| Gary Stevenson's channel 4 documentary 16:45 - Jul 6 with 10840 views | J2BLUE |
Being shown Wednesday at 9pm. For anyone who may not have seen anything about it.
|  | | |  |
| Gary Stevenson's channel 4 documentary on 22:18 - Jul 7 with 1088 views | reusersfreekicks |
| Gary Stevenson's channel 4 documentary on 16:20 - Jul 7 by lowhouseblue |
yes, total wealth has risen but inequality hasn't changed. "the wealth gap" can't be a measure of inequality precisely because it varies with total wealth. it is someone inventing a measure because the standard measures don't show what they want them to show. |
But surely if the percentages stay the same but the total increases dramatically then inequality is increasing.
The gap between rich and poor is getting bigger |  | | |
| Gary Stevenson's channel 4 documentary on 23:32 - Jul 7 with 1031 views | lowhouseblue |
| Gary Stevenson's channel 4 documentary on 22:18 - Jul 7 by reusersfreekicks |
But surely if the percentages stay the same but the total increases dramatically then inequality is increasing.
The gap between rich and poor is getting bigger |
the absolute gap is pretty meaningless. eg we have someone with wealth of 50 and someone else with wealth of 100 - a gap of 50. for some reason the value of all assets now doubles and that gap then increases to 100. has inequality increased? by your definition inequality would only stay constant if the gap remained at 50. but if the first person now had 200 and the second 150 is that really constant inequality? which is why credible measures of inequality such as the gini coefficient look at the relative distribution or percentile shares, not absolute differences. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Gary Stevenson's channel 4 documentary on 00:10 - Jul 8 with 1001 views | reusersfreekicks |
| Gary Stevenson's channel 4 documentary on 23:32 - Jul 7 by lowhouseblue |
the absolute gap is pretty meaningless. eg we have someone with wealth of 50 and someone else with wealth of 100 - a gap of 50. for some reason the value of all assets now doubles and that gap then increases to 100. has inequality increased? by your definition inequality would only stay constant if the gap remained at 50. but if the first person now had 200 and the second 150 is that really constant inequality? which is why credible measures of inequality such as the gini coefficient look at the relative distribution or percentile shares, not absolute differences. |
I understand the difference in definition now.
So basically the absolute difference can carry on multiplying but inequality by the definition you promote stays the same.
Not sure that is a satisfactory measure | | | |
| Gary Stevenson's channel 4 documentary on 08:02 - Jul 8 with 933 views | balcombeblue |
| Gary Stevenson's channel 4 documentary on 23:32 - Jul 7 by lowhouseblue |
the absolute gap is pretty meaningless. eg we have someone with wealth of 50 and someone else with wealth of 100 - a gap of 50. for some reason the value of all assets now doubles and that gap then increases to 100. has inequality increased? by your definition inequality would only stay constant if the gap remained at 50. but if the first person now had 200 and the second 150 is that really constant inequality? which is why credible measures of inequality such as the gini coefficient look at the relative distribution or percentile shares, not absolute differences. |
In general, is it not better to worry about the lives of the poorest in society rather than the gap between rich and poor (which has not materially changed for 50 years).
The standard of living of those worse off has improved considerably in the past 50 years. Whether this can be continued in an increasingly digitalised world is to be seen I suppose. |  | | |
| Gary Stevenson's channel 4 documentary on 08:06 - Jul 8 with 928 views | nrb1985 |
| Gary Stevenson's channel 4 documentary on 23:32 - Jul 7 by lowhouseblue |
the absolute gap is pretty meaningless. eg we have someone with wealth of 50 and someone else with wealth of 100 - a gap of 50. for some reason the value of all assets now doubles and that gap then increases to 100. has inequality increased? by your definition inequality would only stay constant if the gap remained at 50. but if the first person now had 200 and the second 150 is that really constant inequality? which is why credible measures of inequality such as the gini coefficient look at the relative distribution or percentile shares, not absolute differences. |
Sorry to state the blindingly obvious but yes it has increased because in real terms the person who is stagnating is now getting smashed over the head with inflation so losing purchasing power or the ability to save in real terms.
While the person who owns assets like a large portfolio of stocks, gold or real estate generally sees their assets grow at inflation +++.
And the value of all assets doubling is meaningless if you don’t own assets to start with which lower income families don’t.
