Selfsufficientish.com

MKG wrote:Devil's Advocatish, I know, but it does seem to me that demanding that advantaged people renounce their advantages voluntarily is a no-hoper. Would you have voluntarily dumbed yourself down, or would you like to live in a society in which innate intelligence is derogated?

Ah - hang on ...

Hehe - I have, and I do. I could be making a heck of a lot more than I am, but I still have some ethics... I have chosen, quite deliberately, to renounce that path. Meanwhile, a lot of what I do make (although probably still not enough) goes to help those less fortunate than myself.

As with all things, there are degrees. Not all advantages are equal, and a lot of the advantages I've been railing against here are very definitely not innate - they are the result of a specific set of policy choices (CAP subsidies, marginal tax rates, levels of capital gains and inheritance tax, etc, etc...) which have been made in the last 30 years. I'm just arguing we should at least think about make different choices. Or even just look the issues square in the face...

For example, since 1997, the wealth of the top 1000 richest people in Britain has increased four-fold (from £99 billion to £414 billion). Is that fair? How did that happen? Who are these people, and how did they get there? Does anybody really want to argue that you can actually earn that sort of money? And what's been happening to the rest of us while this had been going on?

Well from my point of view I had nothing in 1997, now I have a small holding, investment property, a family, a Wife, vehicles, a 4 stroke Brush cutter and a Le Crueset Caserole Dish.

That increase is only 12.5% approx per year, when you consider the BRICS economies have been sticking on nearly double that in growth in the years leading up to the melt down it's not hard to see how.

So it is fair, it happened because they took risks, worked hard, exploited people and resources, and I can't judge whether it is right to earn lots of money, it's there choice, and in doing so they will have employed allot of people ,and created allot of wealth for others in this country. I can't comment on what you have been doing for the last 15 years, but on the one hand you ask incredulously how they can increase there wealth whilst admitting that you have chosen to reduce your potential to earn for ethical reasons.

Could you explain how marginal tax rates have made people born with money better off in the last 30 years please.

Capital Gains tax has been drastically changed in the last 30 years, when investments were indexed linked this meant the longer you kept them, the less tax you paid, the revised taxation seriously disadvantages the "wealthy elite" you are railing against, so on that one you are wrong.

Inheritage Tax thresholds have increased in line with average property prices, and indeed many of the loop holes have been removed. The basic planning tools of an estate, in that gifts must be at least 7 years old at time of death, have NOT changed in the slightest in 30 years, so again you are wrong on that point.

CAP is European Union based, and the inequality was more to do with supporting the French than the British Farmer in any event, as the EU has grown and "poorer" countries joined the benefits of this have been lost by and large, and replaced with "green" subsidies more than anything. Which given our common interest I would not consider a bad thing.

boboff wrote:Could you explain how marginal tax rates have made people born with money better off in the last 30 years please.

The list was a general indication of the sort of issues involved, it was not intended to imply that every single item on it always applied in every single case. Obviously marginal rates of income tax do not affect people born with money. Similarly for your other points - I'm not actually that well up on capital gains tax, never having had much capital... My point is that the distribution of wealth is the result of policy, and that those policies could be different.

boboff wrote:So it is fair, it happened because they took risks, worked hard, exploited people and resources, and I can't judge whether it is right to earn lots of money, it's there choice, and in doing so they will have employed allot of people ,and created allot of wealth for others in this country.

I am entirely unconvinced by these assumptions. I rather suspect that most of the people in the very top bracket got most of their money from pure financial speculation, not from employing people (other than a handful of brokers and accountants). Also, I take it you didn't bother to read my earlier link on the Fundamental Attribution Error?

boboff wrote:I can't comment on what you have been doing for the last 15 years, but on the one hand you ask incredulously how they can increase there wealth whilst admitting that you have chosen to reduce your potential to earn for ethical reasons.

The incredulity is in relation to the scale of the increase. Do you really grasp how large a billion is? In my opinion, there is absolutely no way an individual can legitimately earn a billion pounds.

There is also some good data on income disparities here.

I just have this nasty feeling ....

Attempts to "equalise" education (in England, at least) have resulted in a system which benefits no-one in particular and drastically lowered educational standards. If we apply similar "logic" to society in general, I suspect that everyone would be worse off - except for those who are insulated by virtue of their existent fortunes.

Lunatics ... asylum ... you know the stuff.

Mike

[quote="gregorach"]

For example, since 1997, the wealth of the top 1000 richest people in Britain has increased four-fold (from £99 billion to £414 billion). Is that fair? How did that happen? Who are these people, and how did they get there?


