Inequality

[SasaS]

I'm just finishing "Why We Can't Afford the Rich" by Andrew Sayer. I'd definitely recommend it to anyone who wants a bit of insight into how rich the parasitic rentier bastards really are; how they get rich and stay that way (spoiler - it's not by talent and hard work); and the damage they do to our economy, our society, our democracy and our planet.

 

I've been reaching Hades levels of anger reading this.

 

Here is the latest Bloomberg's Robin Hood Index showing how much would we profit if you stop just reading about it and start robbing the reach and giving to the government.

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-12/what-if-the-world-s-richest-paid-for-government-spending

 

[Bobby Hundreds]

What's the point in that? The single richest person couldn't afford to run their country based on their own wealth. Who would of thought otherwise.

[SasaS]

They could in Cyprus.

[Strontium]

I remember that Michael Carroll blert who won £10m on the lottery. Managed to piss it all away in five years. If that's not an object lesson in the idea that you can't just take money from the rich and give it to the poor, and expect it solve everything, I don't know what is.

[Rico1304]

They could in Cyprus.

I looked at him. Son of a welder. Privileged cunt.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

I remember that Michael Carroll blert who won £10m on the lottery. Managed to piss it all away in five years. If that's not an object lesson in the idea that you can't just take money from the rich and give it to the poor, and expect it solve everything, I don't know what is.

Fair point. The Grosvenors get to keep the money, because the proles can't be trusted with it.

[SasaS]

Neither can Grosvenors, apparently, at least for more than three generations, if we are to believe Rico's statistic. 

[Rico1304]

Neither can Grosvenors, apparently, at least for more than three generations, if we are to believe Rico's statistic.

It’s not mine, I read it. It doesn’t say all either.

 

Plus you won’t be moaning when he buys us.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

It’s not mine, I read it. It doesn’t say all either.

 

Plus you won’t be moaning when he buys us.

And why not? He already owns half of our privatised city centre, why shouldn't he buy our club with some of the billions he dodged in inheritance tax?

[SasaS]

Might young master Hugh be our fellow supporter?

[Rico1304]

Might young master Hugh be our fellow supporter?

He is. Think his username on here is Hades or something.

[Captain Turdseye]

I remember that Michael Carroll blert who won £10m on the lottery. Managed to piss it all away in five years. If that's not an object lesson in the idea that you can't just take money from the rich and give it to the poor, and expect it solve everything, I don't know what is.

Took my step-son to play snooker earlier tonight. He only turned 14 last week and due to the age restrictions most places impose it’s only the second time I’ve been able to take him to play on a full size table.

 

Stood outside afterwards waiting for Mrs Turdseye to pick us up and I asked him if he enjoyed himself and if it made him appreciate why I’ve said a few times that if we were to ever win the lottery, I’d be happy for his mum to choose the location and size of the house we live in so long as I get a snooker room.

 

His reply? “If I won it, I’d be wary of being one of those people that blow all the money and end up as a heroin addict”

 

Cracked me up. This is a kid who won’t even have a swig of beer because he doesn’t like it after I gave him a single bottle of WKD a year or two ago and it gave him a hangover.

[G Richards]

It’s not mine, I read it. It doesn’t say all either.

Plus you won’t be moaning when he buys us.

Fingers crossed.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/globe-wealth/eroding-family-fortunes-how-the-cycle-can-be-broken/article33757468/

 

Some people manage to lose it all in one generation, history is replete with examples.

So, the 90% claim comes from one study in the USA?

 

Among the causes of the phenomenon are taxes, inflation, bad investment decisions and the natural dilution of assets as they are shared among generations of heirs.

 

Yet among the most compelling causes are younger family members who are ill-prepared or unwilling to shoulder the responsibility of wealth stewardship.

 

 

A key point in Why We Can't Afford The Rich is that the over-financialised neoliberal economies of the West - especially the UK and USA - both before and after the crash protect the rich from these sort of hazards: taxes and inflation are kept low; "investment" means buying financial products, land or buildings, in an economy rigged to keep the prices of those assets high; deriving income simply by owning assets means however stupid or indolent the offspring, the bastard stays rich.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

https://novaworkboard.wordpress.com/2017/04/14/the-role-of-inheritance-in-wealth-inequality/

 

A central fact of social life is that when someone dies, any assets they have managed to accumulate during their lifetime is left behind. Social rules dictate that the property of the deceased rightfully belongs to the family members, which creates an enormous bias of economic distribution towards those born into wealthy families. Strictly based on fortuitous genetics, offspring of well-off families inherit money and assets, as well as traits that influence their ability to further accumulate wealth (like orientation towards the future, work ethic, school attainment, etc.). Recent evidence on the intergenerational correlation of incomes suggests that parental income and wealth are strong predictors of the likely economic status of the next generation: a son born in the top decile has a 22,9% chance of attaining the top decile, whereas a son of the poorest decile’s chance of attaining the top decile is only 1,3%. There is more evidence that validates the concept of inheritance privilege, like the fact that those who receive an inheritance are more likely to own a home than those who do not (regardless of the size of the inheritance) ...

