Wealth distribution and its inequality in the Uk.

Theophany said:
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. :confused:
Click to expand...
Well, technically - by failing to slow or cap the rate which it occurs it allows the wealth to transfer to the few from the many.

Doing nothing to address this is also a choice (inaction), as is undoing changes meant to stem the natural tide of capitalism (action) - really it's just a matter of perspective.
 
Top 1% of earners pay 30% of ALL income tax. This is up from about 25% 6 years ago.

Guess socialists have a weird definition of "fair"...
 
Vtec9k said:
Top 1% of earners pay 30% of ALL income tax. This is up from about 25% 6 years ago.

Guess socialists have a weird definition of "fair"...
Click to expand...
Which is a result of the top 1% of earners having to larger slice of the total income.

In an unbalanced distribution of wages, a tax levied on income will tend to yield higher results on those with much higher incomes.... what exactly did you expect?.

If I got a wage which was 99% of all the income in the UK I'd be paying virtually all of the tax - not because I'm giving more than my share or tax, but because I'm taking more than my share of incomes to begin with.

If anything I'd love to be in a society in which the 'poor' are paying a greater proportion of the taxation - as a by-product of having a greater share of the wages.

The "Yeah, but the rich pay all the taxes" is one of the dumbest arguments against wealth redistribution I've ever heard.

Firstly because of the imbalance of incomes & secondly because if the wealth was redistributed better the poor would be paying a greater proportion (making the point further moot).

http://www.ifs.org.uk/wheredoyoufitin/ - this interesting site puts it into perspective.
 
Last edited:
People don't generally get rich because they work hard, they get rich because they were born into a privilidged environment. Most of the time, rich people stay rich and poor people stay poor. There are exceptions of course, but they are exceptional.

Given that the government is made up of very wealthy people, it is unsurprising (although no less distressing) that they support a system which increases wealth inequality. :(
 
Xordium said:
And if they didn't use so many loopholes and creative accounting they would be paying 56.7%.
Click to expand...

Rather than having a higher rate and so many loopholes, would it not be preferable to just have a flat rate? Then *really* go to town on tax evaders, and absolutely 100% throw the book at them.

No tax at all until below £15k, then 20% on everything above that. And tax evasion to carry mandatory jail sentences of 2-5 years.

It's a question; I have no idea if this would be better or not :p But it does seem that we have a complicated tax system and that nobody who earns a lot actually pays what they ought to, thanks to "creative" accounting.
 
Vtec9k said:
Top 1% of earners pay 30% of ALL income tax. This is up from about 25% 6 years ago.

Guess socialists have a weird definition of "fair"...
Click to expand...

All that shows is that the gap between the rich and poor is even worse now than it was 6 years ago. Your definition of fair seems to be money gravitating towards money.

If you redistribute the wealth the total amount of income tax will not change but the tax distribution will even out (to an extent, some will always earn more than others of course). Is that not fair?

If anything total tax taken will increase. Give the poorer more money and they will spend it. A rich man might hoard £10m but spread that across the poorest people and not will they pay income tax but they will pay vat too. Buying stuff is also what makes economies grow in the first place.
 
Woden said:
But more people will be pushed into higher tax bands.
Click to expand...


But the total tax intake would reduce unless the rates are altered.


But the real question us how do you fairly skew the natural wealth distribution such that those with more specialized and rarer skills are paid fair salaries that reflect market conditions? The extreme socialists will no doubt desire forced salary caps and astronomical minimum wages which would quickly throw the UK into the Stone Age as every skilled worked deserts the island and leaves London like the acne in 28 day later.

I would simply prefer continued and bolstered support for the poor and underprivileged to make the most of their lives. Give them the opertunities to leverage the support and succeed. The issue has a deeper socio-psychological root because almost everyone has access to tools and processes to be successful in life in the UK.
 
Efour said:
Your very statement is so conditioned and bred into you by the capitalist system.

I'm the same, I couldn't be any different, how could i be? We both live in the same country. Its one of those things were you have to step out of the box i guess.

I'd rather live in an elitist capitalist country than a place where there's no point in learning more, working harder and aspiring to bigger/better things.

Id rather live in the other system, why wouldn't there be a point in learning to be a doctor ? So you get paid the same. Does the job suddenly become socially less rewarding ? Don't you get a feeling of pride for delivering a new baby into the world or does it lose all its appeal because its only suddenly paying £10 an hour ? Is the only reason to do anything on this planet to get another zero on a computer screens account balance? You could be measured on other standards that how much money you have.

I know its a Utopian scenario of nonsense, but id really prefer to live in that kind of world than this one. Kind of like living in a Star trek universe, where people decide to stop chasing little pieces of green paper (Douglas Adams?) and live a life for a better purpose.

It all turns into fanciful schoolboy dreaming from here on so ill stop now. :p

(its also ironic my name is Jeff, I had a primordial urge to say something in reply)
Click to expand...

This doesn't make any sense. It's not a like a surgeon or a doctor goes straight into the job. They are substantially (for the most part anyway :p ) more intelligent than most, and they WORK extremely long hours, for long terms for long years. Think of just the education.

