Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Top 62







surrey jim

Not in Surrey
Aug 2, 2005
18,085
Bevendean
From the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35339475

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%.
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.
 


Wilko

LUZZING chairs about
Sep 19, 2003
9,921
BN1
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.

You are in terms of relative poverty/affluence in the world. Remember a huge % of people live on less than $1 per day.

As a teacher (not well paid by British standards) working in Kenya I am in the the top 0.2% of earners in the whole country :eek:
 


beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,265
the left should really worry more about the real incomes of people in real poverty and less about the paper wealth of a few dozen people. higher wages and clamping down on tax dodging in the west isn't going to affect the poor in the developing world that Oxfam concern themselves with.
 




DavidinSouthampton

Well-known member
NSC Patreon
Jan 3, 2012
16,538
Given that David Cameron is mentioned in the article as vowing that Britain would lead a clampdown on tax havens and the like, is he now counted as being "of the left"?

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. I would have thought the NATURE of the support is the most important - in other words the old Christian Aid (?) idea of "if you give a man a fish you feed him and his family for a day. If you teach a man how to fish, you feed them for life". Or the Traidcraft principle of making sure people in the third world are paid a fair price if not a premium for what they produce, and then doing constructive stuff in those communities with the profits.
 


beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,265
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.

not really. to quote the article:
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.

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.
 


Dick Swiveller

Well-known member
Sep 9, 2011
9,142
Whilst not a rabid leftie, the fact people have billions of pounds to themselves when millions are starving is very, very depressing. 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. My dad did some work for a billionaire and I got a look round one of his houses. Millions in art on the walls and well over £50 million in art in a vault. All of it eclectic and all bought because it will gain in value - not because it is nice to look at. The first thought that enters a billionaire's head when they get to a billion is how to get to 2.

The comedian Tony Hawks did an interesting speech a couple of years back suggesting that any earnings over a certain number of million each year should go to good causes. Of course it will never happen but the fact that it would never even be considered is sad. And is probably the reason that all political structures are flawed. We all look after ourselves primarily which is as it should be. But even if there were a Utopian scenario where everyone had what they want, there would be people who would want more. There is a reason Animal Farm is a classic.

I couldn't live with myself if I had a billion pounds in the bank and still had a billion a year later. But that is why I will never be a millionaire - let alone a billionaire. There is a point whereby I would have enough money in the bank to live comfortably and ensure my family and friends could do the same. Beyond that, I would hope I would give the rest away. But then I live relatively comfortably now and give a smaller percentage than I could afford to charity. More of a security thing as I have a mortgage but it is the same thing. We look after ourselves first and would like to think we would be very generous were we to become rich. But I wonder how true that would be were it to happen.
 




DavidinSouthampton

Well-known member
NSC Patreon
Jan 3, 2012
16,538
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.

Point taken. I guess if the overall tax etc income to government in, say, the UK were to increase significantly and enable us better to sort out the issues at home, it might enable us to increase overseas aid with less pressure of the charity begins at home type.

And if the Davos meetings were to take on board the inequities, they might take on board the OXFAM suggestions, but might equally consider other ways of sorting things out. The important thing is perhaps to highlight the gap and stimulate people to do something about it.
 


Guy Fawkes

The voice of treason
Sep 29, 2007
8,187
By the same token, does this mean that westerners with mortgages and therefore tens of thousands in debt to the banks in deeper poverty than those who owe but own nothing (because they are unable to borrow and have no assets) but are living hand to mouth in genuine poverty?

Or the westerners with debts owed to credit card companies nutrient and therefore don't have saleable assets to sell to pay this off?
 






Silverhatch

Well-known member
Feb 23, 2009
4,271
Preston Park
There will always be rich and poor that is a fact of life and will never change..

I don't think anyone would disagree with that - but a tiny % of obscenely rich measured against a huge % of crushingly poor is the issue that mankind needs to get a handle on. This isn't a question of right and left. It's more about what's fundamentally right and wrong.
 


abc

Well-known member
Jan 6, 2007
1,028
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...........
 



Paying the bills

Latest Discussions

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here