This really isn’t hard stuff to get your head around. [Post edited 8 Jul 8:08]
| | | |
| Gary Stevenson's channel 4 documentary on 08:15 - Jul 8 with 901 views | lowhouseblue |
| Gary Stevenson's channel 4 documentary on 00:10 - Jul 8 by reusersfreekicks |
I understand the difference in definition now.
So basically the absolute difference can carry on multiplying but inequality by the definition you promote stays the same.
Not sure that is a satisfactory measure |
the definition i 'promote' is the definition of inequality which is accepted in all serious studies.
your definition means that wealth inequality rises whenever asset prices rise - even though the distribution of those assets (who owns what share of the total) is exactly the same.
what has happened here is that uk inequality has not risen which doesn't fit the agenda of some people and they have therefore moved to a new and meaningless measure - absolute differences - which measures nothing other than changing asset prices.
inequality has to be a measure of the distribution of shares - the way the pie is divided up, who has what proportion - not absolute difference regardless of the increasing size of the pie. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Gary Stevenson's channel 4 documentary on 09:31 - Jul 8 with 839 views | giant_stow |
| Gary Stevenson's channel 4 documentary on 08:15 - Jul 8 by lowhouseblue |
the definition i 'promote' is the definition of inequality which is accepted in all serious studies.
your definition means that wealth inequality rises whenever asset prices rise - even though the distribution of those assets (who owns what share of the total) is exactly the same.
what has happened here is that uk inequality has not risen which doesn't fit the agenda of some people and they have therefore moved to a new and meaningless measure - absolute differences - which measures nothing other than changing asset prices.
inequality has to be a measure of the distribution of shares - the way the pie is divided up, who has what proportion - not absolute difference regardless of the increasing size of the pie. |
I remember the GIni coefficient from my Development Studies days - it's widely used and respected, unless things have changed massively in the last 30 years. |  |
| |
| Gary Stevenson's channel 4 documentary on 10:05 - Jul 8 with 807 views | leitrimblue |
| Gary Stevenson's channel 4 documentary on 18:15 - Jul 7 by Swansea_Blue |
Can you believe we even allow them an inside toilet these days and they STILL complain. The feckless tossers! |
I think the basic education and indoor toilets as just made um more uppity.
Can any of you finance experts put a monetery figure on the 20+% of UK wealth owned by the richest 1 percent? |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Gary Stevenson's channel 4 documentary on 10:35 - Jul 8 with 779 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Gary Stevenson's channel 4 documentary on 10:05 - Jul 8 by leitrimblue |
I think the basic education and indoor toilets as just made um more uppity.
Can any of you finance experts put a monetery figure on the 20+% of UK wealth owned by the richest 1 percent? |
I don’t think anyone could give an exact figure, as a lot of it won’t be public. Particularly the murky finances of our esteemed Royal family;
https://commonslibrary.parliam | | | |
| Gary Stevenson's channel 4 documentary on 10:44 - Jul 8 with 765 views | leitrimblue |
| Gary Stevenson's channel 4 documentary on 10:35 - Jul 8 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
I don’t think anyone could give an exact figure, as a lot of it won’t be public. Particularly the murky finances of our esteemed Royal family;
https://commonslibrary.parliam |
OK, thanks. To be honest this is all at the edge of my understanding.
But if the exact figure is unknown how can we be sure they only own 20%? | | | |
| Gary Stevenson's channel 4 documentary on 10:51 - Jul 8 with 751 views | nrb1985 |
| Gary Stevenson's channel 4 documentary on 10:05 - Jul 8 by leitrimblue |
I think the basic education and indoor toilets as just made um more uppity.
Can any of you finance experts put a monetery figure on the 20+% of UK wealth owned by the richest 1 percent? |
To your last point - it will be high and have ballooned since covid.
The important point to understand is that is mostly a product of the fact that the prices of assets that they already owned will have doubled and more in that time frame - while everyone else is getting clobbered by inflation.
It is not, as young Gary would have you believe, because the wealthy are going around hoovering up all the assets that you or I could otherwise own.
Much the same way that the reason you can't buy or rent a home at a resonable price isn't the because of people arriving on boats... | | | |
| Gary Stevenson's channel 4 documentary on 10:55 - Jul 8 with 736 views | itfcjoe |
| Gary Stevenson's channel 4 documentary on 10:51 - Jul 8 by nrb1985 |
To your last point - it will be high and have ballooned since covid.
The important point to understand is that is mostly a product of the fact that the prices of assets that they already owned will have doubled and more in that time frame - while everyone else is getting clobbered by inflation.
It is not, as young Gary would have you believe, because the wealthy are going around hoovering up all the assets that you or I could otherwise own.
