'The Super-Rich and us'..BBC 2 tonight...7.00-8.00 pm

[hampsteadclaret]

A very scary programme that has just been on...I am pretty sure that it will be on again this week..there is always BBC I-PLAYER of course..


The programme was essentially about growing inequality..in the UK, USA and elsewhere..it made arguments and showed examples that I had not seen before.

The programme compared the 1% and the 99% in terms of income and especially wealth...is everybody on this forum in the 99%? - if so I would suggest that this programme is worth an hour of your time.

** a relatively new concept which had passed me by was the idea of 'hourlies' [lots of ads online showing examples of this] - essentially many more jobs becoming available for an hour [or two] at a time..very much about the casualisation of the labour force...can be tied in with 'zero hour contracts' and similar schemes.

- not many mortgages/loans will be dished out to people whose precarious lifestyle is dominated by 'one hour contracts'...the programme anchor did one hour walking round with a sandwich board, one hour gardening, and one hour something else...total daily earnings = £45; with no guarantee of any work tomorrow.

These rapid labour market changes [where we are all seen increasingly as individuals] may not affect you..but they are likely to affect your children.

Some of the problems that will undoubtedly come at us down the line, if INEQUALITY continues to grow, were pointed out by members of the 1% financial elite...eg - [and maybe not a new idea]..growing national and international dissatisfaction with inequality, will lead to either revolution or a 'police state'.


I have done a lot of work previously in the area of inequality, but this programme really opened my eyes.


link...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04xw4rw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Dejavu]

Some facts regarding this.
In the last year the top 1000 richest people in the UK increase their wealth by an average of £91 Million.
That equates to over £1500 for every resident of the UK. For a family of 4 that's £6,000.
To get on the list 10 years ago you needed to be worth £15 million. Now the figure is £130 million. In 10 years.

This country needs serious reform and the Tories out!! These super rich elite need us much more than we need them......

[mohamed69]

With the 99% investing in premium bonds what do you expect ?!

[1968claret]

But don’t you get the ‘trickle down? Theory? As the elite get ever more wealthy, apparently we will all prosper, as we pick up the crumbs from beneath their table.
Unless of course they sweep up the crumbs and hide them in an offshore account.

[jurek]

I think the notion of 'trickle down' has had it time and proved to be
total fiction invented by god knows who.
'The 'Super Rich and us' programme confirms it but we've known that for a number of years now.
We've been a tax dodging country for decades.

It's totally disgusting that we have to watch these super rich folk
and so called experts mouthing off about the benefits of having so many super rich in the UK.

[fidelcastro]

I find it disgusting that the gap between rich and poor is far greater now, than when Charles Dickens wrote 'Oliver Twist'.

[mohamed69]

I find it disgusting that the gap between rich and poor is far greater now, than when Charles Dickens wrote 'Oliver Twist'.

That is the nature of interest rates. There are lenders and borrowers. The gap between them is the interest rate which compounds exponentially over time. In 100 years it will be even 'worse' than it is now. Barring some sort of revolution or massive redistribution.

The solution? Acquire appreciating assets.

[fidelcastro]

That is the nature of interest rates. There are lenders and borrowers. The gap between them is the interest rate which compounds exponentially over time. In 100 years it will be even 'worse' than it is now. Barring some sort of revolution or massive redistribution.

The solution? Acquire appreciating assets.

Don't you need money in the first place to do that?

Taxing the rich properly would be a good start.

[mohamed69]

Don't you need money in the first place to do that?

Taxing the rich properly would be a good start.

Yes, but more importantly (and much more difficult) the ability to delay gratification. Anyone can get on the property ladder easily in this country and then go from there.

[mohamed69]

Don't you need money in the first place to do that?

Taxing the rich properly would be a good start.

The problem is it's the rich making the laws about the tax...

[If it be your will]

.

[evensteadiereddie]

Yes, yes but we're all in it together and we mustn't ever forget that ISIS and terrorism are the real dangers to our welfare and prospects so we must have a stiff upper lip and put our shoulders to the wheel to make this country er, great again...........

[dsr]

I find it disgusting that the gap between rich and poor is far greater now, than when Charles Dickens wrote 'Oliver Twist'.

It's a bit irrelevant, though. I mean, there are certain third world countries where the poor genuinely do live in conditions like the pre-Victorian era - working 70 hours plus per week, and still their children starve to death. But I doubt that any of them seriously are consoled by the idea that their country's rich people aren't as rich as our country's rich people.

