howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
this come up on another thread this report is from o.ec.d.
5/11/2011 - The gap between rich and poor in OECD countries has reached its highest level for over over 30 years, and governments must act quickly to tackle inequality, according to a new OECD report.
"Divided We Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising" finds that the average income of the richest 10% is now about nine times that of the poorest 10 % across the OECD.
The income gap has risen even in traditionally egalitarian countries, such as Germany, Denmark and Sweden, from 5 to 1 in the 1980s to 6 to 1 today. The gap is 10 to 1 in Italy, Japan, Korea and the United Kingdom, and higher still, at 14 to 1 in Israel, Turkey and the United States.
In Chile and Mexico, the incomes of the richest are still more than 25 times those of the poorest, the highest in the OECD, but have finally started dropping.
Income inequality is much higher in some major emerging economies outside the OECD area. At 50 to 1, Brazil's income gap remains much higher than in many other countries, although it has been falling significantly over the past decade.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
somthing that a certain tory suppoter denys.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
A subject that MUST be tackled and soon. I watched some of what the BBC's Nick Robinson had to say about taxation; what percentage pays what percentage and found his simplistic graphics and conclusion to be sorely flawed.
Plainly few that have money are aware or care where their wealth comes from.
To say, as NR did, that some pay 'X' and receive 'x' was and is utter nonsense.
None of this will trouble those in the Barry & Dave camp as Democratic accountability for them is an entirely outmoded concept.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
As bad as you may think we are Brian, there are obviously countries that are much worse than we are - but that's no excuse. Perhaps it gives people something to strive for.
Roger
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i noticed that the gap in the u.k. has been widening more than most.
no surprise about brazil though.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
Perhaps --------- erm--- let me think about that one Roger----er----------no don't think so.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
If your figures are correctly interpreted, Howard, that means it would be enought to take only 11% off the salary of the richest 10% in the UK and therewithall double the salary of the poorest 10% in the same UK.
If I had a bit more money, I'd offer a pint to the whole Forum if Barry doesn't come on now and call this proposal theft
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
roger,those people that are poor and strive to be beetter of get robbed by the tax man and other agencies,so then become worce off than they where.
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
Cleggy wants to introduce ``New Laws to clamp down on Executive Pay``
Big problem is Cameron & Osborne!!!!
Cameron & Osborne gave us the Propaganda of;............``We are all in this together``.....................
then gave us Policies to make the General Public to Pay.
Headlines were effective on the day.....................the truth is effective later.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
I really do not see this as anything to get overly concerned about as such.
What is important is not the level of income of the better off but ensuring that there are opportunities for the less well-off to improve their circumstances and income through work and education. It is the lack of opportunities in some economies like Mexico that is a problem.
Daft ideas like high taxes for the rich simply will reduce the level of tax-take. Better lower simpler taxes as I have always said. That will increase the tax-take from the wealthier and boost growth and investment.
Currently, figures for 2010/2011 tax year, the top 10% earners (those on over £48,000 pa) contribute 53% of the income tax collected by HMRC and the top 1% of earners (those on over £150,000) contribute 27% of the total income tax take. This would increase with lower tax rates as has been shown in the past.
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
Pay gap in UK.................IS UNACCEPTABLE.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
They're living off our backs, Reg!
That smily 1%
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
What utter nonsense Alexander. Look at the tax the higher earners pay and you will see that everyone else is living off their backs.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
that provided that cant find tax loopholes barryw.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i must remember to write to richard branson thanking him and promising not to sponge off him in future.
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
# 13................Would like to see the Gobbledegook on that one.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Just got this news in on SKY, in relation to post 1.
"Research by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) showed the wealthiest 10% of the population in Britain earns nearly 12 times what the poorest 10% earns - and it is still rising."
So in the UK the gap is 12 to 1 and not 10 to 1.
That the gap is rising should be food for thought. My view is, that these characters increase their own wages so as to get the tax back wich they pay.
Example: I earn £200.000 a year and pay £100.000 of it on tax. So I give myself 100% pay-rise, earn £400.000 a year, pay £200.000 tax.
Result: I have 200.000 net earnings.
Outcome: I effectively paid no tax!
(But for how long?)
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#16 - Reg- it is in the official HMRC Income Tax records.
I repeat what I said earlier, the figures for last tax year had the top 1% of earners, those on over £150,000, paid 27% of the income tax 'take'.
The top 10% of earners, those on over £48,000 contributed 53% of the income tax 'take'.
These are very close to some figures given out on the BBC a week of so ago in a programme about the crisis done by Nick Robinson.
Alexander - then HMRC also get £200k in your example.... They need revenue to help deal with the deficit. The alternative would be higher tax rates and that would be a disaster, the higher earner would take their income off-shore and HMRC get nothing, zilch. It gets worse as well as they may well also then take their investment offshore, less then for British businesses and that means less employments opportunities, even less income tax and more social security payments...
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
And the poorest 10% pay no income tax. If you restrict the top earners you restrict the amount of tax they pay.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