You know the answer to that,they are the Power Elite,and that's their role in the great scheme of things.

Do I grasp how large a billion is?

Do you appreicate that condesention in the face of being wrong is not a good look?

The points I made that you ignore are 1) 440 billion is in essence that same as 90 billion 15 years before if you assume a growth of 12% compound 2) all the polices you mentioned to support the wealthy were not examples of policies supporting the wealthy, they were in fact completely the opposite, the most ignorant of which was Marginal Tax! Hence my choice not to point out why.

I think the Times Rich list goes something like, Steel, Oil, Coal, Mining, Packaging, Oil, Retail..... Hmm seems like fairly labour intensive industries?

Do you think these people actually earn billions?

They have assets which grow theoretically by Billions, but it's not there money, it depends on someone wanting to buy it, and if they wanted to sell this value would go down, and the fact that they would want to say goodbye to running what in many instances are family business' Either way these companies are invested in by our pensions, councils and ISA fund managers as well, and so it effects you by the same factor.

I often reflect on the only really rich person I have ever met, Phillip Green, he ran some shops, sold them to make good money, played a bit, watched the business suffer then bought them back at a pittance, but he didn't use Banks money, or shareholders money, he used his own money, and in turning round those business' made litterally billions, same with Chris Evans and virgin radio. Now I know Sir Phil is now lampooned for taking his money abroad etc etc, but I know one thing, that man was the only man capable of saving British Home Stores at the time, he micro managed every single buyer, and every single area, worked 18 hours a day, and ruled with a complete no nonsence approach to save a business that meant allot to him. I think currently he's worth about 20 times what the Queen is worth, and he is a person born with the same advantages or diasadvantages as you or I.

No I didn't read your links, becuase I am sure they support your point of view, which I don't agree with.(Due to the same sort of "cognitive" abnormalities I have, I find it hard to read drivel)

I know some people earn more, some people have more, some people resent this, or in your case not resent, but are Angry about, this.

Me, when I resent things, or I am bitter about them, I can use the word Angry, just as easily to sum up my feelings.

boboff wrote:No I didn't read your links, becuase I am sure they support your point of view, which I don't agree with.(Due to the same sort of "cognitive" abnormalities I have, I find it hard to read drivel)

Ah well, I may as well take the same approach to your arguments then. If you're not even going to do me the basic courtesy of even reading the supporting material for my arguments because you already know you don't agree with me (and therefore any supporting material must be "drivel"), why should I bother?

I have no Idea.

We have a choice surely?

And your arguements we have seen were factually incorrect, and your only answer, "yes, well in a list of reasons, some may not be right, but you know what I mean, here is a link to someone who actually bothered to put things in a list that supports what they are saying!"

Anyway enough now, I have no axe to grind here, and certainly not with you Dunc, the discussion has been interesting, and enjoyable, thank you.
As a matter of course I don't click on links in posts, I have been on some sights where you can see all sorts! ( mens and ladies private parts in one, I jest you not!!!!!!!!)

boboff wrote: As a matter of course I don't click on links in posts, I have been on some sights where you can see all sorts! ( mens and ladies private parts in one, I jest you not!!!!!!!!)

I see. Did you really expect that I'd be linking to that sort of thing in the middle of an argument about the moral philosophy of social justice, or is that just a lame excuse for not reading anything which might challenge your existing notions?

And whilst I accept that my off-the-top-of-my-head list of specific policy factors affecting income distribution over the last 30 years was ill-considered and inaccurate, I do not think that that completely invalidates all my other points in this thread. You know, the ones you didn't bother to acknowledge in the slightest. The ones that you said were "well over my head", which I now suspect is a euphemism for "didn't bother to read", especially given the subsequent context.

I would say it's been enjoyable, but it hasn't. It's been frustrating and depressing.

The only thing I have to say about all of this is that you have no idea how much I appreciate being part of a forum where people whose views are so "violently" divergent can discuss those views and ideas in such a civil way. It's very refreshing.

Thats good.

*lets it lie........

At least we can agree on something...

I, for one, am very glad that we can have such differing opinions, in public, about our head of state without having to worry about our futures. I've just seen the terrible images from Syria. Whether you approve of our monarchy and our government or not, at least we can debate the rights and wrongs, good and bad, without fear of reprisal.

Zoe

I for one have enjoyed following this post.
I have seem people, whom I consider to be friends, and friendly, express strong and diverse views.
I'd like to say "and I know what I think" but truth is I can see what everyone has said in a dispassionate way so thank you I learned a lot.