Never said it was right before. I’ve never seen anyone get to grips with the problem.
Statistics don’t mean much when you live in an area or work in a field impacted by austerity. If I could be bothered to look no doubt there are a bunch of studies that imply the opposite ( just about to watch blade runner to refresh before the new one next week. So not going to be participating in anything in a mo!)
As I said I don’t think the money tree fairy has the answer. He, imo, would make things worse not better. And the track record he has with some deeply unpleasant organisations is worryingly brushed over.
People always assume I’m a Tory supporter which is funny. Definitely a floater ( which is a good description of many politicians)
These days I carefully read the policies and vote for those I think are the best irrespective of party. Of course I don’t expect any of them to be followed if the party is in power, but can’t think of a better way.
Do Billionaires not own corporations & businesses?Or were you talking about the rich that inherited it like the Royals?
I said the rich from the start  some on here think a 100k earner is the rich who would need to do a lifetimes work to match a years salary for some of the rich that I am talking about.
You did say the rich from the start.
And when told there weren't as many as you think, you talked about billionaires.
Yes, some of them own corporations.
So do I. My pension funds invest in several.
What's your point? Back to labours tax plans? Increase corporation tax with all the knock on effects that will cause.
Or define "rich" as earning over £80k.
At some point, just raising tax is not the answer.
Labour's (John McDonnell's) definition of rich is someone in the UK who earns £70,000 or more before tax - which of course is far too low. IMO £70,000 would make you flush or quite well off, except for some parts of London.
The threshold before someone is considered rich is subjective, the problem being the gulf between the rich and average incomes. For example, since 2010 CEOs earn about 130 times more that their average employee because the bosses earnings are up about 33% while the average wage is up only 8%.
IMO earnings start at about £250,000 to be considered 'rich'. No doubt someone on £3 million would not consider that rich - it's all very subjective and property wealth is an important part of the mix.
I actually started by saying that if the lower paid earned more they would be paying more tax and be less reliant on state benefits, and that the rich create the state dependant subclass as you call them by not paying them a proper wage.
As for raising taxes not being the answer, I can accept that and would be more than happy for the rich to just pay them.That would be a good start and would probably be more than enough to sort out the problems we have as a country.
If you knew of a father that ate 3/4 of the families food leaving the remaining 1/4 for the rest of the family to live on what would you think of him?
Boris thinks £141,000 is too little for him to live on: Boris Johnson says salary of £141,000 is 'not enough to live on'
It would depend on your household income though. A household with two adults earning £45k will be better off than a household with one 'rich' adult earning £80k.
My wife and I combined are on more than £70,000 - but I wouldn't really consider us 'well off'. We both work silly hours and after mortgage and childcare (£13,000 a year on childcare) we aren't rolling in cash.
Once my wife is gives up work next year I'll be queuing at the Soup Kitchen.
Wrong. Boris thinks £141,000 is too little for him to live on because of his commitments.
Corrected 
Yup - bloody newspaper headlining sucked you in 