World Recession not affecting the richest?

[dave the caveman]

Who's saying take their money off them, the point is their earnings continue to rise whilst those employed are losing their jobs. There's seems to be some deliberate missing the point, it's their increase in income in the current economic recession with people losing jobs that is being questioned not what they spend their riches on.

Where's the motivation in seeing this for the average joe who provide the means to their riches?

Nobody is forced to provide means to anyone's riches. If you don't want to buy something then don't buy it. If you don't want to use a service then don't use it.

If their income is increasing then that just means they are good at what they do. This is hardly suprising because they are, afterall, billionaires. Don't forget also that just because the UK economy is struggling and the government is making cuts, doesn't mean there isn't money making opportunities available worldwide for those who know how.

And there is nothing stopping you from obtaining that know-how except your own personal limitations. If you knew how to make billions, you could. But you don't, so you won't. You have no right to stop or complain about people more able than you.

[James.]

And there is nothing stopping you from obtaining that know-how except your own personal limitations. If you knew how to make billions, you could. But you don't, so you won't. You have no right to stop or complain about people more able than you.

Do you honestly believe that anyone who knew how to make billions could make billions?

Another person in this thread over simplifying things... profit = progress being another example.

[Webbo]

Who's saying take their money off them, the point is their earnings continue to rise whilst those employed are losing their jobs. There's seems to be some deliberate missing the point, it's their increase in income in the current economic recession with people losing jobs that is being questioned not what they spend their riches on.

Where's the motivation in seeing this for the average joe who provide the means to their riches?

Political dogma be it on the left or right is alive and well I see.

It's not dogma it's what I believe. Rich people becoming poorer will not help me so why should I care what they earn?

People in the west are getting poorer because jobs and investment are moving east. As living standards fall here they are rising there. It's the unavoidable consequence of globalisation and there's nothing we can do about it.

[dave the caveman]

Do you honestly believe that anyone who knew how to make billions could make billions?

I don't understand how it is possible not to believe it.

I'm not saying it would be easy, obviously, but yes, if you came up with a billion dollar idea and followed it through with the required skill, then why not?

Do you think 'they' have some kind of barrier in place to stop people getting too rich?

[davieG]

It's not dogma it's what I believe. Rich people becoming poorer will not help me so why should I care what they earn?

People in the west are getting poorer because jobs and investment are moving east. As living standards fall here they are rising there. It's the unavoidable consequence of globalisation and there's nothing we can do about it.

Again missing the point who said they should become poorer, they are becoming richer whilst those that work for them are becoming poorer, where's their motivation? They don't get rich without those working for them.

No where have I said they shouldn't be rewarded or that they can't spend their money where and how they wish but surely they could temper their pursuit of further riches in the interest of those that work for them. Them not taking increases doesn't mean their businesses can't continue to be successful.

[Webbo]

Again missing the point who said they should become poorer, they are becoming richer whilst those that work for them are becoming poorer, where's their motivation? They don't get rich without those working for them.

No where have I said they shouldn't be rewarded or that they can't spend their money where and how they wish but surely they could temper their pursuit of further riches in the interest of those that work for them. Them not taking increases doesn't mean their businesses can't continue to be successful.

That's capitalism for you.If company A doesn't cut costs and maximise profits then company B will. Eventually company A's business will shrink and go out of business or be taken over by company B who will impose cuts anyway.(I know this is an over simplification but you get my drift).

Anyhoo PLCs have a duty to maximize profits for their shareholders and that includes everyone in a private pension scheme.

[Jackirius]

I don't understand how it is possible not to believe it.

I'm not saying it would be easy, obviously, but yes, if you came up with a billion dollar idea and followed it through with the required skill, then why not?

Do you think 'they' have some kind of barrier in place to stop people getting too rich?

Most Billionaires have inherited their fortunes and have just invested it in certain ventures etc to make more than they originally had. It is very hard to build a business up from scratch to become a large multi national billion dollar company without having the cash to start out with.

[James.]

I don't understand how it is possible not to believe it.

I'm not saying it would be easy, obviously, but yes, if you came up with a billion dollar idea and followed it through with the required skill, then why not?

Do you think 'they' have some kind of barrier in place to stop people getting too rich?

