Re: Proof the "Trickle Down" effect is a myth? : Tue Jan 21, 2014 12:52 pm  

This is just one more indicator of the situation/ "A quarter of young people in the UK now live with their parents, official figures show. "The Office for National Statistics (ONS) said more than 3.3 million adults between the ages of 20 and 34 were living with parents in 2013, 26% of that age group. "The number has increased by a quarter, or 669,000 people, since 1996. "This is despite the fact that the number of 20 to 34-year-olds in the UK remains almost the same, the ONS said. "In 1996, the earliest year for which comparable statistics are available, there were 2.7m 20 to 34-year-olds living in the family home - 21% of the age group at that time."

This is just one more indicator of the situation/ "A quarter of young people in the UK now live with their parents, official figures show. "The Office for National Statistics (ONS) said more than 3.3 million adults between the ages of 20 and 34 were living with parents in 2013, 26% of that age group. "The number has increased by a quarter, or 669,000 people, since 1996. "This is despite the fact that the number of 20 to 34-year-olds in the UK remains almost the same, the ONS said. "In 1996, the earliest year for which comparable statistics are available, there were 2.7m 20 to 34-year-olds living in the family home - 21% of the age group at that time."

Re: Proof the "Trickle Down" effect is a myth? : Tue Jan 21, 2014 3:55 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

The thread says "Proof" the trickle down effect is a myth - where is the proof?

Just because the rich are getting richer it doesn't mean the poor are getting poorer?

It just means the rich are getting richer quicker than the poor are getting less poor - if that is not too much of tongue twister

if wealth is relative, then surely it is.

[DaveO]

Re: Proof the "Trickle Down" effect is a myth? : Wed Jan 22, 2014 11:58 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

What is your base point to say that it isn't working? What are you comparing these figures to?

I am not sure what you are asking but my point was that these 85 people effectively hoard their wealth. It isn't being put to good use and did you miss the £18.5tn stashed in tax havens mentioned in the article? This wealth is not "trickling down" as people such as yourself tell us it will if we just let people keep their cash and avoid taxing them. This is all going on while the rest of us, you included, are asked to pay the price of the banking collapse of 2008.

In particular Osborne has openly said he will save £12bn from the benefits bill so this will mean those who can least afford it are paying for the banking collapse.

Do you consider this morally acceptable?

I for one would not mind someone as clever as Bill Gates having a say in how the world was run.

Nothing to do with the point I made. I think John Caldwell, another philanthropist, is great. Doesn't mean he should have a say in running the world.

Him and Gates can stand for election if they fancy that. I bet they would get more votes then the owners of Wall Mart.

Re: Proof the "Trickle Down" effect is a myth? : Wed Jan 22, 2014 12:18 pm  

when you stashed it tax heavens what if those richest people live and trade in countries that don't pay tax? Just because there is 18.5trillion whats to say it was taxable in the first place?

also with the housing situation for 20 years old; In my opinion i would count this to people not be allowed to get them selves into debt so easy.

Re: Proof the "Trickle Down" effect is a myth? : Wed Jan 22, 2014 12:20 pm  

DaveO wrote:

I am not sure what you are asking but my point was that these 85 people effectively hoard their wealth. It isn't being put to good use and did you miss the £18.5tn stashed in tax havens mentioned in the article? This wealth is not "trickling down" as people such as yourself tell us it will if we just let people keep their cash and avoid taxing them. This is all going on while the rest of us, you included, are asked to pay the price of the banking collapse of 2008.

In particular Osborne has openly said he will save £12bn from the benefits bill so this will mean those who can least afford it are paying for the banking collapse.

Do you consider this morally acceptable?

Nothing to do with the point I made. I think John Caldwell, another philanthropist, is great. Doesn't mean he should have a say in running the world.

Him and Gates can stand for election if they fancy that. I bet they would get more votes then the owners of Wall Mart.

Your talking as if all those people actually require benefits. I feel sorry for the people who do genuinely require benefits but thats not rich peoples fault or the governments maybe previous governments but its the fault of the scroungers who feel proud to keep on taking.

Re: Proof the "Trickle Down" effect is a myth? : Wed Jan 22, 2014 12:26 pm  

dubairl wrote:

Your talking as if all those people actually require benefits. I feel sorry for the people who do genuinely require benefits but thats not rich peoples fault or the governments maybe previous governments but its the fault of the scroungers who feel proud to keep on taking.

Its not your fault but your opinion is very much the opinion of a typical ex-pat, those who gain their experience of the uk now from newspapers and soundbites.

What would you think if we told you that the vast majority of benefits are not paid to "scroungers" at all but to working people ?

Re: Proof the "Trickle Down" effect is a myth? : Wed Jan 22, 2014 12:44 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

Its not your fault but your opinion is very much the opinion of a typical ex-pat, those who gain their experience of the uk now from newspapers and soundbites.

