to think there is enough money in the world...

[greenbananas]

... it's just the distribution that's the problem.

(This was said to me years ago by a lovely man who worked for an organisation which supported voluntary groups. I live in a 'deprived' community. He helped me/the local local residents association apply for funding which bought much-used and much-appreciated play equipment for our local park. At the time, there were a zillion grants available, if only somebody was able and willing to fill in the applications - it was a bit like writing exam papers; you just had to figure what the funders wanted to hear, and make sure that you used the right key phrases in your application. Things have changed since then...)

So, is there really enough money in the world? If there is, how do we make sure it is distributed so that nobody starves, and yet there is still some incentive for people to work hard and make money.

Can we do this within our own country? Can we do this as a global co-operative?

This thread is kind of inspired by another thread, on which I have shown my total ignorance of economics.

I am really interested to hear what you all think. No doubt I will disagree with some of it, but I know that there are some very clever, educated people on mumsnet, and I want to know what you think because I might learn something, even if I can't understand all of what you say or don't go along with your politics. I am expecting a flaming.... but I think it's worth it. I also think this is a debate worth having...

According to this BBC article, there's enough money in the world for everyone to have a monthly income with purchasing power equivalent to what just under $1500 US dollars buys in the USA.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17512040

Money isn't important, it's just a means to keep track and allocate the resources that really matter.

The questions you should be asking are: is there enough food production for everyone to eat healthily without severe environment degradation; is there enough energy for everyone to have a car / fly regularly; are there enough healthcare professionals to give everyone good quality healthcare; enough teachers to educate everyone; and so on.

None of these questions are fundamentally about money, although massive inequalities do divert people from socially useful activities to things that cater only to the very wealthy.

On the basis that the poverty level is usually cited as 60% of median income (though that may apply to households rather than individuals as I'm doing)

(60% 12 $1480 * 0.58 pounds per dollar) - £2000 NHS = about £4000.

So every individual in the UK would have about £4000 per year to pay all their bills, including rent, assuming we kept the NHS.

Sorry, previous post meant to say that's the level of redistribution you need to eliminate poverty globally, according to my fag packet calculation done in 60 seconds before rushing off to see the world cup final. Give everyone £6000 (£4000 plus NHS in the UK) then leave the rest up to them.

YANBU. Very few powerful/rich people control a huge % of the wealth and resources while those in the middle works endlessly just to survive and those at the bottom don't even have basic needs met.

It is a very corrupt system we have but how do you fix it? I think people are inherently selfish and nobody wants to give up what they have, especially not those with loads.

YABU OP. Why the hell should it be distributed evenly? Maybe you should leave the country? I hear North Korea's nice!

It doesn't have to be distributed evenly. Just so that nobody actually starves, and preferably so that nobody faces serious social exclusion.

I agree with contortionist.

And I'm not in favour of equal distribution, but I would prefer a leveller playing field - everyone to have access to basic healthcare, education, sanitation, clean water and enough to eat. I don't know if this is possible with the world's population vs resources.

I'm quite happy for people to starve, surely this is natural selection in action? The situation isn't helped by continuous breeding.

Going back to that article, the figures I posted earlier were average wages, so people not in work weren't taken into account. Let's go back to basics, at the top of the article it said there is £6,273 income for each man, woman and child in the world if divided equally.

We don't want to divide equally as no-one would have an incentive to work, so lets assume a universal income of £2,400 a year to each man, woman and child. (So a family of 4 would have just under £10,000 before any earnings from working.)

Let's look at the other side of the coin, what it might mean for tax.

In the UK taxpayers have total before tax income of 1002 billion. If 63.2 million people are allowed an average income of £6,273, that's total income of 396 billion the UK can keep for itself, the rest will have to go to poorer countries. That works out at a flat tax rate of 60% on all personal income, purely to raise money to be sent to poorer countries.

Within the UK, the £2400 per person univeral income would cost 152 billion. That would mean taxpayers need to pay 15% tax on all income to fund the £2400 per person each UK person receives. That brings total flat-rate tax up to 75%.

So, in summary, redistribution in a global context would mean each UK person receives £200 per month plus keeps 25% of what they earn.

(But: government has now lost all net funding it used to receive from income tax and national insurance, so we would have to raise further taxes out of that £200 + 25% to pay to run the country.)

those figures are static though. as soon as you start to redistribute wealth people start to be more productive and so the figures start looking better.

I know theres enough corn grown in america to comfortably feed the starving of the world, but it's fed to cows as beef is worth more than corn.
ironically cows don't naturally eat corn and humans cant eat grass...

Whatever your politics are, a situation where a small number of people own nearly half the world's wealth is a nonsense. We need people to spend their money not hoard it.

Yes, there is enough to go round so that no one starves.

We don't do this because the people who are in charge have the most to lose through distribution so do everything they can to stop it happening.

"I'm quite happy for people to starve." You obviously never have, then.

What we need are less people on the planet!

It is commonly thought by 'experts' that the maximum population the world is capable of supporting (with current technology and farming methods) is around 4 billion.
Where are we now? Heading towards double that.

What we need are less people on the planet amen to this. All this shit being spouted about the environment and no-one ever really seriously addresses the overwhelming issue of population growth.

Floisme I imagine you are happy with the criminally low rates of interest being paid to the prudent, and all the other ways in which thrift is penalised, then?