The Meeting Place

The rich get richer …

The Richest 1% Now Own More Than 50% of the World’s Wealth according to Credit Suisse.

The richest 1% now owns more than half of all the world’s household wealth, according to analysts at Credit Suisse. And they say inequality is only going to get worse over the coming years, with millennials having a particularly tough time.

http://fortune.com/2017/11/14/credit-suisse-millionaires-millennials-inequality/

Thoughts?

11 comments

This may be true 

what’s also true is that billions have been lifted off poverty and the middle class today is far more comfortable than the middle class of previous generations 

of course the rich will get richer as they have far more disposable income to invest 

Good stable government that works in the interest of its people will improve their well being 

poverty rates are declining and focusing on how much money ultra wealthy have is an unhealthy distraction in my opinion 

everyone strives to build wealth in their productive years . The wealthy are no different 

"poverty rates are declining"?  where?  what is this 'rate' and how is it calculated?

credible evidence and references please.

According to these household surveys, 44% of the world population lived in absolute poverty in 1981. 

 

Since then, the share of poor people in the world has declined very fast—in fact, faster than ever before in world history. In 32 years, the share of people living in extreme poverty was divided by 4, reaching levels below 11% in 2013. Although the World Bank estimates for 2015 are not yet available, the projections suggest that the incidence of extreme poverty has fallen below 10% for that year.

 

https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty/

 

Shared via the Google app

 

 

Sent from my iPad

Thanks Brocky

kika - there is plenty more evidence - you just need to google 

Your normal response Raphael.  The reality is that the rich are getting richer because they are able to structure their financial affairs to avoid much tax and they have also received tax cuts from the current rich man's government.

Your attempt to look a some of the bottom avoids discussion that the world through technology has become much wealthier but the continued push to turn average citizens into working slaves is only getting worse.

Mybe go the US.  Sickening poverty along side of unjustified wealth.  It is not a fair system and the system is controlled by the top.  It surprises me not one iota that the top 1% own at least 50% of everything.  Trouble is they want 100% of everything.  If we did not have a population of sheep who are easily led the country would be run properly and there would be a fair distribution of the wealth.  Neither are currently happening!

Regarding the amount of wealth held by a few . 

Wealth is held by companies not individuals. 

So it comes down to investment is this better done by the free flow of capital seeking the best return world wide or states on 5 year plans . 

Individuals own companies.  Sometimes parts of companies.  Sometimes outright.

Free flow of capital is the same BS as 'Trickle Down Economics' and is meant to con those who are being fleeced.  

You support a two tiered system Brocky:  the rich and working slaves.  Go to America.  That's where you need to see the epitomy of slavery at work.  Quite sickening...and one the current government is working to copy here.  The stuff of soulless people mate!

 

 

100% correct, MICK. That's why we need a MINIMUM TAX for both companies and individuals, including Trust income allocated back to contributing individuals for taxing at individual rates.

I don't care if the wealthy get wealthier, just as long as they use some of that wealth to create jobs and opportunities for others in the community.

That is exactly what happens under a free market system.

To take an example of our richest woman her “ Wealth is held in investments in Companies . 

The majority in a new mining venture creating exports and agriculture also creating exports. 

So it’s a matter of allocating capital .

I believe this is best done by many minds seeking a return .

Rather than Socialism that rely on the State allocating capital  

Which whenever it gets involved with capital intensive business it tries to create a monopoly with poor outcomes IE NBN 

There is a role for the State I believe as in what NSW is doing . 

That is recycling assetts to create new ones to improve subsidies assetts such as public transport .

We need to separate the propaganda from the facts.  Please note:  RICH PEOPLE CREATE JOBS FOR PROFIT.  They do not create jobs for society and if there is no money in it then they will bank any money they make.  This is the lie in Trickle Down Economics which is money handed to the already rich to put into their bank accounts.  The American experience has proven this and I defy Brocky or anyone else to show otherwise.

MICK, of course rich people create jobs for profit, just as we invest our retirement funds for profit.  The Trikle Down Theory definatley does not work, if you apply the governments strategy of proping up industry with taxpayers money.