Much the same way that the reason you can't buy or rent a home at a resonable price isn't the because of people arriving on boats... |
Surely there is a link though, that as they have more and more share of the wealth, and need to diversify and things like PE need to have bigger returns it will be driving up the prices of property and assets so less well off people can't afford to buy them |  |
| |
| Gary Stevenson's channel 4 documentary on 11:08 - Jul 8 with 716 views | nrb1985 |
| Gary Stevenson's channel 4 documentary on 10:55 - Jul 8 by itfcjoe |
Surely there is a link though, that as they have more and more share of the wealth, and need to diversify and things like PE need to have bigger returns it will be driving up the prices of property and assets so less well off people can't afford to buy them |
If we're talking about property specifically, there are any number of issues that are far more relevant to the price of property in the UK and other developed markets before I would even consider PE/Real Estate funds having any sort of material impact.
There might be a tiny link at the margins but then you're into trickle down economics and we know how everyone feels about that...
E.g. if an Oligarch buys a house in Belgravia, the banker/lawyer who could have afforded that has to live in zone 2, the regular family who could have afforded zone 2 is now in zone 3 and so on and so on.
My firm belief on this, given I spend my life working with these people is - for the vast majority, they buy assets (albeit most of their wealth is the appreciation of things like investment portfolios) but not in any way shape or form that has a material effect on yours or my life.
As an example - one Client has just made a fortune on SpaceX because he was an early investor before it went public. He's currently trying to buy a winery and adjoining 10 room hotel in a village near his home town of Tblisi...
If people think he's depriving them of their chance to buy that asset, I'm more than happy to share the prospectus with them if they DM me.
I'm being facetious now but you get my point I guess? [Post edited 10 Jul 8:28]
| | | |
| Gary Stevenson's channel 4 documentary on 11:22 - Jul 8 with 680 views | jasondozzell |
| Gary Stevenson's channel 4 documentary on 11:08 - Jul 8 by nrb1985 |
If we're talking about property specifically, there are any number of issues that are far more relevant to the price of property in the UK and other developed markets before I would even consider PE/Real Estate funds having any sort of material impact.
There might be a tiny link at the margins but then you're into trickle down economics and we know how everyone feels about that...
E.g. if an Oligarch buys a house in Belgravia, the banker/lawyer who could have afforded that has to live in zone 2, the regular family who could have afforded zone 2 is now in zone 3 and so on and so on.
My firm belief on this, given I spend my life working with these people is - for the vast majority, they buy assets (albeit most of their wealth is the appreciation of things like investment portfolios) but not in any way shape or form that has a material effect on yours or my life.
As an example - one Client has just made a fortune on SpaceX because he was an early investor before it went public. He's currently trying to buy a winery and adjoining 10 room hotel in a village near his home town of Tblisi...
If people think he's depriving them of their chance to buy that asset, I'm more than happy to share the prospectus with them if they DM me.
I'm being facetious now but you get my point I guess? [Post edited 10 Jul 8:28]
|
But that's just not true.
Take just football.
Have PE firms and the like buying football clubs had no material effect on people's lives?
Fans are getting priced out as a result. Clubs lose identity and in some cases cease to exist. |  | | |
| Gary Stevenson's channel 4 documentary on 11:50 - Jul 8 with 625 views | itfcjoe |
| Gary Stevenson's channel 4 documentary on 11:08 - Jul 8 by nrb1985 |
If we're talking about property specifically, there are any number of issues that are far more relevant to the price of property in the UK and other developed markets before I would even consider PE/Real Estate funds having any sort of material impact.
There might be a tiny link at the margins but then you're into trickle down economics and we know how everyone feels about that...
E.g. if an Oligarch buys a house in Belgravia, the banker/lawyer who could have afforded that has to live in zone 2, the regular family who could have afforded zone 2 is now in zone 3 and so on and so on.
My firm belief on this, given I spend my life working with these people is - for the vast majority, they buy assets (albeit most of their wealth is the appreciation of things like investment portfolios) but not in any way shape or form that has a material effect on yours or my life.
As an example - one Client has just made a fortune on SpaceX because he was an early investor before it went public. He's currently trying to buy a winery and adjoining 10 room hotel in a village near his home town of Tblisi...
If people think he's depriving them of their chance to buy that asset, I'm more than happy to share the prospectus with them if they DM me.
