Page 4 | If all the wealth in the UK were split evenly amongst inhabitants...

eurasa · 2023-03-28T17:24:15+00:00

Where would we all sit? If the assets/money of the 68 million inhabitants were collated and split between us all (for arguments sake let's say adults only, but trying not to get into the tiny specific semantics here), how much would we all get? There are so many people with no assets and living in poverty, but then there are a number of people with such outrageous wealth. I guess I'm asking where the mean would come out at. (Just following a conversation between DH and I, who don't know economics enough to make a good suggestion! Not a journalist!)

CalloohCallayFrabjousDay · 29/03/2023 10:17

Have a look at some communist countries and you'll get your answer.

Believeitornot · 29/03/2023 10:17

Queenofscones · 29/03/2023 10:08

It's a better system because it can afford to be. Norway has a population around the size of Scotland: it was a poor nation that has been transformed by oil revenue. It earned £140 billion from oil in 2021 — the highest amount ever. For decades it's had a surplus income which it invests in its sovereign wealth fund, now worth more than 1 trillion.

Norway and the UK had almost equal shares of the oil and gas in the North Sea. The Norwegians took a state-led approach and created a publicly-owned government organisation, Statoil, which channelled all the profits back to the state. In the UK under Margaret Thatcher the oil and gas were extracted by private companies like BP and the profits went to shareholders. The UK had a population 10 or 12 times larger than Norway, so individuals here in the UK were never going to benefit to anything like the extent that Norwegians did. Norwegians got very lucky: massive resources, small population, government that handled it well. Of course it's now pretty right-wing there and inequality is rising.

Show quote history

It’s much more than just the profits from oil and gas though, being leached to private firms. Look at the state of the energy market more generally in the UK.

OP - it is an interesting thought experiment because it illustrates just how unequal our society has become.

The problem is that wealth bring far more power than democracy ever could. Eg our individual vote is a drop in the ocean against being a billionaire or company who can whisper in the ears of top politicians.

Believeitornot · 29/03/2023 10:19

CalloohCallayFrabjousDay · 29/03/2023 10:17

Have a look at some communist countries and you'll get your answer.

Communism is a nonsense utopia idea and has never been and never will be executed as written down.

You always get oligarch and exploitation under a communist type society. Ie there will always be a cohort who hoard the best for themselves. North Korea is a good example.

Not dissimilar to where we are going under neo-liberalism/extreme capitalism.

Miajk · 29/03/2023 10:22

Queenofscones · 29/03/2023 10:08

It's a better system because it can afford to be. Norway has a population around the size of Scotland: it was a poor nation that has been transformed by oil revenue. It earned £140 billion from oil in 2021 — the highest amount ever. For decades it's had a surplus income which it invests in its sovereign wealth fund, now worth more than 1 trillion.

Norway and the UK had almost equal shares of the oil and gas in the North Sea. The Norwegians took a state-led approach and created a publicly-owned government organisation, Statoil, which channelled all the profits back to the state. In the UK under Margaret Thatcher the oil and gas were extracted by private companies like BP and the profits went to shareholders. The UK had a population 10 or 12 times larger than Norway, so individuals here in the UK were never going to benefit to anything like the extent that Norwegians did. Norwegians got very lucky: massive resources, small population, government that handled it well. Of course it's now pretty right-wing there and inequality is rising.

Show quote history

But it's not just Norway. This argument makes no sense.

What about Denmark, Sweden, Finland? These countries are all very similar in their policies and quality of life.

MarshaBradyo · 29/03/2023 10:22

Even if you even it out there will always be people more capable.

They’ll grow what they have and others won’t. It takes redistribution which we have as top centiles cover most spending.

So you can take away that and it won’t be the least able to grow funds that will be better off. They’ll suffer more as their funding will be spent.

Miajk · 29/03/2023 10:22

CalloohCallayFrabjousDay · 29/03/2023 10:17

Have a look at some communist countries and you'll get your answer.