Where it does work is where the labour market becomes part of the free economy and time is regarded in the same way as any other resource.  The labour market is consolidated and when industry needs labour it negotiates with the labour representatives to provide wages and conditions acceptable to the people providing the labour.

Big business should never be subsidised with tax payers money, let's face it, if your business needs to be subsidised, you probably should not be in business.

It is almost a sure bet that not much of the money given to Big Business by MT will find its way back into the Australian economy.

I a not sure what the trickle down theory is — 

We are simply faced with the best use of available capital at a society level. 

Free enterprise with the profit motive as reward for risk has achieved raising most people out of poverty .

On an individual level I believe in personal responsibility to the degree that gives you contentment,

For me this means taking responsiblity to the capital I have accumulated after a life of work to provide me with a life I enjoy without relying on the State.

Don't we all try to build our wealth and legally minimise our tax?

Yes we do, but it seems to be too easy for companies to legally do this and export profits out of the country.  Just because something can be done legally does not mean it should be done.

Unfortunately we need wealthy people because they can  create busimesses so they can empploy people. I do not mind people are wealthy so long as they give portions of their earnings to charity such as  Dick Smith amd the like, Just as importantly pay their tax

I'd suggest that this article has been put up as yet another classic case of 'come in spinner'.

As far back as we have records (some of which could be suss) indicates mankind has ever - and will always - have rich and poor. To be sure, you can bet your last dollar that the rich, being the minority, will forever hold most of the wealth. Reasoning the whys and wherefores will effect little change to this long established fact. In more than a few responses to previous articles I've been known to regularly lambast the 'fat cats', I have also on odd occassion had cause to have a poke at the poor. 

Justification of why a select few are singled out for fame or fortune over the multitudes that aren't (and never likely to be) has proven to be an utter waste of both time and effort. And yet, I'd defy anyone - ANYONE - to deny a secret wish or openly expressed desire to be 'better off' than their current circumstance, fools and liars aside. I've personally known millionaires, indeed even a multi millionaire whose sole motivation/desire is to double their money. Maybe it's something about the nature of the beast that provokes them to think and act the way they do yet when questioned about their motives a seemingly inane (to me) reply like "I don't look for money or wealth it just seems to follow me" is proffered.  You're welcome to make sense of that and if you can, then be kind enough to share with the rest of us. Remember that to the poor soul 'down on their luck' - and the last grand in their wallet - will yet envy their fortunate peers with 2 grand in their kitty and so on up the greasy pole.

This subject will ever and always seemingly touch a raw nerve and that of itself may go some little way to understanding ourselves and our respective response(s) whenever this beast rears its ugly head.

If fair Fortuna casts but a fleeting glance our way isn't it fair to say most become enthralled ?

MD,

I am possibly a "fool" but I have no wish to be better off than I am.  I am utterly content.

I don't envy the wealthy in any way ... and as for a person to be defined by their wealth !!!

When I was a very young woman I lived with the trappings of extreme wealth ... servants ... the lot.  And I can say in all honesty that I was no more happy nor satisfied with my life than I am today.

Good for you Twila. I doubt you're a fool, (forgive my generalizations) equally happy for your contentedness and dare I suggest - perhaps rich in spirit.

Thank you for your kind words, MD.

 

Hey MD

Agree with this and I quote "And yet, I'd defy anyone - ANYONE - to deny a secret wish or openly expressed desire to be 'better off' than their current circumstance, fools and liars aside."

I would like to have a truck load more money, not for myself I might add since I'm pretty OK. I happen to get a kick out of giving things away and my passion is sailing so a school for little sailors would be great in my book. 

 

 

Hiya RnR

The fabric of our economy consists of a public sector and a private sector. The public sector needs the private sector to support it. That means therefore if the private sector is weak, tax revenue will fall and the government wil have to borrow a lot more to provide infrastructure.. We need rich people to invest their money. It does have a trickle down effect, contrary to what some might think. What we need in Oz is our government to make sure those vast conglomerates that are getting away with paying minimal tax have their wings clipped.

