| Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Are you one of the worlds wealthiest 1%/ | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jan 19 2015, 04:57 PM (888 Views) | |
| Tytoalba | Jan 19 2015, 04:57 PM Post #1 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Are you one of the worlds wealthiest 1% or even one of the worlds wealthiest top 5% ? We do hear a great deal about the poor in this country, with the demands that the truly rich should pay more tax, but are YOU one of the worlds rich? If your annual income is just £24,000 a year YOU are in the top 1% wealthiest in the world, and if your annual income is £15,000 a year, then you are in the top 5% I doubt that there is one active socialist on this board who is not on the worlds rich list. Welcome to the rich list.
|
![]() |
|
| Replies: | |
|---|---|
| papasmurf | Jan 21 2015, 08:25 AM Post #41 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You can't see the mistake either. |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Jan 21 2015, 09:37 AM Post #42 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
What's your point PS? No one else seems to misunderstand what I posted |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Jan 21 2015, 09:52 AM Post #43 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It appears most of you are. There are NOT 30 million people in Britain getting £25100 or more income as is being stated. |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Jan 21 2015, 09:58 AM Post #44 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
No but seems there is but one person mistakenly thinking that was what was stated I'll state it again "30 million workers in the UK and across that group their average salary is greater than that £25,100" Anyone else want to suggest that means I'm saying they all earn over £25,100? |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Jan 21 2015, 12:41 PM Post #45 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I do not see the point of such a narrow dispute over the meaning of such numbers? Britain is relatively speaking, quite a rich country and is, again relatively speaking, extremely generous to those in the lower income groups. This is particularly true if there are children, here you can be paid the NMW. but with all credits (Welfare) can come out with an income > than the national average wage. Many in the EU see our problem with immigration as basically one of far too much welfare generosity. All of these claims that the UK is mean spirited towards the less well off are bogus, unless of course you have a very narrow minded twisted political agenda. |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Jan 21 2015, 12:58 PM Post #46 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Not according to evidence given this morning to the Works and Pensions Committee, for which until the transcript is published the only link is this video of the proceedings. http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=17020 |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Jan 21 2015, 01:10 PM Post #47 |
|
Deleted User
|
Maybe you can tell us whether the evidence pointed to the UK being less generous to lower income groups than Cambodia, Laos, Thailand,Malaysia,Bangladesh, Haiti,Congo,Ethiopia etc etc ? |
|
|
| papasmurf | Jan 21 2015, 01:15 PM Post #48 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Who cares RJD, because I don't, because it is a false argument. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Jan 21 2015, 01:17 PM Post #49 |
|
Deleted User
|
I'm not RJD and you obviously do because you posted a link in reply to his argument |
|
|
| RJD | Jan 21 2015, 01:43 PM Post #50 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
No synopsis so I will not be wasting my time following your links. |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Jan 21 2015, 01:50 PM Post #51 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Why are you referencing me? That said it is not false as my claim was a relative one and did not limit membership of the group. That said I am prepared to narrow my claim and state "relative to other EU countries". I will also be bold and claim "particularly so when children are involved". Truth is that when children are involved the UK is one of the most generous countries in the World. Unfortunately that generosity will not be recognised by those with a twisted political agenda that requires a complete denigration of all things British particularly during any period when the left have not got the whip hand. Face the truth Mr Smurf or if you like, without your links, show that this is not the case and point your finger at the country where welfare manna truly falls from the heavens. Try Switzerland. |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Jan 21 2015, 01:58 PM Post #52 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I can't do shorthand RJD, so you will just have to wait for the transcript but like the references and charts I have posted over the years showing Britain is not generous with benefits compared to our near European neighbours you won't read or look at that either. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Jan 21 2015, 02:01 PM Post #53 |
|
Deleted User
|
