asperity Posted January 23, 2015 Report Share Posted January 23, 2015 Someone has done the arithmetic on how to get rid of wealth inequality worldwide: World's wealth = £159,154,173,160,000 shared out between the 7,289,064,815 of us gives everybody £21,834.65p each. We're rich!! Hooray!! But wait - we owe £104,931,894,022,537.84p which is £14,395 each, but never mind, that still leaves £7,439 for each of us to spend as we like. But don't forget that this is a once in a lifetime offer, there won't be another one next year. And spend it wisely because you won't be getting paid next month because all the rich employers have gone out of business, their businesses being part of that world wealth figure you understand. And those charitable trusts, set up by those greedy rich b's like Bill Gates, that funded research into deadly disease? Gone out of business as well because we've shared out all the money between us. And enjoy your 7,289,064,815th share of Buckingham Palace why don't you? This isn't what you want though is it Obs? No, what you really want is the Duke of Westminster or some such to give you personally half of everything he has, then you too can be a rich B and look down on the rest of us poor people. With thanks to annaraccoon for doing the arithmetic. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted January 23, 2015 Report Share Posted January 23, 2015 Unfortunately Asp.; the direction of travel is in the opposite direction; the wealth gap is getting wider; hence the topic. Thewealth gap may be getting wider but the poor are getting wealthier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 23, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2015 Tell those in the queue at Calais or outside the food banks ! btw it's not a question of "dividing" it all up; merely of redistribution; and as the wealth will always gravitate to fewer and fewer; redistribution has to be continual. More people spending money revives economies; hence the Euro zone's attempt at a one trillion Euro QE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted January 23, 2015 Report Share Posted January 23, 2015 ... the poor are getting wealthier Link? As I said earlier, I've not seen anyone here arguing that they should be given a share of the wealth of the 1%ers: my view is the widening divide between the haves and have nots isn't a good economic model and if it's allowed to continue will result in the failure of capitalism (not that I necessarily think that that's not a bad thing). However, I don't think those calculations (I'll accept the maths because, well, I'm not good at maths) represent such a bad deal. We're all £7.5k better off and we've wiped out all the world's debt (I'm assuming that's what that £104,931,894,022,537.84p figure represents, which will also include the debt of the 1%ers). Now, £7.5k may not mean much to the likes of me and you (I'd happily throw mine back into the pot), but imagine what difference it might make to all those millions in developing countries who are living in absolute poverty. Don't think you can assume that everyone would lose their jobs because the personal wealth of a (relative) handful of fat cats has been reduced. I mean, they're so bright, talented and work so damned hard they'd soon amass all that lucre again, wouldn't they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted January 23, 2015 Report Share Posted January 23, 2015 The maths in Asperities post falls down when you consider that the amount reduced for paying off the debt would go to at least one human being on the planet and should therefore be redistributed amongst all making it back to square one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted January 23, 2015 Report Share Posted January 23, 2015 Does the worlds wealth amount used include all assets or just cash? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 23, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2015 Believe it's the totality of wealth; so presumably includes all assets; such as lands, buildings and artworks etc. According to a TV prog on the subject, the tendency is for cash to be converted into such assets; as they gain in value, thus making them even richer. Cash could be more difficult, as Quantative Easing for example devalues currencies, which would tend to hurt large cash holders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted January 23, 2015 Report Share Posted January 23, 2015 Then the answer could be to tax these high value assets as they can't be moved abput Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted January 23, 2015 Report Share Posted January 23, 2015 The maths in Asperities post falls down when you consider that the amount reduced for paying off the debt would go to at least one human being on the planet and should therefore be redistributed amongst all making it back to square one. Okay, so everyone has £21,000, and nothing to spend it on because, as I pointed out, a good part of that £21,000 isn't actually cash but a 7 billionth part of all the land, factories, buildings etc etc etc. None of this would be worth anything to the previous owners so why should food processors/farmers carry on feeding everyone else if they get nothing for it? Why should oil companies continue producing the fuel that helps drive the wealth prouctivity of the world?A nice thought, but it's a one off deal and then we all die. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted January 23, 2015 Report Share Posted January 23, 2015 btw it's not a question of "dividing" it all up; merely of redistribution What? Would you care to explain why redistribution isn't the same as dividing it all up Obs?. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted January 23, 2015 Report Share Posted January 23, 2015 redistribution has to be continual. OK... so we split all the money up and then the ones who do decide to push forward for the benefit of their fellow men and use their bit of the money they get to build factories and stuff then have to give back anything they make as a profit because they then become richer than everyone else? That is the policy of communism and the total policy of jealousy... there would be no incentive for anyone to do anything because any financial reward they make gets taken away... Oh such a lefty utopia But of course once everyone is equal, who will tell anyone that makes a profit to give it up as they are no better than the person making the profit. My God.... no wonder communism is a load of bol***ks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted January 23, 2015 Report Share Posted January 23, 2015 I think divvying up the worlds wealth would be stupid and impossible, taxing million pound assets isnt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted