"Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me."

Well I was about to acknowledge the apology but I don't think I'll bother now.

There should not be any super rich individuals, it isn’t good for them.

In what way is it bad for people to be rich? The only thing I can see is that rich people often partake in dangerous pastimes such as skiing, racing, flying etc that sometimes lead to accidents.

Otherwise, being rich smooths your path in life. (I'm not speaking from experience, unfortunately).

Casdon

Median individual income is not the appropriate figure to use, median household income is more meaningful.
Median household disposable income in the UK was £31,400 in financial year ending (FYE) 2021, which covered the first year of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic; this was an annual increase of 2%, based on estimates from the Office for National Statistics' (ONS) Household Finances Survey.

I agree that it's more complicated than individuals. Even £31,400 per household is not very high, so it's quite shocking there are 50% of households who have less than that. Housing costs are important too. For a household which has paid off a mortgage, the median isn't too bad, but it would be difficult for a household with rent or a mortgage and children. The point I was making really (or trying to make) is that in the UK there's a long tail of people who have very little, so a household with an income of, say, £70 - £80k would seem very rich.

GrannyGravy13

growstuff you think earning over £24,600 per annum makes you rich ?

Yes, I do, but it's all relative .

That's my point! 50% of people have an income lower than that.

Whitewavemark2

growstuff

So where would the threshold be? There are very few people (a couple of percent max) who are very rich.

About 90% of the UK's wealth is owned by the top 50%, so anybody earning over the median income (£24,600 pa in January 2022) is rich to the other half of the population.

Only about 1% but they have enormous power, whilst ensuring that they pay much less tax as a % than the rest of us, that as far as I’m concerned is the issue

Thanks for the definition. Maybe the question should be asked how they got so rich. Some, of course, are genuinely self-made, but very few. Most have inherited wealth, which they have then grown.

This is rather hypocritical

Antonia

*There should not be any super rich individuals, it isn’t good for them.*

In what way is it bad for people to be rich? The only thing I can see is that rich people often partake in dangerous pastimes such as skiing, racing, flying etc that sometimes lead to accidents.

Otherwise, being rich smooths your path in life. (I'm not speaking from experience, unfortunately).

It's not a question of 'super rich' not being good for them.

My objection is that they are wasting money by leaving it completely idle in tax havens and the like.

Money is a tool, it exists to facilitate transactions. As I said earlier, what use is a tool to you (or anyone else) if you lock it in the tool shed and don't use it, or even let anyone else use it? What's more, you've a massive collection of tools stashed away in that shed being of no use to anyone at all. It's a waste of a resource.

Of course, if you lived in a world where your wealth was measured by the amount of tools you owned, if it's anything like this world a great many of the toolless people, perhaps even the ones who made those tools, would be looking up to you and admiring you for wasting this resource... And thinking that you were the best sort of people to rule them because you must be superhuman to have acquired so many tools...

I get your point MaizieD if all the appropriate taxes have been paid on these tools and the tools are not in anyway illegal I think it’s up to the tool owner to do whatever they see fit with their tools and nobody else’s business really.

I'm not actually advocating taking people's existing wealth away from them. this isn't pre Revolutionary France or Russia.

I am saying that we should prevent them accumulating any more.

The money they have sucked out of various economies is money which governments have issued. I see no virtue in monopolising large amounts of public money when it could be put to myriad better uses for the wellbeing of all citizens of a country.

Adam Smith. 18th C empirical economist admired and grossly misinterpreted by Thatcher:

No society can surely be happy and flourishing of which the far greater part of its members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed and lodged

Note that his most admired work is called 'The Wealth of Nations', not of 'Individuals'...

GrannyGravy13

I get your point MaizieD if all the appropriate taxes have been paid on these tools and the tools are not in anyway illegal I think it’s up to the tool owner to do whatever they see fit with their tools and nobody else’s business really.

No such thing as 'society', eh, GG13?

MaizieD do you really think restrictions on what a person can earn or accumulate will benefit the poorer, least able in society?

Unfortunately I do not.

I never earned as much as £24K pa and DH only ever earned below we’ll 40% tax rate but we still managed to buy our home. No bank of mum and dad or inheritances.

It doesn’t bother me that because of that eventually we’ll end up paying for later life care either when folks who earned more and don’t have anything to show for their efforts will get theirs for free/little.

However, what’s left after we’ve both paid our way goes to Our grandchildren, not other people’s.

Pantglas2

I never earned as much as £24K pa and DH only ever earned below we’ll 40% tax rate but we still managed to buy our home. No bank of mum and dad or inheritances.

It doesn’t bother me that because of that eventually we’ll end up paying for later life care either when folks who earned more and don’t have anything to show for their efforts will get theirs for free/little.

However, what’s left after we’ve both paid our way goes to Our grandchildren, not other people’s.

