MrPin Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 Shirley Porter? Very Good! Anyone else remember the story? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 Very Good! Anyone else remember the story? I do vaguely, something to do with pennies and graveyards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erranta Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 (edited) Oh dear, who's this "they"? Do you perhaps mean the Jews? That's at least a hypothesis with history on its side, though your argument has been considered unacceptable - even offensive - since 1945, for reasons most of us accept. ****** off you weirdo! I have Jews in my own family! Seeing an insight into your thought processes (homing in straight on Jews as your logical concensus) confims my views of ex Oxbridge students amongst whom some have been the greatest traitors and ex-spies this country has ever known! Edited December 21, 2010 by erranta Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
council dweller Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 Who do you think paid for your Council House? I pay rent at an ever increasing rate for my council house, rents are expected to go up by 6.8% next year and by a similar amount over the following years. Considering that this place has had around 2 new bathrooms and 2 to 3 new kitchens over the past 57 years I'd say the council is making a tidy profit. My guess is that the original build cost was paid by the American Government (1,100 Pounds)but this debt has been paid back but central government still take HALF of our rents! What are you suggesting? Do you think that rich people tour round our council estate once a week and push envelopes countaining wads of notes through our letter boxes? Sorry but it just doesn't happen..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicker Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 I pay rent at an ever increasing rate for my council house, rents are expected to go up by 6.8% next year and by a similar amount over the following years. Considering that this place has had around 2 new bathrooms and 2 to 3 new kitchens over the past 57 years I'd say the council is making a tidy profit. My guess is that the original build cost was paid by the American Government (1,100 Pounds)but this debt has been paid back but central government still take HALF of our rents! What are you suggesting? Do you think that rich people tour round our council estate once a week and push envelopes countaining wads of notes through our letter boxes? Sorry but it just doesn't happen..... Sorry bit lost here, what has America got to do with this. lend/lease after ww2 ? All funding for council homes after ww1 was lent from central government, no borough could finance its own building programme. Not sure back in the day council homes were even self funding. Didn't maggie sell them off as they were supposedly a burden on the tax payer? I believe 50% of all right to buy money went back to central government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ned Coates Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 Most of the sunday times rich list each year consists of the 'self made'. The majority of the 'well off' are self employed or small business owners, these are a level or two below what you would find in the times rich list, but they used to be poor as well. With either the times or the sunday times do you think it possible that very rich people ensure they don't appear on any list? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParticleMan Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 The flaw in the question is the conflation of wealth with income. Didn't this decade teach you anything? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porca misèria Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 ****** off you weirdo! I have Jews in my own family! Seeing an insight into your thought processes (homing in straight on Jews as your logical concensus) confims my views of ex Oxbridge students amongst whom some have been the greatest traitors and ex-spies this country has ever known! You need to look in a mirror. It was you (and, to be fair, others) who ranted against some ill-defined "they" who behave like pantomime villains. I asked about "they", and am still awaiting a reply. I mentioned Jews because historically there is a strong association between Jews and usurers and bankers, going back to an era when the majority were constrained by Christian rules. This led to sentiments similar to yours being directed towards Jewish people: for example, Shylock would appear to fit the image of your "they". The image was so strong that some of the most monstrous Jews of fiction come from such unlikely racists as the radical social reformer Dickens (Fagin) and the Jewish composer Halévy (Eléazar). If you want to claim your "they" is not some contemporary substitute for "jews" from the renaissance through to 1945, why not tell us who "they" are and how they differ from historical scapegoats? