Off-topic posts and replies removed.   The topic is not about Oxfam, it's about the gap between rich and poor.   Stay on topic.   Enough with the attacking the source comments.  It's what people do when they can't address the actual topic. 

 

 

Really? I would say the topic is about the gap between rich and poor, as claimed by Oxfam.

 

They are the only source in the OP making this claim, which is contested by other, better-qualified organisations such as the World Bank. That is why Oxfam emerged as a focus of discussion.

 

Still, it's your sandbox....

26 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Really? I would say the topic is about the gap between rich and poor, as claimed by Oxfam.

 

They are the only source in the OP making this claim, which is contested by other, better-qualified organisations such as the World Bank. That is why Oxfam emerged as a focus of discussion.

 

Still, it's your sandbox....

Well, you have  permission to use the sandbox.   Feel free to cite other credible sources.  

15 minutes ago, Scott said:

Well, you have  permission to use the sandbox.   Feel free to cite other credible sources.  

OK, then. How about the World Bank?

 

It has mapped the reduction of the wealth gap between the developed and developing worlds since 1980, using the most commonly used measure of inequality -- the Gini coefficient.

 

In 1980, the world Gini coefficient stood at 0.80 (very high inequality). By 2013, this had fallen to 0.65.

 

How about the International Monetary Fund (IMF)?

 

 Their analysis shows that the 20 countries with the highest GDP increases in 2017 were all poor developing nations, including high-population places such as India, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Ivory Coast and, of course, China.

 

If poor countries are increasing GDP faster than rich ones, Oxfam's claim of an increasing wealth gap simply doesn't stand up.

 

 

Edited January 23, 20197 yr by RickBradford
Clarify

No problem from me, BUT I think this is about the gap between  rich and poor people, not countries.   However, It's probably worth  a look.  

 

23 hours ago, Grouse said:

I do wish people would look at Gini coefficients and how they have changed over time. It should be a wake up call the Brexiters and Trumpsters but they don't understand.

 

https://data.oecd.org/inequality/income-inequality.htm

 

 

What are Gini coefficients?

36 minutes ago, yogi100 said:

 

What are Gini coefficients?

They are a measure of inequality. 0 is perfect equality,  1 is absolute inequality;  so, a low number is good.

 

You can look these up by country. As you would expect, Scandinavian countries score well whereas the USA scores embarrassingly badly as does Thailand. The UK should be much better. I contend that inequality is one of the causes of Brexit.

 

https://www.gfmag.com/global-data/economic-data/wealth-distribution-income-inequality

Edited January 23, 20197 yr by Grouse

53 minutes ago, yogi100 said:

Wealth will always follow a Pareto distribution, where a few people have most of the cash. The only way to break that rule is massive and damaging state intervention.

I think you are quite wrong there. Progressive, redistributive taxation results in lower inequality, greater contentment and happiness generally. Look at Scandinavia and compare with the unhappy situation in U.K. And USA

42 minutes ago, Scott said:

No problem from me, BUT I think this is about the gap between  rich and poor people, not countries.   However, It's probably worth  a look.  

 

Correct. IMO this is one of the root causes of unhappiness in the west, particularly in U.K. And USA. Gini coefficients illustrate this nicely.

Off-topic post removed.  

 

13 minutes ago, Grouse said:

I think you are quite wrong there. Progressive, redistributive taxation results in lower inequality, greater contentment and happiness generally. Look at Scandinavia and compare with the unhappy situation in U.K. And USA

I did not write the post you are commenting on. Rick Bradford did.

3 minutes ago, yogi100 said:

I did not write the post you are commenting on. Rick Bradford did.

Sorry, my mistake

^^

Let me answer it, then.

 

Scandinavia is always cited as the model "socialist"-type redistributive society (or societies), but there are several reasons why what may work there is unsustainable elsewhere.

 

1. The countries have always been extremely homogenous ethnically and culturally. This results in a very high level of social capital, as it is known, which in turn translates to a willingness to sacrifice more for your fellow citizen.

 

2. The US has been picking up the tab for the defense of these countries for 50 years, contributing more than 3 times the proportion of GDP on NATO expenditure. (Sweden is not in NATO, and has a pathetic under-funded military).

 

3. The model is not working as well as some observers would like to think. Denmark, Norway and Sweden have all moved politically to the right in the last decade, with tax cutting being to the fore. And nationalist far-Right parties like Denmark's DPP and especially the Swedish Democrats have been gaining votes in unprecedented numbers.

 

In short, you have to have a very specific set of circumstances that allow these very high-tax regimes to exist. It's unsustainable, in my estimation.

 

Would ordinary Americans accept a personal income tax rate of above 50%, on a salary of $50K per annum, or might there be some unrest on the streets?

OXFAM has a vested interest in promoting a poverty problem. 

It is a morally bankrupt organization still beset by a serious sexual misconduct scandal and in desperate need of issues with which to promote itself. This is why I call into question the reliability of the  interpretation made by the organization. In order to  grab funding in the UK it must constantly show its relevance, and boy does it rely on government handouts. Next up are its merchandising activities. Nothing generates revenue like a hot button item.

