Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sriram on September 13, 2016, 05:10:38 PM
-
Hi everyone,
According to this BBC article, Britain is one of the most unequal countries in the developed world. Possibly Brexit was also linked to that fact, it says.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-37341095
**********
The richest 1% of the UK population owns more than 20 times the wealth of the poorest fifth, according to Oxfam.
That made Britain one of the most unequal countries in the developed world and contributed to the vote for Brexit, the charity said.
Its analysis found that about 634,000 Britons were worth 20 times as much as the poorest 13 million people.
Oxfam has urged Prime Minister Theresa May to help close the gap between the "haves" and the "have-nots".
The charity's report analysed data from Credit Suisse and found that the richest 10% of the UK population own over half of the country's total wealth, with the top 1% owning nearly a quarter (23%). The poorest 20% share just 0.8% of the UK's wealth between them.
**********
Any views?
Sriram
-
This is not i think news to many people. Back in the day...70s and 80s there used to be a theatre group called 7:84. As in 7% of the populatoo controlled/owned 84% of the wealth. Another sad indicator of how some of the country chooses apathy over any form of protest/action.
-
This is not i think news to many people. Back in the day...70s and 80s there used to be a theatre group called 7:84. As in 7% of the populatoo controlled/owned 84% of the wealth. Another sad indicator of how some of the country chooses apathy over any form of protest/action.
Absolutely, who would have thought that suppressed discontent would be the glue which holds British society together.
-
This is not i think news to many people. Back in the day...70s and 80s there used to be a theatre group called 7:84. As in 7% of the populatoo controlled/owned 84% of the wealth. Another sad indicator of how some of the country chooses apathy over any form of protest/action.
But what sort of protest/action would you want? Many commentators think the Brexit vote was an expression of discontent over equality.
May has made an issue of inequality and social mobility - but we all know that any changes she puts in place, even the popular ones like grammar schools, will probably make the disparities worse.
Still, we're pretty much par for the course considering the matter globally.
-
But what sort of protest/action would you want? Many commentators think the Brexit vote was an expression of discontent over equality.
May has made an issue of inequality and social mobility - but we all know that any changes she puts in place, even the popular ones like grammar schools, will probably make the disparities worse.
Still, we're pretty much par for the course considering the matter globally.
Not if we are near the top of the disparity league of nations.
-
Sriram,
Any views?
Yes: don't vote Tory.
-
Not if we are near the top of the disparity league of nations.
Actually there is not enough information in the BBC article or a link to a study to confirm that the UK is "one of the most unequal countries in the developed world" - whatever that means. Also, not sure whether we are worse than other counties or not makes any difference to what we decide to do about it (probably nothing!).
-
Who cares how much more of the wealth the 1% has than the poorest people? What matters is that nobody should be homeless or having to use food banks or welfare benefits. The goal should not be to reduce the gap but to raise the standard of living of the poorest people to an acceptable level.
-
Hear hear Jeremy!
I read the article again and am not sure that I believe we are one of the most inequal countries, Oxfam are not, after all, going to be unbiased. However - what jeremyp said.
-
Who cares how much more of the wealth the 1% has than the poorest people? What matters is that nobody should be homeless or having to use food banks or welfare benefits. The goal should not be to reduce the gap but to raise the standard of living of the poorest people to an acceptable level.
hmm .. I don't think people and economics work like that. People with sufficient income to maintain an acceptable standard of living are hardly going to put up with the richest raking off inequitable levels of wealth. From the point of view of the elites it's best to keep the masses at just below an acceptable level: enough to keep them going but not enough to allow them risk anything in getting back control. :)
-
hmm .. I don't think people and economics work like that.
Why not?
People with sufficient income to maintain an acceptable standard of living are hardly going to put up with the richest raking off inequitable levels of wealth.
Define inequitable levels of wealth.
From the point of view of the elites it's best to keep the masses at just below an acceptable level: enough to keep them going but not enough to allow them risk anything in getting back control. :)
In my opinion, which is probably exactly as informed as yours, the richest people would prefer the masses to be comfortable enough not to want to rebel. And of course, in the UK, the masses are comfortable enough.
Anyway, what the richest people want is irrelevant. If you make the gap between the richest people and the poorest people smaller by reducing the wealth of the richest without significantly impacted the plight of the poorest, it's just a waste of time.
-
jeremy: "...of course, in the UK, the masses are comfortable enough."
That is the key point - and some are a bit more than comfortable, and content. In which case they really don't care that there are others who are substantially richer, that's just the way it is and it doesn't affect them. The extreme poverty that exists in this country is virtually invisible; the occasional documentary brings it into consciousness but that passes. A sort of "I'm alright Jack" attitude. Maybe not entirely fair, all we can ever deal with on a daily basis is what we have.
The super rich are frequently far more aware of pockets of poverty in society, feel quite passionately about it, and do quite a lot where they can to relieve it.
It's those in the middle who often live in a world where it doesn't touch them - out of sight, out of mind.
-
The super rich are frequently far more aware of pockets of poverty in society, feel quite passionately about it, and do quite a lot where they can to relieve it.
Like Philip Green for instance?