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.

And in terms of tax rate you have to be earning a lot of money to give 40% of your income to the government. Even a 6 figure salary pays less than 30% on total income.
It must be close to £300k before your total is nearer 40%

Well that's £120,000 per annum in tax then. Quite a big enough slug in my opinion.

I thought that the higher rate was after about £35,000?

Yes, but it's progressive and banded.

In that case, I dont understand Think's post.

if the minimum wage had increased at the same rate as pay for the CEO of the 100 ftse index then the minimum wage would be £19 per hour
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/06/recovery-election-question-living-standards

the other recent quip about wages recently was that general Motors in the 1950 was the biggest employer in the USA and paid the equivalent of $50 per hour, now the biggest employer is walmart and they pay $8 per hour

Companies getting rich on the back of low wages is something that needs tackling, it sin't just in USA that wages are far to low

Near- it do think it's immoral and don't want any share of such a corruptable system.

These findings are good reasons to increase minimum wage, and introduce a maximum wage.

It is not in the interest of business to do so, so while business and government are in the same bed, it doesn't look promising. Legislation to limit the influence of business on politics, would be a social benefit.

I wondered if it should be the case, that rather politicians being paid a salary of £60+ p/a, why is their salary not set at the national average?

That would result in a direct intensive to level out wages / increase low-middle wages, particularly in the public sector.

The priory, there have been some work places that have set up with a co- op type ethos where there can't be a worker earning more than say eight times what another worker earns for example. It does and can <a class="break-all" href="//worken.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondrag%C3%B3n_Cooperative_Corporation" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">worken.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondrag%C3%B3n_Cooperative_Corporation
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative

If politicians were paid the national average it would become a job for the rich, even more so than it is now.

maximum wage would be good especially for public companies

In my mind the best way to reduce inequality is to give every child the same opportunities. Of course, each child's family values will influence them and some families value education more than others, but if every child had a really great education, and other opportunities like libraries, swimming pools, clean parks, space to exercise, it would flatten the disparities for the next generation. Especially if access to higher education appeared more accessible (the poorest families are often debt averse and therefore discouraged by the £9k/pa loans system). I'm a right old leftie, and this is what I would like to see - every child in our country has the same opportunity to better themselves and it doesn't depend on their parents wealth, education or influence.

Maximum wage isn't remotely workable for the private sector. For the public sector, yes, absolutely. It's ridiculous how much some council chiefs are paid. They compare themselves to the heads of major companies employing the equivalent number of people on the same budget, but it isn't an accurate comparison at all.

all our jobs got cut in the public sector a few years back, the chief exec is on a salary of about 120k a year which would have kept us all in a job (and still delivering the service) for years

Squid, you are hoping for the impossible.

The biggest reason why children don't all have access to the same standard of education is because too many parents have low aspiration and low expectations of behaviour. Most schools are good, the thing that drags them down is a lack of support from parents.

You could give every child access to clean parks, libraries, horse riding and piano lessons, and it won't make any difference if their parents don't encourage them.

It's sad that there are so many incapable parents out there, but it is right that parents are responsible for their children.

You are probably right that some parents are debt adverse, but it's actually easier for the poorest families to access funding for higher education than it is for anyone other than the rich.

Woo I read some research this week whereby they couldn't find any benefit to the child for parental support through schooling. In fact in some areas parental support through schooling was detrimental to the student.

I have two DDS and both have had the same level of encouragement but one would have and did dismiss the clean parks, piano, horse riding and the other embrassed it with glee. For both it was offered and encouraged at the same level.

Each DC is different and blaming the parents isn't a solution, it isn't the parents being educated

Sorry ivykaty but parental support of no benefit? That's utter bullshine. There's a clear difference between the sort of children who's parents value education and support/put pressure on them to succeed and the sort of children who's parents don't give a shit, and in some cases actually think it is funny that they get into trouble at school. Is there some crossover in the middle? Sure. But generally, the children who do well at school will have good, supportive parents, and the children who do badly at school will not.

Perhaps you'd like to link to that research then ivykaty?

I agree there does need to be education of some people (not all) In how to handle the money they are given (I.e benefits, so the state is currently trying to even some balance and support the less well off) and what their priorities for that money should be

Some are technically very well paid through the benefit system, more so than some low earners yet because they choose to spend their money on the wrong priorities; materialistic things or cigarettes and beer/going out rather than food heat clothing for their children they then appear to have no money and are 'poor' and more money is thrown at them.

In my experience this is often when parents either didn't have their own needs met by their parents so continue to put their own needs before their children; are too immature (don't want to say too young as i know some excellent young parents) to be a parent and still have their own needs that need meeting or its the example they have been brought up with so know no different

There are so many issues in this country on so many scales (the above is just one small example at one end of the scale) that there can be no one blanket fix.

I grew up in a technically 'poor' family (on paper/income) but because my parents budgeted, prioritised and did without I didn't grow up with some of the poor issues reported today - going without breakfast, going hungry, malnourished, inappropriate clothing, freezing house etc

There is also a growing number of generational issues that will take an enormous length of time to sort and as reforms are introduced the backlash from them bring there own issues - like the stance on long term benefit claiming for those who are fit and able to work but manipulate the system - but I agree, it has to start somewhere

Gosh, that was long winded!
What I'm trying to say that for some families if their benefit income was handled by a different source they wouldn't be presenting as poor and their children would have appropriate clothing, bedding, food etc

So let's see.

Some are saying that if we try to make it more equal than the rich people will find ways to pay even less tax by breaking the law if they have to.

Is that a sane reason to keep things as they are? A couple of months in a small cell with a slop bucket will convince them otherwise.

Then there's the one about how if we make corporations pay tax they will leave and give up the profits they would have made in a fit of temper.

Then we have the insulting ones about how some guy earning £millions a year works that much harder than the couple with 4 jobs between them and a total income of 25K.

Whenever it comes up the rich people tell us that it's better if it stays as it is and we say "oh, okay then"

As to what we can do. The answer is pretty much whatever we like. It isn't a choice between full capitalism and Communism. We already have laws to restrict what people can do with or for money and they need adjusting a bit. Not in a haphazard way, but after working out what we want to achieve and how it will work out.

The real obstacle is that MPs are looking forward to being rewarded by these same rich people when the voters can no longer stomach their presence.

It is difficult for all the reasons listed, tax can't be too high, can't cap profits, and because overall it doesn't help to slide up the inequality table.

Oh and all the arguments for keeping things as they are can also be arguments for making it worse.

If having a few rich people and the rest poor is good for the economy then we need to reduce wages for the poor. We need to tell the corporations that they need pay even less tax because that will draw more industry here. We should pay a law tomorrow ensuring that poor people be made poorer each year for the good of the economy.

All those in favour?

We can do lots of things but they will only work so far and for so long. It isn't viable to have a society where very few people pay nearly all the tax.