I have around £60% equity in my house, does this mean I am in the top 10%. I certainly don't feel very well off.It takes cash and assets worth $68,800 (£48,300) to get into the top 10%, and $760,000 (£533,000) to be in the 1%. That means that if you own an average house in London without a mortgage, you are probably in the 1%.
From the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35339475
I have around £60% equity in my house, does this mean I am in the top 10%. I certainly don't feel very well off.
And would not the amounts of money mentioned in the article enable the West to do more to support those that Oxfam is concerned about.
Oxfam said a three-pronged approach was needed: a crackdown on tax dodging; higher investment in public services; and higher wages for the low paid. It said a priority should be to close down tax havens, increasingly used by rich individuals and companies to avoid paying tax and which had deprived governments of the resources needed to tackle poverty and inequality.
not really. to quote the article:
unless of course their aim is for that additional tax revenue and investment to go overseas, something i don't think is going to gain a lot of support. the approach proposed by Oxfam would help those in the nations where the tax crackdown and higher investment occurred, not the developing countries. the problem here is the conflation between income and wealth. you're quite right about the nature of support and aid, if support to a family in Indodesia raises their income 100% from education or tools provided, it doesn't matter much if some Silicon valley chap's wealth has increased 100% because of market valuations. the increase Oxfam report is not improverishing anyone, its a artifact of how the west keeps score, not relevent to those in real poverty.
There will always be rich and poor that is a fact of life and will never change..
People like Gates and Zuckerberg are the exceptions and are trying to use their wealth for good but sadly most people are billionaires are billionaires for a reason - their goal is to accumulate as much wealth as possible.
Not sure about this. Of course it is laudable that such people make large contributions to charities etc. However the organisations that they own do not pay the tax that they should and this would no doubt total many more billions than they give away. Furthermore where the money (raised by tax) goes would be decided by governments as is correct under a system of democracy and not at the whim of the benefactor.
The only thing that is really wrong with ' the system' is the fact that too few large organisations pay the tax they should. Successive governments have tried to tackle this (Labour, coalition and Tory) and all have struggled ie it is clearly easier to say than actually do. Therefore the issue needs to stop being a political football/weapon and all parties need to work together to achieve it.
Probably dreaming though...........