I'm being facetious now but you get my point I guess? [Post edited 10 Jul 8:28]
|
To an extent, but think there is a bigger knock on than you maybe realise, especially with regards to property in London and what that does to the make up of the city | |
| |
| Gary Stevenson's channel 4 documentary on 12:01 - Jul 8 with 598 views | nrb1985 |
| Gary Stevenson's channel 4 documentary on 11:50 - Jul 8 by itfcjoe |
To an extent, but think there is a bigger knock on than you maybe realise, especially with regards to property in London and what that does to the make up of the city |
Born and bred a Londoner before moving to Suffolk when I was 8.
I then lived there for 15 years after university and now spend about a third of my time there.
Would like to think I have a pretty good grasp on the issues Londoners face.
My point is, the typical journey for one of my clients is usually;
- built a business
- sold a business
- invested in a portfolio of financial assets (most if not all said assets are available to you and I, so nobody is being deprived)
- diversify some of the above portfolio into non traditional assets - none of which would interest you or me eg wine, art , classic cars etc
Therefore, going purely from my own experience, I’m not seeing where in that chain anybody is hoarding or depriving anybody else of assets they could otherwise buy?
Obviously a different story if they were going around buying rows and rows of affordable houses in Sudbury or Cornard - but in my experience, these people generally prefer the south of France to west Suffolk.
Their loss. | | | |
| Gary Stevenson's channel 4 documentary on 12:19 - Jul 8 with 562 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
| Gary Stevenson's channel 4 documentary on 10:02 - Jul 7 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
Exactly my point it’s the flawed idea that a 2pc tax on a few hundred people is going to fundamentally change the UK. The decline of the west is due mainly to demographics and globalisation which has made the global economy more open to movement of capital and jobs. If you took the entire net worth of the billionaires in the UK (ignoring that much of it is not liquid, and held in other tax jurisdictions) you wouldn’t even fund our NHS for 1 year. Simple answers for complex issues. |
A 2% annual wealth tax on Elon Musk alone would generate $20 billion.
A year.
That could be transformative in so many areas of the USA.
We don't have anyone as rich in the UK, but take an Annual Wealth Tax of 2% of the combined wealth of everyone who owns over £10 million and you are talking about billions.
Think of the libraries closed under austerity "because there was no alternative". Think of the Youth Services hollowed out across the country, and the subsequent rise of young people being coerced into County Lines gangs.
Even think about what the money could do to improve Border Force and Immigration and to put an end to people smuggling across the Channel.
Or maybe fulfill Nigel's £350 million extra to the NHS promise?
He is putting forward the alternative view to Gove and co and their politically motivated austerity agenda, which only saw the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Simply resetting the discussion around obscene wealth, and the social obligations that go with it, is enough on its own.
Whether you like him personally or not, these are things that need to be central to the political debate in this country, and at least he might move this particular Overton window a little. | | | |
| Gary Stevenson's channel 4 documentary on 12:30 - Jul 8 with 537 views | nrb1985 |
| Gary Stevenson's channel 4 documentary on 12:19 - Jul 8 by ArnoldMoorhen |
A 2% annual wealth tax on Elon Musk alone would generate $20 billion.
A year.
That could be transformative in so many areas of the USA.
We don't have anyone as rich in the UK, but take an Annual Wealth Tax of 2% of the combined wealth of everyone who owns over £10 million and you are talking about billions.
Think of the libraries closed under austerity "because there was no alternative". Think of the Youth Services hollowed out across the country, and the subsequent rise of young people being coerced into County Lines gangs.
Even think about what the money could do to improve Border Force and Immigration and to put an end to people smuggling across the Channel.
Or maybe fulfill Nigel's £350 million extra to the NHS promise?
He is putting forward the alternative view to Gove and co and their politically motivated austerity agenda, which only saw the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Simply resetting the discussion around obscene wealth, and the social obligations that go with it, is enough on its own.
Whether you like him personally or not, these are things that need to be central to the political debate in this country, and at least he might move this particular Overton window a little. |
If he didn’t spout such bullsht half the time, the more financially literate of us might consider listening to him.
Bullsht which he knows to be untrue I might add.
Not sure why I’d give somebody like that the time of day. | | | |
| Gary Stevenson's channel 4 documentary on 12:59 - Jul 8 with 500 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
| Gary Stevenson's channel 4 documentary on 11:08 - Jul 8 by nrb1985 |
If we're talking about property specifically, there are any number of issues that are far more relevant to the price of property in the UK and other developed markets before I would even consider PE/Real Estate funds having any sort of material impact.
There might be a tiny link at the margins but then you're into trickle down economics and we know how everyone feels about that...