 

Yes there is a growing gap between have and have not, but this is more a reflection of the mismanagement and disregard of social justice issues in countries such as China, India, Brazil and South Africa.  There is absolutely nothing  anyone in the developed and free world can do to change what China does. The changes we see in EU countries, especially Germany are a direct reflection of its  generous acceptance of  1 million+ destitute refugees. The influx of poor and uneducated has changed the results. The same for the UK which has   seen a deluge of low income  members of the EU along with refugees.  China's gap is not due to generosity, but is one of  selfishness and neither Oxfam nor Pete and Paula Public can change that.

 

 

2 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

OXFAM has a vested interest in promoting a poverty problem. 

It is a morally bankrupt organization still beset by a serious sexual misconduct scandal and in desperate need of issues with which to promote itself. This is why I call into question the reliability of the  interpretation made by the organization. In order to  grab funding in the UK it must constantly show its relevance, and boy does it rely on government handouts. Next up are its merchandising activities. Nothing generates revenue like a hot button item.

 

Yes there is a growing gap between have and have not, but this is more a reflection of the mismanagement and disregard of social justice issues in countries such as China, India, Brazil and South Africa.  There is absolutely nothing  anyone in the developed and free world can do to change what China does. The changes we see in EU countries, especially Germany are a direct reflection of its  generous acceptance of  1 million+ destitute refugees. The influx of poor and uneducated has changed the results. The same for the UK which has   seen a deluge of low income  members of the EU along with refugees.  China's gap is not due to generosity, but is one of  selfishness and neither Oxfam nor Pete and Paula Public can change that.

 

 

Another off topic rant.

1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

^^

Let me answer it, then.

 

Scandinavia is always cited as the model "socialist"-type redistributive society (or societies), but there are several reasons why what may work there is unsustainable elsewhere.

 

1. The countries have always been extremely homogenous ethnically and culturally. This results in a very high level of social capital, as it is known, which in turn translates to a willingness to sacrifice more for your fellow citizen.

 

2. The US has been picking up the tab for the defense of these countries for 50 years, contributing more than 3 times the proportion of GDP on NATO expenditure. (Sweden is not in NATO, and has a pathetic under-funded military).

 

3. The model is not working as well as some observers would like to think. Denmark, Norway and Sweden have all moved politically to the right in the last decade, with tax cutting being to the fore. And nationalist far-Right parties like Denmark's DPP and especially the Swedish Democrats have been gaining votes in unprecedented numbers.

 

In short, you have to have a very specific set of circumstances that allow these very high-tax regimes to exist. It's unsustainable, in my estimation.

 

Would ordinary Americans accept a personal income tax rate of above 50%, on a salary of $50K per annum, or might there be some unrest on the streets?

I paid 60% tax in Denmark. Fabulous society and benefits. 

 

The USA is off the rails; you may wish to try a different approach. I lived there on three occasions and found the inequality embarrassing!

 

NATO is an irrelevant side effect. It is the nickname for a Scottish diabetic amputee according to Danny Boyle.

Edited January 23, 20197 yr by Grouse

1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

^^

Let me answer it, then.

 

Scandinavia is always cited as the model "socialist"-type redistributive society (or societies), but there are several reasons why what may work there is unsustainable elsewhere.

 

1. The countries have always been extremely homogenous ethnically and culturally. This results in a very high level of social capital, as it is known, which in turn translates to a willingness to sacrifice more for your fellow citizen.

 

2. The US has been picking up the tab for the defense of these countries for 50 years, contributing more than 3 times the proportion of GDP on NATO expenditure. (Sweden is not in NATO, and has a pathetic under-funded military).

 

3. The model is not working as well as some observers would like to think. Denmark, Norway and Sweden have all moved politically to the right in the last decade, with tax cutting being to the fore. And nationalist far-Right parties like Denmark's DPP and especially the Swedish Democrats have been gaining votes in unprecedented numbers.

 

In short, you have to have a very specific set of circumstances that allow these very high-tax regimes to exist. It's unsustainable, in my estimation.

 

Would ordinary Americans accept a personal income tax rate of above 50%, on a salary of $50K per annum, or might there be some unrest on the streets?

I’m not aware of anywhere that applies income tax at 50% to a $50K annual salary, and I doubt very much you aren’t either.

 

Income taxes are applied on a sliding scale, not to the whole income.

 

It really depends on your definitions of rich and poor.

(If you have somewhere to sleep and enough to eat and drink but own no land or car, are you poor?)

 

As far as I can see, in the past 50 years the base standard of living for most has increased dramatically.

But the ability of the general population to own their own home has decreased dramatically.

So in all, harder to have your own home, but the food, booze and entertainment situation is much better.

 

 

Edited January 23, 20197 yr by BritManToo

https://tradingeconomics.com/sweden/personal-income-tax-rate

22 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

It really depends on your definitions of rich and poor.

(If you have somewhere to sleep and enough to eat and drink but own no land or car, are you poor?)

