged & resentful to society for the injustices which were served up-to them.

By rewarding the people for hard work done across society & ensuring all the next generation are provided you create a better environment to motivating those children into becoming contributing citizens.

If having a generous welfare state did result in laziness then the Nordic regions would be swimming in unemployment - conversely the USA would have close to 100% employment (due to it's quiet unforgiving welfare state).

Overall if anything the data suggests that increasing the gap in wealth increases unemployment, along with no strong relationship (only a weak relationship) between availability of welfare & unemployment.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2020744

 

[Freefaller]

Fair enough but should people who work harder still not deserve a better life for being more shrewd? Ultimately there will always be alphas and betas etc... forcing equality in human nature isn't natural or normal. Trying to help those that need the help is absolutely the right thing to do - but not at the cost of penalising those who are working hard and contributing to society.

 

[hurfdurf]

Fair enough but should people who work harder still not deserve a better life for being more shrewd? Ultimately there will always be alphas and betas etc... forcing equality in human nature isn't natural or normal. Trying to help those that need the help is absolutely the right thing to do - but not at the cost of penalising those who are working hard and contributing to society.

I don't think people are talking about the squeezed hard working middle class, we are talking about the top of the pyramid. Those who are largely born into obscene wealth through no work of their own, who then float through earning millions a year via capital they never had to work for in the first place, nor for the millions each year they earn via it.

Worrying about someone earning £50k being taxed highly when someone earning £30k is divide and conquer politics working at its best and you are falling for it. Rather than worry about that your fellow proletariat is getting 5% more than you in some areas, worry about the bourgeoisie, the guy getting 100000000000% more than you because he inherited land and enough capital from 300 years ago to feed Africa for a lifetime. That isn't him as an individual being Alpha, I have met many a wealthy person in motor sports and I can assure you, if I could out Alpha them, you could. The obscene amount of capital floating about, handed down, if anything promotes weak, lazy stupid people being seen as Alpha, because they did not have to work for their money like the original "Alpha" who earnt it did.

(Bioscience Alpha/Beta humans is far far far more complex for it to factor in really)

 

[Radiation]

Bill gates salary probably didn't even measure on his wealth. I also bet he doesn't have more than a few million in his bank account for periods longer than a week or so. Same goes for many others, their wealth is not in liquid assets but significant shares of companies they have set up. So again how do you plan on capping it? Force owners to give significant parts of their companies away when they reach a certain stake? Force companies to remain below a certain market cap? Remove the stock market entirely? The latter two would work well, no more billion pound projects as no company would be able to afford it. Just imagine an oil company capped at say 100million value, there goes all the wells drilling for oil and gas as it wouldn't be able to afford to drill a single offshore well.

They "sucked" up all the wealth because their companies were so successful, because they provided products people wanted...

Im not sure you understand, an individual shouldn't even be able to make more than say 10 or so million in their life, they can buy what they want but have to plan around the fact they won't be getting more than that.

Companies are a bit different, they should pay their workers more as profits grow but also sell goods and services for a reasonable amount, stocks and shares shoulnd't exist, the idea of supply and demand or the perception of value shoulnd't exist so everyone benefits, not a cap on total wealth or growth.

 

[Calabi]

The idea that CEOs or other people of that ilk are worth a hundred times their employees is hilarious.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Im not sure you understand, an individual shouldn't even be able to make more than say 10 or so million in their life, they can buy what they want but have to plan around the fact they won't be getting more than that.

This is a completely bizarre sentiment, are you saying therefore that no individual would ever be able to purchase an item worth more than a few million, as you'd have barred them from ever making enough money to pay for that item?

Very strange indeed.

Although it may seem like it to us, £10m isn't a lot of money - there are very many things it isn't enough to buy.

 

[Radiation]

This is a completely bizarre sentiment, are you saying therefore that no individual would ever be able to purchase an item worth more than a few million, as you'd have barred them from ever making enough money to pay for that item?

Very strange indeed.

Although it may seem like it to us, £10m isn't a lot of money - there are very many things it isn't enough to buy.

10 million is just an example, a fair amount would have to be worked out but yes they might not be able to own a big mansion, private jet or a large yacht but they'll still live a life of abundance most of us can only dream of...

 

[[TW]Fox]

10 million is just an example, a fair amount would have to be worked out but yes they might not be able to own a big mansion, private jet or a large yacht but they'll still live a life of abundance most of us can only dream of...

So in your world, nobody would be able to own a large yacht or a big mansion?

This seems somewhat bizarre, whats your reasoning behind this?

What do you intend to do with all the redundant people you've created by destroying the large yacht industry, btw?