LeSving wrote:
Inheritance of disproportional amounts of wealth by a few is choking the economy and seriously preventing opportunities for others.
That’s sort of where I am coming, but I might come a little further down the bell curve.
Let me tell you of a friend of ours who was born into abject physical, emotional, moral and intellectual poverty. When she was fifteen and one brother was in prison, another had joined the army to avoid prison and the third was begging for drugs on the streets, and her parents were encouraging her to get pregnant for the social security, she decided that this was not the life for her and, entirely off her own bat, with no assistance from anyone, got academic qualifications, got grants to go to university, then to go to Law School, then to go and work in Texas as a defender on Death Row, then to fund a pupilage, and now she is a fine, respected Human Rights barrister. I would not be surprised if she were Prime Minister one day.
Then I look at my kids. Bright, hard working and successful, but how would they have fared if they had been born with all her disadvantages? Would they have sunk or swum? Who knows, but why is it better that they are funded than her?
And is a meritocracy not better for wider society than an aristocracy?
LeSving wrote:
here everyone are born into this world with equal opportunities. Inheritance of disproportional amounts of wealth by a few is choking the economy and seriously preventing opportunities for others.
Sorry, I do not buy this. Individuals passing dynasties to kids is the tip of the iceberg. 1% own it all, whilst 99% are on a dwindling curve. in the UK specific, a salary of 64k is in the fourth quartile. You are nominally rich. To get into the 1% 84k will do it. The top of the 1% is like from here to Mars
This, IMO is the real villain and the sheeple lap it up.
BeechBaby wrote:
the sheeple
Do you feel that’s a proper expression?
When it comes to royal weddings, it seems perfectly apt.
BeechBaby wrote:
To get into the 1% 84k will do it.
64k of what to get into the top 25% of what?
84k of what to get into the 1% of what?
Source?
The individual income “inequality” is MUCH higher. Some official numbers.
36k of individual pre-tax income puts you into the top 25% of UK individual taxpayers
170k of individual pre-tax income puts you into the top 1% of UK individual taxpayers
31k of individual after-tax income puts you into the top 25% of UK individual taxpayers
114k of individual after-tax income puts you into the top 1% of UK individual taxpayers
However, very frequently income statistics are badly misused.
They exclude, and a lot of the discussion ignores, the reasons for a large part of the inequality
Most people think that 1 is-2 of the above are mostly fair, while there are a lot of people believe the items at the bottom are increasingly unfair.
Very often, these statistics are used in a way that implies that the main source of inequality are the last two, when in reality it is all five factors, and in the UK in particular the location is a huge driver. 50k annual income in Wales and you live like a king – albeit a quite wet one – while in parts of London you couldn’t afford a bedsit for that.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Do you feel that’s a proper expression?
Totally. Do you wish an dictionary definition? Park outside Tesco for an hour. Or for our European friends, Supermarche.
Cobalt wrote:
64k of what to get into the top 25% of what?Annual salary, gross.
No one mentioned inequality. It is just a fact of life. One factor to look at would be the actual statistics on inherited wealth. So Mr & Mrs Bognor Regis are left a house in Hull. house value 80k. Cant sell it, so rent it out. They get 450.00 a month. They then have to put half of that into maintaining the asset. Inherited wealth?
However Mr & Mrs Well to do, leave half of Surrey to the three kids, and a castle. Kids soon realise that the upkeep is untenable, what do we do. Try and sell it to Bobby Billionaire who adds it to his balance sheet.
Living in Scotland we see it constantly. Estates passed to Swiss educated kids, who actually don’t want it. Ruin the local eco system and move on to annoy someone else, generally in the BVI.
Unless you look at actual real stories, and take an analysis from them, there is a huge amount of BS surrounding the whole wealth, inheritance set up. One million today is actually loose change. The corporates are the real enemies of the State 
BeechBaby wrote:
Do you wish an dictionary definition?
I know perfectly well what it means, thank you. That’s why I object to its use.
BeechBaby wrote:
Annual salary, gross
So by salary you mean salary for employees (excluding contractors, self-employed) and excluding any other income?
Individual or household? Full-time or anybody?
Little changes over time
Airborne_Again wrote:
I know perfectly well what it means, thank you. That’s why I object to its use.
Sorry Airborne, I am a Trump supporter! 
Apologies if I upset you with the word.
