OT a frightening thought

[swaledale]

A sensible approach and one I have said should happen with "foreign aid". Governments should pay bills as opposed to giving despoyc dictators money they can trouser rather than spend on helping their fellow countrymen.

Except that they generally pay dictators or governments money, there are some direct payments but the majority is in the provision of goods and services like vaccines, seeds, health advice, anyway a bill can be just as fraudulent as a direct payment!

There is a lot of fake news around aid, of course some is wasted through corruption, incompetence etc. just as taxpayers money is wasted in the Uk and other governments in the same manner.

Foreign Aid has done and does do a lot of good, Here is a quick list of former major recipients that have grown so much that they receive hardly any aid today: Botswana, Morocco, Brazil, Mexico, Chile, Costa Rica, Peru, Thailand, Mauritius, Singapore, and Malaysia. South Korea received enormous amounts of aid after the Korean War, and is now a net donor.

The life and economic prospects of a millions of people around the world ahve been vastly improved as a result of foreign aid. The migration issue would be much greater if there had been and was not in the future foreign aid - I'm just waiting for the combined GP and AF attack on such idealism, but tackling at least part of the problem reduces that problem and I've seen at first hand what can be done.

AS for giving to Charity, that's up to the individual, its not hard to work out which are effective and which are not. A little research will get that information.

Again much is made of what it costs and the salaries of those involved, I'd rather have properly remunerated qualified people implementing and organising these programmes than enthusiastic amateurs, and the salaries are much less what a similarly qualified person could get in the commercial sector.

I favour charities and aid that have the goal of enabling a person to be in a position to improve their life chances and become self sufficient, whether that be health care, vaccines, education, improved agriculture, etc.

It is however sobering to think that according to the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report, the world’s richest 1%, those with more than $1 million, own 44 percent of the world’s wealth. Just think if they actually used some of that money to improve the life chances of others what a difference that would make!

[ramAnag]

Agree with virtually all of that, Swale.
The excuse that ‘my money goes on wages’ is a poor excuse and isn’t really valid imo.
I imagine a majority of the money spent on Education and the NHS in this country is spent on wages. Doubtless a proportion of it is misspent but what’s the alternative...people do need paying.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Swale: "It is however sobering to think that according to the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report, the world’s richest 1%, those with more than $1 million, own 44 percent of the world’s wealth. Just think if they actually used some of that money to improve the life chances of others what a difference that would make!"

Here you go again - $ 1 million assets again makes you amongst the world's richest 1%. So every homeowner in the southeast that has been in pensionable employment for, lets say, 25 years or more are amongst the world's rich elite? It is indeed sobering to think that I and many many other people should sell our houses and/or bust open our pensions in order to support others.

Its a theory, maybe its even a plausible one, but it aint one that has got the legs to go anywhere. For the last 20 years or so successive governments (not just Tories) have incentivised people to save for their future and retirement, whilst reducing in spending terms the value of state aid past the retirement age. Can you seriously expect someone in this position to suddenly become an international philanthropist

[Geoff Parkstone]

Agree with virtually all of that, Swale.
The excuse that ‘my money goes on wages’ is a poor excuse and isn’t really valid imo.
I imagine a majority of the money spent on Education and the NHS in this country is spent on wages. Doubtless a proportion of it is misspent but what’s the alternative...people do need paying.

Fair point, rA, with big institutional organisations who also have a charitable "wing" but if we look at the "independent" charity sector there is a significant dilution of donations via administration costs that sometimes appear excessive. For sure it needs to be done, it cannot all be done by benevolent supporters, but equally there is massive red tape associated with running a charity and not just the fundraising side of things

[swaledale]

Swale: "It is however sobering to think that according to the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report, the world’s richest 1%, those with more than $1 million, own 44 percent of the world’s wealth. Just think if they actually used some of that money to improve the life chances of others what a difference that would make!"

Here you go again - $ 1 million assets again makes you amongst the world's richest 1%. So every homeowner in the southeast that has been in pensionable employment for, lets say, 25 years or more are amongst the world's rich elite? It is indeed sobering to think that I and many many other people should sell our houses and/or bust open our pensions in order to support others.