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandora's box Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 The flaw in the question is the conflation of wealth with income. Didn't this decade teach you anything? How do you compare wealth and income? If you don't know, don't answer - I won't think any less of you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porca misèria Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 The flaw in the question is the conflation of wealth with income. Didn't this decade teach you anything? There's more confusion than just that in this thread! How do you compare wealth and income? If you don't know, don't answer - I won't think any less of you. Can I answer with examples? There may be an element of caricature, but also of reality. High wealth, low income: the farmer owning a £5million farm and £750k farmhouse, with a range rover and a BMW each renewed every three years or so, yet making a £15k income from the business and complaining bitterly about Tescos. Low wealth, high income: the empty-headed celebrity (e.g. footballer or pop star) who makes millions very quickly but squanders it all. Low wealth, low income: the traditional working person, in an unskilled job and living in a flat-share. High wealth, high income: anyone from royalty to the self-made millionaire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandora's box Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 Can I answer with examples? There may be an element of caricature, but also of reality. High wealth, low income: the farmer owning a £5million farm and £750k farmhouse, with a range rover and a BMW each renewed every three years or so, yet making a £15k income from the business and complaining bitterly about Tescos. Low wealth, high income: the empty-headed celebrity (e.g. footballer or pop star) who makes millions very quickly but squanders it all. Low wealth, low income: the traditional working person, in an unskilled job and living in a flat-share. High wealth, high income: anyone from royalty to the self-made millionaire. In which category does your typical banker belong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParticleMan Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 (edited) How do you compare wealth and income? If you don't know, don't answer - I won't think any less of you. Stock verses flow - they're orthogonal concepts. (and there's no viable data on wealth - every "eat the rich" treatise I've ever read has made the same basic error of grounding the theory, whatever it might be, upon income metrics) Edited December 21, 2010 by ParticleMan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Self Employed Youth Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 I pay rent at an ever increasing rate for my council house, rents are expected to go up by 6.8% next year and by a similar amount over the following years. Considering that this place has had around 2 new bathrooms and 2 to 3 new kitchens over the past 57 years I'd say the council is making a tidy profit. My guess is that the original build cost was paid by the American Government (1,100 Pounds)but this debt has been paid back but central government still take HALF of our rents! What are you suggesting? Do you think that rich people tour round our council estate once a week and push envelopes countaining wads of notes through our letter boxes? Sorry but it just doesn't happen..... Inflation +0.5% over many years, when there has been below inflation pay rises. Now they will increase even further. And people argue that council houses must be subsidised as they pay more renting privately, not thinking that if your paying over the odds, that they are paying considerably over the odds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Self Employed Youth Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 Sorry bit lost here, what has America got to do with this. lend/lease after ww2 ? All funding for council homes after ww1 was lent from central government, no borough could finance its own building programme. Not sure back in the day council homes were even self funding. Didn't maggie sell them off as they were supposedly a burden on the tax payer? I believe 50% of all right to buy money went back to central government. Perhaps, it was 75% recently(past year) and is to now increase to 100%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
council dweller Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 Sorry bit lost here, what has America got to do with this. lend/lease after ww2 ? All funding for council homes after ww1 was lent from central government, no borough could finance its own building programme. Not sure back in the day council homes were even self funding. Didn't maggie sell them off as they were supposedly a burden on the tax payer? I believe 50% of all right to buy money went back to central government. Yes indeed, looks like it was part of lend lease though no one really knows, maybe they just printed it!? I thought that Thatcher sold them off because the system worked too well and there was nothing in it for the banks? Btw, 75% of RTB receipts go to central government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arbitrage Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 How about asking an actual question. Look at my previous post for lots of examples, but to reiterate just one. Two week's dole money today will buy you a b***** good washing machine. A couple of generations ago, a far inferior version of that amazing luxury would cost you several months average wage. That's real trickle-down of real wealth: today's dole gets you what only the rich could aspire to when the boomers were young. Your confusing the benefits of economic growth with trickle down They are not the same. For example, in Finland income inequality has fallen, as has the price of consumer durables Case dismissed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuckyOne Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 Your confusing the benefits of economic growth with trickle down They are not the same. For example, in Finland income inequality has fallen, as has the price of consumer durables Case dismissed. There is a fundamental internal contradiction in the goal of reducing income inequality that needs to be addressed. Scenario A : Real household after tax income rises by 10% for the bottom quintile and by 20% for the top quintile Scenario B : Real household after tax income remains flat for the bottom quintile and falls by 10% for the top quintile In scenario A, the bottom quintile are better of but inequality has risen. In scenario B, no-one is better off by inequality has fallen. Choosing B over A makes the bottom quintile worse off. I am not trying to create a false binary and agree that a multitude of other combinations are possible but I do think that focusing too much on the relative standing of members in society and losing sight of their absolute incomes is a mistake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverland Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 In which category does your typical banker belong? High income, low wealth, lots of debt on car and house(s) usually... