Wealth inequality is a global crisis

Merely saying it’s unfair that there are some incredibly wealthy people in the world and a lot of poverty doesn’t in itself help does it?

That is not what is being said. What is being said is that the current economic beliefs followed by many countries, neoliberalism, monetarism, neoclassical, it goes under several names for the same thing, works to the advantage of the wealthy in that it taxes them lightly, allows them plenty of opportunity to speculate in the financial markets for optimum returns, lets them pass on all their wealth and governments listen to them when it comes to making economic decisions. Of course, the wealthy lobby to protect their wealth.

They are acquiring more and more of the world's wealth and leaving less and less for everyone else. While I would always say that money doesn't exist in finite amounts it does nothing for the rest of the population if the wealthy mop up the greater part of what their governments issue.

We need an understanding of how this happens and need to use what little political muscle we have to influence our politicians to run economies differently. It was done post WW2, it can be done again now.

“We need an understanding of how this happens and need to use what little political muscle we have to influence our politicians to run economies differently. It was done post WW2, it can be done again now.”

We are not in a post world war situation now, the only economy that was strong after WW2 was the US all other economies were rebuilt on that model. Devastated populations accepted severe austerity to build a future for their country, Since service economies were adopted we have declined steadily and become more decadent and lazy. For Europe there may yet be a major war over Ukraine that would change our lives considerably

We need an understanding of how this happens and need to use what little political muscle we have to influence our politicians to run economies differently. It was done post WW2, it can be done again now.

I agree.

But if, as David49 says, it would probably take severeausterity.
People nowadays want new model mobile phones, trainers, nails done, repeated coloured hair, the list is endless. Takeaways. etc etc

^But if, as David49 says, it would probably take severeausterity.
People nowadays want new model mobile phones, trainers, nails done, repeated coloured hair, the list is endless. Takeaways. etc etc^

David was talking at cross purposes to me. I was talking about the Keynes basic economic strategy which focussed on state investment, full employment and high taxation for the wealthy. A strategy which ultimately led to a narrowing of the inequality gap.

David was talking about the early effects of post war recovery. Which did involve some austerity but did lead to improvements in the economy. It was a strategy which both Labour and tory governments followed. Economic historians will tell you that it was a time of growth and improvement in redistribution of the nation's wealth.

This was halted by the completely different economic strategy introduced by the Thatcher government, which cut taxation of the wealthy and cut back on state investment, turning to privatisation and the dominance of 'the market'. This policy has been followed ever since, even by Labour governments. Since then, the inequality gap has widened and growth slowed.

What I am saying is that the wealthy could once again be taxed more progressively without any detriment to the national economy, in fact it would improve it. No need for the austerity which we have had ever since 2010 and which Labour are poised to carry on with.

Taxing wealth progressively would make no difference to our current life styles, they're not dependent on the wealthy.

Maizie you are talking about economic theories that don’t work for the UK because all the money has been spent on social programmes - most of it borrowed. Very little has been spent on growth for decades, it’s all been about promises to get more votes and rising borrowing..

I agree those with wealth should be taxed more but don’t expect a big increase in revenue because the wealth is held in companies and other businesses and there are many ways to reduce the tax liability of a company..

High taxes on businesses make investment unattractive and drives wealth and people to lower tax countries, billionaires forget it, they employ the best accountants on the planet to reduce tax.

Most of any tax increases has to come from the 99% with modest means.

Have you read Richard Murphy's 'Taxing Wealth' report, David

This is a link to the summary of the report. Do read this and then tell me why it can't possibly be done

taxingwealth.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Taxing-Wealth-Report-2024-Summary.pdf

For fuller information see the website

taxingwealth.uk/

MaizieD

Have you read Richard Murphy's 'Taxing Wealth' report, David

This is a link to the summary of the report. Do read this and then tell me why it can't possibly be done

taxingwealth.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Taxing-Wealth-Report-2024-Summary.pdf

For fuller information see the website

taxingwealth.uk/

The wealth is there I have never doubted that, CGT on residences at final disposal and pension and investment income reforms are all possible.
NI on investment income plus higher CGT rates is going to be a big deterrent to buy to rent or owning other rental property

Any of those measures could be applied and as Murphy predicts will affect those over £75k income and all property owners. If you are a high earner is there any incentive to stay in the UK..

What is so special about high earners that they need incentives to stay in the UK?

Can someone tell me what income counts as "high" please.

I know a, presumably, what couts as "high earner".
He" joked" to his wife recently about them moving to Spain.
Well he said it was a joke.
The wife thought it was.
I dont think it is.

fancythat

Can someone tell me what income counts as "high" please.

Nothing special of course, it depends on your personal aims, do you want your wealth to go to your family or to go the government. You obviously want yours to go to the government, others probably the majority want it to go to their family.

I was surprised that the amount Murphy calculates could be gained by ISA and Pension reforms, probably an easy target for changes.

fancythat

Can someone tell me what income counts as "high" please.

Twice the median wage £75k plus ???

You obviously want yours to go to the government, others probably the majority want it to go to their family.

I assume that is for me?

Firstly, the money that compromises that ‘wealth’ came from the government in the first place and the essential function of money is to promote economic activity, not to be hoarded.

Secondly, you’re being a bit overdramatic about this. Inheritance tax leaves the heirs with at least 60% of the wealth being passed on. If you’ve acquired enough to be in the IHT bracket 60% of it is not to be sniffed at.You should see what death duties were like in the era of the narrowing inequality gap.

Thirdly. Why should people gain an advantage in life by inheriting wealth that they have done nothing to acquire? Being born into wealth requires no work and no talent…

^ You obviously want yours to go to the government, others probably the majority want it to go to their family.^

Why do you say that?

I thought it was for me!
But I cant think why.

fancythat

^ You obviously want yours to go to the government, others probably the majority want it to go to their family.^

Why do you say that?

Was meant for Maizie

Most agree that the wealthy should pay more taxes, but very few are going to vote for more taxation if it affects them and there are a great many allowances that could be changed and affect even those of modest wealth. That’s without any increase in tax rates.

This might be interesting for some.

www.gransnet.com/forums/news_and_politics/1352088-The-first-politician-on-Garys-Economics

Obviously it won't be unless it actually appears in the active list, which it hasn't so far. Does anyone know how and why that happens? I guess it's some sort of algorithm having its say.

Reform is not going to win a majority at the next election but they could easily have a major influence in any coalition. If Labour do not achieve an economic success in the next 4 yrs they will be out, currently it doesn’t look good with Labour MPs vetoing the changes needed.
Starmer has got to get control of his MPs now.

Aaaah, but you're an austerity man, David. That's the last thing that the UK needs now.

David49

Reform is not going to win a majority at the next election but they could easily have a major influence in any coalition. If Labour do not achieve an economic success in the next 4 yrs they will be out, currently it doesn’t look good with Labour MPs vetoing the changes needed.
Starmer has got to get control of his MPs now.

I fully agree with that.

But can Starmer do that? There’s so much division within the party. Andy Burnham on manoeuvres just one example.

Andy Burnham has got the right idea about what needs to be done for the economy. Rachel Reeves' budget, I suspect, will just alienate people further.

MaizieD

Aaaah, but you're an austerity man, David. That's the last thing that the UK needs now.

Not austerity, just give help to those that need it, far too much social spending goes to those who don’t need i, that’s lretty much what Reeves is trying to do.
In addition we need to grow the economy, that’s not going to happen if the extreme left get their way

PS what are Andy Burmans solutions?

Maybe we should gave a Politics thread? I’ve hardly understood a word of this, nor have I wanted to!