So how much of your income are you prepared to give up to help the 99%?

TheEngineerTheEngineer Posts: 7,785
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.
«13456715

Comments

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 8,916
    Forum Member
    I already donate through the £55m a day EU contribution and £12bn per year foreign aid budget.
  • TassiumTassium Posts: 31,639
    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.

    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.
  • dosanjh1dosanjh1 Posts: 8,727
    Forum Member
    I already donate through the £55m a day EU contribution and £12bn per year foreign aid budget.

    Ignoring the rebate in the daily EU contribution figures is a clear indication of bias that's adds no credibility what so ever.
  • dosanjh1dosanjh1 Posts: 8,727
    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.

    Have you a link?
  • jcafcwjcafcw Posts: 11,282
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I'm sorry OP but this is a pathetic thread mangling statistics to defend rich people.

    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.
  • TheEngineerTheEngineer Posts: 7,785
    Forum Member
    dosanjh1 wrote: »
    Have you a link?

    As it happens I do:

    http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2011/10/28/attention-protestors-youre-probably-part-of-the-1-.aspx
    About a year ago, The Wall Street Journal ran an article describing the plight of Americans struggling to rebuild after bankruptcy. The article highlighted Linda Frakes, who filed for bankruptcy after accumulating more than $300,000 in credit card debt.

    "Ms. Frakes is now unemployed, living on $330 a week of unemployment benefits and odd jobs," the Journal wrote. Frakes "struggled to rent a home and buy a car after bankruptcy. A used-car dealer ultimately gave her financing on a Jaguar."

    No one's hardship should be belittled. Becoming unemployed or losing a home aren't just financial problems. They're social and emotional problems that strike at people's sense of being.

    But things always need to be kept in perspective. Only in America, I thought to myself after reading the article, can someone be driving a Jaguar and portrayed as living in an impoverished underclass. Context is crucial with these issues.

    The recent Occupy Wall Street protests have aimed their message at the income disparity between the 1% richest Americans and the rest of the country. But what happens when you expand that and look at the 1% richest of the entire world? Some really interesting numbers emerge. If there were a global Occupy Wall Street protest, people as well off as Linda Frakes might actually be the target.

    In America, the top 1% earn more than $380,000 per year. We are, however, among the richest nations on Earth. How much do you need to earn to be among the top 1% of the world?

    $34,000.
    That was the finding World Bank economist Branko Milanovic presented in his 2010 book The Haves and the Have-Nots. Going down the distribution ladder may be just as surprising. To be in the top half of the globe, you need to earn just $1,225 a year. For the top 20%, it's $5,000 per year. Enter the top 10% with $12,000 a year. To be included in the top 0.1% requires an annual income of $70,000.

    Of course, goods and services cost different amounts in different countries. These numbers only apply to those living in the U.S. To adjust for purchasing power parity, those living in Western Europe should discount their dollar-denominated incomes by 10%-20%, Milanovic says. Those in China and Africa should increase their incomes by 2.5-fold. India, by threefold.
  • TheEngineerTheEngineer Posts: 7,785
    Forum Member
    jcafcw wrote: »
    I'm sorry OP but this is a pathetic thread mangling statistics to defend rich people. .

    No it isn't
    jcafcw wrote: »
    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.

    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%?
    jcafcw wrote: »
    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.

    Agreed but to be in the top 0.1% of the income earners (2010, purchasing power adjusted) you need to earn around £42,000
    jcafcw wrote: »
    A business needs customers in order to survive..

    Blimey we have Ed Balls posting on the forums :D
    jcafcw wrote: »
    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.

    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%.
  • jcafcwjcafcw Posts: 11,282
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I have started a thread where even the CBI are admitting the wealth distribution as it stands is a problem for business. We need to take wealth from the top 0.1% and redistribute throughout the rest of the economy.

    As for what I do at the moment - my income is not in the top 1% but I still pay taxes.
  • mgvsmithmgvsmith Posts: 16,452
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    jcafcw wrote: »
    I'm sorry OP but this is a pathetic thread mangling statistics to defend rich people.

    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.

    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.
  • NeverEnoughNeverEnough Posts: 3,052
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jcafcw wrote: »
    I have started a thread where even the CBI are admitting the wealth distribution as it stands is a problem for business. We need to take wealth from the top 0.1% and redistribute throughout the rest of the economy.

    As for what I do at the moment - my income is not in the top 1% but I still pay taxes.

    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?
  • jcafcwjcafcw Posts: 11,282
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    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.
  • dosanjh1dosanjh1 Posts: 8,727
    Forum Member

    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
    . Separate research by the Equality Trust, which campaigns to reduce inequality in the UK, found that the richest 100 families in Britain in 2008 had seen their combined wealth increase by at least £15bn, a period during which average income increased by £1,233. Britain’s current richest 100 had the same wealth as 30% of UK households, it added.

    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.
  • stoatiestoatie Posts: 78,106
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    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%?

    Umm... I'm pretty sure you just quoted him saying he ISN'T part of the top 1%. Neither am I, for that matter.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 8,916
    Forum Member
    dosanjh1 wrote: »
    Ignoring the rebate in the daily EU contribution figures is a clear indication of bias that's adds no credibility what so ever.

    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.
  • dosanjh1dosanjh1 Posts: 8,727
    Forum Member
    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?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 8,916
    Forum Member
    The clue is in the thread title.
  • BoyardBoyard Posts: 5,393
    Forum Member
    Nothing. I live in Britain, what happens in other countries isn't my problem. We have enough poor in our own country and I'm more concerned about making things more equal here.
  • dosanjh1dosanjh1 Posts: 8,727
    Forum Member
    The clue is in the thread title.

    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?
  • TheEngineerTheEngineer Posts: 7,785
    Forum Member
    jcafcw wrote: »
    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.

    Even if the will was in place to do it, there are a whole bunch of other problems to address.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 8,916
    Forum Member
    dosanjh1 wrote: »
    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?

    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?
  • LostFoolLostFool Posts: 90,623
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭

    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.
  • dosanjh1dosanjh1 Posts: 8,727
    Forum Member
    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?

    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.
  • AnachronyAnachrony Posts: 2,757
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It's total misleading nonsense. Wealthy, first world countries make up over 15% of the world's population. The United States, European Union, Japan, Australia, Canada, etc, combined, make up over a billion people. And that's not even including many of the developing nations have a growing upper middle class.

    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.
  • GreatGodPanGreatGodPan Posts: 53,186
    Forum Member
    Thoroughly crass thread.
  • TheEngineerTheEngineer Posts: 7,785
    Forum Member
    Thoroughly crass thread.

    Why so?
Sign In or Register to comment.