The poorest half of the Uk own 3% of the wealth

[ThinkAboutItTomorrow]

Am I being unreasonable to think we should be taking steps to change this as a country.

And in case you wonder if your household income is less than around £33k you are in the bottom 50%

It didn't use to be this bad. So it CAN be better, we don't have to shrug and accept it.

One problem is taxation. Income (no matter how small) is taxed automatically, and a rather large proportion, while huge profits are not automatically taxed, and cunning accounting = dodging tax entirely.

There shouldn't have to be a 'minimum wage' what there should be is a maximum wage... and excess profits distributed 'fairly' between employees rather than creamed off by the 1%. (idealistic)

Wealth creates more wealth, which is why capitalism has accelerated so quickly to the point it has now.

Yanbu. Its a shameful situation. I wish I lived in a more equitable society. Lol at the comments about communism.

I agree it is systemic. But the thing the positivemoney site doesn't account for is that the 'banks money' is actually owned a lot by us through pensions.

I'm not saying it is simple but it needs action.

TucsonGirl
Are you practising for your Sixth Form debating society with that question?

That looks like an interesting link Clock. I havent got time to look at it properly today, but will tomorrow.

I think that the will to change it has to come from many many little people.

It is only by us making a fuss that changes happen at the top.

I dont know which changes, but our country is getting more and more awry financially.

[am surprised though that the figure was only 6% back in 1960]

The thing is, whatever "solution" you come up with will only work for so long, then people will become contemptuous of it and most people with wealth will figure out ways to work around it. And then you end up back where we are now.

I think one of the main problems is that people have no faith that their taxes are being spent wisely, and not being wasted on needless bureacracy, creating jobs for the sake of it, and excessive wages and pensions in some parts of the public sector. Many normal people paying PAYE and rates of 20% resent paying what tax they pay, so you can only imagine what people who are supposed to be paying much higher rates of capital gains tax etc think.

In 1991 17% of the top 10% of society had started life in the bottom 10% and 34% had started in the top 10%.

By 2000 only 13% of the top 10% had come from the bottom 10%. And 42% had started life at the top.

Social mobility through hard work in this country is a joke and getting worse.

Dont believe in communism in the slightest.

I heard that the FTSE is so high because the largest companies are making money at our expense.

And that the NYSE [sp] or whatever it is called in America is so high because of QE.

I think one of the things with social mobility is once you improve social mobility, you will immediately see quick results as people in families that have been doing the right things for generations but impeded by society and/or economic factors will suddenly become successful quickly. But once all those people have jumped out of the bottom 10% or whatever strata system you want to use, it will take several generations for a similar logjam to build up again.

I accept that I'm going to be a lone voice shouting in the wilderness here... but if the current state of affairs worries you, please look into the basics of how the money system works (see the link above). I don't think any of this can get truly resolved unless we have a bit of an overhaul.

In a nutshell. This is the root of the problem. No lasting change can happen under the current monetary system.

tuscongirl so you believe that the wealthiest 20% of uk society are the most competent, capable, wise and hard working?

That what it takes to succeed just naturally floats to the top?

Ok. Well if that is what you think I really can't be arsed to argue.

To control the polarizing effect that capitalism has on relative wealth, what you need in place is more legislation, rather than less legislation, and the legislation put in place needs to limit the socially damaging and environmentally irresponsible nature of the free-market.

Thatcher somehow convinced everyone that the free market was some sort of unstoppable natural force that would benefit everyone... And successive governments have continues to support business, the employer and capital at the expense of everyone else.

One example is suggested legislation on owning property purely for investment, with no social responsibility of the property being occupied.

Another suggestion may be more legislation on wages, excessive bonuses while the company is making a loss... there are plenty.

No but if you keep people down through artificial means for generations, then suddenly allow people to rise or fall in status dependent on what they do in life, you will immediately see a lot of mobility, then mobility will stagnate somewhat. I'd say that was common sense in fact.

Do you have a pension? Is it invested in shares? If yes, you own a proportion of the money made by the biggest corporations.

I will check out that linky now!

^^ what the priory said

I'm not a believer in pure capitalism, but a free market with some restrictions and "levelling of the land" is about the best system possible IMO. There is no "perfect system" because human beings are not perfect.

If inequality is a justification for redistribution, we should take money from the poorest 50% (as well as the other half) and send it to Africa.

I'm guessing no-one's up for that.

depends how you go about changing it. Wealth redistribution hasn't really worked in the past. But things like raising the minimum wage would probably help. And making sure rich people pay their taxes.

We need less income tax (which the less well off pay) and more wealth tax (which the better off don't pay).

Demographic collapse is the only meaningful way the impoverished masses can retaliate. The powers that be are terrified that is already occurring. Many of the top elite have made their fortunes pitching poor people into fighting other poor people.

There is a huge misconception about the rich paying no tax. They do pay tax, plenty of it. Yes those at the top will do what they can to minimise their tax bill through legal tax avoidance measures, but that doesn't mean they don't pay any.

I think the people who continually insist that the rich don't pay tax should find out exactly how much money HMRC makes each year through capital gains tax, income tax from higher rate payers and inheritance tax.

The very least well off already don't pay income tax, which is completely fair. But everybody should pay tax apart from those earning the very least, because we all gain from it. I don't see how we can ever hope to have a fair society by fighting for tax rules that are fundamentally unfair.

But there's a lot of data to show that really rich people may actually pay a lower proportion of tax. I don't have time to find the link now, but over several years there are figures stating that the top 10% of earners make 12 times what the lowest 10% do, but only pay around 8 x more tax etc.

Yes but really rich people only make up a very small percentage. The vast majority of tax is obtained from the larger proportion of people who pay 40-50% tax via PAYE.

Call me unreasonable but I think paying hmrc 40-50% of your salary is enough.