A good healthy economy needs risk takers, and, you can’t be a risk taker if you are poor. We need the rich for that. We need entrepreneurs, people who have the nous to start a business and stick with it, and when they start to  prosper, we don’t cut them down like a tall poppy. It’s in everyone’s best interest when people succeed,  because without them and their money there would be fewer jobs and greater poverty.

Michs what role do you think the public sector should take .

The only way for the poor to get ahead is to take risks.  Most poor people who became wealthy did so by taking risks.  A lot of of the worlds wealthiest people started with nothing.  And a lot of the worlds greediest people inherited their wealth from Daddy and Mummy, and did little to deserve it.

I admire those who did well for themselves, not so much those who were given their success.

Governments role is to monitor all and ensure they pay their fair share.

The poor take "risks" with other people's money and when it doesn't work out some go to the wall. There are over 55 filed bankruptcies a day in Australia.

Risk taking is not the only way to get ahead. It takes drive and vision and unfortunately some have more vision than drive.

When a huge company runs out of working capital and issues a share release, whose money are they risking?

A small business needs capital and borrows from a bank, whose money are they risking?

If you have no fortune to draw on and you borrow money to power your drive and vision, you are taking a risk.  If you think that you have drive and vision but are not willing to take that drive and vision to the next level by taking a risk, maybe you haven't the drive you thought you had.  History is littered with people who have had good ideas, but not the drive and courage to follow through with them.

Risk taking may not be the only way of getting ahead, but I would think it is the most common.  In any case risk can be managed, I prefer to think along the lines of risk management rather than risk aversion.  I have seen many good ideas go down the drain because mediocre managers can not make the distinction.

Whenever you borrow or lend money there is a risk . When you borrow money to buy a house from others savings via a institution you risk that the money will not be called in. 

The US exceeds al, others in organising risk capital via venture capitalists to fund start ups and the world benefits by turning garage Ventures into new economy companies.

On a local level I never understand why people say they would rather accept a low return on savings with a bank rather than buy that same banks shares for a higher return . 

Brocky, it comes again down to risk aversion and risk management.  Too many people have been taught to avoid any type of risk, rather than to identify the risk and manage it.

Risk assessement should be taught in schools, at least to a level where a student can identify the difference between a high risk low probability outcome or a low risk high probability outcome.  If you get hit by a falling piece of space junk you will in all probability die, but the chances of being hit are improbable/imposable, whereas the chances of being hit by falling rain at some stage is not going to cause much harm, but is entirely likely. 

Do we govern our days by giving much thought as to whether any of these things may occur, or do we mitigate the efect of one by carrying an umbrella when it is likely to rain, and give little or no thought to the other?

I entirely agree. 

We could have a continuing conversation where because of our age/experience our successes and failures in risk management 

Having been married three times I could offer a wealth of risk management advise in this area. 

 

 

Many businesses fail because of poor management...

One must know.. down to the last dollar.. where the money in a business is coming from and where it’s going in order for their business to succeed especially in the early days.

A business can also fail if one does not have a contingency funding plan.."poor" people rarely have such a contingency plan to fall back on in times of financial crisis..

Sometimes.. people start businesses with a dream of making money but don’t have the skill or interest to manage cash flow.. taxes.. expenses and other financial issues. Poor accounting practice puts a business on a path straight to failure.

Yes..one can have a lot of "vision" as you mentioned Reagan but not quite what it takes to carry it through.. and when they find that out they are already up to their necks in trouble...



Brocky, as a person who worked in government procurement for 15 years, I was constantly using Risk Assessement and Management in order to inform the people who held the purse strings as to the viability and value for money  aspects of spending tax payers money.  I saw many good projects go down the drain because of peoples inbuilt aversion to risk of any kind.

Simply a case of a little knowledge being dangerous in the wrong hands.  Unfortunatley we seem to reward our Top Public Servants and Politicians for not making mistakes and not for good performance.

