Thread: Just 1% of the worlds population own 50% of worlds wealth

The squirrel works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks he's a fool, and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the squirrel is warm and well fed, but a social worker finds the shivering grasshopper, calls a press conference and demands to know why the squirrel should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others less fortunate, like the grasshopper, are cold and starving.

The BBC shows up to provide live coverage of the shivering grasshopper; with cuts to a video of the squirrel in his comfortable warm home with a table heavily laden with food.

The British press inform people that they should be ashamed that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so, while others have plenty.

The Labour Party, Greenpeace, Animal Rights and The newly created Grasshopper Action Group demonstrate in front of the squirrel's house. The BBC, interrupting a cultural festival special from Notting Hill with breaking news, broadcasts a multi-cultural choir singing 'We shall overcome'.

Some champagne socialist rants in an interview that the squirrel got rich off the backs of grasshoppers, and calls for an immediate tax hike on the squirrel to make him pay his 'fair share'

In response to pressure from the media, the Government drafts the "Economic Equity and Grasshopper anti Discrimination Act", retroactive to the beginning of the summer.

The squirrel's taxes are reassessed.

He is taken to court and fined for failing to hire grasshoppers as builders for the work he was doing on his home and an additional fine for contempt when he told the court the grasshopper did not want to work.

The grasshopper is provided with free housing, financial aid to furnish it and an account with a local taxi firm to ensure he can be socially mobile. The squirrel's food is seized and re distributed to the more needy members of society, in this case the grasshopper.

Without enough money to buy more food, to pay the fine and his newly imposed retroactive taxes, the squirrel has to downsize and start building a new home.

The local authority takes over his old home and utilises it as a temporary home for asylum seeking cats who had hijacked a plane to get to Britain as they had to share their country of origin with mice. On arrival they tried to blow up the airport because of Britain 's apparent love of dogs.

The cats are arrested for the international offence of hijacking and attempted bombing but are immediately released because the police fed them pilchards instead of salmon whilst in custody. Initial moves to return them to their own country were abandoned, because it was feared they would be killed by the mice.

The cats devise and start a scam to obtain money from people's credit cards.

A "hard-hitting" BBC documentary special shows the grasshopper finishing up the last of the squirrel's food, though spring is still weeks away, while the house he is in crumbles around him because he hasn't bothered to maintain it. He is shown to be taking drugs. Inadequate government funding is blamed for the grasshoppers' drug 'illness'.

The cats seek recompense in the British courts for their treatment since arrival in the UK.

The grasshopper gets arrested for stabbing an old dog during a burglary to get money for his drugs habit. He is imprisoned but released immediately because he has been in custody for a few weeks. He is placed in the care of the probation service to monitor and supervise him.. Within a few weeks he has killed a guinea pig in a botched robbery.

A commission of enquiry into the whole affair is set up. It eventually costs ten million pounds and states the obvious.

Additional money is put into funding a drug rehabilitation scheme for grasshoppers and legal aid for lawyers representing asylum seekers is increased.

The government praises the asylum-seeking cats for enriching Britain's multicultural diversity, but the nation's dogs are criticised for failing to befriend the cats.

The grasshopper dies of a drug overdose. The usual sections of the press blame it on the obvious failure of government to address the root causes of despair arising from social inequity and his traumatic experience of prison. They call for a government minister to resign.

The cats are paid a million pounds each because their rights were infringed when the government failed to inform them that there were mice in the UK.

The squirrel, the dogs and the victims of the hijacking, the bombing, the burglaries and robberies have to pay an additional percentage on their credit cards to cover losses. Their taxes are increased to pay for law and order, and they are told that they will have to work beyond 65 because of a shortfall in government funds.

thats awesome!

Originally Posted by AndyG

Woohoo top 1%
30 years of working my arse off,
No vices except alcohol, women, boats and land Rovers

4 of the most expensive vices out there

Originally Posted by AndyG

Where is the misapprehension, some people do pay 47% + + + .

And a lot of people go through life making no effective contribution to Treasury and then go on the pension. And a minority pay the majority of income tax.
I'm not making a value judgement, rather stating a fact.

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

Only the top fifth of households ranked by their income - those with incomes of more than $200,000 a year in the financial year ending June 2012 - pay anything into the system net of the value of social security in cash and kind received, according to data from the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics survey of household income.

I reiterate ..... read the link I attached.

Yes, some people pay 47 cents in the dollar. But only on earnings in excess of $180,000.

Up to and including $180,000 the most you will pay in "income tax" is $54,547. High yes, but not even 33%.

Originally Posted by numpty

Up to and including $180,000 the most you will pay in "income tax" is $54,547. High yes, but not even 33%.

be nice if that 33% was spent well

Originally Posted by AndyG

Where is the misapprehension, some people do pay 47% + + + .

And a lot of people go through life making no effective contribution to Treasury and then go on the pension. And a minority pay the majority of income tax.
I'm not making a value judgement, rather stating a fact.

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

Only the top fifth of households ranked by their income - those with incomes of more than $200,000 a year in the financial year ending June 2012 - pay anything into the system net of the value of social security in cash and kind received, according to data from the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics survey of household income.

What's the tax-free threshold now? It used to be about $18,000 the last time I checked. That's the reason the actual average tax paid in about 30% from memory. Everyone gets the benefit of that tax-free threshold, even those earning more than $180k a year.
I don't mind paying a reasonable rate of taxes to live in a civilized society with all its benefits. I've seen how it works in some other societies. In Thailand I was only paying 10%, but then only government employees get pensions, so I wouldn't recommend that.
Personally, I'm a big supporter of superannuation because it means consistent saving to make people less dependent on government pensions when they retire. Super. contributions should be raised to 15%, with the increases paid for by employees forgoing wage rises to instead save the money in their super accounts, I think. That's being self-supporting, which should be encouraged. Anyway, that discussion belongs in Current Affairs, so I won't say any more here.

Originally Posted by PAT303

I hate the way people think our lifestyle is all down to luck,luck my arse,we work for it.................................. Pat

This kids are working hard as well, perhaps more hard that many of us ever worked.
It does not matter how hard you are willing to work if the country doesn not offer opportunities to all.

I liked Malcolm Turnbull's comment the other day when he said he didn't pretend that being rich meant he had worked harder than everyone else, because there were certainly people who had worked harder than him and hadn't done as well, he was just fortunate to have been lucky in some ways, and he paid all Australian taxes.
Of course, he was smart enough to grab the chance to get involved in Ozi early on and then to sell out for $50m, so good luck to him I say.
What irks me is when people argue they have a right to be rich and not pay a fair share of the cost of maintaining the community wealth which underpins individual wealth, as if they should be able to skim off the common wealth and not put back into it. I think that's just selfish greed. It's great when people do well, but they should also put back. That's responsible capitalism.