Its a theory, maybe its even a plausible one, but it aint one that has got the legs to go anywhere. For the last 20 years or so successive governments (not just Tories) have incentivised people to save for their future and retirement, whilst reducing in spending terms the value of state aid past the retirement age. Can you seriously expect someone in this position to suddenly become an international philanthropist

GP this is not me saying that and I don't know the basis on which its calculated, if its net worth then a million is a lot, if its assets, then not so much. But you ignore the message which is nearly half the world's wealth is in the hands of 1% of the worlds population, that should give you food for thought!

[Geoff Parkstone]

Sorry it isn't a lot. A modest house in southeast, mortgage paid is 350k. 650k in a pension pot at age 65 will get you an annuity of about 20k pa pre tax according to Aviva on line - although that doesn't look generous, let's say 25k. You ain't going to cure the ills of the third world on that.

[swaledale]

Sorry it isn't a lot. A modest house in southeast, mortgage paid is 350k. 650k in a pension pot at age 65 will get you an annuity of about 20k pa pre tax according to Aviva on line - although that doesn't look generous, let's say 25k. You ain't going to cure the ills of the third world on that.

Well that argument doesn't hold water, does it, seeing as your missing the big point, 99% of the world's population doesn't have even that!

Talk about viewing something from a very narrow perspective - and arguing that if you have a million your not "well off"!

Now that tells of privilege and an complete lack of understanding of inequality in the world.

Then actually your argument completely falls apart when if the wealthiest 1% set aside a set percent age of their income to assist those less fortunate (I didn't restrict the inequality argument to the third world) it actually would go a long way to resolve issues. Especially if used to enable less well off people to become self sufficient, there are a lot of people out there who could if given a modest help out, become wealth generators themselves.

But I guess you being a self centred cynical old bugger will come up with a reason as to why that wouldn't work?

[Andy_Faber]

Well that argument doesn't hold water, does it, seeing as your missing the big point, 99% of the world's population doesn't have even that!

Talk about viewing something from a very narrow perspective - and arguing that if you have a million your not "well off"!

Now that tells of privilege and an complete lack of understanding of inequality in the world.

Then actually your argument completely falls apart when if the wealthiest 1% set aside a set percent age of their income to assist those less fortunate (I didn't restrict the inequality argument to the third world) it actually would go a long way to resolve issues. Especially if used to enable less well off people to become self sufficient, there are a lot of people out there who could if given a modest help out, become wealth generators themselves.

But I guess you being a self centred cynical old bugger will come up with a reason as to why that wouldn't work?

I actually agree that a higher 'take' from the wealthy would be a laudible thing but isn't the bigger problem that in the criminal/cronyish/disorganised world we live in, your 1% just makes other wealthy people more wealthy. My perspective is I'd be a damned sight more amenable to an increased tax burden if it was 90% likely to help someone with 1/10 of my wealth than 90% likely to help someone with 10X my wealth, because thats how it feels

[Rattea]

I actually agree that a higher 'take' from the wealthy would be a laudible thing but isn't the bigger problem that in the criminal/cronyish/disorganised world we live in, your 1% just makes other wealthy people more wealthy. My perspective is I'd be a damned sight more amenable to an increased tax burden if it was 90% likely to help someone with 1/10 of my wealth than 90% likely to help someone with 10X my wealth, because thats how it feels

Where do you consider the definition of wealthy to start? £75k puts you in the top 5% bracket but again the top 1% are on millions a year which is broken up and not paid as paye so you will hit those already paying tax and miss those having it ported through different methods...... like tip paid footballers!!!

[Andy_Faber]

Where do you consider the definition of wealthy to start? £75k puts you in the top 5% bracket but again the top 1% are on millions a year which is broken up and not paid as paye so you will hit those already paying tax and miss those having it ported through different methods...... like tip paid footballers!!!

**** knows I'm not an economist lets say an extra 1% of PAYE for anyone over £100k per annum, anyone trying to hide income through companies/other devices pays 2%, anyone who makes their affairs deliberately complex to avoid tax gets allocated a bloke who drives a Transit to work and the bloke can decide on the tax take. Everyone who has a boat also has to by an affordable home and give it away. Think Laterally Rats