I'm not sure many people who have witnessed poverty in the developing world would agree with you.

There are all sorts of barriers that prevent people from getting rich. Cultural barriers, geographical barriers, historical barriers, prejudicial barriers, political barriers...

[dave the caveman]

Most Billionaires have inherited their fortunes and have just invested it in certain ventures etc to make more than they originally had. It is very hard to build a business up from scratch to become a large multi national billion dollar company.

Yes, it's extremely hard. That's why we have no right to complain about people who have done it.

I'm not sure many people who have witnessed poverty in the developing world would agree with you.

There are all sorts of barriers that prevent people from getting rich. Cultural barriers, geographical barriers, historical barriers, prejudicial barriers, political barriers...

I wasn't talking about the developing world. Clearly that's different. Let me ask a question, what's to stop YOU starting a successful business?

[James.]

I was talking about the developing world Dave. My point being that it's not as simple as you make out.

In answer to your question I'm content with the success I've had in my career to want to start a business. But yes I agree that in my particular circumstances there is nothing stopping me. But then I'm lucky to have the life I have, not everyone can say the same.

[Zingari]

Surely if all the world's political leaders ( as opposed to the global financial rulers ) got together to make sure that the super rich payed their fair share of tax , the wealth could more easily and fairly be distributed.

This would mean a global ban on tax havens, secret banks etc etc

This won't happen of course because they're all pissing in the same pot , and part of the same NWO club

[Webbo]

Surely if all the world's political leaders ( as opposed to the global financial rulers ) got together to make sure that the super rich payed their fair share of tax , the wealth could more easily and fairly be distributed.

This would mean a global ban on tax havens, secret banks etc etc

This won't happen of course because they're all pissing in the same pot , and part of the same NWO club

If all the world leaders all of a sudden got together and pursued one single policy wouldn't that be a new world order?

[Zingari]

If all the world leaders all of a sudden got together and pursued one single policy wouldn't that be a new world order?

Quite so,

But if they acted for the benefit of the whole population and were answerable and accountable to us, the idea of NWO is not in itself a bad thing

At the moment though these super rich , super powerful multi national businesses and the military industrial complex seem accountable to no-one, whilst having the politicians in their pockets

Actually it's all a bit too complicated for me

Maybe I've watched too many Alex Jones / Jordan Maxwell type DVDs s, and sometimes i think maybe i'm tilting at windmills

[cambridgefox]

I am considering a shiny new BMW. Perhaps I should give the money to the poor instead? Do i spend my money rewarding those who worked hard to design an excellent car, the investors who choose to invest in that company, or bung some cash to the poor who will then rely on handouts even more and be less motivated to get out of poverty.

I suggest you buy your shiny bmw.You work for your money,you spend it how you wish!

surely if you see someone with a nice car,going on nice holidays.You give yourself a kick and work hard to try and achieve the same sort of things.

[FoxyPV]

I suggest you buy your shiny bmw.You work for your money,you spend it how you wish!

You give yourself them a kick and tell them to work hard to try and achieve the same sort of things.

[Fox1651]

Surely if all the world's political leaders ( as opposed to the global financial rulers ) got together to make sure that the super rich payed their fair share of tax , the wealth could more easily and fairly be distributed.

This would mean a global ban on tax havens, secret banks etc etc

This won't happen of course because they're all pissing in the same pot , and part of the same NWO club

Dont know what NWO club is but apart from that i wholeheartedly agree with this post Zingari

[Trav Le Bleu]

I'm not sure many people who have witnessed poverty in the developing world would agree with you.

There are all sorts of barriers that prevent people from getting rich. Cultural barriers, geographical barriers, historical barriers, prejudicial barriers, political barriers...

That's right James. There's been a fair amount of people saying poor people are poor because they don't get off their arses.

Are these people trying to say that subsistance farmers in Africa, Asia and South America don't work hard? I suppose slaves were slaves because they didn't work hard enough.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

And yes, poor people can squander money too (I'm looking at you Michael Carroll), but I don't respect people just because they have flash stuff, or look down on them because they haven't. Lists like this add to that and I swear that some of those people are acquiring more money just as a way of keeping score in their "league table".

[dave the caveman]

That's right James. There's been a fair amount of people saying poor people are poor because they don't get off their arses.

