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

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.

Barmeyoldbat, I do understand

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.

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?

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?

Tax?

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!

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.

Whitewavemark2

Tax?

Please expand.

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.

I don’t listen when people shout.

Some very interesting comments on this thread.
It is certainly so sad when people with all kinds of problems cannot access support because of either their own lack of understanding of how things work, or by bureaucracy that glides on by or is unhelpful.My heart goes out to them.
Sometimes, also, it is actually nobody’s fault but a perfect storm of awful circumstances.
As to pay and a fair society, employers need to increase wages generally, and now that we have less workers available that may do the job, it is an employees market now.
Cheap labour should become a thing of the past.

Probably the easiest way to help the poorest is to increase minimum wage substantially and ban Zero hours contracts.
It would mean we would all have to pay more for services that involve labour.
The service sector wouldn’t like it but which is more important a pub meal or paying the rent?.

It would also increase your grocery bill, amongst other things.

For someone with such a grasp of all things economic, you've shot wide of the mark there GSM.

While arguments for wage-push inflation exist, the empirical evidence to back these arguments up is not always strong. Historically, minimum wage increases have had only a very weak association with inflationary pressures on prices in an economy.

www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/052815/does-raising-minimum-wage-increase-inflation.asp

But I'm sure you'll find something that says it does.

MaizieD "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?" And "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?"

I'm not sure I've read what you think. Care to lay out a proposal?

To your questions: I'm not bothered by wealth of (say) The King, David Beckham, Mr Dyson, The Duke of Westminster or any other wealthy person. Will removing even 50% of their wealth make a jot of difference to anyone?

And I'm certainly not fussed with our middle class income and living. We donate, we help, we give happily.

Germanshepherdsmum

I don’t listen when people shout.

You don't listen when they don't shout, either.

Norah

MaizieD "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?" And "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?"

I'm not sure I've read what you think. Care to lay out a proposal?

To your questions: I'm not bothered by wealth of (say) The King, David Beckham, Mr Dyson, The Duke of Westminster or any other wealthy person. Will removing even 50% of their wealth make a jot of difference to anyone?

And I'm certainly not fussed with our middle class income and living. We donate, we help, we give happily.

Jesus wept.

They weren't actually my questions, they were the questions asked by the author of the thread and article I linked to.

I assume from your post that your are very happy to live in a society where the first proposition is true. That there are a few very rich people and a lot of very poor people.

And, for the fourth of fifth time, I haven't said anything about removing anyone's wealth. How many times do I have to say that on this thread before people actually comprehend it?

Believe what you wish volver. I am sick and tired of your arguments.

Good post Norah.

And good night all, have fun arguing. It won’t make a jot of difference to anything except your blood pressure l

Believe what you wish volver. I am sick and tired of your arguments.

I imagine you are sick and tired of lots of arguments that don't go your way GSM. Sometimes being a fancy City of London Lawyer (or whatever it was) just isn't enough to cow the opposition into silence.

Enjoy your evening

It was only you arguing GSM. I hope you are okay as you are normally quite level headed. Good night

“I assume from your post that your are very happy to live in a society where the first proposition is true. That there are a few very rich people and a lot of very poor people.”

Wrong, in the UK there are a few very rich and a lot of very comfortably off that can afford to pay more, so that the poorest can have a better life.
The amount that is spent on alcohol, non essentials and luxuries is staggering and that’s just at the supermarket.

MaizieD "I assume from your post that your are very happy to live in a society where the first proposition is true. That there are a few very rich people and a lot of very poor people."

No. I never said that at all and that's not how we live.

I did ask if you had a proposal. I've not read your solution either, just point the way or paste it to me, please.

This conversation seems to be going round in circles, with anyone suggesting that wealth should be more evenly distributed being accused of jealousy and/or wanting some sort of revolution, and those who believe in market forces being accused of not caring about others. Probably neither group is saying what they are being accused of.

I think that it would be better for society to have no poverty and less extreme wealth. I think that it is disparity that causes crime and is probably responsible for mental health issues amongst those who feel they have missed out or see unfairness in the difference between their circumstances and those of people they see with a lot more than they have.

I'm not a communist - I think the theory is good, but it doesn't work in practice as human nature is more geared to competition and self-actualisation. If we were all paid the same and lived in identical houses or whatever, some would do the bare minimum, others would look for ways to get a step ahead, and most would be resentful one way or another.

I think that UK society suffers from the gulf in aspiration and ability to achieve potential between the classes, and that we would be much happier all round if we could find ways to even that out. For most of my career I worked in education, first in FE and then in universities. Many students in FE were there because their parents could claim benefits if they had children in education up to 19 years old. They were resitting O levels and later GCSEs, and often had no ambition, or even a basic understanding of what sorts of work was available to them. Some were from families where nobody had worked for years (this was the 80s) and those who did were in insecure manual employment. Qualifications were 'bits of paper' that gave people airs, and it took a lot of work to get past that and persuade them that they had as much right to learning as anyone. The thing was, though, that getting to university would almost certainly alienate some of them from families (and husbands), which is no small thing. Their loved ones sometimes held them back - because they loved them and didn't want to be left behind.

When I left and moved to universities in the 90s, the difference was marked. There were, of course, some students who were effectively the brothers and sisters of the FE ones, but far more were from families where it was a given that they would go into HE and the professions from birth. For every FE student with a chip on their shoulder was an HE one with a sense of superiority based on their parents' occupations or the fact that they knew they were likely to get a well paid job with some prospects of advancement. Generally the expectations self-fulfilled. On the whole they were all decent young people - it was just that their values tended to be different, based on a realistic assessment of their life chances, which were in turn based on their background.

If we could somehow get over that, and even out the things that get in the way of equality even when people's qualifications are the same (snobbery, access to social networks and contacts, the bank of mum and dad, the lack of geographical mobility caused by regional house price variations - even things like having children very young), and coupled it with a fairer and much more progressive tax system, the country would be somewhere I would be prouder to call mine.