Well the OP was about our wealth relative to the rest of the world. Is this thread going to be highjacked by any chance? |
|
|
| RJD | Jan 21 2015, 02:03 PM Post #54 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well at the other place I pointed out the OECD findings based on very detailed analysis of the groups, which showed the UK for that group with children as being the 2nd most generous. I am sure that if you concentrated a little you could glean sufficient to show what it is you hang your claims on? Until you are able to counter the claim then the UK is a very generous country in EU relative terms stands. Well it stands uncorrected by you. |
![]() |
|
| Affa | Jan 21 2015, 02:08 PM Post #55 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I believe it is already established that out of work benefits in France and Germany are a lot higher than than those in the UK. If we only aspire to be to better than Ethiopia or Bangladesh then we of course are a relatively generous State. |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Jan 21 2015, 02:58 PM Post #56 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
No it has not. You also need to factor in a number of caveats and break out the individual groups "single" and "single with children" and "partners" and "partners with children". Then you have to recognise all sources of benefit. Check your facts and you will indeed find that the UK is not an ungenerous country. |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Jan 21 2015, 04:53 PM Post #57 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I have RJD and others her have, Full Fact has several times, it is you who needs to check your facts. Also other countries are not deliberately destituting claimants on a massive scale with benefit sanctions for spurious reasons like the current UK government is. (Evidence of an 80% target sanction rate for minor infractions given to the Work and Pensions Committee this morning.) Plus this research given as evidence as well:- Just for you to make it simple, the conclusions:- http://www.sociology.ox.ac.uk/materials/papers/sanction120115-2.pdf Conclusions Our study evaluated the impact of the rise in sanctioning that occurred following reforms to JSA conditionality and sanction regime from 2011. It has three main findings. First, the increasing application of adverse sanctions has corresponded to a substantial increase in persons exiting JSA. This relationship existed before the reforms, but the strength of association tripled under the new regime. Second, the majority of persons who lost JSA in association with an adverse sanction did not flow into employment but to destinations unrelated to work. Third, we failed to find an effect of the increasing application of adverse sanctioning and either rising employment or falling unemployment rates within local authorities. As with all observational and aggregate analyses, our study has several limitations. First, our study was at the level of local authority, creating potential for ecological fallacies. It was not possible to access data at the individual level on sanction referrals or employment and welfare outcomes, since such data are not tracked by Jobcentre Plus offices. However, the advantage of the cross-area analysis is that it accounts for the economic context in which sanctioning is applied, avoiding individualistic fallacies (23), of particular importance in a period of job scarcity. Second, sanctioning rates could include multiple rounds of the same individual being sanctioned. Since our study was based on the monthly period, however, the numbers involved in any given month are likely to represent different individuals. For persons who receive repeat sanctions, the period of benefit withdrawal is, at minimum, one month, so it is unlikely that our results are driven by repeat offenders. We also had specificity in our findings, in that non-adverse and cancelled sanction decisions were not associated with exit from JSA, while there was a significant association with adverse sanction decisions. Third, it is possible that our observation of a null finding between sanctioning and employment and unemployment rates in local authorities is due to the sampling error resulting from the estimates being based on small samples for each area in the Annual Population Survey or because the analysis was limited to quarter-on-quarter changes in rates for 12 month periods. However, we found statistically significant and qualitatively similar findings with regard to the association of sanctions and claimant counts calculated on this basis. Fourth, although the data on reasons for off-flow is subject to a constant rate of non- reporting, it is possible that persons who went to unknown destinations were actually in employment. This seems unlikely, however, given the market incentive for Jobcentre Plus offices to track claimants moving off JSA into work. There is a clear need to develop better monitoring systems for tracking what happens to persons who exit unemployment benefits, especially in light of the evidence of the growing disconnection between need and state support (5). A recent report by the House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee suggested that off-flow attributed to employment be