What about socialism?

SerendipityJane · 29/03/2023 10:23

to answer the OP:

You would have broken over 1,000 years of society successfully trying it's utmost to avoid that.

CuriouslyDifferent · 29/03/2023 10:28

Miajk · 29/03/2023 10:22

What about socialism?

Show quote history

I think the only working 1st tier country is Boliva

The Uk is in 2nd tier as we have a lot of socialist policies.

Littleloveydovey · 29/03/2023 10:29

Twoshoesnewshoes · 29/03/2023 10:12

So around £300,000 per person then an annual income of £32,000? Ish ?
that’s amazing. Really eye opening.
Also, I guess if everyone had the same amount, the housing market would readjust too.
its a lot of money, a good quality of life. Great question op.

How would the housing market do that then, knock them all down and start again, building identical houses?

a d what happens when the gambler and the spendthrift spend all theirs. And the savvy invest or build businesses. What will you do. Redistribute again ?

PutYourHandUp · 29/03/2023 10:31

I think how it works with houses is that you can sell them for a different price without demolishing them.

happyfishcoco · 29/03/2023 10:34

Circumferences · 28/03/2023 19:54

The average amount of disposable income per capita in the UK is currently £32k.

So, if wealth were split equally, every person in the UK would have £32k disposable income, because this is the avert. Rather than 10% of people having a hundred times more than that, and most people having far, far less than that which is how it actually is.

I believe this figure did not include companies income.

Queenofscones · 29/03/2023 10:43

Miajk · 29/03/2023 10:22

But it's not just Norway. This argument makes no sense.

What about Denmark, Sweden, Finland? These countries are all very similar in their policies and quality of life.

Show quote history

Finland: population 5 million, vast natural resources including forestry and mining. Until relatively recently very rural and agriculture based and poor. Very much more private enterprise-based than Norway. Grew tech companies like Nokia. Worries all the time about Russia. 12% living in poverty. Basic rate tax was 35% last time I looked. Average salaries £4-5k higher than UK.

If we'd wanted to be a socialist paradise we could all pay an extra 10% tax, which would mean better benefits for all.

Believeitornot · 29/03/2023 10:44

Littleloveydovey · 29/03/2023 10:29

How would the housing market do that then, knock them all down and start again, building identical houses?

a d what happens when the gambler and the spendthrift spend all theirs. And the savvy invest or build businesses. What will you do. Redistribute again ?

Show quote history

just because the OP asked the question, it doesn’t mean that they actually want to do as they suggest.

Have you ever studied philosophy?

Believeitornot · 29/03/2023 10:46

MarshaBradyo · 29/03/2023 10:22

Even if you even it out there will always be people more capable.

They’ll grow what they have and others won’t. It takes redistribution which we have as top centiles cover most spending.

So you can take away that and it won’t be the least able to grow funds that will be better off. They’ll suffer more as their funding will be spent.

classic assumption that those who have the most were the most “capable” and that they’ve genuinely got wealthy because they worked for it in proportion to the money in their bank.

That’s literally not true. And that’s the problem.

Believeitornot · 29/03/2023 10:47

Littleloveydovey · 29/03/2023 10:29

How would the housing market do that then, knock them all down and start again, building identical houses?

a d what happens when the gambler and the spendthrift spend all theirs. And the savvy invest or build businesses. What will you do. Redistribute again ?

Show quote history

It is a thought experiment….

PutYourHandUp · 29/03/2023 10:48

I think loveydovey just likes wrecking shit.

MarshaBradyo · 29/03/2023 10:51

Believeitornot · 29/03/2023 10:46

classic assumption that those who have the most were the most “capable” and that they’ve genuinely got wealthy because they worked for it in proportion to the money in their bank.

That’s literally not true. And that’s the problem.

Show quote history

It sometimes is. Not everyone has the same ability. Or health.

