The rich ger richer

[newwave]

It is reported today that the richest section of our society has seen their wealth increase by 20% since the Tories came to power whilst the average wage has lost value.

Anyone suprised by this. Same old Tories

Makes me chuckle. The coalition has ruined the country in 12 months implementing about 25% of the cuts labour planned..........wait until it all really bites, just as it had to if labour had won.

Oh and my take home has shruck significantly with both labour and tory/LD tax increases. Trust me those of us on good salaries are not better off. You're talking about the super rich who rely on global share markets.......

If they are wealthier so is anyone's pension pot, ave wage or not.

I agree EW re charity but where in a free society does it say you have to give to charity or we'll take it into government coffers to spend on posh cars?????

The lack of philanthropy is a huge issue amongst the UK's rich and something any government should be doing something about.

For me, there is something immoral in accumulating such gross amounts of wealth and not using it for a worthy cause. They cant take it with them and there is only so much you can ever spend. What they have that isn't reinvested into this country's economy in the form of jobs or given to charity should be massively taxed.

We also need to increase the inheritance tax paid in this bracket. It is one thing saying that these people deserve this money because they worked for it (a whole other argument) but the ones who inherit it didn't and should get a free ride.

I think charitable giving could become the cultural norm if the will was there to make it happen. Put Geldof on the case and he'd embarrass the super-rich into opening their wallets. Publish a 'Times Give List' for the ones donating the most to charity and give out shame-making 'Ebeneezers' at awards ceremonies for the ones refusing to play. Make it social death to be seen to be mean. Are charitable gifts deduted from the estate before the IHT is paid or after?.... scope there if it's the latter. Think 'massive tax' is not effective.

How do you know the super rich don't give to charity??????? Up to them what they do with their money, same as people on benefits, no one tells them what to spend their money on

Well naturally I wouldn't go to such lengths to find out for myself, but I know what they themselves report via foundation/trust/personal accounts and from those details lodged with the Charity Commission, as reported in the Sunday Times Giving List.

I agree that it is up to them what they spend their money on, but if they don't want to be vilified then it makes sense to be seen to be philanthropic.

Quite apart from the fact that they really ought to feel morally obliged to act charitably rather than continuing to amass wealth.

It's up to them what they do with their money, but they shouldn't be surprised if we judge them for it.

Chil there is a Times Giving List. Published alongside rich list usually NI haven't read either this year, but what it generally quite noticeable is that British born entrepreneurs like my boss are extremely generous with charitable foundations and donations to things of artistic merit or scientific advancement. Those who've been born into wealth, sometimes less so. I agree that inheritance tax should be higher for those with 7 or 8 figure amounts to pass on. It would sort out a lot of inequalities in our world.

See, I knew it was a good idea :)

I dont want extra 'charitable giving'. I want to live in an equitable society where the government actually do their job properly and look after everyone in the country (rather than try to ponce it off to charities and volunteers).

I want fair taxes and wages, that allow everyone in society to live with self respect, to contribute to their community and to be fairly supported and rewarded for their contribution.

I agree the tories are ruining this country for no good reason.

Well said, HHLimbo.

Thanks for the link
www.youtube.com/watch?v=okHGCz6xxiw

She is right of course.

If the rich have got richer then the poor should be jumping up and down with huge smiles as they will benefit. We will have the funds to keep paying for them to live without working and the like.

The proposed £26k total family benefits cap is a great policy too and they must stick to it.

Xenia It makes me a bit sad to watch these old videos of Maggie. If only Cameron had an ounce of her conviction!

Women often do things pretty well. Neither party is radical. Both Labour and the Tories wanted and want fairly similar cuts. Not much to choose between them but the current lot will do for now.

If the rich have got richer then the poor should be jumping up and down with huge smiles as they will benefit. We will have the funds to keep paying for them to live without working and the like.

Well, no they won't. Unequal societies are generally unhappy societies and score poorly on a number of quality of life indicators.

You can't escape the fact that at any one given time, there is a finite amount of money going around. If you make tax less progressive, more money will be taken from the rich. If you don't have strong employer protections, the rich may get richer, but the poorer will suffer job insecurity and lower wages. If you privatize essential public services, the rich providers may get rich from exploiting needed services where demand is inelastic and there is poor or no competition, but the poor will suffer from higher prices.

The 'trickle-down' theory is nonsense, and has been shown to be nonsense over and over again. The rich don't spend their wealth the way the poor do. They hoard it and invest it in non-productive financial tools. The poor and middle-class, on the other hand, will spend all or most of their income on essential living costs.

