[easy2012]

This post has been edited by easy2012: 05 March 2013 - 09:45 AM

[winkie]

....all well and good if the top wealthy spent their money by reinvesting it back into the economy, using what they have made from others to pay living wages to the people that helped make them rich and to help create more employment.....the thing is if the not so wealthy can't obtain back their recycled money from the wealthy or from the state that can print and borrow or people don't earn enough to pay taxes via income or expenditure the country gets poorer and more indebted.......and the very wealthy will take their money to other places where the wages, taxes and the cost of living is lower.....invest in the new poor, the poor that have a growing pot of money to spend with greater needs and demands.


What incentive is there to pay more knowing the state will be there to pick up the bill by default?

[pyracantha]

Excellent. Does anyone have a feel for how the UK figures would compare?

This post has been edited by pyracantha: 05 March 2013 - 10:10 AM

[byron78]

pyracantha, on 05 March 2013 - 10:09 AM, said:

Excellent. Does anyone have a feel for how the UK figures would compare?

Very similar I'd imagine. With many in the top 5% (or rather their landowning families/relatives) having been there for the past 1000 years.

[Tired of Waiting]

easy2012, on 05 March 2013 - 09:44 AM, said:

Is he talking about income, or net worth?

Because most people with a mortgage would have a negative net worth.

Still bad, of course, but I think income would be more useful.

[easy2012]

Tired of Waiting, on 05 March 2013 - 10:28 AM, said:

Is he talking about income, or net worth?

Because most people with a mortgage would have a negative net worth.

Still bad, of course, but I think income would be more useful.

The 20% should owned 30% is about wealth (not sure net or gross) but also touched on income if you just click "play" when you have a break time. It is just factual with minimal political overtone and it is only 6 minute.

This post has been edited by easy2012: 05 March 2013 - 10:38 AM

[easy2012]

pyracantha, on 05 March 2013 - 10:09 AM, said:

Excellent. Does anyone have a feel for how the UK figures would compare?

US, UK and Canada are plutonomy economy - so should have fairly similar distribution also after tax and benefit, UK picture looks more flat.

To correct this, government needs to stop taking from the middle and give it to the top (directly - via government contracts, job for boys etc) or indirectly - give it to the benefit dependent group who then give it to the group.

[winkie]

Tired of Waiting, on 05 March 2013 - 10:28 AM, said:

Is he talking about income, or net worth?

Because most people with a mortgage would have a negative net worth.

Still bad, of course, but I think income would be more useful.

Said, net worth......but those that sit on piles of money, land and resources have choices, they can either extract more from those with less or invest what they do have in spare back into the economy....that might mean releasing some of their assets to do so........you can only sit on one chair and sleep in one bed at any one time, once you have reached a certain level having and spending more can only create more responsibility a bigger headache to manage.......who wants to eat steak every day, steak then becomes like a potato

[Tired of Waiting]

easy2012, on 05 March 2013 - 10:37 AM, said:

The 20% should owned 30% is about wealth (not sure net or gross) but also touched on income if you just click "play" when you have a break time. It is just factual with minimal political overtone and it is only 6 minute.

Yes, it's a very good video. Top 1% owns 40% - that is staggering.

[Goat]

Tired of Waiting, on 05 March 2013 - 10:58 AM, said:

Top 1% owns 40% - that is staggering.

But also a bit confused.

The inference is that the wealth is controlled by a hazily defied global elite of banksters, landowners and similar spivs; the reality is a bit more straightforward.

Much of that 40% will be owned by farily ordinary people approaching or just past retirement; they have a relatively large amont wealth thanks to the ownership of their house plus some decent savings but for most of their lives they'll have considered themselves pretty ordinary.

Consider perhaps a teacher who bought their house in the 1970s. They might be sitting on £300k worth of equity plus a pension pot worth maybe £500,000 plus some other savings - say a cool £1m wealth all in.

Compare and contrast to a teacher born in say 1970; they might have say £50,000 equity in their house plus some pension rights but the reality is that their net wealth is going to be maybe 10% of someone 20 years older.

My point is that the 1% changes over time; posters who are today complaining about global elites controlling 40% of the wealth are likely to find themselves in that global elite in 30 years time.

[RufflesTheGuineaPig]

Goat, on 05 March 2013 - 11:19 AM, said:

They might be sitting on £300k worth of equity plus a pension pot worth maybe £500,000 plus some other savings

....aaaand it's gone!

[Blue Peter]

Goat, on 05 March 2013 - 11:19 AM, said:

My point is that the 1% changes over time; posters who are today complaining about global elites controlling 40% of the wealth are likely to find themselves in that global elite in 30 years time.

But as your 2 examples show, that's not the direction we are going in. So, what is going to change to make the teacher who started teaching in 2000 or whenever part of the global elite?


Peter.

[cashinmattress]

Quote

Yes, it's a very good video. Top 1% owns 40% - that is staggering.

How is it?

It wasn't but a few hundred years ago when monarchies around the globe had 100% control of everything.

Actually, I put it to you that this has for the most part not changed in a lot of the world.

If the thing of value is paper currency, and you have no land rights, pay taxes, in essence you own nothing more than an arbitrary title and you are a renter.

What is the distribution of wealth in North Korea, or China for that matter?

This video fails by not defining what 'wealth'.

It also fails to account for the rampant rise in consumerism in America. People don't save squat, it goes on cheese burgers and fat people trucks.

[easy2012]

Goat, on 05 March 2013 - 11:19 AM, said:

But also a bit confused.

The inference is that the wealth is controlled by a hazily defied global elite of banksters, landowners and similar spivs; the reality is a bit more straightforward.

Much of that 40% will be owned by farily ordinary people approaching or just past retirement; they have a relatively large amont wealth thanks to the ownership of their house plus some decent savings but for most of their lives they'll have considered themselves pretty ordinary.

Consider perhaps a teacher who bought their house in the 1970s. They might be sitting on £300k worth of equity plus a pension pot worth maybe £500,000 plus some other savings - say a cool £1m wealth all in.

Compare and contrast to a teacher born in say 1970; they might have say £50,000 equity in their house plus some pension rights but the reality is that their net wealth is going to be maybe 10% of someone 20 years older.

My point is that the 1% changes over time; posters who are today complaining about global elites controlling 40% of the wealth are likely to find themselves in that global elite in 30 years time.

You are of course right about the age bias.

However a lot of wealth were the results of credit inflation and unless it is repeated, it will be a lot less fund shuffling current chunk of wealth/credit.

[easy2012]

cashinmattress, on 05 March 2013 - 11:51 AM, said:

It wasn't but a few hundred years ago when monarchies around the globe had 100% control of everything.

No it wasn't. The Chinese emperor might fall into that category, but most European monarch live off the support of the Barons.

Quote

Actually, I put it to you that this has for the most part not changed in a lot of the world.

There must be at most 30 of such absolute dictators/rulers around, out of 200 countries.

Quote

What is the distribution of wealth in North Korea, or China for that matter?

Very bad and bad...

Quote

This video fails by not defining what 'wealth'.

It also fails to account for the rampant rise in consumerism in America. People don't save squat, it goes on cheese burgers and fat people trucks.

Fair to consider wealth to be somewhere between a total of property and paper claims.

Of course the fact that people voluntarily handling over cash to the top 0.01% have a lot to do with this but they would have run out of money if the government did not who keep propping them up (through direct jobs, printing, guaranteed loans, or through all sort of 'programmes').