What would you think if we told you that the vast majority of benefits are not paid to "scroungers" at all but to working people ?

Personally i have only been in dubai for 5 years. I worked part time in the uk whilst studying and i always remember a women who i worked with had a couple of children and she worked hard don't get me wrong but the husband was a lazy booty who learnt a trade but could never hold down a job anyway, after i my course i was working the same amount of hours as her and earning actually more in the end but somehow she could still afford a car (I couldn't) Go out every weekend (at the time i did admittedly) went on two holidays (I couldn't afford it). After two months of listening to her about whats she's bought i started to wonder how the hell can she have more money than me when she has kids, Cars, Husbands not working and also has a house (I had to rent privately), so after listening to her talk i soon realized she had so much benefits and top ups she was almost earning double what i was and on top of it her husband was claiming carers allowance for his sick dad even tho he was never with him. Also going to any pub in wigan mid days and you will see more than one claiming benefits and drinking/bookies all day.

This is a subject that does really annoy me because Im in a foreign country trying to earn a living and set my self up whilst others are just being paid for, on top of that i can't tell you how many taxi drivers or indian/pakistan people tell me here in dubai they are trying to go to the UK and get a passport.

Now i know there is genuine people out there but the benefit system when i was in the uk was completely wrong even for those deserving of it.

Re: Proof the "Trickle Down" effect is a myth? : Wed Jan 22, 2014 1:15 pm  

DaveO wrote:

I am not sure what you are asking but my point was that these 85 people effectively hoard their wealth. It isn't being put to good use and did you miss the £18.5tn stashed in tax havens mentioned in the article? This wealth is not "trickling down" as people such as yourself tell us it will if we just let people keep their cash and avoid taxing them. This is all going on while the rest of us, you included, are asked to pay the price of the banking collapse of 2008.

In particular Osborne has openly said he will save £12bn from the benefits bill so this will mean those who can least afford it are paying for the banking collapse.

Do you consider this morally acceptable?

Nothing to do with the point I made. I think John Caldwell, another philanthropist, is great. Doesn't mean he should have a say in running the world.

Him and Gates can stand for election if they fancy that. I bet they would get more votes then the owners of Wall Mart.

Let's make this simple - would you say the average standard of living has increased or decreased in the last 30 years? If the answer to that is yes - difficult to argue that not to be the case - how has that happened?

No I don't think it is morally acceptable that anyone expect the bankers should pay for the their excesses and that includes you and me. Unfortunately life is not fair and these things happen. I have no issue in supporting those that are in genuine need e.g. mentally/physically disabled. What I object to is the abuse of the system which is pretty widespread. Benefit St is a parody of this position but the behaviours you see there would be replicated in virtually every village/town/city in this country. My own in laws, there are 6 claiming with 7 children none work that p1sses me off big style and perhaps its proximity clouds my view.

Perhaps if the levels of abuse weren't happening our tax bill would go down giving us more cash to spend and maybe an upward Keynesian cycle might start?

Re: Proof the "Trickle Down" effect is a myth? : Wed Jan 22, 2014 1:35 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

if wealth is relative, then surely it is.

An example - I have a company I own 100% - my wage bill is 200k a year, in the year I make 500k and I give my workforce a 10% salary increase. I this case the wealth gap has increased between me and my worforce but my workforce has has also increased. The workforce has also increased its wealth not just to the level I have.

Re: Proof the "Trickle Down" effect is a myth? : Wed Jan 22, 2014 1:37 pm  

Mintball wrote: This is just one more indicator of the situation/ "A quarter of young people in the UK now live with their parents, official figures show. "The Office for National Statistics (ONS) said more than 3.3 million adults between the ages of 20 and 34 were living with parents in 2013, 26% of that age group. "The number has increased by a quarter, or 669,000 people, since 1996. "This is despite the fact that the number of 20 to 34-year-olds in the UK remains almost the same, the ONS said. "In 1996, the earliest year for which comparable statistics are available, there were 2.7m 20 to 34-year-olds living in the family home - 21% of the age group at that time." How much of this is a symptom of the difficulties in the mortgage/property market?

Mintball wrote: This is just one more indicator of the situation/ "A quarter of young people in the UK now live with their parents, official figures show. "The Office for National Statistics (ONS) said more than 3.3 million adults between the ages of 20 and 34 were living with parents in 2013, 26% of that age group. "The number has increased by a quarter, or 669,000 people, since 1996. "This is despite the fact that the number of 20 to 34-year-olds in the UK remains almost the same, the ONS said. "In 1996, the earliest year for which comparable statistics are available, there were 2.7m 20 to 34-year-olds living in the family home - 21% of the age group at that time." How much of this is a symptom of the difficulties in the mortgage/property market?