US & UK are poor societies with some very rich people.

Germanshepherdsmum

MaizieD

John Burn-Murdoch in the Financial Times today on the effect wealth distribution has on living standards.

By comparison with other countries

Income inequality in US & UK is so wide that while the richest are very well off, the poorest have a worse standard of living than the poorest in countries like Slovenia

He develops this in a twitter thread which is well worth reading:

twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1570832839318605824

and in his FT article.

www.ft.com/content/ef265420-45e8-497b-b308-c951baa68945

(The FT is usually paywalled. This article doesn't appear to be. But if you can't access it via this link you can through the link that Bur-Murdoch gives in his twitter thread)

I think this bears out a point that I was trying to make in another thread, that GDP indicates the over all wealth in a country, but not its distribution.

In his FT article, he poses the question:

Where would you rather live? A society where the rich are extraordinarily rich and the poor are very poor, or one where the rich are merely very well off but even those on the lowest incomes also enjoy a decent standard of living?



I'd ask the question: Which is more important to you; that the UK is an over all wealthy nation or that the wealth is better distributed within the UK population?

Maizie, you will never get answers from anybody with 'wealth' unless you say how their wealth might be 'better distributed'. It would, inevitably, involve a compulsory taking away of wealth, would it not?

You miss the point of this thread over and over again.

I AM NOT ASKING FOR THE REDISTRIBUTION OF PEOPLE'S CURRENT WEALTH. I'M NOT AFTER TAKING AWAY ANYONE'S CURRENT WEALTH. I AM PASSING ON WHAT THE DATA TELLS US AND HOPING THAT PEOPLE MIGHT THINK ABOUT HOW WE CAN EFFECT A BETTER DISTRIBUTION THAT LIFTS PEOPLE OUT OF POVERTY.

I AM SHOUTING BECAUSE I DON'T THINK PEOPLE ARE LISTENING TO ME IF THEY THINK I WANT TO TAKE AWAY WHAT THEY ALREADY HAVE.

Whitewavemark2

Tax?

Please expand.

I don't think there has to be someone else to blame GSM. I personally would only want people to try and understand how difficult engaging or accepting help can be when your world has become so small and the anxiety bottomless.

People may be doing things others see as wrong, but that may have become all that person can do. Each time I have talked to someone who is unable to move forward, I find all I can say is, "small steps, that's all you need to take". Sadly, sometimes even that is too much.

Thankfully there are many who help who do understand, and if they can't, accept. I certainly wouldn't blame those who try.

DaisyAnne

Urmstongran

The UK is a magnet for some to come to. It must suit them or they wouldn’t keep trying to get in. But how we ‘level up’ is the bigger question. It would be wonderful if we could do it.

Most come because they speak the language or have relatives here Urmstongran.

It's an age-old system; if you look back in history, we used to do the same. We just thought we were entitled to take other countries' wealth. We sent the eldest or the second eldest son. The system has always been used by the poor or dispossessed. People talk as if we never used it but I would guess those who went to Australia, South Africa, Canada, India, America, etc., from these islands far outstrip those coming here.

We need a proper system or we must accept that we encourage people to cross the channel because we don't have a proper system. We could give each person asking for asylum a card which allows them to be housed, given a small income and allowed and encouraged to work for, let's say, three months or six months. Whichever the companies the government outsources to say they can achieve.

The company must achieve an outcome on the asylum claim within that time. If the claim was not finalised, or if the person is appealing the asylum seeker would continue with the original housing, benefit (which would go if earning enough) and ability to work until it is finalised. The company would now be responsible for the costs. This would mean they charged a proper amount for their services and government might just see it pays them to have it in-house rather than outsourced.

This!

Tax?

MaizieD

John Burn-Murdoch in the Financial Times today on the effect wealth distribution has on living standards.

By comparison with other countries

Income inequality in US & UK is so wide that while the richest are very well off, the poorest have a worse standard of living than the poorest in countries like Slovenia

He develops this in a twitter thread which is well worth reading:

twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1570832839318605824

and in his FT article.

www.ft.com/content/ef265420-45e8-497b-b308-c951baa68945

(The FT is usually paywalled. This article doesn't appear to be. But if you can't access it via this link you can through the link that Bur-Murdoch gives in his twitter thread)

I think this bears out a point that I was trying to make in another thread, that GDP indicates the over all wealth in a country, but not its distribution.

In his FT article, he poses the question:

Where would you rather live? A society where the rich are extraordinarily rich and the poor are very poor, or one where the rich are merely very well off but even those on the lowest incomes also enjoy a decent standard of living?



I'd ask the question: Which is more important to you; that the UK is an over all wealthy nation or that the wealth is better distributed within the UK population?

Maizie, you will never get answers from anybody with 'wealth' unless you say how their wealth might be 'better distributed'. It would, inevitably, involve a compulsory taking away of wealth, would it not?

GSM, I have to deal with these agencies day to day and sometimes the person you need to speak to is not there/on holiday/on long term leave/is being manned by a locum. It would be beneficial if you opened your mind a little to what other people are going through. We are talking about extremely vulnerable people with complex histories and health conditions. I would rather blame someone who is ignorant to that rather than racing to blame them. Do you not even feel bad for blaming that woman's Mother?

M0nica

Some people just drop out of society, refuse to engage with people who want to help them.

Some do fall through the net but many shy away. I worked with people in need of help for some years, and some just refused to engage or refused to let you help them. People have free will and we cannot force them to engage in order for us not to feel guilty if anything goes wrong.

Precisely. Yet there always has to be someone else to blame. Usually the government or government agencies. Very convenient for those of a certain mindset.

