Private wealth and public squalor

There are obviously different ways of defining the top 1%. We were looking at income, but in terms of this group moving away from the other 99%, is that this group as a whole, or just the overall effect of a massive increase in wealth of, for example, the top .01%? But Primrose is right. £165k pa is a lot of money, but most of those earning that amount will live in the south east. After paying tax and NI, and maybe paying seven figures for a decent sized semi, I doubt the family involved would be living an obviously opulent lifestyle. That’s not to say they shouldn’t pay more tax. But the thread seemed to me to be moving along the lines of “those billionaires are gross - so let’s make well paid doctors pay a lot more tax”.

No it isn't. They were talking about income, not assets.
Owning a house worth a few million did not come into it.

The trouble with all those calculations is that it's simply a valuation of someone's asset portfolio. If stock markets go up, for example, the 1% will move away from the 99%, simply because people with assets are likely to invest in equities. It's meaningless.
£165k is not a 'super rich' salary for London. It's enough for someone to get a mortgage on a modest 1 bed flat in Zone 1 or 2, providing they have a decent deposit.

The resolution foundation article I read stated that the difference in income between the top and bottom of the 99% has actually reduced.
It's just the 1% moving further away from the rest.

£275k pa is a lot of money but still a long long way short of super rich. As to the top 1%, where this starts in terms of income seems to depend on where you look - I’ve just seen figures of 100k and £165k. From what I have read in the past I think the latter figure is the most reliable. Whether that’s rich depends on your starting point. Those on the average UK salary would be considered rich by a lot of people around the world. In any event, my point still stands - a discussion about the vulgar, profligate and in many ways distressing, displays of wealth by a few people with hundreds of millions of pounds stashed away in offshore accounts, is a totally different discussion to one around the equitable distribution of wealth between the poor and the highly paid.

According to the Resolution Foundation, the top 1% has completely recovered from the crash, unlike the other 99%.
That's people with income of over £275,000.
That looks very rich as far as I am concerned.

We ought not to confuse the super rich with the top 1%. Those at the bottom end of the top 1% are a long way from the breadline but equally far from being super rich.

I agree Morgana. Arguing about individuals is just side tracking and doesn't look at the underlying cause of our dysfunctional society or how to deal with it.

‘Do you have to stop being even vaguely Socialist once your income/ wealth passes a certain level’
An interesting question MaizieD
Certainly it’s true that Toynbee is vaguely Socialist, though very vaguely.

Are those denigrating Toynbee annoyed because wealthy people have no business to be deeply concerned about inequality and poverty in our society? Upsetting the natural order of things i.e that the rich shall profit as much as possible from the poor without concerning themselves with the lives of the por?

Do you have to stop being even vaguely socialist once your income/wealth passes a certain level?

(apologies to Morgana for reverting to Toynbee again)

I think it's called throwing down a dead cat.

Because they'd much rather talk about Polly Toynbee than think about income inequality as shown on the fullfact links?

Why are we arguing about Polly T.?! The rich are getting richer and largely skive out of paying the right amount of tax. The poor are getting poorer. How much longer will the poor suffer in silence? Surely the future looks perilous unless someone takes action.

I would have liked the DD to go to Badminton School but it was way out of our price bracket!!
Although some of DD2's friends did go there.

Spot on lemongrove!

High society magazine The Tatler has this to say with regards to the top state school 2017.

"We make no apologies for including Holland Park again: it is, quite simply, the gold standard for state education. It's worth going to an open day just to check out the Notting Hillites angling for a place. "

Lucky Toynbee.

Holland Park School is one that well off parents fight tooth and nail to get their offspring into.

Just to set the record straight, Polly Toynbee did go to Badminton School in Bristol, followed by Holland Park School.

fullfact.org/economy/fifty-years-income-inequality/

Showing the spread of income inequality.

I'd also love to know how you found out that Polly Toynbee is in the 1%.
Even fullfact can't find that out, as they are very secretive.

fullfact.org/economy/wealth-uk-richest-1-and-poorest-20/

I completely agree Eloethan. The whole of society suffers because of such an unequal situation. I think that demonising wealthy individuals ignores the wider picture, that the whole system needs to change.

Toynbee went to Holland Park School, the same school that Tony and Caroline Benn sent their children.

You'll be saying it's not a proper comprehensive next because they went there.

Although I don't agree with everything Polly Toynbee says, I think she is a person who has made a great contribution in arguing for more equality of wealth. In 2003 she wrote a book called Hard Work detailing her experience trying to live on benefits or on very low pay. It was a very moving book that, I'm sure if more people read it, would make people understand how unjust our society is.

We don't know if Toynbee gives money to charities or helps people in need. If she sold everything she had and gave all her money away it would be but a pebble on a beach. What is needed is systemic change, not a few people chucking a few pounds at charity.

The programme that whitewave mentioned showed how the 1% have increased their wealth four-fold since the collapse of 2007, whereas everybody else has become poorer. Even some of the people who were very wealthy agreed that this is a perilous situation which, in the long run, benefits no one because it undermines our whole capitalist system.

I doubt that Toynbee wants her wealth ‘shared out’ durhamjen
Regardless of her politics, she usually appears rather smug IMHO.

Polly Toynbee is liberal, not socialist.

Yes, 'liberal' in the very worst sense of the word and quite hypocritical.

I have read lots by Toynbee much of which I went off her very slowly over the years.

A recent revelation...."Yet for all of Toynbee’s comments, she ought to check her own privilege before passing judgement. After all, Toynbee knows a thing or two about wealth. While she told Guido Fawkes back in 2011 that her earnings were around £110,000 per annum, it’s thought that her personal wealth is considerably more. The class warrior owns a holiday home in Tuscany and in terms of some of her spending, she is ahead of even the ‘phenomenally rich’ David Cameron in some departments.

When it comes to private education, Toynbee sent two of her three children to public school."

It was clear at the last election that our economy is not working for all, and more and more people are losing out. I think this is a catalyst for change, and I hope that inspirational people, such as the head of New Economics Foundation, the subject of your link from the Guardian dj will help to influence this change.