That’s ok to acknowledge it’s what you do to redistribute so some aren’t left floundering

You’d find some people finding life more difficult after the initial funding was gone.

Based on your thinking where everyone is equally capable - would you be ok to remove all safety nets as you are 100% sure everyone would be able to continue self funding?

SleepingStandingUp · 29/03/2023 10:53

Thatladdo · 29/03/2023 09:28

What would happen in 5 years following this would be the rich would be rich again and the "poor" would be skint again after spending it on fags and scratchcards.

Yes because all poverty is caused by the fecklessness of the working classes 🙄🙄

Ffs

SleepingStandingUp · 29/03/2023 10:55

Littleloveydovey · 29/03/2023 10:29

How would the housing market do that then, knock them all down and start again, building identical houses?

a d what happens when the gambler and the spendthrift spend all theirs. And the savvy invest or build businesses. What will you do. Redistribute again ?

Show quote history

No, you get a 6 month contract and then move 86 positions down the postcode list to your new home. Husbands move 43 positions to the left so you also get a new one of those too.

PutYourHandUp · 29/03/2023 10:57

Like Michael MacIntyre's wheel?

Believeitornot · 29/03/2023 10:59

MarshaBradyo · 29/03/2023 10:51

It sometimes is. Not everyone has the same ability. Or health.

That’s ok to acknowledge it’s what you do to redistribute so some aren’t left floundering

You’d find some people finding life more difficult after the initial funding was gone.

Based on your thinking where everyone is equally capable - would you be ok to remove all safety nets as you are 100% sure everyone would be able to continue self funding?

Show quote history

“Based on my thinking”? I think you’ve leapt to a conclusion without a full discussion.

The problem is that we do not redistribute - which allows unfair inequality to get even worse.

I wouldn’t remove safety nets - that’s madness. Because we do not live in a society where ability and effort is rewarded fairly. Plus I believe that humans are worth more than just how much money they can generate. Children and those unable to work are obvious examples.

Believeitornot · 29/03/2023 11:00

MarshaBradyo · 29/03/2023 10:51

It sometimes is. Not everyone has the same ability. Or health.

That’s ok to acknowledge it’s what you do to redistribute so some aren’t left floundering

You’d find some people finding life more difficult after the initial funding was gone.

Based on your thinking where everyone is equally capable - would you be ok to remove all safety nets as you are 100% sure everyone would be able to continue self funding?

Show quote history

And I didn’t say everyone was equally capable. I said we do not reward people for their efforts. A very different thing.

coffeemoon · 29/03/2023 11:02

Hillrunning · 28/03/2023 20:38

OP: I have a maths question.
MN: Your idea is stupid and won't work.

😂 Yep.

OP isn't suggesting a communist revolution. Everyone calm down.

It's interesting to know what the average amount of wealth/ assets would be.

Although if we factored in the amount of debt that the UK has, it probably wouldn't be anywhere near the 6 figure amounts being suggested.

Believeitornot · 29/03/2023 11:02

coffeemoon · 29/03/2023 11:02

😂 Yep.

OP isn't suggesting a communist revolution. Everyone calm down.

It's interesting to know what the average amount of wealth/ assets would be.

Although if we factored in the amount of debt that the UK has, it probably wouldn't be anywhere near the 6 figure amounts being suggested.

Show quote history

^This

Believeitornot · 29/03/2023 11:03

coffeemoon · 29/03/2023 11:02

😂 Yep.

OP isn't suggesting a communist revolution. Everyone calm down.

It's interesting to know what the average amount of wealth/ assets would be.

Although if we factored in the amount of debt that the UK has, it probably wouldn't be anywhere near the 6 figure amounts being suggested.

Show quote history

well if you look who is on the other side of that “debt”, I think there are some who are doing very well! Eg anyone who has investment funds is likely to be in receipt of interest from UK issued government gilts. That’s before I get to pensions.