If your next door neighbour wins the lottery, does it make you poorer?

[fidelcastro]

It's a bit irrelevant, though. I mean, there are certain third world countries where the poor genuinely do live in conditions like the pre-Victorian era - working 70 hours plus per week, and still their children starve to death. But I doubt that any of them seriously are consoled by the idea that their country's rich people aren't as rich as our country's rich people.

If your next door neighbour wins the lottery, does it make you poorer?

Just pointing out the disparity and its unacceptability.

[Paul Waine]

A very scary programme that has just been on...I am pretty sure that it will be on again this week..there is always BBC I-PLAYER of course..

The programme was essentially about growing inequality..in the UK, USA and elsewhere..it made arguments and showed examples that I had not seen before.

I have done a lot of work previously in the area of inequality, but this programme really opened my eyes.

Hi Hampstead, I caught the last few minutes. I'm pretty sure that this programme was made two years ago (2015) - and, I guess was broadcast then. Obama was still President of USA. Piketty had just published his book.

I think the programme said that inequality had increased over the past 40 years. It would be interesting how this "fact checks" - whether for 1975-2015 or 1977-2017. I understand that there are other stats that state that inequality has fallen over the past few years. I'm also always interested in why a particular period has been quoted: what is "special" or "interesting" about 40 years ago?

I felt that this programme was focussing on "first world problems." What about the rest of the world? In many countries earning £45 per month would be "better than the average." Are we being selfish when we only think of the situation in USA and UK, two of the wealthiest nations in the world?
And, surely, in the UK the guy earning £45 per day would be able to claim some benefits? (Though, I'm a long way from understanding how today's benefits system works and who qualifies and if there any people who don't).

I also have an issue with the "wealthiest 1,000" in the UK - and the stats quoted based on their wealth: the vast majority of these people have only limited connections with the UK, some don't live here and most of their wealth isn't in the UK, their only connection is ownership of (a large number of) shares in some of the FTSE 100 companies - but, the whole point about the FTSE 100 is to provide a listing for large international companies.

I've an international viewpoint - we should worry about inequality throughout the world, not just in a few western nations.

[dsr]

Just pointing out the disparity and its unacceptability.

The disparity, yes; but when pointing out that disparity, it's also highly relevant to point out that our (apparently) increasingly disparate world is also vastly better off than that more equal society.

How true is it, anyway? Have you a link to the stats? I'm just thinking about the many dukes and so forth who had several large homes with literally hundreds of staff purely to look after the homes and gardens. Are there so many more people who can do that now, compared with then?

[Paul Waine]

Let's see how long it takes for someone to say 'let's stop with the politics of envy', 'We can't tax the wealth generators', 'something something something ...Venezuela', or 'They've worked very hard for their money'.

Oops, apologies iibyw, it took me a little time to add my post - you hadn't posted when I started.

What's Momentum's view on Piketty?

[mohamed69]

The disparity, yes; but when pointing out that disparity, it's also highly relevant to point out that our (apparently) increasingly disparate world is also vastly better off than that more equal society.

How true is it, anyway? Have you a link to the stats? I'm just thinking about the many dukes and so forth who had several large homes with literally hundreds of staff purely to look after the homes and gardens. Are there so many more people who can do that now, compared with then?

None of the top c.20 richest people in history are alive today, not including antiquity as it is hard to compare. So there's something.

[Paul Waine]

None of the top c.20 richest people in history are alive today, not including antiquity as it is hard to compare. So there's something.

Hi Mo, who are the top 20? Would be interesting to see how they compare with the IT/internet "super-billionaires."

[Dejavu]

Hi Hampstead, I caught the last few minutes. I'm pretty sure that this programme was made two years ago (2015) - and, I guess was broadcast then. Obama was still President of USA. Piketty had just published his book.

I think the programme said that inequality had increased over the past 40 years. It would be interesting how this "fact checks" - whether for 1975-2015 or 1977-2017. I understand that there are other stats that state that inequality has fallen over the past few years. I'm also always interested in why a particular period has been quoted: what is "special" or "interesting" about 40 years ago?

I felt that this programme was focussing on "first world problems." What about the rest of the world? In many countries earning £45 per month would be "better than the average." Are we being selfish when we only think of the situation in USA and UK, two of the wealthiest nations in the world?
And, surely, in the UK the guy earning £45 per day would be able to claim some benefits? (Though, I'm a long way from understanding how today's benefits system works and who qualifies and if there any people who don't).

I also have an issue with the "wealthiest 1,000" in the UK - and the stats quoted based on their wealth: the vast majority of these people have only limited connections with the UK, some don't live here and most of their wealth isn't in the UK, their only connection is ownership of (a large number of) shares in some of the FTSE 100 companies - but, the whole point about the FTSE 100 is to provide a listing for large international companies.

I've an international viewpoint - we should worry about inequality throughout the world, not just in a few western nations.

They have to be a resident of the UK to qualify and predominantly live/work in the UK.
One member increased his wealth by £1.7 billion in the last year. He moved 1 place DOWN the list. Says it all really!!!

[mohamed69]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... al_figures" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Seems to be around 400bn in today's money

[Rowls]

From this week's Spectator:

"[The 2010 Conservative/Lib Dem rises in personal tax allowances] focused on the lowest-paid, forcing income inequality to its lowest rate in 30 years"

"The best-paid 1 per cent now contribute 28 per cent of income tax and the 0.01 per cent contribute 4 per cent"

"The lower-paid half of the British workforce is now asked for less than 10 per cent of total income tax. Never has so little been asked from so many. "

"any graph of incomes since 2010 shows that those on the lowest incomes are thriving, and those on the highest incomes faring the worst."

[mohamed69]

From this week's Spectator:

"[The 2010 Conservative/Lib Dem rises in personal tax allowances] focused on the lowest-paid, forcing income inequality to its lowest rate in 30 years"

"The best-paid 1 per cent now contribute 28 per cent of income tax and the 0.01 per cent contribute 4 per cent"

"The lower-paid half of the British workforce is now asked for less than 10 per cent of total income tax. Never has so little been asked from so many. "

"any graph of incomes since 2010 shows that those on the lowest incomes are thriving, and those on the highest incomes faring the worst."

This is kind of missing the point. Income and wealth are not the same thing. Not many of the top 1000 will be receiving a taxable income!

[Rowls]

This is kind of missing the point. Income and wealth are not the same thing. Not many of the top 1000 will be receiving a taxable income!

I kinda think that "the 1%" pay 28% of tax income IS the point entirely.

[mohamed69]

I kinda think that "the 1%" pay 28% of tax income IS the point entirely.

No, it's not.

The top 1% of earners is only an average of £267k. This is not super rich. In London it's middle class !

They will be getting paid by companies owned by the super rich, who themselves won't pay income tax. They will pay reduced taxes on dividends or receive interest free loans from their corporations. These loopholes are the issues.

Top 1% of earners is VERY different from top 1% of wealth.

[dsr]

To be fair, HMRC is getting quite a lot better at taxing income which is earned in this country, and also at taxing income which is earned abroad and brought into this country. Where they aren't successful - and probably never will be - is in taxing foreign earnings of rich foreigners (non-domiciled) who live here and pay tax on their UK income, but who don't pay tax on the money that they earn abroad and leave abroad.

[mohamed69]

To be fair, HMRC

I refuse to be fair to HMRC !

[If it be your will]

.

[Paul Waine]

They have to be a resident of the UK to qualify and predominantly live/work in the UK.
One member increased his wealth by £1.7 billion in the last year. He moved 1 place DOWN the list. Says it all really!!!

Hi Dejavu, I've just looked through the first 500 names on the list. OK, many of them have UK connections, though with several the connection is "loose" - maybe they have a house in London, as well as several others around the world - and most of their wealth is obviously not in the UK.



Picked out an interesting one - because (apart from Beckham) it was the first that mentioned "football."

Sally Fiszman Diamonds, Football
Rank 2017 453=
Worth £250m
Rise/fall - (no change)

"Switzerland-based Danny Fiszman sold his 16% stake in Arsenal football club to the American billionaire Stan Kroenke for nearly £117m in 2011. Fiszman, a diamond dealer, died three days after the deal was completed, leaving his £250m fortune to his widow Sally."

So, ownership of shares - now sold - in Arsenal get's a - now deceased - Switzerland-based guy on the list - and the mention transfers to his widow.

[CrosspoolClarets]

I think people are being misled about this stuff.

The UK has a less unequal wealth than most other developed nations.

The bottom 50% in the UK have nearly 10% of the wealth - Germany and the US aren’t far off 1% and France are about 3%.

The top 10% in the UK have about 45% of wealth - Germany is about 60%, France 65% and the US 75%. The UK is overall very wealthy so the % means the same kind of wealth per capita that it does for these other countries, more or less.