E.g. if an Oligarch buys a house in Belgravia, the banker/lawyer who could have afforded that has to live in zone 2, the regular family who could have afforded zone 2 is now in zone 3 and so on and so on.
My firm belief on this, given I spend my life working with these people is - for the vast majority, they buy assets (albeit most of their wealth is the appreciation of things like investment portfolios) but not in any way shape or form that has a material effect on yours or my life.
As an example - one Client has just made a fortune on SpaceX because he was an early investor before it went public. He's currently trying to buy a winery and adjoining 10 room hotel in a village near his home town of Tblisi...
If people think he's depriving them of their chance to buy that asset, I'm more than happy to share the prospectus with them if they DM me.
I'm being facetious now but you get my point I guess? [Post edited 10 Jul 8:28]
|
At least, unlike that other wealth trader Farage, you have declared your financial interest.
You aren't an unbiased witness here. We all have our biases. You want to protect the right of the ultra-wealthy to hoard money, buy assets in any country they like, and your own right to earn commission from that, without any care for the consequences on the nations their wealth can corrupt, and with minimal obligation to that wider society.
I am biased, too. I was a Primary School Governor in one of the 10% poorest areas of the country during the Austerity years and saw what it did to the life chances of children who only had education as a route upwards. And by "it" I mean the impact of policies like Special Needs assessments being limited to one person school, per year.
Even during COVID the ultra-wealthy found ways to increase their share of the pie.
That sentence alone should be a shock and a wake up call. But you will say "Of course they did. That's what they do!" It's no shock to you. You know how they do it.
Because the system is rigged in their favour, and mainstream political debate largely still has its agenda set by the Ultra Wealthy, from billionaires who own the World's media companies (operating across old and new media) to the good old King who literally reads out what the democratically elected Government are going to do each session, and everyone says "Oh, that's normal!"
So far you have told us that Gary Stevenson is a bullshtter, and more than that "anyone" with financial understanding can see through him, and that he knows he is lying. But you have given no specific examples, and proved that. You have just played the man.
So I will, too.
Of course you would say that, you are one of those people who have ensured that you are alright if you help the inequality of wealth to grow. It's literally in your financial interest to besmirch Stevenson and to rubbish his ideas. And it is a threat to you if the public catches on that there are alternative ways to divide the pie up, and that we could start tomorrow. | | | |
| Gary Stevenson's channel 4 documentary on 13:07 - Jul 8 with 479 views | jasondozzell |
| Gary Stevenson's channel 4 documentary on 12:30 - Jul 8 by nrb1985 |
If he didn’t spout such bullsht half the time, the more financially literate of us might consider listening to him.
Bullsht which he knows to be untrue I might add.
Not sure why I’d give somebody like that the time of day. |
| | | |
| Gary Stevenson's channel 4 documentary on 13:07 - Jul 8 with 478 views | jasondozzell |
| Gary Stevenson's channel 4 documentary on 12:59 - Jul 8 by ArnoldMoorhen |
At least, unlike that other wealth trader Farage, you have declared your financial interest.
You aren't an unbiased witness here. We all have our biases. You want to protect the right of the ultra-wealthy to hoard money, buy assets in any country they like, and your own right to earn commission from that, without any care for the consequences on the nations their wealth can corrupt, and with minimal obligation to that wider society.
I am biased, too. I was a Primary School Governor in one of the 10% poorest areas of the country during the Austerity years and saw what it did to the life chances of children who only had education as a route upwards. And by "it" I mean the impact of policies like Special Needs assessments being limited to one person school, per year.
Even during COVID the ultra-wealthy found ways to increase their share of the pie.
That sentence alone should be a shock and a wake up call. But you will say "Of course they did. That's what they do!" It's no shock to you. You know how they do it.
Because the system is rigged in their favour, and mainstream political debate largely still has its agenda set by the Ultra Wealthy, from billionaires who own the World's media companies (operating across old and new media) to the good old King who literally reads out what the democratically elected Government are going to do each session, and everyone says "Oh, that's normal!"
So far you have told us that Gary Stevenson is a bullshtter, and more than that "anyone" with financial understanding can see through him, and that he knows he is lying. But you have given no specific examples, and proved that. You have just played the man.
So I will, too.
