Some have said I should comment on the Sunday Times Rich List. OK, if you insist. This says most of it:
When the Blair administration came to power in 1997, the wealth of Britain's richest 1,000 stood at £98.99 billion. The £261 billion rise in the wealth of today's top 1,000 represents a 263% jump over the past 10 years.
This explosion in Britain, and particularly London, has seen a sharp rise in the number of billionaires in the UK. This year we have 68 against 54 in 2006 and treble the number of four years ago, fuelled by the surge in the number of foreign billionaires enjoying Britain's favourable tax regime. Only three of our top 10 were born in Britain.
That tax regime is, of course, the domicile regime. That other doyen of the hard left, the Daily Mail has this to add:
By comparison, the rest of the population has seen its wealth rise by only 120% during the Blair years.
And this:
Much of the surge in wealth comes from foreign tycoons lured to Britain by a generous tax regime.
I've looked for a comment that supports the domicile rule that allows this exploitation of the UK. I can't find it right now.
So I'll leave the final word to Larry Elliott of the Guardian:
The argument in favour of of the government's hand's-off policy to the rich is that the wealth trickles down to the rest of us. Mittal and Abramovich buy houses and cars, employ gardeners, lawyers, estate agents, caterers and so on. Better to have them spending their dosh here, in other words, than for them to spend it in New York or Paris. From this standpoint, it should not really matter that the gap between the rich and the rest is getting wider, because all of us are getting richer; moaning about the super-rich is simply the politics of envy.
But as Larry then notes (correctly):
[I]t is wrong to think that a Labour government can ignore the growing gulf between rich and poor that has been allowed to develop on its watch.
For a start, not everybody benefits from the arrival of the super-rich and their money. One reason house prices are unaffordable for those on modest incomes in London is that the market has been distorted by sales at the top. Moreover, the sort of jobs that have been created by all this wealth tend to be low-paid, low-skill jobs such as security guards and cleaners.
No evidence has been put forward to the contrary, ever, as I noted in the Observer this weekend.
So, I tend to agree with Larry that:
Times have changed. Voters don't want to hear the pips squeak. Nor do they want "howls of anguish" [from the wealthy]. They wouldn't mind the odd whimper of discomfort, though.
Except, on reflection I really can't see why paying in accordance with the same rules as the rest of us should invoke any such whimper. But you can bet it would.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Hi There
After watching TV’s programme on the Rich and Super Rich, and at our Unelected Prime Minister Gordon-Brown originally intended to tax them, would now appear he is rubbing shoulders with them. As an old age pensioner find it extremely difficult to comprehend how on one hand a minority group, finding it difficult to know what to spend their money on, most of it as we saw by the programme attained by mispackaging mortgage deals, overlooked by the FSA, am sure you are fully aware of the facts.
Today Pensioner, as far as Gordon Brown’s and his puppet Alistair Darling are concerned have become Obsolete .( See Enclosed) Have you will The answer!
Respectfully wish the following question be answered by Gordon Brown concerning The Basic State Pension in The House on behalf of Pensioners
Gordon Brown would; either have to ask the Audience, do a 50/50 or Phone a friend, and still not have the answer.
Based on these Facts
The purchasing power of the state pension continues to be eroded. The general inflation rate used to calculate state pensions does not reflect the cost pressures faced by pensioners. For example, the cost of Fuel prices, Domestic oil, Domestic Gas and Electricity has increased substantially since 2004. As these four items make up a disproportionate amount of pensioners’ outgoings, the true rate of inflation tallies more closely with the 9 per cent inflation figure quoted by the Daily Telegraph for pensioners for 2006. Pensioners therefore saw their income fall in real terms by about 5 per cent in 2006. Which the Government are not taking onboard, causing yet again the Pensioner to be unfairly treated by energy firms in terms of prices charged, and in many cases having their Gas/Electricity cut off, and starving to pay other house/hold Bills, as we all know, it’s a question of “ EAT or HEAT.”
My question is straight forward, pleased explain how one can manage on the following based on factual details.
Example: – Joint State Pension £128 47— Weekly Cost of Petrol £18.10
Average Weekly Shopping £74.38… Weekly Oil Central Heating Costs 44.51
Weekly Electricity Costs and £10.10 = Total £147.09 Leaving Balance of £0.00 to pay the following: –
Council Tax/ Water Rates/ Household Insurance/ Car Insurance/ Household Insurance/ Plumbing/Water Insurance/ Boiler Maintenance/ Pet Insurance/ Road Fund License/ MoT & Car Service/ Dental Services/ Television License/Telephone Bill/ House Maintenance.
We are always boasting being the 4th Richest Country in the World, but in Europe Fail to admit our OAP’s are the Poorest?
“Have You Got the Answer”
?
Dave Coppard
Voice of the Pensioners