instituted as a performance measure, rather than total-off flow counts (24). Fifth, we did not disentangle the intensity of sanctioning, ranging from a minimum of four weeks termination under a low-level sanction to up to a three year withdrawal under a high-level and repeat offence sanction. This longer lag could potentially dilute the associations we observed. Future studies are needed to investigate the differential consequences of sanctioning intensity in the UK. A final limitation is that, as with other studies, we did not evaluate a wider range of social costs of sanctioning, such as homelessness, hunger, depression, and suicide risk. There is a need for full cost-benefit analyses of sanctioning, including Health Impact Assessments and evaluation of the potential hidden and spill-over costs to other areas of welfare support. Taken together, our findings support claims that punitive use of sanctions is driving people away from social support. We were unable to assess reasons why this is so. However, studies have shown that individuals who are sanctioned and end up disconnected from work and welfare have lower human capital and other disadvantages that suggest they would face barriers to complying with the extensive conditions for receiving unemployment benefits (5, 15). As highlighted, the conditions for receiving unemployment benefit have become increasingly demanding in the UK. The frequent interview requirements and required hours of job search activity likely make it difficult for those with restricted access to transportation, a computer, and a mobile phone, and those with young children to meet requirements. Similarly, the rise in individuals receiving sanctions for failure to participate in the Work Programme has raised concern that current processes for evaluating the needs of benefit claimants are inadequate, potentially resulting in inappropriate placements (24). It is also possible that people choose to abandon a welfare system that they find de-humanising. In one widely publicised case, a man who made redundant was forced to go back to the same company, only to work for free under conditions of a community work placement (25). The use of sanctioning has been questioned on the basis of effectiveness and ethics (5). With respect to the former, our study adds to the literature that suggests while there is some evidence of a modest positive association between sanctioning and movement off welfare benefits into work, sanctioning also results in higher rates of disconnection from welfare and work (18). Further research is needed to understand the social consequences of disconnection from welfare and work, including potential risks of homelessness, hunger, and mental health problems. The incidence of these social harms is likely to limit any potential cost-savings from reducing unemployment benefit claimant rates. Our quantitative case-study of the UK has important policy implications. Across Europe and North America, governments are experimenting with conditionality and sanctioning policies. Using this quasi-natural experimental design of the UK’s harsh regime, we find a potentially large, hidden human cost that arises from persons flowing off unemployment benefit whilst remaining unemployed. There is a pressing need to institute evaluations not just of sanctioning programmes’ economic consequences but also of their human and social costs |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Jan 21 2015, 05:42 PM Post #58 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That paper is not a study of the welfare systems across Europe, if you had read and understood this you would know that it does not even attempt to affirm or otherwise my claim that the UK is a generous country in particular towards welfare payments to those who have children relative to other EU countries. Whilst the paper is interesting it appears to be another of your wild geese. Sh1t I have let him know that I sometimes exercise his links. |
![]() |
|
| Pro Veritas | Jan 21 2015, 06:13 PM Post #59 |
|
Upstanding Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yeah, wouldn't want the truth to intrude into your free-market fantasy now would we. All The Best |
![]() |
|
| Pro Veritas | Jan 21 2015, 06:14 PM Post #60 |
|
Upstanding Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
should hang our heads in shame? Sorry for the crop of your post, but I feel the point needed to be made. All The Best |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Jan 21 2015, 06:44 PM Post #61 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Of course not, but let me know when you are going to put some truth up and I will go and hide. You can give me plenty of notice if you like. |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Jan 21 2015, 07:04 PM Post #62 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
And no mention of 600,000 deaths? |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Jan 21 2015, 07:47 PM Post #63 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That is isn't but it does prove your continual use of the word "generous" when it comes to Benefits in Britain is just plain wrong. |
![]() |
|
| LillyBee | Jan 22 2015, 02:40 PM Post #64 |
![]()
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