Barmeyoldbat, I do understand

Yes JudgeJane I agree with you but I wasn’t thinking of India, I suppose it’s just that I stayed, at length, in countries where the poverty was so awful with no way out and these imagines do tend to stay with you.

DaisyAnne

JaneJudge

Lots of affluent people know how to access R&D money from gov schemes in various areas without having any expertise at all apart from gaining that capital. It is a shame people with actual knowledge cannot access this money because they cannot market for the money in the same way.

It feels like there is a cog missing, doesn't it JaneJudge.

Yes, it does and it is very demoralising for skilled people, especially those more experienced who end up working for the people who have managed to get the R&D money let alone frustrating as they are being managed by people who do not know what they are doing!

JaneJudge

Lots of affluent people know how to access R&D money from gov schemes in various areas without having any expertise at all apart from gaining that capital. It is a shame people with actual knowledge cannot access this money because they cannot market for the money in the same way.

It feels like there is a cog missing, doesn't it JaneJudge.

I also like the idea that the employer should apply for UC and not the employee. If someone is working they should not have the hassle of dealing with benefits because their employer is unable to manage the finances.

As I said to GSM that wasn't quite what I suggested, but the twist on the original is becoming quite interesting.

Lots of affluent people know how to access R&D money from gov schemes in various areas without having any expertise at all apart from gaining that capital. It is a shame people with actual knowledge cannot access this money because they cannot market for the money in the same way.

Whitewavemark2

DaisyAnne

GrannyGravy13

Dinahmo

Whitewavemark2

What I do think is that the tax payer has been subsidising businesses for years by topping up the poor wages paid by so many with benefits.

There should be a sensible living wage, and it should be made mandatory.

Exactly.

I think that is something which we all agree on

I agree too but I am aware many companies say they would not be able to afford it. Hence my thoughts that they should be able to ask for help. Not many would if they knew their top salaries and dividends would be checked. However, some new businesses would struggle, and some community businesses might too. It could well be worth helping these.

Start ups could be given assistance as soon as they employ, but once their bottom line shows a profit and a reasonable level of leverage, then assistance should cease and the company stand in its own two feet.

I agree with help for start-ups, but only if they need it. They might need knowledge as much as money.

If later, a company could not pay a real basic income, the government should look at why. Losing a possibly good business does not make sense. If it is lost and puts people out of a job, there is an additional cost to the country.

I dislike the comparisons with India and developing countries. The UK isn't India and I'm sure the Indian people who live and work in the UK expect better standards of living as it is more expensive to live. It's not extraordinary to want a good standard of safe housing, good services, access to health and access to a good standard of living when you live in a developed country, it's considered normal surely.

Can everyone please be a bit more respectful to one another? I have felt a bit got at today for caring about people but I'm sure we all have other stuff going on in our lives without adding to the stress with being upset with one another on here

and before anyone says anything, I want to be engaged in discussion, so no I wont switch it off

Barmeyoldbat

Oh I see DaisyAnne maybe you have finished picking on Volver and you are now going to start on me and you are far from polite to other posters. My whole point is no country or system is able to distribute wealth evenly, so you will always have poverty but there are countries where it is far worse

But third world poverty BoB. How can you even think that an appropriate comparison, a discussion that would not cause others to question your post in such a rich country as ours?

Start ups could be given assistance as soon as they employ, but once their bottom line shows a profit and a reasonable level of leverage, then assistance should cease and the company stand in its own two feet.

I agree with this. I get tired of hearing that companies can't afford to pay decent wages/sick pay etc when the directors are drawing good salaries and the profits are high. Anyone who genuinely can't afford to pay a living wage after a bedding in period shouldn't be in business.

I also like the idea that the employer should apply for UC and not the employee. If someone is working they should not have the hassle of dealing with benefits because their employer is unable to manage the finances.

Germanshepherdsmum

According to the link she had savings Dinahmo, which she wanted to keep in order to buy a dilapidated bungalow. That’s why I made the comment that she did have money but chose not to spend it.

It said she had a small amount of savings - that could be £50 or £100 - we don't know. I suspect her idea of wanting to buy a run down bungalow was pie in the sky. Many people want run down bungalows because they usually have larger plots so space to expand.

Oh I see DaisyAnne maybe you have finished picking on Volver and you are now going to start on me and you are far from polite to other posters. My whole point is no country or system is able to distribute wealth evenly, so you will always have poverty but there are countries where it is far worse

DaisyAnne

GrannyGravy13

Dinahmo

Whitewavemark2

What I do think is that the tax payer has been subsidising businesses for years by topping up the poor wages paid by so many with benefits.

There should be a sensible living wage, and it should be made mandatory.

Exactly.

I think that is something which we all agree on

I agree too but I am aware many companies say they would not be able to afford it. Hence my thoughts that they should be able to ask for help. Not many would if they knew their top salaries and dividends would be checked. However, some new businesses would struggle, and some community businesses might too. It could well be worth helping these.

Start ups could be given assistance as soon as they employ, but once their bottom line shows a profit and a reasonable level of leverage, then assistance should cease and the company stand in its own two feet.

Some people just drop out of society, refuse to engage with people who want to help them.

Some do fall through the net but many shy away. I worked with people in need of help for some years, and some just refused to engage or refused to let you help them. People have free will and we cannot force them to engage in order for us not to feel guilty if anything goes wrong.

Volver, could you just point to where your quotes, "You think you're always right" or "Everybody else thinks differently" that you attributed to me, were made? I don't think I have said those words.

As for, it's not about you, it isn't about any one person. Anything that is changed is changed because more people want it than don't and that isn't the case at the moment.

But this is a thread about wealth distribution, so I apologise to Maizie, for going off topic.

I quote. Are you now dictating who can post what and when?