Extreme Inequality in UK

[ks.234]

I AM attacking the post. FFS.
"KS, you are a tosser". That's ad hom. I'm attacking the individual.
"KS, you always post the same stuff, and this post is no different". Not ad hom, I'm attacking the individual's behaviour and the post.
It really isn't hard. I did the latter, not the former.

Then attack the post without reference to me, my hobby horse, my concerns.

Of you think my argument that inequality is caused and sustained by Thatcher’s myths is wrong, then attack that argument. So far, all you’ve done is call it an aside and blame people’s greed.

Thatcher’s myth is designed to build greed. From greed comes inequality.

 

[stevec67]

Then attack the post without reference to me, my hobby horse, my concerns.

Of you think my argument that inequality is caused and sustained by Thatcher’s myths is wrong, then attack that argument. So far, all you’ve done is call it an aside and blame people’s greed.

Thatcher’s myth is designed to build greed. From greed comes inequality.

I am attacking the post, and all your posts, because they reflect what YOU type on EVERY bloody politics thread on here. Every. Bloody. Time.

 

[ks.234]

I am attacking the post, and all your posts, because they reflect what YOU type on EVERY bloody politics thread on here. Every. Bloody. Time.

More ad hom. This time in shouty caps.

You seem incapable of sustaining an argument without it

 

[Ponty]

There aren’t enough super rich to pay for the critical mass. Sure, tax them more (if you can), it won’t make a material difference at a macro level and they’ll head off to the Cayman Islands etc. Of course, over the past decade or so, the term ‘wealthy’ can broadly be defined by those with assets, which have generally boomed in value on paper due to loose monetary policy, benign economic conditions and bail outs. Such predictions of future wealth accumulation is dependent on continued asset appreciation. Hmm, not so sure that’ll happen to the same degree. There will be plenty who are defined as rich wondering how the hell they are going to fix the roof before winter or pay the bills because they’ve got no cash, their ‘wealth’ is very often a mirage, often accompanied by no shortage of debt.

 

[stevec67]

More ad hom. This time in shouty caps.

You seem incapable of sustaining an argument without it

It's not ad hom. It's an attack on behaviour. I'm not the first round here to point it out, in the last week alone. Carry on, you can continue lecturing an empty room.

 

[ks.234]

It's not ad hom. It's an attack on behaviour. I'm not the first round here to point it out, in the last week alone. Carry on, you can continue lecturing an empty room.

And attack on the person is ad hom. That is what you continue to do.

If there is something wrong with my behaviour in terms of ad hom or breach of the AUP, neither you nor anyone else has pointed it out. All you have done is moan about about a “hobby horse”. It is not down to you to decide what I can and cannot post, you are not a mod. If you don’t like what I post, why do you read so much of it? If you’re incapable of resisting the inevitable lure of my wit and wisdom, which I completely understand, the ‘ignore’ button is your friend

 

[ks.234]

There aren’t enough super rich to pay for the critical mass. Sure, tax them more (if you can), it won’t make a material difference at a macro level and they’ll head off to the Cayman Islands etc. Of course, over the past decade or so, the term ‘wealthy’ can broadly be defined by those with assets, which have generally boomed in value on paper due to loose monetary policy, benign economic conditions and bail outs. Such predictions of future wealth accumulation is dependent on continued asset appreciation. Hmm, not so sure that’ll happen to the same degree. There will be plenty who are defined as rich wondering how the hell they are going to fix the roof before winter or pay the bills because they’ve got no cash, their ‘wealth’ is very often a mirage, often accompanied by no shortage of debt.

taxing just half of the increase in the wealth of the richest 50 families each year would raise enough to give all public sector workers (5.5 million people) a standard of living preserving pay rise of 10.5%.

 

[stevec67]

There aren’t enough super rich to pay for the critical mass. Sure, tax them more (if you can), it won’t make a material difference at a macro level and they’ll head off to the Cayman Islands etc.