All the years that I lived there and I assume it is still the same, that there were enough different excellent restaurants to eat out every evening for a year if one wanted to however I can't imagine that. Art is everywhere, in the office buildings even on the streets and I think that is what increased my interest in it. One can find nice people everywhere except NYC. A long lost friend of mine who is now deceased used to say "I know when I am home, when someone closes the door in my face" lol Ahhh but there are nice people there too, I take it back!! I have found when I meet someone new, if I bring up Chicago there is something to talk about. The Cubs too. It seems everyone has lived there or visited with lovely memories. |
![]() |
|
| LillyBee | Jan 22 2015, 02:48 PM Post #65 |
![]()
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
On one of my Daughters trips to Chicago she brought me back what they call a large 'coffee table book' title Chicago then and now by Elizabeth McNulty. As one opens it, on the left side of the page is what it looked like and the history way back when and the opposite side the current history and pictures. I really cherish it. |
![]() |
|
| Affa | Jan 22 2015, 03:54 PM Post #66 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
We happened into an open air wedding, beautiful people in beautiful clothes, and a Cinderella coach complete with white mane prancing horses ......... it just all seemed so perfect ......... and so natural that it is easy to imagine it a place without grief. |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Jan 22 2015, 04:16 PM Post #67 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
No it is not as it is used in a relative sense and relative to other EU countries, and the ROW for that matter, the UK is an extremely generous country. Pity those that benefit from such generosity do not have sufficient humility to recognise that fact. Why is it that the Usuals are genetically wired whingers who are incapable of seeing any good anywhere, unless of course -----. |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Jan 22 2015, 04:21 PM Post #68 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I recall landing in O'Hare in winter years ago and nearly died from the cold whilst queueing for a Taxi. It was cold, very cold and the windchill nearly took ones nose off. Whilst I was there an old woman was found in her apartment frozen like a block of ice. Not been since. It was warmer in Moscow in Helsinki and 71 degrees north in Norway. |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Jan 22 2015, 07:11 PM Post #69 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Clever idea for a book. I thought Chicago would be a dump when we stopped there on route to and back from the Indianapolis 500 in 2008. It very much isn't. Fascinating and accessible place so had to go back and see it again a couple of years later. And it was still good. Everyone who can should see Chicago. Edited by Steve K, Jan 22 2015, 07:12 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Jan 22 2015, 08:06 PM Post #70 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
So I and others providing the links and data proving you wrong about that over the last several years have been wasting our time, plus you are not factoring the benefit cuts of the last three years into the equation. |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Jan 23 2015, 04:15 PM Post #71 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You have not done that Mr Smurf, you might think you have but that is another matter. I provided a detailed analysis by OECD, at the other place, which showed that the UK is/was, relatively speaking, extremely generous especially when children are involved. You are free to put up your evidence to disprove such and no I will not follow any of your BS links, so make your case if you are able. Otherwise as far as I am concerned your claims are just an unsubstantiated whinge. |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Jan 23 2015, 05:22 PM Post #72 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Just had a quick peek at the OECD more recent analysis and find: that while France is still the biggest “social” spender, the US comes in a close second. Meanwhile, the UK effectively ties with Denmark for fourth place. Source: Social Expenditure Update (Nov-14) OECD Now if Mr Smurf wish to concentrate on that which the State contributes directly then he will get some egg on his face. Repeat the British State is not ungenerous. I am sure Mr Smurf is well aware that many EU countries do not have a national Housing Benefit system equivalent to that in the UK where benefits are paid not only to those that are unemployed but to those on lowish incomes as well. It is worth repeating the fact that a man with a partner with two children who is paid the NMW can end up with an income that is equivalent to the National Average Wage or more. Time that Mr Smurf stopped the whinging and did some proper research. |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Jan 23 2015, 05:27 PM Post #73 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Also worth adding: Some of the biggest spenders, including France, Italy, Austria, Portugal, and Spain, actually direct more of their welfare spending to people in the top fifth of the income distribution than they do people in the bottom fifth. By contrast, Australia and Canada turn out to be among the most progressive. The UK is another country that spends very little of its welfare on those who need it the least. |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Jan 23 2015, 05:50 PM Post #74 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
