Wealth distribution and its inequality in the Uk.

[Mucky_Pup]

Inequality is the "fairest" way. Equality isn't.

 

[Xordium]

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.

Actually you can because they target it at interest rather than need which is not necessarily a good thing for society. And their interests whilst initially seemingly benevolent often have a strong undercurrent of self-interest in them.

 

[FoxEye]

Actually you can because they target it at interest rather than need which is not necessarily a good thing for society. And their interests whilst initially seemingly benevolent often have a strong undercurrent of self-interest in them.

What more can you realistically expect? At the end of the day, it's their money. If they are spending some of it in a way which benefits society in some way, that's to be applauded.

You aren't going to find anyone that acquires a large amount of money then gives it away to the benefit chavs with 5 sprogs, so they can afford that new 50 inch plasma TV they've always wanted

So long as a person with money isn't exploiting the less fortunate; is paying a fair wage to his/her employees; and not avoiding due tax or 'gaming' the system, then how can we judge them unfavourably?

You can't tell other people how to spend their money no matter how much or little they have.

 

[WillyNelson]

I think you're missing the point. Inequality is the gap between rich and poor. You can't just look at the poorest in society in isolation.

If the motivation for addressing inequality is to increase the wealth of the poor then of course you can. If its because you think we should all have closer to the same wealth then no, but that's more of a communist ideal than addressing poverty.

We should be focussing on bringing people out of abject poverty rather than complaining that some people have too much money.

 

[Radiation]

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.

People have an odd sense of value and right and wrong when it comes to money, i don't have a problem with someone being rich compared to most but it should be within reason, a few million in the bank and a big house and toys is plenty enough for anyone, any more and it's greed pure and simple, it's taking an unfair piece of the pie which only hurts others and society in general.

A good example of whats wrong is take a mega rich person like bill gates, his company made massive profits and him super rich but what actually happens if an unfair distribution of wealth, instead of making him and his company worth billions he could have sold us software etc for less and paid his workers more all while making a very nice profit to grow and live off, this is the problem with capitalism, its about extracting the most wealth from resources and people as possible, its selfish by design, goes against whats good for the majority, yet people still think it's business as usual and ok, well it aint and its unsustainable anyway, it will fail sooner or later.

 

[arknor]

why not encourage companies to give to it's own employees rather than a charity somewhere? spread the wealth around a little bit more and try to keep any benefits of a companies wealth to the local areas they operate from.

why offer tax deductions and tax write offs to companies that give to charity ? they should be encouraged to benefit their workers and the local area

 

[estebanrey]

But I'm taxed on the things I buy via VAT with income that is already taxed via PAYE and NI. So if I buy something in the shops worth £100, I need to earn £141 to pay for it (40% income tax + 1% NI) plus 20% VAT. So for me to buy that £100 item, the government gets £61 in tax. Whereas a landowner living in Downton Abbey, who doesn't need to work as they inherited all their wealth, gets to put his income into trusts and other tax-dodging vehicles and has a smaller tax bill than myself.

Unless you earn a six figure sum you'll pay nowhere near 40% in income tax.

Sorry but it annoys me when people think because the top level of income tax they pay is 40% that they pay 40% on what they earn when they don't pay anywhere near that once you take the fact you only pay the higher rate on amounts above the limit and the near £10k tax free allowance into account.

For example, someone who earns £40k a year (a higher rate tax payer) takes home over £30k a year (source), including NI deductions, which means in reality they are being taxed at around 25%.

I personally earn around the national average and pay total contributions to the government is less than 20% including NI.

Hence your £61 is an overestimation.

 

[Xordium]

What more can you realistically expect? At the end of the day, it's their money. If they are spending some of it in a way which benefits society in some way, that's to be applauded.

No, I don't think it needs applauding at all. I think it should be called out for what it is - promoting self interest. I don't see me getting a pat on the back for doing that, I doubt you do, and I doubt anyone on this forum does - so why do we now have to get all excited about the rich giving their spare change away.

I never said I wanted to tell people how to spend their money. What I clearly said was I won't give a pat on the back to the rich for being benevolent when they quite clearly are not being.

 

[Nitefly]

Interesting idea of fair.

You don't make serious money by having a respectable job, you make serious money buy owning a respectable business.

 

[Xordium]

Or having an unrespectable job!

 

[elmarko]

Interesting idea of fair.