Are you rich Pantglas? Do you have huge investments. Are you on a par with the Sunaks? Otherwise why do you think this will affect you so much?

One person suggested a change in inheritance tax but why do you think that will affect you?

Nowhere near inheritance tax limits (alas) DaisyAnne but I’ve seen a few references on GN suggesting leaving anything to kith and kin shouldn’t be allowed due to some parents having nothing to leave!

As for tax avoidance/evasion, I admit to having savings that bring in under £1000 interest limit with ISAs being the next vehicle for avoiding tax. I drive an economical car which has very low tax for the purpose of saving on that and petrol and am always looking to save money (and tax obviously) on all purchases - arguably I’m depriving “society” of funds by doing all of this. Surely that’s ok because the government can just print more...

My thoughts are, we’re all at it, only to different degrees!

Pantglas2

I never earned as much as £24K pa and DH only ever earned below we’ll 40% tax rate but we still managed to buy our home. No bank of mum and dad or inheritances.

It doesn’t bother me that because of that eventually we’ll end up paying for later life care either when folks who earned more and don’t have anything to show for their efforts will get theirs for free/little.

However, what’s left after we’ve both paid our way goes to Our grandchildren, not other people’s.

Great! Do you think you could do that now, if you were starting out?

Maybe I don't see life and wealth like other people. I see that we are born and die and we have some choice about what we do in the time in between. I don't see any wealth as belonging to individuals, but people have a right to use it during their lives for what they need/want, so I don't have a problem with returning it to the common "pot", so the next generation can earn it and choose what to do with it.

Who would vote for a government that didn’t believe in free enterprise, in the government imposing 100per cent inheritance tax. Would anyone set up a business, take risks and employ people with such restrictions in place. Look how much the Blair’s have, multi millionaires and their children, Keir Starmer is very wealthy with an estate, so many millionaires in the party. Would you advocate everyone having the same type of house, car, education? What a ridiculous suggestion that’s communism and everyone knows how that failed, with the top ones with their money sorted away abroad in second magnificent homes. If the rules are not fit for purpose, then change them, meanwhile what Rishi did was not against the law, as for his wife she’s not owned by him, women today make up their own minds and not at the mercy of their husbands, it seems as if some people don’t accept that, want to turn the clock back. Tell me one person who don’t want their own money spent as they think it should. Many save for the future don’t spend money they earn on holidays, cars etc. why should the government have it back. Spend money you earn, pay tax on as you wish.

What's this obsession today with Communism? Is it today's directive?

Definitely, with interest rates as low as they’ve been for the last 15 years Growstuff (we never went below 5% and were mostly in double figures) and bearing in mind I’m in north Wales.

I’m a council house kid who always knew the value of owning the roof over my head when the rent couldn’t be found (frequently)

And you’ll notice from my post we’re bypassing the children, who are making their own way, and only leaving what’s left after we’ve paid for our own care, to be divvied up between 7 grandchildren!

Unless I win the lottery in the meantime, it won’t be life altering for any of them and I fail to understand why anyone would grudge that satisfaction!

When I bought my first house in the early 80s the average house cost 4 times the average salary.

Now, the average house costs 9 times the average salary.

I wouldn't be so sure Pantglas2 that you could afford to buy a house.

Not sure about your area volver but we can still buy in some areas a two bed for £150k so definitely doable.

Let’s remember that we’re the generation who didn’t have much when we set up home and most of that was second hand! My DGD has recently engaged and has high falutin ideas of what she ‘needs’ ?‍♀️

That’s going well...?

That's interesting Pantglas2, thanks.

When we were first married we had one piece of new furniture, it was a coffee table from MFI. Oh, we thought we were posh

GrannyGravy13

MaizieD do you really think restrictions on what a person can earn or accumulate will benefit the poorer, least able in society?

Unfortunately I do not.

I don't think that you, or anyone else, has understood what I am saying. There's a big picture here about a few people sucking the state issued money out of the economy and hoarding it where it lies idle.

I really don't see that a society's economy couldn't be organised differently; where its resource of money could be more fairly distributed so that none of its members live in poverty and need and the resource is used to provide public 'goods', such as health care, education, decent infrastructure, mitigations for climate change etc. Restricting what some people can take away and waste from the state resource doesn't have to mean that there is less of it to distribute. It's just differently distributed. There is still room in it for free enterprise and people having different outcomes to their lives; it just provides a basic decent life for everyone.

And quite honestly, I think those who take and hoard and give nothing back are little more than parasites.

I see it Maizie.

I don’t think they ‘take’. I think they ‘earn’ and after they have it’s surely up to them if they choose to ‘save’. ‘Hoard’ is an unpleasant and emotive word isn’t it?

And how do we know they ‘give nothing back’? That just inflammatory language used to prove your point.