It seems that for every good idea there are a few people who will try and shut it down either because it wasn't their idea or they don't want to take the slightest chance that they would be associated with a failure.  It would not be so bad if they thought about the risk and tried to find solutions with which to manage them, but invariably it would be a case of this has a risk attached, so shoot the idea down.

I have been married twice and did not apply Risk Management strategies to either, I guess in the heart department I am a fatalist.

Once again I agree ..

Public sector is a drain on the economy

it should be as small as possible, provide only essential services and ensure proper governance and implementation of policy directives

unfortunately governments particularly left wing governments use it to boost employment for political gain . This has a detrimental effect on economic growth 

In priclple I agree . 

However what do you consider essential services and 

1. Could. They be better provided by free enterprise 

2 are we best spending on “essential services “ 

or could we better spending the taxes we pay.

2 essential services that immediately come to mind are the military and policing services

Don’t believe these should be  privatized 

The “Military ”require equipment which is provided by the private sector , 

I don’t agree with this be politisied . 

For example we are spending billions on submarines to be built in South Austrlia . 

This was to save Christophier Pynes seat .

We should have bought off the shelf and put the billions saved into our pensioners .

Military equipment should be out to tender to obtain the best fit for purpose 

military personnel should be employed and managed by government 

2 separate issues Brocky 

When the Brits who have an economy three times our size ,felt they had the need for nuclear subs armed with intercontinental nuclear weapons they did not reinvent the wheel .

They used US technology and leased the weapons .Today they go to the US to rearm and test . 

If we felt the need to have submarines we need long range we should have leased nuclear from the States . 

Personaly I don’t think submarines are our best spend .

No way to prevent bad governments from making bad decisions .

perhaps an independent governance public sector arm is required to hold these bastards accountable 

requres a serious revisit of the constitution 

We cannot have a strong Government with the current constitution 

We should take the best from two other Westminster systems .

From NZ and UK make Parliment supreme no written constitution to be interpreted by lawyers .

From NZ no upper house ,

From UK devolution of power to the States .

From UK voluntary voting and first passed the post.

Yes Raph they are .But we are talking about the best spend of our Tax and could we save to better spend on those in need. 

Did you enjoy that conversation with Raphael/Brocky/Raphael?

I wonder if the concept of "trickle down intelligence" will be a thing in the future? 

ROFLMBO !

Maybe it will, but from what I have seen, it will be a long time before the intelligence at the so called top will be in such abundance that will wil start to over flow and trickle any where.

ex, you make it sound like all the financially unsuccessful people are the intelligent group? I disagree. One of the reasons why people are successful is because they share their ideas, which is what I see as a transfrence of intelligence. One cannot have a successful idea if it is kept a secret.

Once again I have to agree with you Frank and I quote you...

"One of the reasons why people are successful is because they share their ideas, which is what I see as a transfrence of intelligence."

Not only is it important to work as a team but to have a talented leader who has the ability to trasmit his/her ideas to other members of the team..to me this is one of the most valuable assets in any company..


Frank from what I have written I can not see where you would draw the conclusion that you have.  People who are unsuccsessful come from diverse backgrounds I have seen people from rich backgrounds run the family business into the ground, I have seen people with multiple degrees who have to retire on the Pension, I have also had friends who battled all their lives keeping businesses afloat only to be left with nothing at the end of it.

What I posted was a reply to your question about intelligence trickling down in the future.  You have obviously identified a deficiency in that area as you alluded to it as being in the future.  I would like to see an open minded culture of letting intelligence flow both ways, a good leader should not be above taking on board advice from below.

Other than that yes I agree one can learn more about most subjects by sharing ideas and solutions with their peers than attending lectures or reading a book.  These things are exelant for giving you the basics, but personal interaction will always produce results in fertile minds.

As long as the rich are helping the world become better I don't mind, take Elon Musk for example. Hopefully the next generation of wealthy will do more for the poor and start paying taxes instead of using tax havens which rob many countries of wealth.

musicveg, you've highlighted the real issue I think. The question is who has the best intentions for humanity when it becomes a matter of spending other people's money. Can we trust the governments to spend our tax dollars wisely? Regardless of our level of wealth. Would any government on Earth be as philanthropic as Musk? Or any other "rich" person?

