AIBU. The richest 1,000 people see their wealth increase by £155bn

[GetAllTheThings]

Since the banking crisis the richest 1,000 people in Britain have seen their wealth increase by £155bn.

1000 people. £155 billion pounds.

That's enough to pay off the whole government deficit of £119bn in one go.

I fail to see how 'we are all in this together'.

How is this right in a civilized society when millions of children live in poverty ? Surely money is like water, and it's all flowed into the hands of a select few.

Guardian and Guardian again

I associate trickledown with Reaganomics mostly. It certainly wasn't something Blair etc came up with.

Child poverty was on the government agenda under Labour and was being proactively tackled, now it's getting worse again. That's why there is so much concern about it.

The growing wealth gap has been a concern for years but of course that concern is intensified when the people at the bottom are experiencing such poverty that there is an explosion in the number of people dependent on food banks. If the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting richer too it's considerably less worrying than when the rich are getting richer and the poor who already have very little are getting poorer. Especially when they keep saying 'We're all in it together' when we so blatantly aren't.

I agree LeBFG.

Rich people who legally avoid paying tax are no better or worse than a low earner on NMW who pay the plumber cash in hand for a discount. In fact, paying cash in hand to avoid VAT is illegal, whereas taking advantage of tax loopholes isn't, so morally the rich who are using legal avoidance strategies are better.

It's no different to a small business owner putting the new computer his kids are going to use for their homework through his company books when he knows its never going to be used for the business.

But it's funny how you never see anyone on MN complaining about that, yet rich people get criticised almost every week.

Why do the rich have to be morally responsible? Because wealth brings power, and all power brings responsibility.

I'm surprised by some of the posters on this thread who seem ready to conflate legal and ethical. Just because seeking out tax loopholes so you don't pay tax on massive wealth is legal doesn't make it right. I have great respect for the people who have not only made money, but put a lot of thought into the best way to deploy that money to benefit humanity. The ones who just want to hang on to as much as possible, not so much.

Just because Philip Green didn't pay tax doesn't mean it was illegal. I am not privy to his tax arrangements but if he was tax compliant then it is a legal payment, and not at all the same as secret Swiss bank accounts.

The problem is the regulations allow this.

And that there is no discernible trickle down effect.

Plus, businesses are not 'self made'. They benefit from tax funded educated workers, tax funded health service that means people are healthy enough to come in, tax funded media, tax funded transport, tax funded banks and tax funded security. So yes, morally they shoudl give back more but it is up to the regulators to ensure this happens.

In most cases, as far as I'm aware, big businesses do give back more. I don't think they pay no tax, just less than they could.

DixieD The key point is that there are some posters talking about how the super-rich contribute loads of money through their UK taxes.

No doubt some do, but in cases like Green they clearly are not either through their own humongous bonus or by way of company taxes. So he enjoys all that living in the UK offers him and his business whilst avoiding a large chunk of tax. Hundreds of millions of pounds.

And I'd repeat there are at least £13 TRILLION hidden in offshore tax heavens globally.

I have great respect for the people who have not only made money, but put a lot of thought into the best way to deploy that money to benefit humanity.

Of course, we all do. I have equal respect for a poor man who shares his only loaf. But I don't see why the opposite is rehensible: keeping hold of what you have. Also, what about the less you earn? Following the logic, the poor man is morally entitled not to think about others. It's OK for him to avoid paying tax if he can get away with it because he's poor.

I mentioned about Blair because there must have been some sort of trickledown effect ethelb. The economy was in boom (down to Blair? think not!) and it was trickling down, a bit, to the poor.

If governments don't like people living in their country at the same time as not paying any taxes they only have to resort to the law. If there are legal loopholes, it's up to the government in power to block them up - I can't believe we can/should ask the rich to desist using them. It might be another matter if they were runnning for government or something similar. But as an individual abidding by the country's own laws, they can't be held morally responsible - IMO.

