Reply to: Something quite sinister about the global financial crisis

[vetran]

Keyser Söze ?

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he did not exist.

OUSQ

[vetran]

I smell unsubstantiated twaddle.

Indeed you do that is in the states.

UK: income inequalities - The Poverty Site

we have the richest tenth taking 31% of the annual income and the bottom tenth taking 1%.

and 40% of wealth

Richest 10% of UK households own 40% of wealth, ONS says | Money | The Guardian


However in the richest 1000 in the UK have raised their holdings by £35BN

Michael Meacher MP » Blog Archive » Richest 1,000 persons in UK have increased their wealth in last year by £35bn

which was my point, the smoke & mirrors suggest the top 10%, 20% are the problem but earning £60k is hardly being rich.

[amcdonald]

It's the usual suspect.

Keyser Söze ?

[sasguru]

I smell unsubstantiated twaddle.

It's the usual suspect.

[doodab]

<1% of people own most of the wealth in UK. Just as <1% of tax payers pay the significant amount of tax.

I smell unsubstantiated twaddle.

[vetran]

Why are the rich the 1%, not the 10%?

And is this true? The poor (in the UK at least) can get free medical & dental treatment, free education for their children, a roof over their head, enough money for food and clothing, and even in many cases enough left over for the odd luxury.

It seems to me the poor are far richer in our country than 100 years ago.

Depends on your definition of rich. UK is rich compared to LEDCs but <1% of people own most of the wealth in UK. Just as <1% of tax payers pay the significant amount of tax. Rich suggests you have more money than you need, not just more than most.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/rich


currently yes UK people are richer better off than 100 years ago, however I suspect that will change. As the amount of significant tax payers dwindles then Benefits will become less generous. This is already happening but we are just borrowing to fund it. sooner or later even Wonga won't lend to us (though PFI was pretty close).

[d000hg]

More and more I'm seeing mention in the media of how the gap between the rich (the 1%) and the rest of us (the 99%) is wider than ever.

Why are the rich the 1%, not the 10%?

And is this true? The poor (in the UK at least) can get free medical & dental treatment, free education for their children, a roof over their head, enough money for food and clothing, and even in many cases enough left over for the odd luxury.

It seems to me the poor are far richer in our country than 100 years ago.

[vetran]

I think not having to work is a good definition of who's rich and who isn't.

oops I did a SAS !

The Shocking Amount of Wealth and Power Held by 0.001% of the World Population | Alternet

Also the media constantly aligns people in work in the UK with those in LEDCs. Live on a dollar a day!

[doodab]

the way some people have posted you'd think they're living just above the bread line.

Because they are closer to the bread line than the milk and honey line.

[evilagent]

Naom Chomsky has some interesting ideas on the nature of wealth flows, and reasons for the impoverishment of the middle-classes.
Although he has a more global perspective, and US-centric, but his ideas may chime here in the UK about the growing chasm between rich and poor, global organisations and governments, etc.

Worth a google for some of his youtube lectures.

[GazCol]

Actually I tend to define rich as someone who doesn't need to work.

By all means we are well off (with what we earn we can live a comfortable life) and some of us are even wealthy (have enough resources we could live off them for the rest of our life). However there is a world of difference between us being able to afford to go to expensive restaurants a few times a month and the truly rich who could buy the restaurant out of pocket change.

We are a long way away from earning £12K and struggling to pay the rent but we are still not the ones receiving the wealth the workers are being milked for.

This is the trick governments & socialists manage they convince people the ones with more money than the poorest are rich and should be punished by taxation while the super rich rob the poor blind.

I think not having to work is a good definition of who's rich and who isn't. It's one I use as I'm sure many others do - surely you've passed a contract at one time or another because you wanted an extra month on the bench. Not having to work continoulsly for the entire year and still being stable financially is a good barometer. Look at it the other way - what's the average retirement age for an employee in the UK, mid/late 60s? What's the average retirment age for a contractor? I'm guessing it's much, much lower.

Of course there is a difference between the rich and super rich, but the way some people have posted you'd think they're living just above the bread line.

Edit - I've lost my tangent a little bit with this post - essentially I mean the media labelling 99% of the population as poor and 1% as rich is laughable.

[DodgyAgent]

First is recognising / identifying the problem.

The solution will not be pretty no matter the direction we look, it's either a sharp painful correction (we've not had it yet) or a long drawn out correction lasting decades.

It hardly needs someone with the intellect of Einstein to work out what the problem is does it?

Just for you here is a brief explanation of what the problem is::


We are bust

[vetran]

It's quite ironic to see this thread on a board for contractors, where even the lowest paid amongst us is likely to be earning £200 a day for at least 130 days of the year.

It's already been mentioned, but I don't think the median poster here can be accused, by the majority of society, of being anything other than rich.

Actually I tend to define rich as someone who doesn't need to work.

By all means we are well off (with what we earn we can live a comfortable life) and some of us are even wealthy (have enough resources we could live off them for the rest of our life). However there is a world of difference between us being able to afford to go to expensive restaurants a few times a month and the truly rich who could buy the restaurant out of pocket change.

We are a long way away from earning £12K and struggling to pay the rent but we are still not the ones receiving the wealth the workers are being milked for.

This is the trick governments & socialists manage they convince people the ones with more money than the poorest are rich and should be punished by taxation while the super rich rob the poor blind.

[GazCol]

It's quite ironic to see this thread on a board for contractors, where even the lowest paid amongst us is likely to be earning £200 a day for at least 130 days of the year.

It's already been mentioned, but I don't think the median poster here can be accused, by the majority of society, of being anything other than rich.

[scooterscot]

Drop out isn't failure. Lots couldn't simply deal with it intellectually, despite having the necessary A levels.

Exactly. I remember some people just being baffled in a lecture and just saying 'that's it I've had enough!' and walk out never to be seen or heard from again!

Each until his or our own.