The Rich According to the Guardian

[Judy1234]

www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/aug/04/workandcareers.executivesalaries

Swedes that report does not appear to analyse the proportion of income donated, which is what is being disputed here.

This does (albeit in the US): "people earning less than $25,000 contribute an average of 4.2 percent of their household income to charitable groups, while those making $100,000 or more shell out an average of 2.7 percent of earnings."

The title of this thread "The Rich According to the Guardian" is a bit like Single Mothers According to the Daily Mail or Socialists According to the Daily Telegraph.

Where is Policywonk? She is always incisive and sensible about these sort of things. The Guardian should offer her a job.

Yes policy usually cuts through this sort of thread like a sharp knife through tepid butter. And the Guardian really should give her a job.

oh pw can do much better than the Guardian

Iorek - Yes it does give incomes. On P17 it gives income quartiles and job type. Professionals and mangerial staff and the top quartile of earners (presumably one and the same in most cases) are most likely to give and give most.

"Black ended up in prison for that."

Um, doesn't that rather negate your argument that the rich are all powerful and above the law?

Swedes, yes in absolute terms of course the richer give more, but their donations represent a smaller proportion of their own incomes than those of the poor. I don't see this contradicted in your report.

I'm all for redistributing disproportionate power. But that shouldn't involve misleading people about the bastard rich.

PT's article is of the genre

Eight out of 10 owners who expressed a preference .......

Of the poor who gave to charity they gave percentage-wise more than higher earners who gave.

It's cynical journalism and it makes meaningful and proper political debate impossible.

I agree swedes that it would be preferable to have a proper debate about progressive taxation. But given that any suggestions of increased taxation on the rich are invariably met with hysterical threats about leaving the country en masse (about as likely as Xenia moving to Bulgaria I suspect), exposing the attitudes that are prevalent amongst this section of the population might just be a necessary precursor to such a debate.

Conrad Black ended up in prison in America. I think that says a lot actually.

I think Xenia's destination of choice is Hungary. She'll sort them out.

She's switched allegiance then. She has spoken very highly about the 10% flat tax rate in Bulgaria on many occasions.

It's such nonsense, isn't it? The idea that Xenia, let alone the Mittals, will leave exciting, sophisticated, cosmopolitan London/England, with its restaurants, first rate healthcare, schools, housing etc for some craphole like Bulgaria. Yeah, right. I'll hold your coat.

It is a laugh that people come up with the odd rich person who has ended up in the clink for fraud/embezzlement or whatever. Imagine citing one or two unemployed thief/ves as evidence that the unemployed are all like that.

I think the fact that so few billionaires end up in the clink says more than that one or two do.

MsDemeanor - Shall I massage your shoulders?

Actually I think you are right. I think it is Bulgaria. Bulgaria's pretty nice actually. Not burningly cosmopolitan. Difficult, as you say, to imagine our Xenia there long-term. Tax exile usually means being stuck in a hell-hole like Luxemburg, against which the bright lights of Sofia look positively alluring. It's an interesting image.

Yes, it is ludicrous. LIke a four year old threatening to run away if you don't buy them a toy. Yes dear, of course you will. Never mind, let's go in an have a biscuit, eh?

Perhaps she'd buy the entire ski resort of Bansko?