 

As far as I can see, in the past 50 years the base standard of living for most has increased dramatically.

But the ability of the general population to own their own home has decreased dramatically.

So in all, harder to have your own home, but the food, booze and entertainment situation is much better.

 

 

Absolute values are not the issue neither are superlatives. It is comparatives that matter: richer, poorer!

 

Inequality results in unhappy societies. We have the empirical data to prove that. Look how happiness indexes map on to Gini coefficients. It is clear as clear can be. 

 

Getting off off topic but I would like to see 30% corporation tax, 60% top rate income tax and CGT. 100% mortgage interest tax relief, free tertiary education free health insurance and old age pensions at 60% of mean incomes (320GBP per week)

Edited January 23, 20197 yr by Grouse

 Gap between rich and poor growing?

Please don't argue the numbers , argue the concept!!

Simple math.  Investment Class wealth is growing at a higher rate than labor wealth.

"through 2018, the S&P 500 had an average annual return of 9.49% and the 20-year average is 7.14%."

https://petetheplanner.com/what-rate-of-return-should-you-expect-on-your-investments/

 

 at 7% annual growth wealth will double in 10 years.

 

Wage growth past 10 years:

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/awidevelop.html

Average growth 2.3%  at that rate wealth derived from labor will double in 30 years.

 

So Investment class wealth doubles in 10 years

     Labor class  wealth  doubles in 30 years, (Using the rule of seventy https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/rule-of-70.asp )

Is there a surprise in the divergence  in wealth between the investment class and the labor class?

 

 

Edited January 23, 20197 yr by sirineou

9 minutes ago, sirineou said:

 Gap between rich and poor growing?

Please don't argue the numbers , argue the concept!!

Simple math.  Investment Class wealth is growing at a higher rate than labor wealth.

"through 2018, the S&P 500 had an average annual return of 9.49% and the 20-year average is 7.14%."

https://petetheplanner.com/what-rate-of-return-should-you-expect-on-your-investments/

 

 at 7% annual growth wealth will double in 10 years.

 

Wage growth past 10 years:

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/awidevelop.html

Average growth 2.3%  at that rate wealth derived from labor will double in 30 years.

 

So Investment class wealth doubles in 10 years

     Labor class  wealth  doubles in 30 years, (Using the rule of seventy https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/rule-of-70.asp )

Is there a surprise in the divergence   wealth between the investment class and the labor class?

 

 

This is a major issue that will be exacerbated by rapid growth of automation, robotics and AI. We need a new settlement between capital and Labour or there will be civil war. Maybe guaranteed income for all as being tested in Finland. New technology should improve life for all NOT just the "investment classes" (what an ugly expression)!

2 minutes ago, Grouse said:

We need a new settlement between capital and Labour or there will be civil war.

I agree with everything you said, but when there is a civil war it will be between as,

 and the "investment class" will sell as the weapons to fight it.

What a depressing thought.

On the bright side , investment need a consumer.  One thing for sure, the current capitalist system is systematically flawed. 

 

54 minutes ago, sirineou said:

I agree with everything you said, but when there is a civil war it will be between as,

 and the "investment class" will sell as the weapons to fight it.

What a depressing thought.

On the bright side , investment need a consumer.  One thing for sure, the current capitalist system is systematically flawed. 

 

Check out Hypernormalisation documentary!

Troll post removed.

9 hours ago, BritManToo said:

It really depends on your definitions of rich and poor.

(If you have somewhere to sleep and enough to eat and drink but own no land or car, are you poor?)

 

As far as I can see, in the past 50 years the base standard of living for most has increased dramatically.

But the ability of the general population to own their own home has decreased dramatically.

So in all, harder to have your own home, but the food, booze and entertainment situation is much better.

 

 

Odd how illiberals focus on the definition of ‘poor/poverty’ while swerving on the definition of ‘rich’.

A post citing something without a link has been removed.   If you are quoting a source, then please include a link to the source.  

15 hours ago, BritManToo said:

It really depends on your definitions of rich and poor.

(If you have somewhere to sleep and enough to eat and drink but own no land or car, are you poor?)

 

As far as I can see, in the past 50 years the base standard of living for most has increased dramatically.

But the ability of the general population to own their own home has decreased dramatically.

So in all, harder to have your own home, but the food, booze and entertainment situation is much better.

 

 

Rich are those who have more. Poor are those who have less.

The baseline is irrelevant.

  That the standard of living has increased is irrefutable,Standards of living have being increasing since we climbed down from the trees, it's just that for some it has being increasing more than for others. Which is the theme of this thread.

 

23 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Another off topic rant.

Not off topic because it explains the motives behind Oxfam's claims and more importantly explains the growth in the gap.  It is erroneous to claim a growth in disparity when it is not the case in countries like Germany who have absorned 1 million poor people in a short period.  Of course the results in Germany would show a  deterioration, but that is not because the Germans  have  changed or  become  more socially unjust. On the contrary, their over generosity is the cause of the   increase in disparity.  Quite the  difference with China where there are now  people begging on the streets.