Are these people trying to say that subsistance farmers in Africa, Asia and South America don't work hard? I suppose slaves were slaves because they didn't work hard enough.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Just to confirm, nowhere in my original comment that James responded to did I even remotely suggest anything you've said here.

But I would like to point out that this is quite a narrow point of view. Certainly if you look closer to home, the majority (not all) of poor people are poor because they deserve to be poor, either through poor choices, low intelligence, a poor work ethic or combination of these things.

The rich on the other hand - those who actually made the money (as opposed to those who inherited it) - possess the attributes required to become rich and have used those attributes to their advantage. The fact that they are getting richer while so many of us are getting poorer in real terms doesn't strike me as unfair, just that they are better than me at making money.

I find the suggestion that they should be punished for this ability absolutely absurd, and it's comically ironic that the same people who complain about this, also complain about people claiming benefits.

When you start talking about 3rd world farmers the discussion takes on a whole new dimension, but it still cannot be used as an argument in favour of any kind of wealth redistribution unless you yourself are willing to take the theory to its logical conclusion, and therefore take a fundamentally life changing drop in your income and living standards, as per the results of the equal distribution of wealth calculated earlier in this thread.

For me, this whole idea of being anti-rich and pro-poor on a personal level is defeatist while not even being noble. A lot of it is obvious jealousy, mixed with plenty of plain ignorance and a dose of fake empathy. It's blame culture.

[FoxyPV]

Just to confirm, nowhere in my original comment that James responded to did I even remotely suggest anything you've said here.

But I would like to point out that this is quite a narrow point of view. Certainly if you look closer to home, the majority (not all) of poor people are poor because they deserve to be poor, either through poor choices, low intelligence, a poor work ethic or combination of these things.

The rich on the other hand - those who actually made the money (as opposed to those who inherited it) - possess the attributes required to become rich and have used those attributes to their advantage. The fact that they are getting richer while so many of us are getting poorer in real terms doesn't strike me as unfair, just that they are better than me at making money.

I find the suggestion that they should be punished for this ability absolutely absurd, and it's comically ironic that the same people who complain about this, also complain about people claiming benefits.

When you start talking about 3rd world farmers the discussion takes on a whole new dimension, but it still cannot be used as an argument in favour of any kind of wealth redistribution unless you yourself are willing to take the theory to its logical conclusion, and therefore take a fundamentally life changing drop in your income and living standards, as per the results of the equal distribution of wealth calculated earlier in this thread.

For me, this whole idea of being anti-rich and pro-poor on a personal level is defeatist while not even being noble. A lot of it is obvious jealousy, mixed with plenty of plain ignorance and a dose of fake empathy. It's blame culture.

:crylaugh: :crylaugh:

What shite are you talking? Those who are poor (first world poor) are generally symptomatic of their socio-economic background. Without the necessary connections and general good fortune that comes with even being middle class, those from working class backgrounds have to fight several times as hard to get to where I (as a m/c kid) will get with the least amount of effort. I went to a very good grammar school but had to leave after fifth year on grounds on illness but the educational basis I was given was far superior to anything those I went to Tech with had received. That's disregarding the emotional support and familial stability I also benefitted from.

You don't make money without having money. Those who can take advantage of the current economic climate to make their fortunes already have a massive amount of capital behind them to specualte in the first place.

It's not being pro-poor and anti-rich but seeking to address the imbalances that birth and social class give before any sense of personal desire/ drive can also influence proceedings.

[Benji]

Surely if all the world's political leaders ( as opposed to the global financial rulers ) got together to make sure that the super rich payed their fair share of tax , the wealth could more easily and fairly be distributed.

This would mean a global ban on tax havens, secret banks etc etc

This won't happen of course because they're all pissing in the same pot , and part of the same NWO club

How much exactly is a fair share? If your just talking about the tax avoiding super rich then I completely agree. But those wealthy people that do pay tax, a 50% rate seems more than fair to me.

You don't make money without having money. Those who can take advantage of the current economic climate to make their fortunes already have a massive amount of capital behind them to specualte in the first place.

It's not being pro-poor and anti-rich but seeking to address the imbalances that birth and social class give before any sense of personal desire/ drive can also influence proceedings.