Where on Earth is the incentive?


Putting it on an even more carnal level, how would people get a social value? Would it revert to strength, would it be on the basis of purely looks?


Personally I the currently system is in need of tweaking, but fundementally the model needs to have a parameter of what we are aiming for. Globalisation (whether good or bad that's another argument) has taken away the idea of sovereign states/patriotism for a large part. Now it's all about the corporations in multiple countries. This I feel is not particularly healthy.

Meh, it's 2am, I've got to figure out this database stuff, so I'll leave it there and post the rest of my drivel tomorrow. :p
 
I love the way that every time someone wants to pick an example of a high-paid job, they automatically pick doctors. People doing this do realise that there are a lot of people out there paid a lot more than doctors, right? And perhaps you should be picking other examples, like people who work in Finance, or people who inherited the family firm from daddy?


And yes, all but the most extreme socialists accept that some people earn more than others, in the proper meaning of "earn" (not just the more usual meaning of "paid"). Few begrudge this. What annoys a lot of us though, is that a small group are drawing ahead of everyone else through fixing of the financial system by their friends in power. Friends who will be rewarded with high-paid jobs after they leave politics by the people they helped. Those high-paid people in most cases might earn a higher reward, but have done little to earn a reward which is increasing much faster than others - especially since they will almost certainly rely on the effort of other who are paid a good deal less.

More annoying still though, is the "karma" view of rich and poor that is a view common to most people (to some degree): that people are paid what they deserve. That the rich are richer because they are better (cleverer, harder working etc) and the poor are poorer because they are worse: lazier, stupider etc). And thus, rich people must de facto be worthy of their money, no matter how gained.
 
Meridian said:
I love the way that every time someone wants to pick an example of a high-paid job, they automatically pick doctors. People doing this do realise that there are a lot of people out there paid a lot more than doctors, right? And perhaps you should be picking other examples, like people who work in Finance, or people who inherited the family firm from daddy?


And yes, all but the most extreme socialists accept that some people earn more than others, in the proper meaning of "earn" (not just the more usual meaning of "paid"). Few begrudge this. What annoys a lot of us though, is that a small group are drawing ahead of everyone else through fixing of the financial system by their friends in power. Friends who will be rewarded with high-paid jobs after they leave politics by the people they helped. Those high-paid people in most cases might earn a higher reward, but have done little to earn a reward which is increasing much faster than others - especially since they will almost certainly rely on the effort of other who are paid a good deal less.

More annoying still though, is the "karma" view of rich and poor that is a view common to most people (to some degree): that people are paid what they deserve. That the rich are richer because they are better (cleverer, harder working etc) and the poor are poorer because they are worse: lazier, stupider etc). And thus, rich people must de facto be worthy of their money, no matter how gained.
Click to expand...
Very well said.

The latter I'd wager is a side effect of the just-world phenomenon/hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_phenomenon.

The fact that poor children become richer in nations with a small poverty gap, seems to indicate that in nations like ours (With poor social mobility) - that our policy choices are holding back intelligent & hardworking poor people in favour less intelligent rich ones.

Part of my annoyance with having a society with such an imbalance in wealth is that we are going to be wasting an untold amount of human potential - as children who had the potential to be great scientists, scholars & entrepreneurs are being held back by the stresses & setbacks of living in poverty.

A more extreme example of this phenomenon is the wasted human potential in Africa, the amount of people who could have contributed greatly to human endeavour given the chance - but unable due to simple having the misfortunate to be born in a certain part of the world.

sports_brah said:
This doesn't make any sense. It's not a like a surgeon or a doctor goes straight into the job. They are substantially (for the most part anyway :p ) more intelligent than most, and they WORK extremely long hours, for long terms for long years. Think of just the education.

Where on Earth is the incentive?

Putting it on an even more carnal level, how would people get a social value? Would it revert to strength, would it be on the basis of purely looks?
Click to expand...
Not everybody is motivated by just greed.

The greatest minds in history were motivated by a love of science & a great soaring intellect.

Many today are motivated by wanting to make a contribution (think of Wikipedia, or any collaborative system, free-ware software) - skilled people are giving free time to contribute towards things they believe in.

Along with our natural desire for mastery (which is often ignored in the work-place) - our desire to get better at things.

The money = motivation argument is actually unsupported by evidence for jobs which people normally ascribe to being deserving of high pay - as for a start greater financial rewards reduce performance for any jobs which require any higher cognitive function.

Just to note, this wasn't a study done by some socialist institution - it was by the Federal reserve bank, also a study which has been repeated countless times to the same conclusion.
 
Last edited:
Meridian said:
I love the way that every time someone wants to pick an example of a high-paid job, they automatically pick doctors.
Click to expand...

I think people know they don't earn that much for what is done (in the main) however a lot of people seem the think that they would be willing to do the job for peanuts and some gratitude. I do agree with what you say though and it is worth pointing out I would guess the average pay for all doctors is more in the 40-50k category.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom