Options
So how much of your income are you prepared to give up to help the 99%?
TheEngineer
Posts: 7,789
Forum Member
✭
Most people in the UK reading this will be in the top 1% of income earners globally.
So how much of your income are you prepared to give up to help the 99%?
In 2010 (adjusted for relative purchasing power) you would need to have an income of £20,000 a year to be in the top 1% of income earners on the planet.
So how much of your income are you prepared to give up to help the 99%?
In 2010 (adjusted for relative purchasing power) you would need to have an income of £20,000 a year to be in the top 1% of income earners on the planet.
0
Comments
This sort of thing convinces no one of anything.
And as mentioned UK taxpayers already contribute a lot. Maybe more than is justified when you consider the UK situation.
Ignoring the rebate in the daily EU contribution figures is a clear indication of bias that's adds no credibility what so ever.
Have you a link?
I am technically part of the 99%, on your figure of £20,000/year, so by your pathetic reasoning I do not have to do a thing.
Rather than discussing the real point that the wealth inequality is killing capitalism you try and use a smart arse turn of phrase.
More and more of the world's wealth is going to fewer and fewer people.
A business needs customers in order to survive. Businesses are struggling from a lack of demand caused by people having a lower amount of disposable income.
This is what we should be talking about.
As it happens I do:
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2011/10/28/attention-protestors-youre-probably-part-of-the-1-.aspx
No it isn't
Why not? I asked a question, as part of the top 1% of income earners on our planet, how much are you prepared to give up to help the 99%?
Agreed but to be in the top 0.1% of the income earners (2010, purchasing power adjusted) you need to earn around £42,000
Blimey we have Ed Balls posting on the forums
The point I was making is that it is very easy to complain about how "unfair" everything is and that the rich should pay more. When however people have it pointed out to them that many of them are in the 1% or even the top 0.1%, all of a sudden they are not quite so keen for the "1%" to pay more to help the 99%.
As for what I do at the moment - my income is not in the top 1% but I still pay taxes.
Capitalism is managed on a global basis. So, International targets to lessen poverty are actually being implemented but inequality even within poorer countries remains. Rising inequality within countries has become the norm, and as Pekitty notes this limits growth because disposable income reduces growth possibilities.
To be fair Pekitty, and indeed Oxfam, are not anti-Capitalist, they just want to see some forms of taxation (particularly on Capital Gains) that might lead to a fairer distribution of wealth.
Whereas I agree with this, I was wondering how you propose to achieve it. We live in a world where wealth can be transferred securely to anywhere in the world at the push of a button on a keyboard.
Where is the wealth to be found?
We have to have a global and harmonised system of taxation rather than the play one off against the other system we have now. The G20 have to act as one to share the wealth better and more efficiently.
Thank you, and it's good question that you ask. The link below is research suggesting the top 1% own 50% of the wealth.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jan/19/global-wealth-oxfam-inequality-davos-economic-summit-switzerland.
Those that strongly object to 0.7% of GDP being spent on international development are seriously mean hearted.
The article goes further to discuss the UK
Sometimes it feels like we haven't moved on from feudal times. Perhaps if inequality wasn't so prevalent in the UK we'd be less po faced about international development - but somehow I doubt it.
Umm... I'm pretty sure you just quoted him saying he ISN'T part of the top 1%. Neither am I, for that matter.
OK. I am a higher rate taxpayer, so put in more than I take out. I don't claim a penny in benefits from the government.
And your point is?
I think in that case you may have partly misunderstood the question. When you pay tax, you're not giving up your income through some form unfettered altruism. Believe it or not, you benefit from and have benefited from other people paying taxes too.
About half of spending on benefits is on state pensions, will you not claim yours? If the answer is no you may have a point. Did your parents not claim Child Benefit?
Even if the will was in place to do it, there are a whole bunch of other problems to address.
I still class that as a donation and have always been a net contributor, which means that corrupt dictators, sorry needy countries, benefit from my contribution to the aid budget.
I've made my own private provision for my pension arrangements, as I doubt the notion of a state pension will exist by the time I get to that age. I will also have an asset in the form of property, which I will most likely have to sell to fund my care should I get put into a home.
They can keep my bus pass too.
Not sure what relevance my parents have, but I'll ask them your question if they decide to stop being dead. Did you want me to ask my Nan anything while we are waiting?
Here's another link:
http://www.globalrichlist.com/
You raise an interesting point. We are being told that the "top 1%" should pay more in tax. Yet in global terms most of us are in that top percentile.
A figure I believe which is approaching 99% of parents with children claimed child benefit when it was universal, so it's incredibly likely your folks did too which you in turn benefited from.
If the state pension did exist would you decline to take it?
The amount you've paid out in benefits is an incredibly small amount when you've removed state pensions, child benefit. Your net contribution reduces drastically further when the benefits of a disease free and educated population are applied to your life. And then all that free defence and democracy you've had.
It's certainly not a donation, there's not a voluntary aspect to it, your forced to pay it, even coerced into it because you directly benefit from virtually every penny spent and you will pay it because you choose to live in this country.
If you do the math, then if £20,000 a year is in the top 1% globally, then it must be in the top 6% in those wealthy first world nations. Hint: It's not even close. The top 10% in most first world countries (and even many non-first world countries) is significantly higher than that, in fact it's close to the median household income for wealthier nations that make up a large share of the population of that list.
The only way you might come up with a nonsense figure like that would be to rank the "income" of newborn infants and great grandmothers, as if they are all part of the workforce and fending for themselves, rather than beneficiaries of a household with another earner. Such a statistic would be politically expedient when you're trying to make some kind of misleading point, but otherwise meaningless.
Why so?