 Here's a short list..

Known giving over $100m

Fairfax family – over $97m in total giving via Vincent Fairfax Family Foundation since 1962; Tim Fairfax gives over $3m per annum through Tim Fairfax Family Foundation including $1m+ to National Portrait GalleryChuck Feeney – c. $500m in Australian giving via Atlantic Philanthropies. Recent giving includes $4m to University of Tasmania (2012)Andrew and Nicola Forrest – joined The Giving Pledge in 2013, pledging to give away half their wealth, making them the first Australians to pledge giving billions of dollars. Giving to date includes c. $80m in company shares to Australian Children’s Trust (2007), $2m to the launch of the Australian Employment Covenant/Generation One initiative on indigenous employment, and a further $50m in shares to various charities in 2011 plus a further $5m in shares to Murdoch University and four WA performing arts organisations, and a $3m cash donation to complete the Art Gallery of WA's $25m campaign. Donations in 2013 include $1m to the Salvation Army.John Kinghorn – Established Kinghorn Foundation in 2005 with $300 million, $25m to Garvan Institute (2009)Myer Family – $179m in total giving to 2012, via the Myer Foundation and Sidney Myer Fund, not counting additional giving by Myer family members via their own foundations and PAFs. Recent giving includes a $10m gift from the Myer Foundation, the Ian Potter Foundation, and Martyn and Louise Myer to the University of Melbourne (2013)Clive Palmer – $100m for medical research and remote WA communities (2008), $6m to Duke of Edinburgh Awards Program (2010)Estate of Sir Ian Potter – Over $170m in total giving since 1964, including $15m to the National Gallery of Victoria (2000), $8m to the Australian Ballet (2010), $15m to the Peter McCallum Cancer Foundation (2012), and $10m to fund the Ian Potter Concert Hall at Monash University (2013)Talbot Family – Bequest from Ken Talbot to Talbot Family Foundation of c. $300m (2010)

Known giving over $50m

Estate of William Buckland – the William Buckland Foundation distributes around $5m per annum, with total giving to 2010 reaching $74mGates Foundation – over $50m in Australian giving, including $12.4m to UNSW (2008), $9.7m to Murdoch University (2004), $8.7m to George Institute (2007), $5m to Australian International Health Institute (2004), $4.4m to QUT (2009), $2.9m to QUT (2008), $2.9m to Walter and Eliza Hall Institute (2007), $2m to University of Queensland (2008), $4m to University of Queensland (2013)Lowy Family – $10m to UNSW for the Lowy Cancer Centre (2007), c. $15m to sport and Jewish causes in 2005, $30m to create Lowy Institute for International Policy (2003)Graham and Louise Tuckwell – $50m to ANU for a scholarship fund (2013)Greg Poche – $40m to melanoma research (2005) and $20m to indigenous health (2008, 2010)

The difference is that politicians use the money as a bribe to get reelected, where as these philanthropists are spending their money wisely.

But also are they not avoiding tax by making all these donations? Some of them are questionable too, depending on where the money actually ends up, but it is a good start I guess.

The sums mentioned are paultry when you look at the billions that governments spend on the disadvantaged, you can look at the percentage of available money spent or the amount spent per capita, either way government spends a lot more.  The difference of course is that the government is not spending its own money because it has no money of its own.

Depends what you mean by disadvantaged.

I am happy to give up part of my wages to give to those who through no fault of there own are in need. 

But I do not believe in middle class or corporate welfare that is inefficient use of my wages and destroys personal responsiblity .

 

Thank you for that list Frank..I have the greatest respect for people who use their money to benefit others...or give their services for free...

My feeling is we should certainly encourage them and acknowledge their contributions..hopefully their actions will encourage other wealthy people to follow suit...



Fluer, I agree, we should be known as a nation which encourages people to lend a hand to their neighbour. A nation which appluads those on the above list, they should not be ridiculed and abused but examplary of the spirit of this great country. 

11 comments



To make a comment, please register or login

Preview your comment