We hear this all the time. I'm not convinced. A lot of people choose to live in the UK because it's a nice place to live. The super rich have enough wealth to live in the Cayman Islands already if they want to. They also have enough wealth to tolerate paying some tax.

Of course, over the past decade or so, the term ‘wealthy’ can broadly be defined by those with assets, which have generally boomed in value on paper due to loose monetary policy, benign economic conditions and bail outs. Such predictions of future wealth accumulation is dependent on continued asset appreciation. Hmm, not so sure that’ll happen to the same degree. There will be plenty who are defined as rich wondering how the hell they are going to fix the roof before winter or pay the bills because they’ve got no cash, their ‘wealth’ is very often a mirage, often accompanied by no shortage of debt.

I think that the property boom has been deliberately sustained by ZIRP because voters don't understand economics in any degree and it's been set up as a useful barometer. What we do understand is what our house is worth. If it's going up, that has to be good, because it's my pension innit? I can sell up. I think that this has been used to manipulate voter opinions because they are scared to death that the house price chicken that lays the golden eggs has to be sustained and if it ever stopped then we're all ruined. This allows the self-interest politics to be pushed, and with it the emphasis on low tax, low services, devil take the hindmost economics that allow the rich to become ever richer.
My house has gone up in value by a modest salary every year since I bought it compared to me living in a cave. That has to be crazy, and not sustainable. If I could harvest that notional value, I'd have enough to retire modestly with no other income whatsoever, and I'd keep the use of the house.

 

[Ponty]

taxing just half of the increase in the wealth of the richest 50 families each year would raise enough to give all public sector workers (5.5 million people) a standard of living preserving pay rise of 10.5%.

It’s paper wealth which can fall as well as rise, not cash in the bank. Why should people be forced to sell assets because they have gone up in value and pay more tax? And next year? Presumably they could have it back if their wealth drops back below the level of the tax raid? Does it account for increased pension contributions / NI liabilities etc? How about private sector workers, they’ll want a rise too. Etc etc.

 

[stevec67]

And attack on the person is ad hom. That is what you continue to do.

No, I attack your behaviour.

If there is something wrong with my behaviour in terms of ad hom or breach of the AUP, neither you nor anyone else has pointed it out.

I'm not talking about the AUP. Since you raised it, feel free to call my behaviour a breach of the AUP and talk to the mods, since ad hom certainly is that.

All you have done is moan about about a “hobby horse”. It is not down to you to decide what I can and cannot post, you are not a mod.

I and everyone else here is free to comment on your behaviour, and I'm not the first. If you don't like it, feel free to ignore me and them.

inevitable lure of my wit and wisdom,

Don't flatter yourself. Parroting one theory, over and over again, is neither witty nor wise.

 

[ks.234]

No, I attack your behaviour.

I'm not talking about the AUP. Since you raised it, feel free to call my behaviour a breach of the AUP and talk to the mods, since ad hom certainly is that.

I and everyone else here is free to comment on your behaviour, and I'm not the first. If you don't like it, feel free to ignore me and them.

Don't flatter yourself. Parroting one theory, over and over again, is neither witty nor wise.

Very strange that you have also parroted the same theory in response to Ponty.

 

[ks.234]

It’s paper wealth which can fall as well as rise, not cash in the bank. Why should people be forced to sell assets because they have gone up in value and pay more tax? And next year? Presumably they could have it back if their wealth drops back below the level of the tax raid? Does it account for increased pension contributions / NI liabilities etc? How about private sector workers, they’ll want a rise too. Etc etc.

Yes, you are quite right. What am I thinking? The rich getting richer while the poor get poorer is right, proper and the natural order of things.

 

[stevec67]

Very strange that you have also parroted the same theory in response to Ponty.

No I haven't. SHow me where, or it didn't happen.

 

[ks.234]

No I haven't. SHow me where, or it didn't happen.

the self-interest politics to be pushed, and with it the emphasis on low tax, low services, devil take the hindmost economics that allow the rich to become ever richer.

This has been my ‘hobby horse’ for some time.

