The spread of weath.......

26 October 2013

The UK's wealth is far more widely spread than in Germany and France..

Not to mention the USA and Holland...... oh, yes, indeed - even better than Sweden, Denmark and Norway.

http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2013/10/21/wealth-more-equal-in-uk-than-in-france-or-germany/

A favourite whinge of the 'stupid left' has always been about the concentration of wealth but research by Jefferies International based on IMF figures shows that the UK has a better spread of wealth than so-called more 'egalitarian' societies such as France.

But, of course this makes sense. The biggest change, when wealth became much more widely spread, was in the 80's during Mrs Thatchers revolution of popular capitalism and right to buy.

Enabling ordinary people to accumulate more wealth, own their own homes, to have investments in businesses, spreading wealth and prosperity to more people - this is what Conservatism is all about. This means enabling people to stand on their own feet and be self-reliant and confident receiving the full benefit of their hard work and enabling them and their families to aspire. This is about wealth creation, a larger cake being created in which we all can participate while also being able to provide real sustainable help to those who cannot help themselves.

Socialists do not like that of course. They prefer people to look to The State, in other words to them and their largesse, for help. For Socialists it is about spreading wealth about through high taxation and public spending. Their approach always results in less wealth being created and therefore less wealth to spread about with everyone, both haves and have nots, being a lot poorer. It does not work and achieves only an equality of mediocraty and misery through an unsustainable economy. Labour governments have always been a disaster for the poor and vulnerable.

Guest 725 wrote:
Some wise sage said words to the effect that the measure of a good welfare system is not how many people are on welfare but how many people manage to get off.
Guest 655 wrote:
Spot on Philip
Guest 698 wrote:
Well done, Barry. A vitriol-free 90 minutes since you posted this. Where are you, Tom?
Guest 710 wrote:
A "Wise Sage" Philip? I seem to have stumbled upon a kitchen where 'egg' means 'eggs', just as elsewhere sheep means sheep. Time we 'taut' an 'ology' or even added some 'oxy' to the moron.

None of us should get too enamoured of things 'sage', it is ever better to retain some facility for discernment and gentle criticism. Take this phrase, for instance...
"There are Lies, Damned lies and Statistics."
Even when faced with a barrage of Statistics it is foolhardy to ignore "Lies and Damned Lies".
And, dear reader, it is better yet to have at the forefront of your mind the realisation that with everything that is said, there is much that remains unsaid, much that is left to your imagination and to your own internal prejudices.
From what is written in the body of Barry's Blog above; of one thing we can be certain: The UK experience is one of stark income inequality. That boat has sailed, as they say.
And so to wealth...
Strong is the temptation at this time to parcel-up Barry's bilge here and now and to leave matters there, but my conscience will only allow me to enact half of that.
Wealth appears to equate to assets, from the arguments used. 'We' are now a Nation of home-owners, so that even the least pauper in his castle does at least have his castle. All very neat and tidy-ish.
The truth is less flattering:When you buy a house, you do not buy a house (certainly not if you buy through a Mortgage) you buy twenty-five years or so of DEBT, and must pay and pay for many years before said debt begins to lessen.
So, are 'we' asset rich, in the main, or DEBT-ridden, on the whole? You may decide for yourself, dear reader.
So much for that which is unsaid. Now for the Lie(s)...
NOTE: Line-1, it is not the Left, but the "stupid-Left" that has 'winged'.
"... but research by Jefferies International based on IMF figures shows that the UK has a better spread of wealth than so-called more 'egalitarian' societies ..."
This is a WHOPPER, for the information mentioned does nothing of the kind.
The 'survey' did no more than 'suggest' that there had been 'no big change in the distribution of wealth since the 1980s'.
In effect. IF you did not profit (even if only a paper profit) in the 1980's:if you were no sort of 'gazumper', no sort of semi-professional buyer/seller, buyer/seller, helping to create house-price-inflation, (a house-price-bubble), but instead are one of the many that have been dispossessed, live now in negative-equity, or struggle to keep-up the mortgage instalments, or are living under threat of redundancy...
Those who did profit, and greatly profit, in those heady days...say thank you. (apparently)...say ha-ha you've never had it so good...say better vote Tory and hope that there'll be another tranche of suckers along any minute.
Oh dear. What I have not mentioned:The National Debt. That 'little' something we all have to 'address' [address-if you own your own home outright, this is something you have: get it?] and this is something that came our way thanks to the house-price-bubble that you either earned greatly from or are paying through the nose for.
BUT
'We' can blame The New Labour Party, and if you use the imagination I spoke of earlier, you could infer that The Conservative And Unionist Party are blameless.
It is now that I leave you to let your inner-prejudices run amok.
P.S.
My heart-felt apologies, if I have disappointed in matching 'vitriol' to the superabundance of 'smug' that has gone before me.
Guest 698 wrote:
Tom, just like scrambled eggs, economic policies require not only sages, but also thyme.
Guest 655 wrote:
Tom - whatever you might prefer to think the facts do not disappear because they don't fit your pre-conceived ideas. You always use a lot of words but when it comes down to it you don't actually say anything.

'the stupid left' - yes indeed the left are stupid, it never learns from their mistakes and that really is the definition of stupid.

There are some individual exceptions of course who turn away from 'the dark side' and see how left wing redistribution fails time after time.

You personally may prefer a lifetime of rent payments ending up with nothing, instead of 25 years of a mortgage ending up with a valuable asset. But most people are a lot smarter than that and see the pointlessness of a lifetime of rent that often costs a more than a mortgage, a lot more when yo consider maybe 50 years of rent paying instead of 25 years or a mortgage.

Mrs T was the big re distributor of wealth, real wealth. Thanks to her more and more people own their own homes and many have enjoyed a nice inheritance. Millions too own shares, some directly but many more in mutual fund investments and in pensions. This you cannot deny though you will try to throw a smokescreen around it.

You really are an old style communist in your attitudes. Most people have moved on from such regressive attitudes.