From the idiots claiming the gap between rich and poor increases. Yes that is correct, as the population grows, normal distribution sees that the range increases. The thing that is not said is the wealth difference between the "poor" now, and the poor 50 years ago, and the poor 100 years ago is vastly different, as is the definition of what poor is. Austerity. Even the rich 200 years ago had Austere lives.
Establishing who is rich and who is poor is no easy task.
Much is made of the gap between the rich and poor, but this is not a good comparison.
A common saying is the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. This is not a fact.
Lets assume the poor have close to nothing. Lets approximate it by calling it nothing because they live on handouts.
The poor, will never be able to get poorer, as they have nothing, so saying the poor get poorer makes no sense. Then saying the rich get richer, just means the economy grew, it is not at the poor's expense.
In any case the diagram below shows it is possible for the rich to get richer while making the poor get richer at the same time.
The other thing is people advocate redistribution to close the gap, but this goal is futile because:
The real gap is in productivity and not wealth. What they need is a job and not a handout.
Estimates of the distribution of wealth in society are often wrong.
Comments from the London metro comments section April 17 2012
Metro reports that some of the richest people in Britain are paying a lower rate of tax than their cleaners. In this country it seems that everyone wants to be rich but, equally , anyone who actually is rich gets lambasted. Rather than celebrating success and wealth creation , the people driven by the lynch mob mentality of the media, deem it less socially acceptable to be wealthy than to be a benefits cheat. Articles such as this merely sensationalise and encourage 'rich-hate'.
If the issue here is convoluted, arbitrary tax system that provides unlimited loopholes I am on board. However demonising wealthy law abiding individuals makes a fool out of everyone. The government should simplify tax to prevent avoidance and stop layering rules on top. The media meanwhile should stop stirring up 'Rich Hate' with ridiculous commentary.
Is it O.K to be wealthy?
Mohammed was remembered to have given sound investment advice. There is nothing wrong with wealth when a person is god fearing , but health is better than wealth for the god-fearing, and cheerfulness a blessing.
No, that is absurd, how can you be responsible for something you had no part in. If someone somewhere in the world is born into poverty, in what way were you responsible for that? What action could you have taken to stop it? Unless your job is directly related to relieving poverty, or you directly put someone in poverty you are not responsible.
This is not absurd, but wrong. You do not have a duty to help the poor. Duties are the other side of the coin to rights
If you have a duty to help the poor, then they have a right or claim over you. Do they have first say over how you use your time or money, when did you give them this right? Do you then have a claim over their time and money and can tell them what to do with their lives? Obviously not, there is no justification for this.
No-one chooses to be poor. The poor are poor because they lack choices.
So in order to solve poverty, you need to get jobs to the poor. Almost every job in the world requires investment. Jobs are a result of investment.
Where does investment come from? The "rich".
If the poor want to have more choices they need to remove barriers to investment in their area, even if the first set of investment is on unfavourable terms, the second and third will have to improve on it until the poor will eventually be in charge of the terms.
They need investment to come in to train their area for the jobs the area can produce, and investment to utilise the resources and labour in the area.
People who managing the poor are basically pimps and eating up most of the money intended for the poor.
Poor are not poor, they get free healthcare, education and pension that they did not contribute to. If they had to save up for an equivalent pension they would need ???? and if they had to save the costs of healthcare and education they would need ????.
You can't punish rich people, you end up punishing the people who work for them, or sell them their goods.
Idle rich, idle poor. Which is better/worse for society?
But they don't complain about the footballers and music stars making money in the same way that they complain about bankers. So it appears that money is not the only issue about the rich.
Envy is the driver of wealth taxes
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26613682 World distribution