Of course you would say that, you are one of those people who have ensured that you are alright if you help the inequality of wealth to grow. It's literally in your financial interest to besmirch Stevenson and to rubbish his ideas. And it is a threat to you if the public catches on that there are alternative ways to divide the pie up, and that we could start tomorrow. |
Brilliant post. | | | |
| Gary Stevenson's channel 4 documentary on 13:09 - Jul 8 with 475 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
| Gary Stevenson's channel 4 documentary on 11:50 - Jul 8 by itfcjoe |
To an extent, but think there is a bigger knock on than you maybe realise, especially with regards to property in London and what that does to the make up of the city |
Interesting, and illuminating, that he stopped at people buying family homes in Zone 3, and described them as "normal".
Norm means standard or average.
What does the average family home in Zone 3 cost?
What percentage of the UK population own, or are working towards buying through a mortgage, a million pound asset? (A million pounds being a low estimate of the cost of a Zone 3 "family home" based on this: https://www.rightmove.co.uk/ho )
It is far from normal!
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplep
Edit: auto correct error, "description bed" to "described" [Post edited 8 Jul 13:13]
| | | |
| Gary Stevenson's channel 4 documentary on 13:10 - Jul 8 with 470 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Gary Stevenson's channel 4 documentary on 12:19 - Jul 8 by ArnoldMoorhen |
A 2% annual wealth tax on Elon Musk alone would generate $20 billion.
A year.
That could be transformative in so many areas of the USA.
We don't have anyone as rich in the UK, but take an Annual Wealth Tax of 2% of the combined wealth of everyone who owns over £10 million and you are talking about billions.
Think of the libraries closed under austerity "because there was no alternative". Think of the Youth Services hollowed out across the country, and the subsequent rise of young people being coerced into County Lines gangs.
Even think about what the money could do to improve Border Force and Immigration and to put an end to people smuggling across the Channel.
Or maybe fulfill Nigel's £350 million extra to the NHS promise?
He is putting forward the alternative view to Gove and co and their politically motivated austerity agenda, which only saw the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Simply resetting the discussion around obscene wealth, and the social obligations that go with it, is enough on its own.
Whether you like him personally or not, these are things that need to be central to the political debate in this country, and at least he might move this particular Overton window a little. |
That would work out at $1 per week for every American- how can you call that transformative? That was my point, not a morale one. A UK wealth tax as you have outlined would raise around $24bn p.a, it would cover only a fifth of our debt servicing, and equate to less than 0.1pc of our norminal debt. So no these aren’t big numbers at all in a nation of 70m people and 3trn GDP (and deteriorating ratio of working tax payers).
Again, no issue with pushing the debate, but to pretend this is going to materially improve people’s lives is pretty fanciful. | | | |
| Gary Stevenson's channel 4 documentary on 13:12 - Jul 8 with 457 views | jasondozzell |
| Gary Stevenson's channel 4 documentary on 13:10 - Jul 8 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
That would work out at $1 per week for every American- how can you call that transformative? That was my point, not a morale one. A UK wealth tax as you have outlined would raise around $24bn p.a, it would cover only a fifth of our debt servicing, and equate to less than 0.1pc of our norminal debt. So no these aren’t big numbers at all in a nation of 70m people and 3trn GDP (and deteriorating ratio of working tax payers).
Again, no issue with pushing the debate, but to pretend this is going to materially improve people’s lives is pretty fanciful. |
We cannot afford to keep libraries open. | | | |
| Gary Stevenson's channel 4 documentary on 13:16 - Jul 8 with 437 views | nrb1985 |
| Gary Stevenson's channel 4 documentary on 13:09 - Jul 8 by ArnoldMoorhen |
Interesting, and illuminating, that he stopped at people buying family homes in Zone 3, and described them as "normal".
Norm means standard or average.
What does the average family home in Zone 3 cost?
What percentage of the UK population own, or are working towards buying through a mortgage, a million pound asset? (A million pounds being a low estimate of the cost of a Zone 3 "family home" based on this: https://www.rightmove.co.uk/ho )
It is far from normal!
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplep
Edit: auto correct error, "description bed" to "described" [Post edited 8 Jul 13:13]
|
Well done for making a largely irrelevant contribution to this debate - Given we aren’t discussing London’s idiosyncratic housing market but a supposed scarcity of assets because rich people are apparently taking them all.
But I’ll indulge you and ask how much of that you think has to do with wealthy people hoovering up assets vs things like:
a) planning restraints
b) lack of rent controls
c) the fact that so many people want to live in london vs elsewhere which puts a stupid amount of pressure on housing
d) zero interest rates for 15 years
e) right to buy
f) vast amounts of immigration to support deteriorating demographics | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