Nobody has an appetite for destructive Thatcherite policies anymore, Xenia, except for a few Tory sociopaths. You're fooling no one.

Xenia It makes me a bit sad to watch these old videos of Maggie. If only Cameron had an ounce of her conviction!

Cameron doesn't have her 'conviction' because the Tory parties have since become known as the 'Nasty party' since Thatcher was in power. Knowing that showing his true colours would assign him to the opposition for another 12 years or so, he chooses to try to put a friendly face on his nasty sociopathic policies.

Ttosca
not sure about the trickle down not working, because some people in our society have not fallen on hard times they ARE still having new windows, conservatories, extensions, kitchens etc, they are still employing local work force who are on a knife edge.
My cleaner is over run with work and is saying no to people every week.
If everyone was in the shit at the same time we would totally grind to a halt.

I have no issue with people making huge amounts of money as long as they pay their taxes. One of the directors of DH's company has just sold £2million of shares, alot of money but he gave £1million to the government in tax, why the fuck shouldn't he enjoy his £1million without any guilt at all when he has handed so much to the government?

May be he needs better advisers (!). If he sold shares he would pay capital gains tax on those. the first £10m in your life is taxed at 10% not 50%. Even if he'd used up his £10m he would still be paying just 28%.

Thankfully year by year capitalism is proving its worth as country after country moves over to our system. We are slowly getting there but there remains much work to be done.

ttosca Only a finite amount of money? What nonsense. Wealth can be created, and is - but only by entrepreneurs.

I generally find that the left have never recovered since the right won the war against Communism in the late 80s and early 90s. They still bear the scars from having the ultimate expression of their ideas so soundly thrashed by Thatcher and Reagan.

Its quite embarassing to watch Thatcher these days, its such an old video but it shows how much we have progressed since then. (I am pleased to see a woman PM, but embarassed she got it so wrong).

It is true that more unequal societies are poorer on a wide range of measures - health, educational achievement and standards, trust in each other, community spirit, etc etc. All are poorer in more unequal societies.

I have seen this applied in business too - those with a flatter structure can achieve better performance.

Flat business structures make sense but the only way they are more "equal" is in having fewer middle managers - but not necessarily in terms of pay.

Bill Gates used to get "paid" (in share value) many thousands more than the ordinary Microsoft employees.

Also, businesses can fire deadwood - and successful ones do. Getting rid of poor performers is something that the public sector needs to do, on a mammoth scale, and with great urgency. Unfortunately, the unions and their Labour party minions feel it necessary to protect mediocrity and to fight productivity increases in every way they possibly can.

They are more equal in terms of power. One advantage of this is that the capacity of the workforce can be more fully leveraged, as each employee's knowledge and views is more equal therefore more equally valued.

When each employee feels valued, the workforce has a higher level of motivation. There are many other positive effects, all of which contribute to superior performance.

I wouldn't disagree with that.

Again, the difference is that the worst performers in successful companies aren't tolerated by anyone. They get fired. Lack of contribution is simply not tolerated.

Unfortunately, as a society, we can't get rid of the benefit scroungers, or the hundreds of thousands of economically draining and socially dangerous immigrants Labour imported.

The two situations aren't comparable. When people are selected by ability, flat structures make sense. Where they aren't, they don't.

I think you misunderstand the reasons people get fired in companies. Generally it is strategic or a response to changing technology/markets or financial situation, although attempts may be made to retain a few high performers. Firing on an individual basis where the individual is not a good fit for the job is rarer.

Within a business, fully leveraging the capacity of the workforce leads to superior performance.

Similarly, within a country, leveraging your entire workforce leads to superior results. 'get everyone doing something useful'.

Unfortunately, this government is determinedly pursuing the opposite, and the result can be seen in our flat no-growth over the last 6 months, while Germany, France and the rest of the EU stride ahead.

"The rest of the EU"??

You mean those countries like Greece, Portugal and Ireland with humongous structural deficits?

The only reason we are not in the same boat is because of George Osborne. Yes, it will be painful in the short-term - but the pain will be well worth it. I think that after we reach fiscal surplus, the government should pass a law, saying that any future Chancellor will have to call a referendum annually if he or she wants to borrow money. You can't trust the Labour party with budget responsibility - so just take the debt levers out of their hands, and put them into the hands of the public.

Our national financial situation, sadly, cannot be compared with France and Germany. They do not have 12% annual deficits.