The Rich get richer, much richer1

[Solomon1]

Never before have the "poor" in this country been so wealthy.

 

You are hilarious

 

And obviously bored!

[JFKvsNixon]

So basically pre 1979 socialism was restricting high earners from earning the sort of money they can now, either due to heavy tax regimes or the state controlling everything. You know, back when we were the poor man of Europe and the country was in an economic mess.

 

I keep hearing about how capitalism means money doesn't trickle down, but it's interesting to see how much better life is for people on low incomes than it was back in the 1970s when the Gini value was lower. Maybe with more rich people means more taxes and more support for people on low incomes now, rather than less tax income due to less 'rich' people and without having to bail out a dying selection of nationalised industries? Perish the thought!

 

Actually, I wasn't talking about people on lower incomes. I was talking about society in general.

 

As I've said I really do not have any issue at all with people earning lots of money, but for capitalism to work that money has to be recirculated around the economy.

[tinfoilhat]

Never before have the rich paid so little tax, yet STILL many want to hide it offshore. No wonder Osborne had to revise his budget when he discovered he wasn't getting the tax receipts he expected.

More rich people, esp. Global corporations, just means more greed and less tax.

 

Have you got any figures on the "less tax" thing. I'm quite curious.

[Staunton]

poppet2 knows that there is something wrong when an advertising executive enjoys an hourly income that exceeds the annual salary of a careworker, and has no need to engage in explanation or justification.

 

Anyone who has any sense of fairness or justice knows that there is something obscene going on when some people are paid £20,000.00 per hour while essential service workers earn less than that in a whole year.

[Cyclone]

You are hilarious

 

And obviously bored!

 

He's quite right though.

The standard of living, for even the poor in this country is higher than it's ever been.

 

But that's sort of missing the point. People don't compare themselves to the past, they compare themselves to others today, hence when income inequality is important, even though general standards of living are very high.

 

---------- Post added 10-05-2016 at 07:28 ----------

 

poppet2 knows that there is something wrong when an advertising executive enjoys an hourly income that exceeds the annual salary of a careworker, and has no need to engage in explanation or justification.

 

Anyone who has any sense of fairness or justice knows that there is something obscene going on when some people are paid £20,000.00 per hour while essential service workers earn less than that in a whole year.

 

That's a change of tack to pay rates instead of tax rates. A deliberate attempt to avoid the question (which wasn't even asked of you).

You (or poppet) want to make a point, then you do have a need to engage in explanation or justification, at least if you expect to convince anyone of the validity of what you're saying.

[RonJeremy]

You are hilarious

 

And obviously bored!

 

Thank you I'll take that as a compliment.

Bored? Bored of explaining simple obvious things to people who refuse to see the truth.

 

You can't educate jealousy.

[I1L2T3]

He's quite right though.

The standard of living, for even the poor in this country is higher than it's ever been.

 

But that's sort of missing the point. People don't compare themselves to the past, they compare themselves to others today, hence when income inequality is important, even though general standards of living are very high.

 

---------- Post added 10-05-2016 at 07:28 ----------

 

 

That's a change of tack to pay rates instead of tax rates. A deliberate attempt to avoid the question (which wasn't even asked of you).

You (or poppet) want to make a point, then you do have a need to engage in explanation or justification, at least if you expect to convince anyone of the validity of what you're saying.

 

Ron said they had never been so wealthy. People have never been in so much debt. Many workers now rely on state top-ups to afford the basics. Many cannot afford to buy a home and are forced to rent. A million+ people use food banks.

 

I'm left wondering what Ron's definition of wealth is.

 

---------- Post added 10-05-2016 at 08:11 ----------

 

Thank you I'll take that as a compliment.

Bored? Bored of explaining simple obvious things to people who refuse to see the truth.

 

You can't educate jealousy.

 

What is your definition of wealth?

[Cyclone]

Historically only a tiny minority would ever own property, the young at the moment are struggling to buy, I accept that, but overall as a country home ownership is extremely high. And that's just one form of wealth.

Health is better than it's ever been, as is life expectancy.

People have more free time than they've ever had.

The level of personal freedom is extremely high.

 

It's difficult to include these things in a measure of wealth, but the overall quality of life is amongst the highest the world has ever known.

[I1L2T3]

Historically only a tiny minority would ever own property, the young at the moment are struggling to buy, I accept that, but overall as a country home ownership is extremely high. And that's just one form of wealth.

Health is better than it's ever been, as is life expectancy.

People have more free time than they've ever had.

The level of personal freedom is extremely high.

 

It's difficult to include these things in a measure of wealth, but the overall quality of life is amongst the highest the world has ever known.

 

Yeah right, I thought we were talking about how the poor had never been so wealthy but carry on......

 

You do have a reverse gear. It is available.

 

Now I'm left wondering wondering what your definition of wealth is, and incredulous at bow easily you can brush the problems of the poor aside by applying some hackneyed aggregate measure of overall national well-being.

 

What is your definition of wealth?

[Cyclone]

Can you see post #85 where I said "standard of living" and not "wealth"?

 

Perhaps that was a clue as to what I was talking about... Just maybe.

 

Why do you need my definition of wealth? This thread is about income inequality and the OP has been proven to be wrong.