Wealth distribution and its inequality in the Uk.

[Tom0]

The rich seemed to be in a charitable trend 100 ~ 150 years ago, people like John Pounds and Thomas Barnardo for example.

Even if the money they accumulated was by some exploitation they gave it back in more than poor wages. Some of the industry owners threw balls and events for the workers. Some built housing and libraries for the communities and councils. Common gardens, music and art were made available. The trend for giving grew.

After the wars people rebuilt in a community spirit, everyone surely recalls a grandmother going on about coronation parties in the street. What was the royal wedding like? I recall more people lulzing over the extra day off rather than the pomp of the event and the buzz of community.

This lack of generosity in modern society, is what I believe, to be part of the reason why we dwell on the past as being better and the future being bleak. The communities now pay for a lifestyle we've become a custom to by our ancestors, which ironically their direct ancestors have just been greedy with or spent. It goes in cycles.

The system is in place to make sure everyone gets a fairer shout, similar voice to what people have had in the past with money. Privatisation of certain aspects is not necessarily a bad thing if legislation is adhered to but big money likes to bypass it and the gesture of generosity from the past, coupled with the greed of the future shines through. We lose our shout and inequality grows.

It's not the full picture but it's a small corner.

 

[Mr Jack]

But if we have never had a true free market then, by definition, governments have never moved wealth from the lowest end to the highest end. They've merely slowed or capped the rate at which it happens under the pure capitalist model, neither of which support his line of argument.

Because a "true free market" model isn't "natural" either (and also is a complete impossibility, there's no such thing). It's all an artificial setup. Corporations are artificial. Laws of property ownership are artificial. The tax regime is artificial. Rules of zoning, employment law, health and safety and so on are all artificial. It's all an edifice manufactured by the decisions of society and governance.

Over the last 30 to 40 years (and especially the Thatcher years) the country took policy decisions that allowed the system to shift wealth from the poorest to the richest. This wasn't neutral or natural, it was a choice.

 

[Calabi]

They've done studies about the poor. It may not be entirely their fault.

http://www.slate.com/articles/busin...study_shows_money_troubles_make_decision.html

 

[Radiation]

No, I don't think you understand how companies, shares and personal wealth fit together.

You seem to be suggesting that a successful entrepreneur should have to give their company away at a certain point?

How a significant portion of the worlds richest got their wealth:

The person thinks it an idea for business, goes into partnership with a friend and each own 50% of the business. As successful idea grows they usually sell parts of the business to investors meaning the investors invest money and give chunks to new employees as incentives so the company can grow. This reduces the two friends control of shares by dilution (increasing the number of shares in the company) so their shares are say 20% of the company. The friends remain as CEO and CTO (for example) and control a significant portion of the company with their shares helping keep the company they set up on the path they want. As the company grows the shares increase in prices, making the company more valuable. Using companies like facebook and MS as an example that could be up to $100b in 10-20 years because their product is so popular. The original pair that thought up the company and initial employees will probably have reasonable salaries, starting at not much more than scraps to start with then increased to say $100k when the company becomes successful. Fine. Except those shares the original two have are now worth $20b each, so their net worth is $20b+, way above the limit you've just set, meaning they have to sell lots of those shares (and give away the case from the sale) and reduce their control of the company to say 0.1%, the company they set up and are still part of...

To many entrepreneur that would be like having a child taken away at 10 and only being able to see then once a week and not being able to help raise them.

So how do you intend to get around this problem when the current wealth of a significant portion (or even majority) of the megarich made their money like that? Their wealth is integrally intertwined with business value.

Also sorry for mangling your quote in the post, android seems to love jumping around as I type and deleting sections of text at the top...

Im not talking about a small change to the system here or there, im talking about a proper overall change to how the economy works and what society should be doing, whats actually right and wrong, what benefits everyone.

Shares should be a thing of the past, a business doesn't need shares to exist or grow, you're thinking within the current system, all the issues you talk about can be dealt with, my basic points still stand, no individual should have an unreasonable amount of wealth compared to the majority, it's pretty simple, companies can grow, make a fair profit, pay their workers more and sell stuff for less all at the same time when everyone is playing fair, the people running them can keep doing so but it should be with the input of everyone involved.

You need to understand that the current system is flawed, yes it has improved the standard of living for many and was better than whats come before but it like all systems that are slow to adapt or refuse to change gets worse, it's now negatively affecting millions of lives all because of it's inherent selfish nature and lack of morals, plus those that benefit aren't willing to give it up.

You see it as people working hard and earning thier millions, perhaps up to a point that's the case, i think people should be rewarded but within reason, the problem comes when people and companies expect too much money from us and make massive profits, this distributes more wealth to few people.

I think everyone can agree there's only so much real wealth in existence, things should naturally only cost so much but we've invented a debt based system and selfish business practices that seek profit instead of benefits to society in general, waste and stupidity are also to blame.

Important things like food, shelter, energy and transport all cost way more than they should, everyone needs these and yet the system we have makes life harder and more stressful than need be, we're in a constant state of working to live when it doesn't need to be like this.

 

[Efour]