Here's your 50p, but we have ruined our entreprenuers!

[auvydarlov]

Does anyone remember in the early nineties some people were denoucing the idea of sharing wealth equally by saying that if all the private wealth in the UK was shared out to every man woman and child they would have 50p each.

I personally remember many people saying this like it was gospel truth, but I always thought the maths was a just little on the shaky side - I can't believe anyone thought it was true. Does anybody else remember this?

:?

 

[JamesWhitehead]

"I personally remember many people saying this like it was gospel truth"

Good God, what circles were you mixing in? I demand a feature in FT!
:shock:

 

[Xanatico]

I´ve heard it said that if you took the estimated profits from all the norwegian oil sites and divided it among the people, they would all be millionaires. Mind you, the norwegian million is only about 100.000 in english money.

 

[stu neville]

Does anyone remember in the early nineties some people were denoucing the idea of sharing wealth equally by saying that if all the private wealth in the UK was shared out to every man woman and child they would have 50p each.

There's sixty million people in the UK. That implies that the sum total of private wealth here in the early nineties was only £30 million. As the Duke of Westminster alone at that time was still a sterling billionaire despite the property crash of a couple of years previous, I think you can confidently say that the assertion is bollocks .

I personally remember many people saying this like it was gospel truth, but I always thought the maths was a just little on the shaky side - I can't believe anyone thought it was true. Does anybody else remember this?

:?

I must confess I don't remember that one at all. There used to be a whole slew of similar stuff (the whole population of the world could stand on the Isle of Wight, if everyone in China jumped up and down at the same time the world would move, etc etc.)

 

[escargot]

And, 'If all the girls who attended the Yale prom were laid end to end, I wouldn't be a bit surprised.'

 

[stu neville]

..and if all the quotes that are attributed to Dorothy Parker, Groucho Marx or Oscar Wilde were actually said by them then no-one else would have said anything remotely funny between about 1875 and 1960 .

 

[Anome]

I think, technically, that may be true. Apart from Neville Chamberlain's hilarious bit about a piece of paper.

 

[sunsplash1]

I know this! It's something aboout a 'piece of time.' Never quite understood what the Coot was on about...

 

[RealPaZZa]

I want my 50p! And I want to see the idle rich become the idle poor!

 

[auvydarlov]

Ah yes, but the problem is (as I recall the 1992 argument) is that if you had your 50p then it would be basically only be rewarding the idle poor with a swift half and soon be squandered.

All the hard work put in the UK economy by enterprising businessmen would go unrewarded as the 50ps flew out of their bank accounts. No-one would bother striving to acculmulate wealth, the end result would be deminished innovation, techology etc. In short the UK economy would collapse, so socialism is bunk and don't vote for Neil Kinnock (the general election was looming at this time).

As I said alot of people said this, it was in the newspaper 'voice of reason' columns (probably the Daily Express!) even Jasper Carrot mentioned it on his popular TV show.

In 2003 the actual amount for private wealth was not 50p but more like 60000 pounds! (which I shall give you all later, much later).

 

[colpepper1]

Splendid. Can take the coal out the bath now and replace it with ass's milk.

 

[JurekB]

All the hard work put in the UK economy by enterprising businessmen would go unrewarded as the 50ps flew out of their bank accounts. No-one would bother striving to acculmulate wealth, the end result would be deminished innovation, techology etc. In short the UK economy would collapse, so socialism is bunk and don't vote for Neil Kinnock (the general election was looming at this time).


In 2003 the actual amount for private wealth was not 50p but more like 60000 pounds! (which I shall give you all later, much later).

I heard a different slant on this and that was that if all the wealth was evenly distributed it would only take about a year before the balance was restored and the poor would once again be poor and the rich rich.

 

[RealPaZZa]

£6,012 billion
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=479

divided by

60,609,153 (July 2006 est.)
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/fa ... nt/uk.html

is the answer i think?

More than £60,000 each I suspect!

 

[Peripart]

£6,012 billion
divided by
60,609,153 (July 2006 est.)
is the answer i think?

More than £60,000 each I suspect!

Well, yes, but not by much: it's just under £100,000, which is in the same order of magnitude.

I heard a different slant on this and that was that if all the wealth was evenly distributed it would only take about a year before the balance was restored and the poor would once again be poor and the rich rich.

I'm no hardened Socialist, but if this wealth just happened to be redistributed, I would do my best to make my £100,000 last more than a year - I might even stretch it out for 18 months.

 

[wembley8]

I heard a different slant on this and that was that if all the wealth was evenly distributed it would only take about a year before the balance was restored and the poor would once again be poor and the rich rich.

How could they possibly know? (And would it be the same people? Does Her Majesty have the same entrpreneurial skill as her forebears?)

...but it would make a great Reality TV show.

"We gave three poor families and three rich families the same amount of money. By the end of the first six months..."

 

[RealPaZZa]

...Does Her Majesty have the same entrpreneurial skill as her forebears?...

they had skill? i thought they just exploited their position?

"We gave three poor families and three rich families the same amount of money. By the end of the first six months..."

chances are the rich families would win, as they already know how to invest wisely, coming from money generally comes with a better education (and chances are you know more useful people too!).

/me rummages for that socialist party pamphlet, and mutters something about wanting an equal chance in life.

PS can anyone work out exactly what wed get each please, i keep gettijng lost with how many zeroes (yes, poor educatiuon is showing)

 

[liveinabin]

"We gave three poor families and three rich families the same amount of money. By the end of the first six months..."

chances are the rich families would win, as they already know how to invest wisely, coming from money generally comes with a better education (and chances are you know more useful people too!).

