Wealth distribution and its inequality in the Uk.
- Thread starter Efour
- Start date
Disgusting and wrong is what it is, im not sure why we allow it, there comes a point where it's pure greed, most systems have thier issues and can be taken to extremes if left without checks and balances, we should now cap the wealth of the top and give it back to the other half, 5 to 10 million is plenty for the vast majority, businesses should only be allowed to make a fair profit, supply and demand gone, things should be calculated based on real world value, materials and labour plus a small profit.
The first example is absolute, complete and utter garbage and you know it is.
The second example isn't great but I can see what you're driving at and it better illustrates your point.
I've been reading your posts in this thread and wonder why you seem to have such an obsession with social sponges. Rich people's kids taking more resources but giving less back. I really don't understand what you mean and also why that bothers you as much as it seems to. How about poor people taking and giving nothing back- is that acceptable or is it equally deplorable? I wonder because if it's something you feel strongly about in general then I'd be inclined to agree to an extent with you. However if it's just regarding the children of the rich then I'd think you were being silly.
Also, what to you is rich?
In fact where are people's points of reference beginning when thinking about this thread?
Have you read any of the studies with strongly indicate the gap itself is a metric which has a impact on society?.
One example, based on a meta-analysis - http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html
Are you saying that not a single CEO in the world is currently engaging in business which results in the destruction of the environment? - really?.
You misunderstand the point.
Wealth distribution impacts on us all, not just the poor.
I don't like living in a society full of chavs, a society in which potential is wasted - one which crime rates being significantly higher than they need to be. I believe that every single person in the UK has an equal right to a fair chance to succeed in life.
If we want to solve these problems we need to start to spend time understanding the root causes of these problems, economic inequality is part of the problem (not the only cause obviously).
I thought the studies showed a correlation, but only if you removed certain countries to make it slightly more friendly to the statistics?
E: Redacted for a less bileful response.
I can't say that I have, is there freely available data or a paper to have a look at? Can't really watch the video atm...
I can't say that I have, is there freely available data or a paper to have a look at? Can't really watch the video atm...
Last edited:
A huge variety of supporting studies aid in understanding the causation, for example the increase in many of the violence related statistics have been associated with negative self-esteem related judgement in society based on the different socio-economic classes (resulting in negative behaviour).
There are literally thousands of studies on the subject, a number of which focus on the same country removing the different potential bias from certain anomalous nations (states of the USA being key which fit the same pattern).
The same dislike (which results in negative behaviour) for uneven rewards has even been observed in fellow Apes in behavioural studies, lending further supporting evidence.
I've yet to see a single study which even remotely supports the premise that gross income inequality is a positive aspect for society.
I've dropped a request to the authors for the data (they offer it upon request), I'll upload it then drop you a link.
Associate
- Joined
- 24 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 1,670
- Location
- edinburgh
No problem with wealth as long as it's used rationally and sensibly.
Surely that is a contradiction. A person that inherits lots of money and doesn't work but spends that money consuming large amounts of resources and labour is contributing to society, it helps the economy running. It is no different to poor people spending all their money, which helps the economy running which you yourself have claimed which is why you advocate a higher standard of living for the poor, as they spend most if not all their money keeping the economy going.
Both groups of people are a product of their upbringing only opposite ends of the spectrum. I find it odd that some people would reel at calling the poor social leeches yet feel it ok to call the inherited wealthy, social leeches. It is like how people feel justified calling wealthy people rich toffs yet are outraged at being called plebs.
I like the way with these discussion people always assume that the only real contribution you can make to society is financial. However, when we look back at history and we remember those whose presence has left ripples that touch us even today their contribution it rarely in terms of wealth but the more intangible things like leadership, music, literature, painting, wisdom, beauty, ...
This thread is about wealth distribution so it is hardly surprising to be fair.
that's the problem, the people who use it recklessly and stupidly are upset they don't have any left and want some of the sensible peoples wealth.
ooh that's just silly !
or make them do stuff to benefit the workers like some mega rich people did in the past building cheap housing for the workers etc
but these days shareholders , board members etc have pretty much ruined everything with profit profit profit above all else.
the gap likely seemed much larger 100 years ago but it would seem the gap was easier to climb with more opportunities, these days to few control so much and basically monopolise everything.
look at the dragons den recently there was someone wanting to launch some fizzy drinks but no one would invest because they knew from previous experiences coca cola etc would just slash their prices to distributors and destroy any new rival before they could get off the ground.
AFAIR one of the dragons claimed cola would just half their prices to distributors until the competition was crushed
Last edited:
Yes it is but that doesn't then mean it is the sole contribution (which is what people are arguing it may well be). And if they don't believe that then their arguments hold no logic whatsoever.
People with a lot of money (legitimately acquired) I have no problem with.
People/organisations with a lot of money, who either dodge tax or pay very low wages/outsource overseas, I have nothing but disdain for.
There are plenty of very wealth people who are heavily into philanthropy, which is nice. Can't fault someone who is rich but also generous/fair.
But there are also plenty of moderately well off people who are more stingy than Dell boy himself. People who make >100k annually, but think nothing of taking on staff and paying them minimum wage, whilst they themselves take 5 holidays a year. I personally know very well-off tradesmen who exploit Apprenticeship schemes this way, which is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Having money isn't bad or wrong. Loving money and pursuing financial gain without consideration of ethics most definitely is.
People/organisations with a lot of money, who either dodge tax or pay very low wages/outsource overseas, I have nothing but disdain for.
There are plenty of very wealth people who are heavily into philanthropy, which is nice. Can't fault someone who is rich but also generous/fair.
But there are also plenty of moderately well off people who are more stingy than Dell boy himself. People who make >100k annually, but think nothing of taking on staff and paying them minimum wage, whilst they themselves take 5 holidays a year. I personally know very well-off tradesmen who exploit Apprenticeship schemes this way, which is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Having money isn't bad or wrong. Loving money and pursuing financial gain without consideration of ethics most definitely is.