 

[Ponty]

Yes, you are quite right. What am I thinking? The rich getting richer while the poor get poorer is right, proper and the natural order of things.

Think of it this way. The govt look at you and say, Oi, rich southerner, you’re getting richer, you have a load of unearned, untaxed wealth in your estate, it’s increased in value 20% this year alone. Hand some of it over, right now.

 

[PaulMB]

All this and more is available in stats including those from the ONS. What is clear is that there has been the creation of an elite who are an order of magnitude richer than even conventional ly well off people, and that in the middle there is a growing gulf between comfortably off and poor. What's equally clear is that there is little to no desire to change this because the public don't want to pay for it (yes, ks234, I know) and because the UK public hate the thought of anyone other than themselves getting anything for nothing to the point where they will put up with any draconian shxt just to make sure that those other bastards don't get a free lunch out of it. Because I've never had a free lunch, and so I'm damned if I'm going to pay for anyone else one.
That's why the reaction here is largely "yeah, we know. Nobody wants to change it. I would, but if nobody else would then sod it, I'm doing ok, fortunately, and by the time they've completely fxxed the country I'll be dead anyway."

After looking up stats and doing some sums, it seems that:
26% of UK households have a pre-tax income below £28,000
67% between £28,000 and £104,000
7% above £104,000

But I suspect there is a whole world of companies, funds, trusts, etc. that do not appear in statistics, or in some but not in others, that support the very rich. One could argue, and I'm sure some do, that encoraging the very rich to reside in the UK is of benefit to the UK's economy and therefore to the rest of the population. True or false? I have no idea.

 

[Ponty]

We hear this all the time. I'm not convinced. A lot of people choose to live in the UK because it's a nice place to live. The super rich have enough wealth to live in the Cayman Islands already if they want to. They also have enough wealth to tolerate paying some tax.


I think that the property boom has been deliberately sustained by ZIRP because voters don't understand economics in any degree and it's been set up as a useful barometer. What we do understand is what our house is worth. If it's going up, that has to be good, because it's my pension innit? I can sell up. I think that this has been used to manipulate voter opinions because they are scared to death that the house price chicken that lays the golden eggs has to be sustained and if it ever stopped then we're all ruined. This allows the self-interest politics to be pushed, and with it the emphasis on low tax, low services, devil take the hindmost economics that allow the rich to become ever richer.
My house has gone up in value by a modest salary every year since I bought it compared to me living in a cave. That has to be crazy, and not sustainable. If I could harvest that notional value, I'd have enough to retire modestly with no other income whatsoever, and I'd keep the use of the house.

Yes, the super rich should clearly pay a decent chunk of tax. What’s misguided is to think this would solve anything material, it wouldn’t. It would just disappear into a black hole of deficits and debt.

House prices going up = election winner
House prices going down = election loser

 

[Kirk]

Thatcher is long gone, and her policies are on the out (as is neoliberalism). Rich people get richer for a reason - they're good at protecting their wealth and hiring smart people to increase it. This will never change. We could tax them a bit more to a level where they don't take off to sunnier climbs but that's not really going to shift the needle enough. And the OBR are saying that the government will be taking in about 35% of GDP in taxes by 2025. Mmm. Maybe making some changes to the tax system itself and improving the efficiency of government might help narrow the gap between the top and bottom of society.

 

[Richard Lines]

No I haven't. SHow me where, or it didn't happen.

I'd really love to follow this 'discussion' but I've had 'ks' blocked for months...........

Regards

Richard

 

[sean99]

No, the people are selfish and vindictive.

Aside from a small minority I don't think this is true. I think people, particularly in the UK and US are a) afraid due to personal financial precarity and b) propagandized to where they have come to (incorrectly) believe several key lies

• However bad things are now significant change would make it worse
• The economy is a zero sum game - if someone else is getting ahead it must be at my expense.
• Government cannot help - it can only make things worse
• Laissez-faire capitalism is the only way.

Just as people turn on each other as times get harder I'd like to believe that society would become less selfish and less vindictive if it were not for the fact that so many have their backs against the wall financially.