 

The prevalent meritocratic rhetoric idolises the “self-made” man... Although these magnates are perceived by many as the epitome of meritocracy, a recent study shows that that often isn’t the case. The study estimated that more than 20% of the moguls in the Forbes 400 list had inherited sufficient wealth to make the list without accounting for their current businesses, and almost all had inherited businesses or large amounts of money and assets, with only 30% coming from a lower or middle-class background. This unequal distribution of opportunities allows the heirs of unearned streams of income to collect returns and further accumulate wealth, widening the inheritance disparity...

 

Research in the UK confirms that inherited wealth will likely play a more important role in determining the lifetime economic resources of younger generations, due to a higher level of wealth of the elderly generations paired with the increased difficulty younger generations face in accumulating wealth of their own, which creates implications on social mobility and wealth inequality.

Inheriting large sums of wealth and then using them to generate even more unearned wealth is the exact opposite of meritocracy, and it tends to give lasting, disproportionate importance to inequalities created in the past (Piketty, 2013)...

[TheHowieLama]

Well, uh.... yea -- also - I bet if your Dad is 6' 6" and a pro basketball player you have a better chance of being  6' 6" and a pro basketball player than the average fella -- am I right?

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Well, uh.... yea -- also - I bet if your Dad is 6' 6" and a pro basketball player you have a better chance of being 6' 6" and a pro basketball player than the average fella -- am I right?

That's genetics. Economics is different.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

It'd be interesting to see what this study means when they talk about inheritors losing fortunes. If somebody accumulates a billion pounds and their wastrel child fritters away 99% of it, the grandchild still inherits 10 million; by any reasonable standard, that's a fucking big inheritance.

[s(k)aturation]

It'd be interesting to see what this study means when they talk about inheritors losing fortunes. If somebody accumulates a billion pounds and their wastrel child fritters away 99% of it, the grandchild still inherits 10 million; by any reasonable standard, that's a fucking big inheritance.

 

 

And I thought prodigal was a good word.

[Rico1304]

We know footballers regularly go bankrupt (60% within 5 years of quitting) much worse for American footballers and basketball players.

[Section_31]

The lottery thing doesn't work for me because in my opinion inequality isn't about money it's about life chances.

 

If that lottery scruff had been higher class he's have had the money topped up once it was all gone and would probably be a sitting member of the house of lords.

 

George Osborne is notoriously economically illiterate and sits on the advisory board of a bank one day a week for 600 grand a year. He could never get a job as a journalist before he entered politics and is now the editor of a national news paper.

 

Once you're in a certain sphere you don't go broke.

[Rico1304]

It'd be interesting to see what this study means when they talk about inheritors losing fortunes. If somebody accumulates a billion pounds and their wastrel child fritters away 99% of it, the grandchild still inherits 10 million; by any reasonable standard, that's a fucking big inheritance.

What cap would you put on inheritance then?

[AngryOfTuebrook]

What cap would you put on inheritance then?

No need for a cap.

 

Decent regulations and progressive tax during people's lifetimes would limit the excess that they accumulate (and limit the damage that is done to the economy, society and the environment by that accumulation) and progressive rates of inheritance tax would help to limit the harmful effects of unearned income for their inheritors (especially if the tax collected is distributed in such a way to reduce inequality).

[SasaS]

Inequality is a fairly complex issue (well, duh) so even if you create a system which would take more money from the rich and redistribute it, you will have to face the problem of what it means "distribute it in such a way to reduce inequality". It will always come down to creating more opportunities, and there will always be privileges across the society. None of the former socialist countries had openly rich people and no super reach, they nominally had the system of equal opportunities in place and yet their societies were full of various, often hidden, limitations and privileges. There was a clear correlation between income and social status and school grades, achievable level of education etc.

 

I don't quite understand the point about economic damage, the underlying argument seems to always be about control, will you allow, I don't know, Jeff Bezos to continue making investment/business decisions, influence society and public opinion and perceptions, or would you take that control from him and give it to some public appointed official(s).

[Section_31]

Inequality is a fairly complex issue (well, duh) so even if you create a system which would take more money from the rich and redistribute it, you will have to face the problem of what it means "distribute it in such a way to reduce inequality". It will always come down to creating more opportunities, and there will always be privileges across the society. None of the former socialist countries had openly rich people and no super reach, they nominally had the system of equal opportunities in place and yet their societies were full of various, often hidden, limitations and privileges. There was a clear correlation between income and social status and school grades, achievable level of education etc.

 

I don't quite understand the point about economic damage, the underlying argument seems to always be about control, will you allow, I don't know, Jeff Bezos to continue making investment/business decisions, influence society and public opinion and perceptions, or would you take that control from him and give it to some public appointed official(s).

 

I agree there, the Soviet Union was no different, you will always have those with privilege and those without, each country/culture recognises different things as being worthy of being in the inner circle, with us it's the blue bloods, in the USSR it's those closest to the party.

 

To be honest I accept this kind of thing as a fact of life, but what I despise the fact our (Anglo Saxon Western) society more than most under the Tories is built on the pretense of every man stands or falls by his own decisions and hard work, so if you're wealthy it's because you're a grafter, and if you're poor it's because you're lazy or hapless. This then allows me as a privileged person to feel aloof and that the person below me is somehow deserving of their poverty. That's the bit I can't abide with.

 

Structure a society along nepotistic lines if you must, but just don't pretend it's anything but. At least allow those at the bottom to incur a little sympathy from time to time, rather than cultivating this idea of the 'deserving poor'.