13% of the British economy is earned by 1% of the population. I heard this and I just felt sick.

[EDIT] What are your opinions?

You know, the British also gave us a lovely comedy troupe called Montey Python. Adored by stoners and college students along with the just plain odd, they had a peachy keen TV show "Monty Python's Flying Circus" in which they had many classic skits. Some involved a dead parrot, others involved cross dressing lumberjacks, but one of my favorites was set in a little diner. In that diner, every dish involved in one way or another SPAM. And the lady in said skit said a line that I find to be just dandy for this situation. "What do you mean 'Ugh'? I don't like SPAM!"

There you go.

Mike, are you replying to the right topic here?

/

I think mike what mike's trying to say, in only a way he can because he's better than everyone else is: While this is an interesting little factoid it's hardly a topic for debate as in fact, because i can just made a statement, he didn't ask what anyone thinks about this and he didn't link an article with the relevent details, it is therefore classable as spam, hense the rather abstract post by mike. Bravo mike, bravo, you've once again illustrated wonderfully what, in my mind, makes you such an irritating little git

As harsh as he is, SPS, he does have a point. This is a spam thread and he's not the only forumite who would point that out in such a sarcastic manner.

And likewise, times like these remind me why I loathe the posts you make.

you talking to mike or me? and I'm not arguing he has a point, but if he's going to be critical, at least make it constructive

Or Mike could be pointing out that the poor eat lots of spam because they can't afford real meat?

BTW - that sketch was great. It had a song and everything.

'Spam, spam, spam, spam, spammity SPAM!'

I don't have a link because there was a TV show about it last night. And I don't often read anything in this forum so I apologise for being ignorant of the fact, that you have to ask for an opinion. So I will now ask for any opinions you may have.

[EDIT] I've just looked up a link click here.

Thanks SPS for clearing that up. I'm obviously not used to the way that Mike replys to people. I have been here a while. I should have picked up on it. In saying that I am a born again no0b though.

I think what people are trying to say Because I can, is that if you were to post us a link to a site that has stats about what percentage of what is earned by what percentage of the population, then that would be helpful in us replying to you topic.

I don't think you can actually earn a percentage of "the economy". That's rather innaccurate economics.

And you had to point that out why?

Okay, how about what percentage of what is owned by who?

You talk as if the rich are hiring thugs to beat up poor people and take all their stuff.

I'm not sure what you meant by "13% of the economy", but from the site you linked:



Which I assume is the fact you're raising here.

We are, or we strive to be, a meritocratic society. This means that nobody is entitled to the same amount of wealth as anybody else, but that it must be earned. I assume that your opinion here is that the wealthiest do not deserve their wealth, and are somehow taking the wealth that rightfully belongs to somebody else - otherwise I'm not sure what your problem is. Can you clarify further?

A meritocratic society may be the goal, but someone born into a family with next to nothing will most likely have next to nothing their entire lives. I fail to see how this fosters meritocracy. You could have the potential to be the best in the country at something, yet be stuck at the very bottom of the socio-economic ladder because you were born to a poor working class family, in a poor area where all the schools are crap and there are virtually no prospects. How does that help meritocracy.

And how is it beneficial to society that most of those top 1% get their income from the rent on the huge swathes of land they've inherited, through their ancestors, from the Norman nobility?

And how in hell's name did someone come to the conclusion that you're a communist?

No need to really. It's pretty indesputable that money and power are very closely linked, and that those in power tend to protect that position.



Unfortunately we have the situation where taxation is supposedly proportional to wealth, yet the upper limit on income tax doesn't extend all that far into the middle classes. This means that beyond a certain point the proportional aspect becomes meaningless and money is pretty much accumulated for the sake of it. This means that the truly wealthy are accruing a pool of money which ceases to move (or moves at a much slower rate.) As far as my understanding of economics goes the overall wealth of a nation is defined not by the amount of money there is (therein lies inflation) but by the movement of what there is. Since the extremely wealthy are already spending as much as they are going to they could be seen as impeding the overall improvement of wealth and, accordingly, reduction of poverty.

No doubt I'm being as clear as fine sucking mud, but this is something of an essay for me. <relurks>

No you were doing ok Fuzzy.

The highest band of tax in the UK is 40% this starts once you hit £30800. Now with the amount of wages being paid to people, it is hitting the middle classes as more and more people are earning around that mark. If they raised the 22% band to about 50k then started taxing people at 40% after 51k then we would see a slighty fairer system of taxation with possibly another band after that for 100k.

Now as people know i don't like tax ................ so i'll leave it to the chancellor