Vocal Voices

Very funny. There are a whole load of articles going around saying that 8 people own half the worlds wealth, that 62 people own half the worlds wealth. Blah, Blah, Blah.

It's all based on a Credit Suisse wealth report, an update on the 2013 wealth report on Wikipedia.

Reality? Well the Guardian report is more on track, with half the world's wealth is in the hands of 1% of the population.

Great so what is the reality?

Let's put it another way. 8% of the worlds population owns 86% of the worlds wealth.

What you say, horrendous, you say.

Well, let me see. Wealth is considered your net assets - your liabilities. Assets are money in the bank, current house value and the estimated surrender value of any private pension you own. Less mortgages and other debts.

Right. So, if you own a house with a current equity value of £80,000, a new moderate family car and a comfortable private pension, then you are one of that 8%.

Now here's the real shocker. If you own a house with equity in the £750,000 area, have a reasonable middle management work pension and have a car in the Audi/BMW mid range, then you are one of the 1%.

Is it really our fault that 73% of the world have a net wealth of less than $10,000? The press, like the Guardian, would like to use these figures to have a go at the 33 million in the world who have $1m or more of net wealth. The reality is that the divide between the 3rd wold and the western world is so huge that these figures are totally meaningless. Also the 3rd world keeps on doubling population at such a rate that they are going to keep themselves there forever.

I, for one, refuse to be deceived and will always check the reality of the figures.

I honestly do not get this infatuation with wealth, and especially with super-wealth.

What are these reports trying to say? Is it that these people are automatically more worthy, nicer, deserving of respect and to be admired and adored? If so then I am not buying in. On the other hand if it is to create jealousy and division then they do a damned fine job.

One thing, at an interest level, that has always made me wonder is when is enough, 'enough'. There has to come a point when more has no impact.

Take a family in the Sahel with 47 goats. Give them five more goats and they can produce more meat, more milk and, therefore, look after more people. In their societies they can make big changes. Whether that is good, given the explosion in population, is another debate.

Now take a family on £47m. How is their life, and those of others, massively changed if they get £5m more? Sure they can buy more houses, cars and TVs, but they can only use one of them at any given time. What about a family on £470m who then get £550m?

The rich and the super-rich might have 'loadsa monee', but they still have to abide by some simple rules. They still have to drive on the same side of the road as the poor whilst using the same highways, they breathe the same air in their polluted cities, and they have to file a flight plan for their private jets same as 'cattle class' jets have to do. Their wealth does not make them immune to ill health, bad breath or recalcitrant offspring.

OK, they're rich: big deal.

What annoys me most is that they present it as if it's all super, super rich people who are taking it all away from the "poor".

But when you burrow down into it, the shop foreman on a decent pension who bought his ex council house in London is one of the 1%. Which is not what the Guardian was trying to imply but that is the reality of it.

Go figure as the Americans say.

Suff wrote:... the shop foreman on a decent pension who bought his ex council house in London is one of the 1%.

Go figure as the Americans say.

Do tell what planet you are on. An ex council house owning shop foreman part of the elite rich? Please! Go figure something else.

You are talking about my poor, literally, old dad, but he lived in Leeds not Landarn. He never drew his meagre pension due to an affliction commonly known as death. It happens to a lot of poor people, and it tends to happen earlier for the poor than for the elite.

I somehow think that things would have been a lot different for me had I been the inheriting offspring of a Rothschild, Hilton or Oppenheim.... you know, the 'really' rich.

Would that make me a better person deserving of admiration from those less well-off. No way!

Workingman wrote:
You are talking about my poor, literally, old dad, but he lived in Leeds not Landarn.

I picked London for a specific reason. If you look at that chart I presented, the top 8% are $100,000 to $1M. Taking into account the inflated values of London properties and that a fully time served Foremans work pension's current surrender value is around £250k, even if you can't surrender it totally, it pushes that person to the top end of that bracket.

Only 0.7% fall into the "over $1M". There are still 0.3% left, of that top 1%, who are in the <$1M bracket in terms of net worth.

That is the reality of the figures and absolutely NOT what the Guardian is trying to present. Although I see that even if your hard head for figures might not accept the fiction, your heart would love to.

Let's face it. A government pension puts everyone in the UK in the top 8%, even the unemployed. Compared to the bottom 73% who have no money, no assets and no pension.

I'd like to see the Guardian report that... NO? Conspicuous by it's absence!

Let me put it another way. Uncontrolled "economic" immigration, is an attempt to join the 8%! Can't see the Guardian reporting that either.

Forget the "super rich" and the mega billionaires. To the bottom 73% we're ALL "super rich".