As others have pointed out, income tax is paid in fairly large chunks here by the richest, and we have a high minimum wage and personal allowance too. So on both income and wealth terms we look OK.

Saying all that, there are some fairly obvious issues. Stagnating real terms incomes, no interest on savings, QE and low interest rates fuelling an asset boom for the rich, zero hours contracts, austerity in public services. If someone living near us has £1m net wealth that doesn’t affect any of that stuff in terms of the effect on poorer people. There is a lot of evidence that if taxes go up, overall tax revenues go down, targetting the rich is a risky business. We need to address all this stuff, but in context.

[dsr]

All this says is that wages are falling as a proportion of total output, which we know. Also, for those that hadn't realised, when all taxes are taken into account (direct and indirect), the poorest 10% lose the highest proportion of their income in tax, and the richest lose the lowest proportion of their income in tax.

https://fullfact.org/economy/what-do-we ... t-pay-tax/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
highest earning 10% paid about a third—34%—of their income in tax.
[the bottom 10%] pay about 47% of their income in tax.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/ ... x-research" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The poorest 10% of households pay eight percentage points more of their income in all taxes than the richest – 43% compared to 35%

(The real killer in both studies is council tax which, absurdly, has a very low ceiling)

To be fair, the 47% is irrelevant to income tax because it's below the income tax threshhold - they're talking about households with income of less than £10k. The taxes are 13.9% of income on VAT, 7.2% on Council Tax, 5.6% on alcohol and tobacco taxes, and the other 20.3% of gross income on lord-knows-what taxes - I can't imagine what they must be. Unless they're all living off capital and it's CGT from selling the Rembrandt?

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/ ... ampaigners" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[If it be your will]

.

[dsr]

Truth is though, the richest pay a lower proportion of their income in tax than the poorest. There's no escaping this, it's just true. (And not widely known, but should be.)

Which is a very good argument for cutting VAT and tweaking council tax; but no argument at all for raising income tax. It's inevitable that taxes on consumption will cost a higher proportion of income for the people with less income, but politicians on both sides of the divide have had no interest in cutting indirect taxes. VAT was 8% until 1979 and Margaret Thatcher's government raised it to 15%, but neither Conservative nor Labour government could ever be persuaded to give up that particular cash cow - not even in the cause of equality.

[If it be your will]

.

[Sidney1st]

Yes, but more importantly (and much more difficult) the ability to delay gratification. Anyone can get on the property ladder easily in this country and then go from there.

Easily?

Not with deposits being so high when compared to wages.
If interest rates go up high enough there will be another housing market crash and that should bring the prices down a bit, but it still wouldn't be enough for most people.

[Rowls]

Both sides want to rich to carry on paying the higher burden of tax and both sides want the rich to pay even more (if possible) and for lower-earners to pay even less (if possible).

There are two possible ways of achieving this:

1. The Dogmatic Socialist Approach as favoured by the Labour Party
You tax the rich more and they pay more - at least the theory goes. The problem with this is that the rich are rich enough to move assets and wealth around. If they feel they are being taxed unfairly they move their wealth, cannot be taxed and there is a shortfall in tax receipts.
When there is a shortfall in tax and the rich have left the country historically the tax burden then falls more heavily on the general population who cannot afford to up sticks and leave the country at a moment's notice.

2. The pragmatic approach as favoured -traditionally- by the Conservative Party
You tax the rich as much as possible without scaring them off. You tax poor people (and middle-earner too) as little as possible to maintain good public services.
This has resulted recently in the creation of 3 million jobs as tax thresholds were raised so that the lowest earners wouldn't have to pay any tax at all. At the same time, tax for the richest has been set very carefully so that they are happy to pay tax rather than leave the country. The net result is the wealthiest are paying the highest share of the tax ever and the poorest are paying the least they ever have.
Long may this approach continue in the name of progressiveness.

[If it be your will]

.

[dsr]

It's a very good argument to say the rich need to pay more tax, because they currently have the lowest tax burdens, that's all.

We need to stop the rich evading tax as well. I suspect the only reason it hasn't been done already is because every party in government since 1979 has relied heavily on very rich donors, who quite like all the loopholes. (Labour now have over half a million members, for the first time in ages a political party is not reliant on the wealthy. It will be interesting if it is indeed possible to close the loopholes if you are not depending on the support of those using them.)