I'm sorry but I don't buy that. I've worked my ass off for coming up to 16 years now to just get to the brink of the profession I've wanted. I went to a school where throwing chairs and locking teachers in cupboards was seen as P.E, there was no such thing as a careers service and university was an unknown word. I would be put into subject "sets" in only 2 or 3 of the many subjects and so spent 90% of my time with disrupting students. Many children from this background just do not want to learn and hate education. Those that do, can achieve anything if they work hard, cut the chip off their shoulder and stick at it. I've had no financial support ever and was the first in my family ancestry to go to university. I've witnessed first hand university snobbery. More so, I've sat in front of Magic Circle law firms and had my educational institution ridiculed by Oxbridge partners. There is social imbalance and it isn't getting any better. But often I think its looked at in the wrong way. Those with wealth and connections have great advantages, but those that don't aren't necessarily disadvantaged. You just have to work your ass off to make up for it.

A large amount of successful entrepreneurs and businessmen start with nothing. Its pure determination and hard work to want to better yourself that gets you there. Social imbalance is often just the fall back excuse.

[Thracian]

It's been said a lot recently that the gap between the rich and the poor is widening. I've often wondered how much money there is in total in the world and how much everyone would have if it was distributed equally (Yep, commie I know ) I suspect everyone would be comfortably well off. As it is the rich have to keep the poor poor in order to maintain their ridiculous lifestyles.

A little off topic, but pertainent to how some people treat their money:

I love watching the antiques dealers series that are on like Put Your Money Where Your Mouth is and it seems to me that the secret of antiques dealing is to know people with more money than sense. The amounts of money people with cash to splash pay for mere trinkets is amazing! There are people starving in the world and people paying £300 for hundred year old watches that don't work. Senseless.

So you not only want to promote the ridiculous concept of equal distribution of wealth (as opposed to fair distribution) but in typically Leftist fashion you even want to decide how we spend it.

I really don't know what the watch and "trinket" industries are worth in relation to either new or old but what I do know is that they represent one hell of a lot of jobs, many of them skilled and in numerous countries of the world. Not to mention shops, markets, fairs, hotel foyers etc. Furthermore the evidence I've read lately suggests that investment in good watches and bijouterie has often proved wise with many leading makes of watches increasing fairly significantly in value.

As for the watches that "don't work" a good many people buy thm to preserve the skills of the old repairers or to develop skills themselves in the absence of repairing artisans who seem to be disappearing dramatically along with other skilled crafts thanks to the lack of investment in production industries such as building cruise liners, despite the massive boon that is going on.

Another reason for buying old watches is to use the parts as templates for other parts and that is by no means the only reason.. While the Labour Party seem to delight in destroying bits of history there are plenty of others who would rather preserve it - and that too provides a reasonable livng for some of them in various ways, writing books and pamphlets, lecturing, auctioneering, portering and ebay selling, often by the disabled.

What do you suggest instead? That we all follow the wise council of the Left - twats like Grin-and-Blair-It who waste our nations billions (but never his own millions) on phoney wars or Gordon Brown who, despite every expert imaginable warning him to the contrary, decided to sell a vast portion of the nation's gold at a pittance of a price before the widely predicted and logical boom that followed.

Very convincing, particularly the example of Good Christian Blair! Yes, sod the indulgence of people buying $300 watches but lets hear it forLabour-inspired bombing of countries instead and ignore the amount of food, medicine or education that little expense might buy worldwide.

As for wealth distribution don't get me started on that? If a diligent man chooses to educate himself, take risks, invest in his own efforts and create jobs in his own company then why the hell should he subsidise the bloke who prefers a trip to the betting shop, a tin of wacky baccy or to piss the evening's beer up against the wall?

[shen]

You don't make money without having money. Those who can take advantage of the current economic climate to make their fortunes already have a massive amount of capital behind them to speculate in the first place.

It's not being pro-poor and anti-rich but seeking to address the imbalances that birth and social class give before any sense of personal desire/ drive can also influence proceedings.