So what if Green avoids paying TAX he employs thousands of people in the UK, they all pay TAX.

If we don't make the UK attractive to foreign investors and the wealthy already in the UK they will set up companies in China or TAX free havens in the Middle East.

Im not an economist but I do think that if we made the UK attractive to investors it will create more jobs and be better all round for the economy.

Well plenty of e super rich do contribute millions in taxes to the UK both personally and through their companies. JK Rowling was one mentioned. The Greens obviously don't but their companies do. If thy re non resident in the UK they obviously don't benefit from all that living in the UK offers s the majority of the year he doesn't live in the UK.

Because if you're very rich you have the power to help. If you're poor you don't. If you share your last loaf and that makes your children hungry you might not have added much to the sum of human happiness. If you put a million pounds into your philanthropic foundation instead of buying a new yacht, you will have done.

I am of course assuming the philanthropic foundation is properly run.

Warren Buffett puts it beautifully:
'I don't have a problem with guilt about money. The way I see it is that my money represents an enormous number of claim checks on society. It's like I have these little pieces of paper that I can turn into consumption. If I wanted to, I could hire 10,000 people to do nothing but paint my picture every day for the rest of my life. And the GDP would go up. But the utility of the product would be zilch, and I would be keeping those 10,000 people from doing AIDS research, or teaching, or nursing.'

So what if Green avoids paying TAX he employs thousands of people in the UK, they all pay TAX.

Ah yes. Tax is for the little people.

He contributes more to the UK economy than most people will do in a life time.

From the New Statesman.

'In 2006 (when figures were last available) James Dyson contributed the bulk of the income tax paid by the 54 billionaires then resident in the UK. Out of £14.7m paid by all 54, he contributed £9m. That's a whopping 61 per cent of the total tax take from billionaires. Current figures are not available, but it is widely agreed in the tax accounting community that JK Rowling and James Dyson are the only UK billionaires who pay a tax rate even remotely proportional to their income. So, on average, your grandma pays tax at a rate roughly 250 times that of the richest people in Britain

Or as Frankie Boyle put it on Twitter:

If you're rich, don't look at it as tax avoidance, look at it as a children's hospital buying you a pool table.

A lot of the rich are profiting from poverty wages. The move their production round the world so people have to work for less and less. Its crazy to think the world is just ? work hard and you get rich ? if you poor you must be lazy. The real is not like that.

By saying these sorts of things, the logical conclusion is all surplus wealth is given to others. You are suggesting we live in a communist state.

The middle classes all still have a lot of optional consumption they could also give to worthy causes. If you added it all up, probably more than a few super rich would ever contribute. Why aren't they also feeling guilty about their privileged existences? Instead they moan on about cuts in child support...

Its crazy to think the world is just yes, of course. Life has never been fair. Including the fact we reward clever people with more money than people who aren't clever. All of us typing on here have had the good fortune to be born into a rich country. That isn't fair on all the poor in the world. But what are we to do about it?

LeBFG I highly doubt that the middle classes in the UK are £155 Billion better off than they were 3 years ago.

All this stuff about wealth creation is laughable given the state the world is in.

I'm not interested in a communist state, just a fair contribution towards society from those with mahooosive fortunes.

Why does someone always insist on bringing up communism when anyone argues for a more equitable system of wealth distribution?

Selected Truisms from Jenny Holzer:

an elite is inevitable
any surplus is immoral
artificial desires are despoiling the earth
eating too much is criminal
government is a burden on the people
grass roots agitation is the only hope
if you have many desires your life will be interesting
if you live simply there is nothing to worry about
it's good to give extra money to charity
private property created crime
you owe the world not the other way around

I'm not a believer in wealth creation (another Blairism?) either. There are resources, supply and demand - the rest is about distribution. The wealthy do pay a lot in tax, as they should (as we all should, each contributing according to means in a society that we call as such). If there are loopholes, the government should close them down. That's why I'm not following this thread.