So not only is the UK, relatively speaking, a generous country towards those considered in need of welfare support it also is one of those countries that best targets those in genuine need. |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Jan 23 2015, 07:20 PM Post #75 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The UK is targeting those in genuine need RJD, to the point nationally over a million of them have disappeared:- http://www.sociology.ox.ac.uk/materials/papers/sanction120115-2.pdf http://www.southwales-eveningpost.co.uk/Hain-s-horror-figures-reveal-JSA-sanctioned-don-t/story-25900701-detail/story.html Hain's horror as figures reveal four in five who have JSA sanctioned "don't find work" By RachelSWEP | Posted: January 22, 2015 NEATH MP Peter Hain has expressed his horror that four in every five individuals who have job seeker benefits sanctioned, don’t find work. The figures have been released in a report from the University of Oxford and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, which was presented to MPs yesterday. The report looks at individuals who have been removed from Jobseekers Allowance, and what happens to them next with 43% subsequently ceasing to try to claim the benefit and only 20% of those who left stating that they had found work. The authors of the report have called for a full cost-benefit analysis that looks not just narrowly at employment but at the hidden social costs of sanctions. Raising the figures in the House of Commons Mr Hain said: “It does accord with the experience of far too many of my Neath constituents being treated in this diabolically punitive way. “These people are disappearing from the Jobseekers system but they are not disappearing from our communities, so instead of the welfare system providing the safety net they are turning to other services like the NHS or living in poverty and relying on Foodbanks which could be costing us more in the long run. “‘If only a fifth of these people have gone on to find work then well over a thousand have been lost from the system and this is deeply worrying. “It also raises serious doubts over the accuracy of the unemployment statistics if people are simply disappearing from the JSA figures.”NEATH MP Peter Hain has expressed his horror that four in every five individuals who have job seeker benefits sanctioned, don’t find work. The figures have been released in a report from the University of Oxford and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, which was presented to MPs yesterday. The report looks at individuals who have been removed from Jobseekers Allowance, and what happens to them next with 43% subsequently ceasing to try to claim the benefit and only 20% of those who left stating that they had found work. The authors of the report have called for a full cost-benefit analysis that looks not just narrowly at employment but at the hidden social costs of sanctions. Raising the figures in the House of Commons Mr Hain said: “It does accord with the experience of far too many of my Neath constituents being treated in this diabolically punitive way. “These people are disappearing from the Jobseekers system but they are not disappearing from our communities, so instead of the welfare system providing the safety net they are turning to other services like the NHS or living in poverty and relying on Foodbanks which could be costing us more in the long run. “‘If only a fifth of these people have gone on to find work then well over a thousand have been lost from the system and this is deeply worrying. “It also raises serious doubts over the accuracy of the unemployment statistics if people are simply disappearing from the JSA figures.” Edited by papasmurf, Jan 23 2015, 07:21 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| RJD | Jan 24 2015, 08:43 AM Post #76 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Mr Smurf your response in no way effects my claim wrt to the UK (State) being a relatively generous. Stick to the point. I am sure you are going to love this one:
IDS claims that his welfare reforms are at the root of the UK's jobs miracle. IDS up for a Sainthood or maybe just a lowly Knighthood. and this:
Seems that the Voters tend to agree with them, but as we saw in Germany in the 1930s the Voters don't always back the right horse. LINK |
![]() |
|
| johnofgwent | Jan 24 2015, 09:33 AM Post #77 |
|
It .. It is GREEN !!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
![]() It is clear this topic has drifted far from the original claim that those in receipt of a relatively modest UK salary are amongst the wealthiest on the planet. I see little point in allowing the diatribe to continue topic closed. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2



![]](http://z5.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)





2:32 PM Jul 11