rlWorld's 85 richest people have as much as poorest 3.5 billionrl

Seems to me they are sat on enough wealth to solve the worlds Austerity problems and the fact the richest individuals and companies hide away an estimated $18.5 trillion in tax havens is proof to my mind they simply are not interested in any of this trickling anywhere. Certainly not down to the poor.

Here in the UK we have a chancellor who says he will raise £12bn by targeting the benefits received by the UK's working poor while the elite sit on a pile of cash that does no one any good.

As Caitlin Moran said on Twitter today - "And those 85 people are probably the ones you'd hand pick to run the world anyway".

**Heavy dose of sarcasm

I think she'd be mope aptly named Caitlin Moron.

She's lucky, she gets to write sarcasm for a living.

I could do the job much better.

Is that sarcastic, or not?

Ah-ha, you'll never know, for my brand of sarcasm is subterfuge.

What is your base point to say that it isn't working? What are you comparing these figures to?

I for one would not mind someone as clever as Bill Gates having a say in how the world was run.

He didn't ask about that, though.

The thread says "Proof" the trickle down effect is a myth - where is the proof?

Just because the rich are getting richer it doesn't mean the poor are getting poorer?

It just means the rich are getting richer quicker than the poor are getting less poor - if that is not too much of tongue twister

rlHow about this example from the US?rl

rlThis is just one more indicator of the situation/rl

"A quarter of young people in the UK now live with their parents, official figures show.

"The Office for National Statistics (ONS) said more than 3.3 million adults between the ages of 20 and 34 were living with parents in 2013, 26% of that age group.

"The number has increased by a quarter, or 669,000 people, since 1996.

"This is despite the fact that the number of 20 to 34-year-olds in the UK remains almost the same, the ONS said.

"In 1996, the earliest year for which comparable statistics are available, there were 2.7m 20 to 34-year-olds living in the family home - 21% of the age group at that time."

if wealth is relative, then surely it is.

I am not sure what you are asking but my point was that these 85 people effectively hoard their wealth. It isn't being put to good use and did you miss the £18.5tn stashed in tax havens mentioned in the article? This wealth is not "trickling down" as people such as yourself tell us it will if we just let people keep their cash and avoid taxing them. This is all going on while the rest of us, you included, are asked to pay the price of the banking collapse of 2008.

In particular Osborne has openly said he will save £12bn from the benefits bill so this will mean those who can least afford it are paying for the banking collapse.

Do you consider this morally acceptable?



Nothing to do with the point I made. I think John Caldwell, another philanthropist, is great. Doesn't mean he should have a say in running the world.

Him and Gates can stand for election if they fancy that. I bet they would get more votes then the owners of Wall Mart.

when you stashed it tax heavens what if those richest people live and trade in countries that don't pay tax? Just because there is 18.5trillion whats to say it was taxable in the first place?

also with the housing situation for 20 years old; In my opinion i would count this to people not be allowed to get them selves into debt so easy.

Your talking as if all those people actually require benefits. I feel sorry for the people who do genuinely require benefits but thats not rich peoples fault or the governments maybe previous governments but its the fault of the scroungers who feel proud to keep on taking.