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

But in return, they shouldn't expect us to pay for extravagant events celebrating their lives and achievements, that they think they are entitled to.

What makes you think that they think they're 'entitled' to this, volver? Surely these decisions are made by the government, or are perceived traditions. Who is to say that the RF might prefer not to have such a fuss made?

Is it still the norm that schoolchildren in the US swear allegiance to The Flag every day? That seems really strange to us, but it is a way of 'attaching' the US citizens to their country. In the same way, the RF traditions can be seen as promoting attachment to the UK. I'm not saying it's good or bad, just that they can have a function beyond what you seem to think of as massaging royal egos.

GrannyGravy13

As MaizieD has posted repeatedly taxation does not fund government spending the U.K. could tax the rich at 90% and it would not make any difference to government spending.

However, taxation at 90% would not be an incentive to invest in the U.K.

Life is unfair and unjust, I have no idea what the overall solution is other than increasing the living wage and ensuring that the State safety net works for all who need it.

Why does taxing personal income prevent investment in just the UK? Those people would not be able to play roulette with their money in any country. Most currently don't invest in anything tangible at the moment.

If the tax is used to expand real industries, then the UK would be fine.

Urmstongran

Baaad TORIES‼️ (Again) ?
Maybe we should just vote Labour in and have done with it as most of GN posters would love that anyway.
Mind you, looking back (Blair PPI debacle), Brown (cashing in the family silver) it’s never plain sailing whoever is in.

Try reading what is written UG, instead of making it up. I for one pointed out going to extremes (as you would and do) does not help. Others have commented about a more balanced way.

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.

So your solution is to stop the wealthy having offshore accounts.
Not necessarily. Just stop them diverting profits into offshore accounts so that they can benefit unfairly from money made in this country. I'm looking at you, Mr Rees Mogg.

Your divine right to reign has me puzzled. I don't think they will give up their personal wealth and shouldn't be expected to. But in return, they shouldn't expect us to pay for extravagant events celebrating their lives and achievements, that they think they are entitled to.

They don't have to give up their second or third homes. Giving up their eighth or ninth homes would be adequate. And certainly not give up their cleaners, especially the older members of the RF.

It's definitely not the people with huge offshore accounts, aristocrats with the idea that they have a divine right to reign or those who think the best way to run a country is "devil take the hindmost.”

Lovely post Volver.
So your solution is to stop the wealthy having offshore accounts.
I’m in total agreement if it means they would have to pay tax on the money that is then kept in UK accounts.
We don’t need to discuss the government because we already agree on that. (Unless you’re a secret Tory voter.)
Your divine right to reign has me puzzled. Do you think that if there was no RF, they would immediately give up all their sources of income, land etc. and that money would immediately flow to the poorest in the land?
Or would it be, as we all do that they hang on to what they’ve got in order to run their homes, (Giving up second or even third homes to support the poor would be a touchy subject on GN.)
Or to support those they employ? (Giving up having a cleaner -another touchy point.)
The poverty and the need for food banks is appalling and it affects some members of my family. I don’t have a solution,
though I’ve read some good suggestions on here.

Urmstongran

Perhaps our government could look at best practice in other ‘rich’ countries and see how they manage wealth inequality. I’m sure many European countries have similar problems though from what I’ve read and seen.

I imagine they do Urmstongran. They look at Australia often enough. I'm not sure they go for "best practice" but rather the cheapest they can get away with and the one's that appeal to the basest of their base.

The fact is that the UK sis one of the most unequal economically in the developed world, and while many do not think of this as a problem, research clearly shows that it is.
From the Equality Trust Its clear that the more equal countries see better physical and mental health, better educational outcomes, and lower levels of violence.
So it’s a win win for all, not just the poorest.

Another thought, those familiar with the philosopher John Rawls, and who are comfortably well off - If you had to choose behind the veil of ignorance would you vote for the status quo?

Precisely.

Germanshepherdsmum

That makes no sense to me DaisyAnne. A company employs X and pays them maybe considerably more than the statutory minimum. However X has a stay at home spouse and quite a few young children. If as a result of their chosen personal circumstances X is paid UC, why should the blame be laid at the door of their employer?

GSM employers cannot be liable for employees partners/spouses/living situations.

India is a developing country
The UK and the US are DEVELOPED countries.

This is primary school stuff

That makes no sense to me DaisyAnne. A company employs X and pays them maybe considerably more than the statutory minimum. However X has a stay at home spouse and quite a few young children. If as a result of their chosen personal circumstances X is paid UC, why should the blame be laid at the door of their employer?

DaisyAnne

MaizieD

GrannyGravy13

How do you propose to redistribute the wealthy folks earned income?

Confiscate a percentage of their bank balance and hold a lottery for the poorest in society to see who gets a bit?

Perhaps instead of starting at the point where you're defending the right of the wealthy to hang onto every penny, you could look at how to improve the lot of the poorest in our very unequal society. By legislating for a living wage and decent welfare benefits, for a start. By regarding 'the poor' as human beings with the same basic needs as everyone else, not as parasites on 'the rich'.

Being a decent human being means paying a wage another decent human being can live on.

I know I am probably the only person in the world who thinks this but the claim for benefit should come from the source of the need for benefit. It is companies that benefit from Universal Credit, etc. It means that government has set a threshold above which a company doesn't need to pay because government says it will pick up the tab. That cannot be a "living wage".

If companies benefit, they need to be the ones who claim. There will be good reasons for helping them by guaranteeing loans or making grants but that can only be when the benefits office has gone through the company's income, etc., and noted whether they are deliberately depriving themselves of capital by paying for people they cannot afford at the top of the company or by paying excessive dividends.
No one who is working should have to claim to make their basic income a living one.