You don't make serious money by having a respectable job, you make serious money buy owning a respectable business.

The easiest way to make money is to already have some money to begin with.

The opportunities available to people who already posses wealth vastly outstrip those without available capital.

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.

The leech reference was the counter argument to that assertion that people on benefits/workless are "getting something for nothing" argument earlier - so in isolation it makes little sense when viewed in isolation & out of context.

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.

Don't get me wrong, I don't attribute blame to either group (I dislike 'plebs' (assuming you mean the 'chav' type) as much as I dislike 'toffs') - both groups posses undesirable traits & both are the result of opposing ends of upbringing.

We are the result of our experiences & upbringing. I'm in favour of changing social policy to positively influence the experiences of the following generations to reduce the total amount of 'toffs' & 'plebs' - in favour of a population of educated, rational & well adjusted human beings who live in a social with greater social cohesion.

Creating these extremes of wealth is divisive & harmful to the fabric of society, not only is this attested to in a number of studies but it also glaringly obvious when you look at how society judges these extremes.

 

[Nitefly]

The easiest way to make money is to already have some money to begin with.

The opportunities available to people who already posses wealth vastly outstrip those without available capital.

Yes, but many 'intelligent' fellows decide to pursue careers in jobs that will never get them the Gordon Gecko lifestyle of their dreams. All a bit pointless!

 

[estebanrey]

 

[The_Abyss]

Inheritance tax is in my view a deplorable tax and should be scrapped entirely. Take what you want from my income, don't hand my kids a bill when I die.

Just a minor point - the kids aren't taxed, the dead person is. Beneficiaries receive inheritance net of any tax due.

 

[TJM]

Provided that the 'poorest' are comfortable, why does the gap between the richest and the poorest matter?

Because a large enough gap will permanently exclude the poor and their children from the best education, jobs and land.

And 'comfortable' isn't static. Read any decent urban history of the 19th century and you'll find it is full of capitalists who used every means possible to prevent workers reducing their working hours to only 12 a day. The people had to fight long and hard for the right not to be allowed to die of cold, hunger or want of a doctor.

 

[kindai]

Topics like this enrage me.

Id love for people to tell me how "equality" is unfair when for every £1 I earn from my business, I end up giving 52p of that to the government by the time its in my personal bank account for spending.

Come back to me when these people moaning try doing that with their paycheques.

 

[dowie]

Provided that the 'poorest' are comfortable, why does the gap between the richest and the poorest matter?

It depends how the richest became 'rich'... if we've got social mobility then I'm in complete agreement - so long as people at the bottom are still able to live comfortably, have access to healthcare, education etc.. then people becoming rich in itself isn't a massive issue.

The issue is where large chunks of unearned wealth are possessed and passed down along successive generations - if society gets completely divided so that people in the bottom 10% have very little chance of making it to the top 10% then we do have issues. If anything it seems more like the USA is moving closer to this and experiencing less social mobility than Europe... The 'American dream' being more of a myth than reality.

The UK could really do with bringing back govt assisted places and more grammar schools... it seems bizarre that Labour is so anti them when they, quite obviously, give a huge boost to social mobility and are inherently meritocratic. Currently getting into a top state school relies more on the parent's ability to pay the premium for a house in the right catchment area.

 

[Stretch]

Topics like this enrage me.

Id love for people to tell me how "equality" is unfair when for every £1 I earn from my business, I end up giving 52p of that to the government by the time its in my personal bank account for spending.

Come back to me when these people moaning try doing that with their paycheques.

You are one of the people moaning. I don't find people paying a 52p tax rate the focus of unfair wealth distribution. Maybe if people at the top paid more, you could pay a little less

 

[Efour]

You are one of the people moaning. I don't find people paying a 52p tax rate the focus of unfair wealth distribution. Maybe if people at the top paid more, you could pay a little less

Exactly its nothing about people like yourself that just scrape into the top tax bracket + corporation/business tax.
Its about the 1% that own 60% or whatever the figures were.

No one cares about the everyday middle folk. Point to 1 person that ever said " im really happy paying my taxes and national insurance contributions"

 

[hurfdurf]

Topics like this enrage me.

Id love for people to tell me how "equality" is unfair when for every £1 I earn from my business, I end up giving 52p of that to the government by the time its in my personal bank account for spending.

Come back to me when these people moaning try doing that with their paycheques.

Their paycheques aren't as big as yours?