January 23, 2015 Report Share Posted January 23, 2015 Oh and actually taxing multinational companies on what they earn here would help a bit too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 23, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2015 Errrm, you don't "split", "divide" anything up: the State increases it's revenues by taxing the rich more, particularly assets which can't be moved to some off shore account. The State then has the means to provide services and benefits for all on the basis of need; and this doesn't have to be in the form of cash; but rather subsidised essentials. All fairly simple, and as for "communism"; never really been practised, just look at China now with it's rich Party elite. Finally, everyone isn't "equal"; everyone is different with different abilities and attributes and many with acute needs; a civilised community will ensure their well being; a modern version of the law of the jungle, survival of the fittest will not. Despite the myth, that there is an after life; historically designed specifically to lull the poor into tolerating their poverty in this life, thus maintaining the status quo; many will eventually decide, out of desperation, just to take it; something some of the rich realise all to well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted January 23, 2015 Report Share Posted January 23, 2015 Oh my god I am finding Observer agreeing with me, it must be right then to get us two to sing from the same hymn sheet lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted January 23, 2015 Report Share Posted January 23, 2015 Obs, I presume you're talking about Amazon, Starbucks etc. As has been pointed out many times before these companies are obeying EU law. If they were to pay the UK all the tax that people keep saying they should they would be open to prosecution for breaking EU law (and the EU would probably demand all the tax is paid back). Simple answer - leave the EU and then tax them. Can't see us getting much TBH though :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 23, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2015 Actually Asp, I wasn't thinking of the corporate sphere, but it's certainly an area to be looked at; given their international nature and ability to play off one National Gov against another; in seeking to minimise their tax commitments. I was thinking more of the individual; and why a rich man has to continue amassing riches way above his needs; after all; he can only eat one meal at a time, drive one car at a time; live in one house at a time etc. I don't have a problem with differentials; providing they are fair and reasonable, and reflect the true needs of society as a whole; but are we to defend a market that awards a higher reward to a banker, footballer or pop singer; rather than a surgeon? I believe that in some of the highest taxed countries, as in Scandanavia; the rich are perfectly prepared to pay their taxes in the knowledge that a society at peace with itself is much less threatening to them, than the anarchy of every man for himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted January 23, 2015 Report Share Posted January 23, 2015 ... the poor are getting wealthier Link? http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/MDG/english/UNDP_MDGReport_EN_2014Final1.pdf Here you go Fugs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted January 24, 2015 Report Share Posted January 24, 2015 Maybe we should bring in a proper tax on those people that win big on the lottery... as it stands if you were to win say £10million on the lottery you would pay no tax. Tax it at 40% and you get £4million.... far more than taxing a few bankers (actually it would take a lot of bankers to get £4million) and there are people winning millions on the lottery every week.... instant win win.... the lottery winner still gets millions (that he never had anyway) and the country gets millions too... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted January 24, 2015 Report Share Posted January 24, 2015 Baz, the country already gets millions from the lottery, instead of taxing winnings maybe just pay out less ergo less bureaucracy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted January 24, 2015 Report Share Posted January 24, 2015 But the lottery is run by a private company - Camelot so they would just end up with more money in their private company coffers. Tax the lottery winners themselves.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted January 24, 2015 Report Share Posted January 24, 2015 No, Camelot have to give a percentage to "good causes" i.e. the Country, simply increase the percentage of take, job sorted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted January 24, 2015 Report Share Posted January 24, 2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted January 24, 2015 Report Share Posted January 24, 2015 But the lottery is run by a private company - Camelot so they would just end up with more money in their private company coffers. Tax the lottery winners themselves.... Where the money goes Camelot runs the most cost-efficient major lottery in Europe, with only around 4% of total revenue spent on operating costs – a key factor behind us delivering, on average, over £33 million each week to National Lottery Good Causes. Combined with the Lottery Duty we pay to the Government, we return one of the highest percentages of lottery revenue back to society in the world. National Lottery retailers will earn 5% in sales commission for each draw-based game – and 6% commission on each National Lottery Scratchcard (established National Lottery retailers earn, on average, over £8,000 per annum in lottery commission). National Lottery Good Causes The lottery distribution bodies award the money raised by Camelot through lottery ticket sales to projects in the following sectors: the arts, charities, education, the environment, health, heritage, sports and voluntary organisations. To date, more than 450,000 individual National Lottery grants have been made across the length and breadth of the UK – helping to transform the lives of people and communities across the nation. This equates to an average of 144 awards in every single UK postcode district. In addition, The National Lottery contributed up to £2.2 billion to the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 24, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 24, 2015 The lottery is an example of the obscene nature of distribution; huge top prizes; rather than having say a top limit of a £million and more pay out lower down. As for taxing it, fine; but if that tax was ring fenced, say for the NHS, it might be better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.