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverland Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 There is a fundamental internal contradiction in the goal of reducing income inequality that needs to be addressed. Scenario A : Real household after tax income rises by 10% for the bottom quintile and by 20% for the top quintile Scenario B : Real household after tax income remains flat for the bottom quintile and falls by 10% for the top quintile In scenario A, the bottom quintile are better of but inequality has risen. In scenario B, no-one is better off by inequality has fallen. Choosing B over A makes the bottom quintile worse off. I am not trying to create a false binary and agree that a multitude of other combinations are possible but I do think that focusing too much on the relative standing of members in society and losing sight of their absolute incomes is a mistake. It might be a mistake but its also human nature Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indirectapproach Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 (edited) "For example, in Finland income inequality has fallen, as has the price of consumer durables." Apparently not according to this, http://www.stat.fi/artikkelit/2005/art_2005-03-16_001.html An English translation of which would seem to be, "The long trend of growth in living standards paired with diminishing differences between social classes was dramatically reversed during the 1990s. For the first time in the history of Finland income differences have sharply grown. This change has been mostly driven by the growth of income from capital to the wealthiest segment of the population." Which is the final paragraph of the idiots guide article on the point, found at, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Finland Edited December 22, 2010 by indirectapproach Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porca misèria Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 Your[sic] confusing the benefits of economic growth with trickle down They are not the same. For example, in Finland income inequality has fallen, as has the price of consumer durables Case dismissed. They may not be the same, but they're closely related. A cup of hot tea and a glass of iced tea are not the same, but both quench thirst. Nevertheless, economic growth is historically strongly correlated with the economic rewards enjoyed by those who create it. The growth is a form of trickle-down from the substantial rewards that can come from building a successful enterprise. Yes of course that's never going to be the whole story, but that's not the question. I'm claiming existence, you're denying universality. That's fine: trickle-down exists, but is not universal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 (edited) Your confusing the benefits of economic growth with trickle down They are not the same. For example, in Finland income inequality has fallen, as has the price of consumer durables Case dismissed. Does technological development count as economic growth? Edited December 22, 2010 by Riedquat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indirectapproach Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 The two tend to go hand in hand but are different. Like a cart and horse, often seen together but a cart is not a horse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuckyOne Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 It might be a mistake but its also human nature Harnessing the power of the politics of envy to gain political power is an unseemly tactic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverland Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 Going back to the question "Is there a trickle down effect from the rich?" my personal take: Yes there obviously is, but a lot of the money goes into things rich people buy: land, investments, luxury goods that are either imported or don't involve much domestic production If you give money to the government it creates more jobs (of debateable usefulness) and if you give the money to the poorer segments of society it all gets spent (though much of it goes on rent) The rich should pay a lot of taxes for the opportunities a democratic country with the rule of law gave them to become rich and the right to be able to not have to employ private armies or pay bribes like they do in the rest of the world to keep their wealth However there comes a point where the marginal rate of tax becomes so high that it acts as a disincentive to create more wealth by taking risks or to evade taxes using the numerous loop holes in the tax laws available I think that point comes at somewhere above 30% tax rate judging by what happens in the UK The art for a government is taxing the rich as much as possible while encoraging innovation and avoiding large scale tax evasion We had a pretty good balance on that front in the 90s and early part of this decade but not it has got out of kilter and income taxes are a disincentive However other taxes on capital and inheritance are still very easy to avoid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.