# Britain?s five richest families worth as much as poorest 20 per cent



## Black Wraith (Mar 17, 2014)

> UK?s five richest families have accumulated more wealth than the whole of the bottom 20 per cent of the population, with the gap between rich and poor continuing to grow, according to research published today.
> 
> The handful of billionaires ? which includes property investor Charles Cadogan and Sports Direct boss Michael Ashley ? have amassed a combined wealth of ?28.2bn, more than the poorest 12.6 million people in Britain, according to Oxfam.
> 
> ...



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...s-poorest-20-per-cent-says-oxfam-9195914.html


----------



## baconbits (Mar 17, 2014)

These kind of studies make a decent point but they're flawed: the top whatever percent will always grow their wealth more than people who have almost no wealth at all.  These people are so rich they can live off of a percentage of their growth; the poor people can barely live off of everything they have.

A better measure is median income.  That's falling and tends to fall more when more left leaning economic measures are instituted.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Mar 18, 2014)

Thatcher's sick Britain. 



baconbits said:


> These kind of studies make a decent point but they're flawed: the top whatever percent will always grow their wealth more than people who have almost no wealth at all.  These people are so rich they can live off of a percentage of their growth; the poor people can barely live off of everything they have.
> 
> A better measure is median income.  That's falling and tends to fall more when more left leaning economic measures are instituted.



How is that a flaw? It crystallises that very point and should inform the national discourse on matters like wealth and income taxation. 

What on Earth is a "left-leaning economic measure"?


----------



## Gino (Mar 18, 2014)

av said:


> Don't worry about it bro. Everyone's equal. Money doesn't matter. Being yourself is what matters. Live your life like you wanna!



Why does this sound like sarcasm.......


----------



## Rukia (Mar 18, 2014)

Another woe is me thread?  Give it a rest guys.


----------



## Gino (Mar 18, 2014)

I'm gone rob yo punkazz when I see you cuz.


----------



## SLB (Mar 18, 2014)

Kind of reminds me of a thread a while back. The one where the top 80 or so peeps in the world having more than half the world.


----------



## baconbits (Mar 19, 2014)

erictheking said:


> How is that a flaw? It crystallises that very point and should inform the national discourse on matters like wealth and income taxation.



Its a flaw because it doesn't really measure anything.  If me and four other guys each make a million dollars and we compared ourselves to Bill Gates we'd still look poor.  The measure of how a person lives is the cost of living versus median wages, not how much someone else is making.

In other words my life is more effected by the cost of heating my home than how much money the CEO of my company makes.

The arguments above also point out why income taxation doesn't affect poverty.



erictheking said:


> What on Earth is a "left-leaning economic measure"?



By "measure" I meant solutions.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Mar 19, 2014)

baconbits said:


> Its a flaw because it doesn't really measure anything.  If me and four other guys each make a million dollars and we compared ourselves to Bill Gates we'd still look poor.  The measure of how a person lives is the cost of living versus median wages, not how much someone else is making.
> 
> In other words my life is more effected by the cost of heating my home than how much money the CEO of my company makes.
> 
> The arguments above also point out why income taxation doesn't affect poverty.


It's an indication of the scale of wealth inequality. Not cost of living or anything else. I thought that was obvious. 

I can't make any sense of what you mean by "income taxation doesn't affect poverty". It would affect it in both relative and absolute terms if the taxes were differently redistributed.



> By "measure" I meant solutions.



You think median income is falling in the US because it has been economically left-wing for the last 35 years?


----------



## eHav (Mar 19, 2014)

erictheking said:


> It's an indication of the scale of wealth inequality. Not cost of living or anything else. I thought that was obvious.
> 
> I can't make any sense of what you mean by "income taxation doesn't affect poverty". It would affect it in both relative and absolute terms if the taxes were differently redistributed.
> 
> ...



that will never stop. these "studies" are pointless.


----------



## Sunuvmann (Mar 19, 2014)

That's pretty fucking quaint compared to America.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Mar 19, 2014)

eHav said:


> that will never stop. these "studies" are pointless.



What do you mean? What won't ever stop? As I said earlier, they serve a useful purpose in simply informing the public of the scale of wealth inequality. Public opinion polls show that many people's idea of the scale is wide of the mark of the reality.

I saw this story reported in all of the dailys. Millions and millions of voters will have read it.


----------



## Deputy Myself (Mar 19, 2014)

wow I have been informed, thanks


----------



## eHav (Mar 19, 2014)

erictheking said:


> What do you mean? What won't ever stop? As I said earlier, they serve a useful purpose in simply informing the public of the scale of wealth inequality. Public opinion polls show that many people's idea of the scale is wide of the mark of the reality.
> 
> I saw this story reported in all of the dailys. Millions and millions of voters will have read it.



the inequality. because owners of multi million corporations will always be a lot richer than the average joe. and those corporations will always be there


----------



## ez (Mar 20, 2014)

this article is lacking the dickensian aspect


----------



## kazuri (Mar 20, 2014)

It's ok. Even if they had 100% of the money it would be fine, the earned it, and unlimited capitalism is the only way to be free, it doesn't matter if hundreds of millions of people live terrible lives, because those people earned that money. Those companies earned the right to buy those limited resources from countries with people who didn't have any say in it, the companies had the money.


----------



## Gino (Mar 20, 2014)

kazuri said:


> It's ok. Even if they had 100% of the money it would be fine, the earned it, and unlimited capitalism is the only way to be free, it doesn't matter if hundreds of millions of people live terrible lives, because those people earned that money. Those companies earned the right to buy those limited resources from countries with people who didn't have any say in it, the companies had the money.



This better be sarcasm.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Mar 20, 2014)

Could be worse.


----------



## kazuri (Mar 20, 2014)

> Could be worse.



Don't worry, there is still time.


----------