I agree.

We have always paid way above the so called minimum wage we value all our employees and treat them well.

In return we get a contented workforce, who enable the company to function and make a profit.

Correction:

the top percentile in the UK pays less, as a percentage of their income, in over all taxation....

GrannyGravy13

As MaizieD has posted repeatedly taxation does not fund government spending the U.K. could tax the rich at 90% and it would not make any difference to government spending.

However, taxation at 90% would not be an incentive to invest in the U.K.

Life is unfair and unjust, I have no idea what the overall solution is other than increasing the living wage and ensuring that the State safety net works for all who need it.

You must read further than 'taxation doesn't fund spending' GG13. It can also be a mechanism for redistribution of wealth,.

Whichever way you cut it you will find that, on the whole (from ONS figures) the top percentile in the UK pays less in over all taxation than does the lowest percentile. So if we're going down the route that believes that taxation does fund spending, then the richest, on the whole, pay less than the poorest.

Nobody is talking about 90% tax for the wealthy (though it is debateable whether or not that is a disincentive). I started this thread because I was shocked at the conclusions that Burn-Murdoch had reached when looking at the data and though that others might be, too.

I even thought it might cause some reflection on how we can achieve a better standard of living for those not fortunate enough to be wealthy, for everyone in the population,.

Silly me. Instant defence of the rich...

There is no rule of nature that says that a tiny proportion of the world's population has to hog most of its resources. It is not a god given right to be rich. Yet people defend wealth and monopoly of resources as though the heavens would open and the earth swallow us up if it were to be any different.

I really don't understand it.

MaizieD

GrannyGravy13

How do you propose to redistribute the wealthy folks earned income?

Confiscate a percentage of their bank balance and hold a lottery for the poorest in society to see who gets a bit?

Perhaps instead of starting at the point where you're defending the right of the wealthy to hang onto every penny, you could look at how to improve the lot of the poorest in our very unequal society. By legislating for a living wage and decent welfare benefits, for a start. By regarding 'the poor' as human beings with the same basic needs as everyone else, not as parasites on 'the rich'.

Being a decent human being means paying a wage another decent human being can live on.

I know I am probably the only person in the world who thinks this but the claim for benefit should come from the source of the need for benefit. It is companies that benefit from Universal Credit, etc. It means that government has set a threshold above which a company doesn't need to pay because government says it will pick up the tab. That cannot be a "living wage".

If companies benefit, they need to be the ones who claim. There will be good reasons for helping them by guaranteeing loans or making grants but that can only be when the benefits office has gone through the company's income, etc., and noted whether they are deliberately depriving themselves of capital by paying for people they cannot afford at the top of the company or by paying excessive dividends.
No one who is working should have to claim to make their basic income a living one.

Right, can I take a moment to just clarify this?

The reason that the UK is so unequal is:
1) the asylum seekers
2) India
3) People with mental health issues
4) People with mothers
4) Obese people (sorry, was that a different thread?)

It's definitely not the people with huge offshore accounts, aristocrats with the idea that they have a divine right to reign or those who think the best way to run a country is "devil take the hindmost".

Have I got that right?

DaisyAnne

GrannyGravy13

How do you propose to redistribute the wealthy folks earned income?

Confiscate a percentage of their bank balance and hold a lottery for the poorest in society to see who gets a bit?

What a contemptuous and disrespectful post.

Not at all

I just cannot see how consistently blaming the wealthy for all the ills in the U.K. is beneficial to solving the problem.

Perhaps I should have put a joke emoji at the end to indicate that it was a tongue in cheek post

As I have consistently posted on this thread and others since I joined GN, there needs to be a conversation as to why working people have to resort to food banks and UC.

Is it because some businesses are operating close to the edge and pay increases could force them to close? Or is it purely bosses not bothered and paying minimum wage, which if this is the case it is immoral although not illegal.

I will repeat myself (again) we need a safety net that works for those in crisis.

GrannyGravy13

How do you propose to redistribute the wealthy folks earned income?

Confiscate a percentage of their bank balance and hold a lottery for the poorest in society to see who gets a bit?

What a contemptuous and disrespectful post.

Totally agree Urmstongram. India has a huge discrepancy between rich and poor, much more than the UK. It is also one of the world’s most prosperous countries, paradoxically. I hate to say it, but China actually handles distribution of wealth better. I have been to many countries that really are poor and where many do starve to death - Cambodia, parts of Vietnam, Malaysia, Myanmar. There really is no comparison. Not saying there is no problem but it doesn’t happen nearly so often as it does in those countries. Of course it should not happen at all, I agree but don’t bash yourselves up in a country where at least you do have a welfare system, primitive or not. Incidentally, why did you vote to leave the security of the European Union who would have ensured certain minimum wage standards?

Have you seen the adverts still asking for aid in these poorer countries? Water aid. Flies on babies faces. Cleft palate repairs needed. The UK has no comparison with India. (Who also run their own space programme). Now there’s a huge discrepancy. We are not happy over here unless we’re wearing a hair shirt.

India is a developing country

I would call India a poor country withe a few very rich, the level of poverty in India and many other developing nations does not compare with the UK.
The Poverty line in the UK - half the median wage, around £15k, being poor in the UK is far far better than being poor in most other places.
That does not mean more could and should be done.

Quite so, GG.

As MaizieD has posted repeatedly taxation does not fund government spending the U.K. could tax the rich at 90% and it would not make any difference to government spending.

However, taxation at 90% would not be an incentive to invest in the U.K.

Life is unfair and unjust, I have no idea what the overall solution is other than increasing the living wage and ensuring that the State safety net works for all who need it.