That's one way of looking at it, of course. To my mind, a statement like "the poor pay too much tax" ought to be followed by "so we make the poor pay less", not "let's make the rich pay more".

But the problem with upsetting the very rich isn't the loss of the donations to the political parties, it's the loss of the taxes. Because although the poor may disproportionately pay taxes according to their income, the disproportion of what they receive in benefits is many times more acute. And if the rich are told to pay more tax or sling their hook, so income goes down, it's the poor that suffer. Unless of course they choose to stay and pay - but that's not how they got rich in the first place, is it.

[Rowls]

I've searched long and hard for this. Can you provide some? I've long since concluded this is a complete myth put out by the rich, bereft of any evidential basis. Even the IMF are saying it's not true now! (They were dragged kicking and screaming to this conclusion, like.)

Higher band income tax rates went up when the government reduced the rate from 50% to 45%.

It doesn't work as an absolute rule but it can and does work in the right circumstances - it's all about setting tax rates pragmatically rather than on dogmatic, ideological reasons.

If you've "searched long and hard" without finding this very basic information you are evidently looking in the wrong place.

[If it be your will]

.

[If it be your will]

.

[Dejavu]

Hi Dejavu, I've just looked through the first 500 names on the list. OK, many of them have UK connections, though with several the connection is "loose" - maybe they have a house in London, as well as several others around the world - and most of their wealth is obviously not in the UK.



Picked out an interesting one - because (apart from Beckham) it was the first that mentioned "football."

Sally Fiszman Diamonds, Football
Rank 2017 453=
Worth £250m
Rise/fall - (no change)

"Switzerland-based Danny Fiszman sold his 16% stake in Arsenal football club to the American billionaire Stan Kroenke for nearly £117m in 2011. Fiszman, a diamond dealer, died three days after the deal was completed, leaving his £250m fortune to his widow Sally."

So, ownership of shares - now sold - in Arsenal get's a - now deceased - Switzerland-based guy on the list - and the mention transfers to his widow.

She is English and lives in London!!

[If it be your will]

.

[Colburn_Claret]

There's always been inequality, there always will be.
I'm in the 99%, I have no complaints.
In order to create a just society it doesn't need to be equal, it just needs to be fair.
I was fortunate to be born at a time when it was easier to reach the bottom rung of the ladder, it was a lot harder for my kids but they both made it.

There are many reasons why some people are super rich. They could have inherited it, they could have invented something amazing, they might be exceptionally talented. So long as they haven't pinched it good luck to them.

[If it be your will]

.

[CrosspoolClarets]

I've searched long and hard for this. Can you provide some? I've long since concluded this is a complete myth put out by the rich, bereft of any evidential basis. Even the IMF are saying it's not true now! (They were dragged kicking and screaming to this conclusion, like.)

Well, there was this study that HMRC did, which concluded that after behaviour was factored in, upping the top rate of income tax to 50% would lead to negligible gains. Laffer curve stuff. It is a very complex piece of analysisthat obviously runs a risk of understating the behavioural impact.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov. ... x-2042.pdf

I’m not saying the rich have it easy or hard, I am saying that changing tax fundamentally is a risky business when so much is gathered from so few. Get it wrong, the country is destitute.

[mohamed69]

Easily?

Not with deposits being so high when compared to wages.
If interest rates go up high enough there will be another housing market crash and that should bring the prices down a bit, but it still wouldn't be enough for most people.

With help to buy you can get on the ladder for under 10k for a three bedroom semi detached new build.

[dsr]

They will stay and pay, by and large. The wealthy (though perhaps not the ultra-rich - but they can go for me anyway) want to live in a country that has uncorrupted police, an educated workforce, good infrastructure and, in the case of banks, a government that can afford to bail out their mistakes. It's an empty threat that they'll leave, very few of the top 5% actually want to live in a moral cesspit like Panama, and surround themselves with razor wire and private armies. They want to swan around London and send their kids to private schools and stuff.

Richard Branson didn't stay, even with the apparent too low tax rates. There are other countries besides Panama - Jack Walker chose Jersey, for example. Isle of Man, BVI, Monaco, Switzerland, the USA, etc. And of course the rich don't necessarily have to stay overseas - they can go and take their assets with them, and come back a few years later leaving most of their assets in the safe hands of a foreign trust or corporate structure.

Remember that one of the reasons rich foreigners like London is because they can keep a fair chunk of their assets. Take that reason away, and they might not like it any more.

[If it be your will]

.

[If it be your will]

.