Tuesday, August 3, 2021

Tomorrow’s chip papers

Section:

Oxfam’s analysis of the distribution of wealth proves to be nothing but hyperbole given that the majority of us actually are part of the very ‘elite’ they so earnestly attack

 

As a report commissioned by Oxfam revealed that the 80 richest people on the planet have a combined wealth equal to the 3.5 billion poorest and that the , many have leapt to criticise this as unfair, unjust and unacceptable. They are wrong and ought to look at the reality behind this sweeping statement.

 

chip papers
The World Economic Forum runs from 21st to 24th January 2015

 

As the grand and the good of finance gather in Davos, Switzerland for the “Burning Man for Billionaires” that is the World Economic Forum, Winnie Dyanyima of Oxfam said in a statement:

 

“Do we really want to live in a world where the 1 percent own more than the rest of us combined? The scale of global inequality is quite simply staggering, and despite the issues shooting up the global agenda, the gap between the richest and the rest is widening fast”.

 

Others, such as The Guardian’s Seumas Milne, went further and described this to be “a wealth grab on a grotesque scale”. Suggesting that “the Davos oligarchs are right to fear the world they’ve made”, he argued that “the overlords of a system that has delivered the widest global economic gulf in human history should be handwringing about the consequences of their own actions”. He finished by stating:

 

“It’s only through a challenge to the entrenched interests that have dined off a dysfunctional economic order that the tide of inequality will be reversed… Even to get to that point demands stronger social and political movements to break down or bypass the blockage in a colonised political mainstream. Crocodile tears about inequality are a symptom of a fearful elite. But change will only come from unrelenting social pressure and political challenge”.

 

Whilst no decent-minded person would argue against better living standards for all, Forbes’ Tim Worstall was actually one of the few commentators to actually see Oxfam’s numbers for what they are. As he points out in response to Milne, to be in the top 1% you need just under £530,000 ($800,000):

 

“And that’s the value of any equity you might have in a home, any savings and also your pension pot. So, anyone that owns a home in England (without a mortgage that is) and has a reasonable pension will be in that 1%. And anyone who owns a flat in London will almost certainly be in it. A house in Oxford, where Oxfam is based, would also qualify you. There’s only a bit over 5,000 people who work for Oxfam UK and I certainly don’t insist that all of them own their own homes free and clear. But if we add in the people at the other Oxfam organisations, those in other rich world countries like Canada, the US, France and Australia, then yes, I think we probably would find a couple of thousand people who made it into that global 1% by wealth”.

 

Oxfam’s crude numbers made for great headlines this morning but in reality this report is worth nothing but being used as tomorrow’s chip papers. In reality those that complain about wealth distribution and demand action against the super-rich ignore the real problem in the developed world and that is that we’re actually all middle class now.

 

 

Subscribe to our free once daily email newsletter here:

     

    The Steeple Times
    We research and background check our articles. If you believe we have made and error in some detail please get in touch, we seek always to write the truth and stand against a press owned by a self selected few. Please help us, we will accept all your likes, subscriptions and anonymous suport. The Editor and his team at the Steeple Times.

    3 COMMENTS

    1. Well done for speaking out against this stupid report. It is, as you say, crude and frankly not helpful. All it has done is to get the Liberal Elite ranting and that just bores me to tears.

    2. For once, I agree wholeheartedly and the very system that it seeks to attack – capitalism – is exactly what has lifted vast numbers of Chinese and Indians as well as other S-E Asian peoples out of abject poverty.

      To put it into context, President Xi Jinping recent 62% par-rise now affords him the princely salary of £1,209 per month – about the same as someone here living on benefits.

      Oxfam do themselves NO favours. Perhaps each one of their over-paid management should immediately take a 50% pay cut to show solidarity with the poor.

    3. Distribution of wealth, why not try determination and hard work? First world governments are funded by their citizens, mostly through taxation and duties. The flow of money tempts some government servants and politicians to engage in dishonest practices, accepting favours and bribes from individuals who want to reduce their tax bill on their enterprises, or in many cases pay no tax at all, claiming that they employ many workers who contribute to the tax pool. The government is forced to raise taxes on ordinary hard working citizens to make up for losses. It fosters more dishonesty. Honest hard working families suffer the most. Distribution of wealth is not necessary, should everybody put in a hard days work and pay their fair share of taxes. Forget freebies………….The only winners are champagne socialists………..

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here

    Advertisement
    Advertisement

    Become a Patron of The Steeple Times

    Independent journalism will only remain independent if it is supported by clear-thinking people like you. We each have the command to make a real difference. Join us.

    2,668FansLike
    2,068FollowersFollow
    11,548FollowersFollow

    Subscribe For DAILY NEWS

    Please subscribe, like and share this very British site, it helps us grow. Your data is protected and The Steeple Times will send you an email at noon everyday that we rather trust you will enjoy.

    Advertisement

    Weather

    London
    few clouds
    20.5 ° C
    22.1 °
    18.5 °
    57 %
    5.7kmh
    20 %
    Tue
    20 °
    Wed
    23 °
    Thu
    21 °
    Fri
    20 °
    Sat
    19 °