How much wealth is acceptable?

Marine_life

The events of the weekend and the protests got me thinking about societies attitudes to wealth and what is acceptable.

For instance - is it acceptable to earn more than the national average wage and if so by how much? and how much work should you do for that money? Compare someone who earns the national average wage and works 40 hours a week with someone who works twice as many hours but who earns four times as much?

Also, there is a disturbing trends towards society being judgemental about certain professions e.g. the "all bankers are scum" brigade. But where does it end? Who decides what a noble profession it?

I like to draw a comparison with the famous driving analogy which states that "anyone driving slower than me is an idiot - anyone driving faster than me is a lunatic"

The problem therefore is we all drive at different speeds and what constitutes a lunatic or an idiot is different for each of us. I worry however that if my next car is a Range Rover someone else will decide for me that it is not acceptable.

Pete111

I think trying to quantify this is going to be rather hard.

However, I would say:

1) It is perfectly acceptable to earn a large amount of money - we have 'progressive' taxation in teh UK that ramps up ever higher as a % for higher earners - 52% for the top lets not forget. This money can be used for the greater good (or wasted! by the Govt depending on your POV!)

2) Any value based link of money/hours worked is impossible to maintain in a capitalist society. Different jobs are worth vastly different amounts. A ditch digger (unskilled) may only make £250 a week. A lawyer (highly trained and skilled) may easily make that an hour. The former may have a necessary role (ditches do need digging) but any able bodied person can do it. Only a small % of people are bright enough to be a top lawyer.

3) Given the above there will be haves/have nots in society. There will also be arrogant rich folk and chippy poorer folk. However in the UK people can better themselves through application and hard blo0dy work. That is the important bit here.

Thrugelmir

Marine_life wrote: »

The problem therefore is we all drive at different speeds and what constitutes a lunatic or an idiot is different for each of us. I worry however that if my next car is a Range Rover someone else will decide for me that it is not acceptable.

People should be able to earn a living wage without paying direct taxation. Say £14,000 a year. After that there should a stepped increasing level of tax. So there is incentive for everyone to be economically and socially active.

kabayiri

It isn't a question of how much wealth, more so the disparity of wealth in a society.

From the Census beeb program the other night, it was interesting that the top strata earn 1,000 times more than the lowest earners. This gap is wider than it has been in the past.

Interestingly, the gap in London is some 2.5 times greater than this ratio above. Outside of London, society is more even, similar to the levels in continental europe.

I don't get the London effect though. Surely this defies the theory of trickle down economics?

Kohoutek

kabayiri wrote: »

I don't get the London effect though. Surely this defies the theory of trickle down economics?

To quote an economist from the recent BBC documentary about Ronald Reagan, "it's called trickle down economics, not flood down economics for a reason..."

Ilya_Ilyich

I think this is a region where idealism and pragmatism collide. I personally believe that it is immoral to ignore the poverty and destitution of others and enrich oneself; I would say that anyone living above the minimum level required to support themself is acting immorally while there are still people unable to support themselves. That's pure idealism though - in practice people need incentives to work. Reconciling the two is an intensely difficult exercise; I believe something like double-triple the minimum income 'should' be sufficient for anyone but it would in practice be almost impossible to transition to something like that from the current system without revolution.

I think it's important to consider points such as Pete111's #3 - "in the UK people can better themselves through application and hard blo0dy work. That is the important bit here." The idea that people can 'better themselves' and improve their economic standing through hard work is key to the consumer's acceptance of the capitalist system. In practice, though, social mobility in Britain is terrible (even in comparison to other rich, developed countries) and getting worse over time. The media narrative of the lazy unemployed sucking up benefits serves only to worsen this situation - we have have media companies, owned by the very rich, convincing the lower classes that they are lower class because of needing to pay the poor their pittance - rather than because of the very rich who are actually absorbing all the wealth! This is a narrative that's easy to latch on to - the idea that "I am well off because I work hard, the poor man is poor because he is lazy so he doesn't deserve my help, the rich man is rich because he works hard so he deserves special treatment" is infectious yet patently false (inherited wealth, racial privilege, sheer luck, lack of socioeconomic mobility greatly overpower 'working hard') and reinforces the income & wealth disparity that is present and growing in our society.

wolvoman

Ilya_Ilyich wrote: »

....the rich man is rich because he works hard so he deserves special treatment" is infectious yet patently false (inherited wealth, racial privilege, sheer luck, lack of socioeconomic mobility greatly overpower 'working hard') and reinforces the income & wealth disparity that is present and growing in our society.

That is utter rubbish.

To even claim that being white, born from wealthy parents, good luck and being from the right social background is more important than hard work is an insult to the millions of people that do not fit into those categories but instead work hard and become successful.

Ilya_Ilyich

Look at e.g. http://cep.lse.ac.uk/centrepiece/v10i1/blanden.pdf - people from high-income backgrounds overwhelmingly achieve educational success (arguably a reasonable proxy for ultimate economic success) much better than those from low-income backgrounds and the trend is increasing over time.

the_flying_pig

Kohoutek wrote: »

To quote an economist from the recent BBC documentary about Ronald Reagan, "it's called trickle down economics, not flood down economics for a reason..."

i prefer the old, much more accurate, name of horse-and-sparrow theory - if you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.

as for the OP, well, probably too much of a subjective question, really. there's no 'right' answer...

Generali

Do you mean wealth or income? Wealth is the total value of your assets, income is a flow of money.

Marine_life

Interesting thoughts.

To add to my own original post.

I have always believed that the challenge is that in any society achieving equality is impossible as there will inevitably be spenders and savers and it would be unjust in the extreme if society were to prevent that welath being passed from generation to generation.

Some have argued that we have equality of opportunity but that is, I am afraid no more than I pipe dream. I am able to see it from both sides of the fence having grown up in a poor family but now having sufficient income to send my children to private school. There is no way that the opportunities are the same.

My concern with the protests at the weekend is that they are inappropriately directed. People seem to forget that whilst the bankers were undoubtedly culpable in the recent economic downturn, the service sector is absolutely vital to the UK economy and has been for a number of years.

Those protesting should remmber it is prcisely those protests which drove the UK manufacturing industry into the ground. If they do the same to the service sector who will then put the food on the table?