As James has already pointed out, issues are (inevitably) getting over-simplified in here. But Reynard is definitely on to something. There is a default separation that prohibits less fortunate people to break through that glass ceiling that's keeping them down. @Benji your example of the Oxbridge fellas is just another example of cultural institutions that exist to protect the privileged groups. I'm pretty sure that Oxford and Cambridge are no longer (if they ever were) the de facto elite universities in the UK, but due to their networking capacities they are more powerful and successful than others.

Prejudice and pre-/misconceptions along with cultural discrimination of weaker groups within a given population, effectively hand people in higher social classes an invaluable advantage. I know that this Marxist way of thinking is quite old, but it still makes a lot of sense to me, and even more so when I see the situation in the development countries I've visited.

As for wealth distribution don't get me started on that!

You heard the man!

[dave the caveman]

There is no fundamental barrier stopping those in poorer classes from becoming wealthy. We have a class system, not a caste system. Infact becoming wealthy is quite a simple process provided you have a reasonably well paid job or source of income and do not live beyond your means. You do not need to receive an Oxbridge, or indeed any other "far superior" education to become aware of these points and put them into action. If you need proof, read Benji's post again.

With regards to not making money without having money, you also can't have money without making money. Imagine if we could reset the worlds finances so that everybody started again with £1000 each. If you could then fast forward fifty years, would the distribution of wealth still be equal? No, the same people who are wealthy now would be wealthy then.

[FoxyPV]

I'm sorry but I don't buy that. I've worked my ass off for coming up to 16 years now to just get to the brink of the profession I've wanted. I went to a school where throwing chairs and locking teachers in cupboards was seen as P.E, there was no such thing as a careers service and university was an unknown word. I would be put into subject "sets" in only 2 or 3 of the many subjects and so spent 90% of my time with disrupting students. Many children from this background just do not want to learn and hate education. Those that do, can achieve anything if they work hard, cut the chip off their shoulder and stick at it. I've had no financial support ever and was the first in my family ancestry to go to university. I've witnessed first hand university snobbery. More so, I've sat in front of Magic Circle law firms and had my educational institution ridiculed by Oxbridge partners. There is social imbalance and it isn't getting any better. But often I think its looked at in the wrong way. Those with wealth and connections have great advantages, but those that don't aren't necessarily disadvantaged. You just have to work your ass off to make up for it.

A large amount of successful entrepreneurs and businessmen start with nothing. Its pure determination and hard work to want to better yourself that gets you there. Social imbalance is often just the fall back excuse.

Benji - It has been statistically proven that it is better to come from a bad family in a good area than a good family in a bad area due to the influence of your surroundings. So regardless of how supprtive your parents are and how much they support you can still be draged down by your area (something I have seen at first hand with my step son). There is a glass ceiling for those from lower socio - economic backgrounds. You can get so far with your education and drive before your class goes against you. You don't have the same opportunities in work regardless of how well you do because the connections that are made from having professionals in and around your family and friends don't open up those opportunities. Whilst you say there is a class not caste system I would argue that the two can almost be interchanged such is the disproportion of wealth. How many top managers etcs are from poorer backgrounds?

Working hard can only get you far. The idea that the UK is a meritocracy is a complete fallacy.

What do you suggest instead? That we all follow the wise council of the Left - twats like Grin-and-Blair-It who waste our nations billions (but never his own millions) on phoney wars

The Tories backed the war too Thrac.

[shen]

There is no fundamental barrier stopping those in poorer classes from becoming wealthy. We have a class system, not a caste system. In fact becoming wealthy is quite a simple process provided you have a reasonably well paid job or source of income and do not live beyond your means. You do not need to receive an Oxbridge, or indeed any other "far superior" education to become aware of these points and put them into action. If you need proof, read Benji's post again.

In principle, becoming wealthy is relatively simple yes, but if you think it's equally simple for all then I fear you are seriously delusional. Even if you gave all people equal education, nationality, similar intelligence and a functioning social background, you'd see great differences.

With regards to not making money without having money, you also can't have money without making money. Imagine if we could reset the worlds finances so that everybody started again with £1000 each. If you could then fast forward fifty years, would the distribution of wealth still be equal? No, the same people who are wealthy now would be wealthy then.

No, the people that would know how to invest £1000 or less (or those that get lucky gambling) would be successful and get rich first. They would typically be the opportunistic small-time entrepreneurs or the skilled manipulators.