I sell glasses to people all day. It's always the well off that ask for discount or won't spend out on the extras. The poor people just pay up. If a rich person asks for discount I don't give any. If a poor person is nice and I can see they are struggling I give them discount without them asking.

 

[UsedtobChrisFord]

"We gave three poor families and three rich families the same amount of money. By the end of the first six months..."

chances are the rich families would win, as they already know how to invest wisely, coming from money generally comes with a better education (and chances are you know more useful people too!).

I sell glasses to people all day. It's always the well off that ask for discount or won't spend out on the extras. The poor people just pay up. If a rich person asks for discount I don't give any. If a poor person is nice and I can see they are struggling I give them discount without them asking.

I find that to be absolutely offensive. You punish people for being successful. How do you know how they got their money. Maybe they busted their ass everyday and pinched every penny just to make a better life for their later years and a better life for their kids.

I have read countless studies that show that the wealthy are more likely to use discounts and coupons, are more likely to buy fuel efficient cars and fill them with regular instead of premium.

I have no doubt in my mind that if the wealth was evenly distributed that most of the wealthy would become wealthy again and the poor would squander their money just as they do now.

If you want proof just look into the lottery effect. Winning the lottery is, at times, called a curse but that "curse" is just evidence of the difference in how money is handled. Who is most likely to play the lottery? The poor. So most of the people that win the lottery are poor and it shows up in the papers all the time that some past lottery winner is being charged with tax evasion or getting their house repoed because they blew all their money.


I grew up with a guy whose family were the town garbagemen. By the time he was 15 he was riding on the back of the truck collecting trash. He's 25 now and owns his own HVAC business and I would consider him wealthy (He bought his wife a Hummer). He worked his tail off to get where he is today and is more that deserving of his wealth.

And don't feed me that line about the rich getting more breaks and better education. In the UK as well as the US there are the best schools in the world and a just as equal chance to use them. Private school, public school it doesn't matter. If you don't sit in the back of the class text messaging like the kids nowadays do then you can get into college .

 

[lupinwick]

And don't feed me that line about the rich getting more breaks and better education. In the UK as well as the US there are the best schools in the world and a just as equal chance to use them. Private school, public school it doesn't matter. If you don't sit in the back of the class text messaging like the kids nowadays do then you can get into college

In the UK schools with better results get better funding, rich parents then move into those better school catchment areas driving up house prices as they go. Better funded schools then get better teachers and so on and so on. Better education means more choices in life. Sadly its often only the better off who benefit.

Yes, kids can rise above all the disadvantages but wouldn't it be really good if things were equal in the first place?

In the UK the rise in the take up of college (6th form or equivalent) places is partially down to the fact that the kids have no other choice. There are few jobs for poorly qualified 16 and 17 year olds.

 

[liveinabin]

"We gave three poor families and three rich families the same amount of money. By the end of the first six months..."

chances are the rich families would win, as they already know how to invest wisely, coming from money generally comes with a better education (and chances are you know more useful people too!).

I sell glasses to people all day. It's always the well off that ask for discount or won't spend out on the extras. The poor people just pay up. If a rich person asks for discount I don't give any. If a poor person is nice and I can see they are struggling I give them discount without them asking.

I find that to be absolutely offensive. You punish people for being successful. How do you know how they got their money. Maybe they busted their ass everyday and pinched every penny just to make a better life for their later years and a better life for their kids.

I have read countless studies that show that the wealthy are more likely to use discounts and coupons, are more likely to buy fuel efficient cars and fill them with regular instead of premium.

I have no doubt in my mind that if the wealth was evenly distributed that most of the wealthy would become wealthy again and the poor would squander their money just as they do now.

If you want proof just look into the lottery effect. Winning the lottery is, at times, called a curse but that "curse" is just evidence of the difference in how money is handled. Who is most likely to play the lottery? The poor. So most of the people that win the lottery are poor and it shows up in the papers all the time that some past lottery winner is being charged with tax evasion or getting their house repoed because they blew all their money.


I grew up with a guy whose family were the town garbagemen. By the time he was 15 he was riding on the back of the truck collecting trash. He's 25 now and owns his own HVAC business and I would consider him wealthy (He bought his wife a Hummer). He worked his tail off to get where he is today and is more that deserving of his wealth.

And don't feed me that line about the rich getting more breaks and better education. In the UK as well as the US there are the best schools in the world and a just as equal chance to use them. Private school, public school it doesn't matter. If you don't sit in the back of the class text messaging like the kids nowadays do then you can get into college .

I should point out that it rich and rude people I don't give discount to. Why should I give money off to someone who is rude to me? If someone is nice I give them discount. We should reward politeness not give money off to people who shout the loudest.

 

[wembley8]

...Does Her Majesty have the same entrpreneurial skill as her forebears?...

they had skill? i thought they just exploited their position?

[/quote]

Invading countries and taking their loot is a highly skilled occupation

"We gave three poor families and three rich families the same amount of money. By the end of the first six months..."

chances are the rich families would win, as they already know how to invest wisely, coming from money generally comes with a better education (and chances are you know more useful people too!).

/me rummages for that socialist party pamphlet, and mutters something about wanting an equal chance in life.

PS can anyone work out exactly what wed get each please, i keep gettijng lost with how many zeroes (yes, poor educatiuon is showing)

It's arounf £100k apiece from what was previously said. As in real life I think most people, rich or poor, would put the majority of their equity into property (ie buy a place to live in) and you wouldn't see much change in overall wealth over the course of a few years.

Of course, if you think that poor people would blow it all on plasma TVs, lottery tickets and lager then they wouldn't do too well. But I don't think many fit the stereotype.