Why is the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer?

Question

I I hought labour was to stop this?

Answer 1

Because that is how capitialism works.

Answer 2

The question is based on a false premise spread by Leftist politicians. People who let their money work for them do get richer. People who have poor educations and work ethics get poorer. Smart people make money, ignorant people do not. There are increasing numbers of people who are ignorant because government schools have dumbed down the curriculum, discouraged competition and puffed up self-esteem. The children coming out of school have no idea of how to work. They cannot comprehend the idea that they are actually expected to work in exchange for wages. Many of them feel they are owed a living just for existing or should be paid more than they are worth. They also value their toys and having fun too much.

In 1930 entry level jobs paid $.25 an hr which bought 5 loaves of bread, in 2006 the job paid $5.25 an hr and still bought 5 loaves of bread. The value of the work had not changed.

If you invested one hour's pay per day, starting with your first job, in diversified mutual funds you could retire as a millionaire. If you used the money to operate your own business you could become a multi-millionaire or you could fail. The risk taken is why the owners of businesses make more money than their employees.

Once rich, the fortune passes to children who did not always work for it and within a few generations they work for wages and lament the loss of great grandpa's business. A few learn from their ancestors success and grow richer..

Then too, rich and poor are relative terms. If 90% of the people had a Rolls Royce and a Mercedes Benz, the 10% who owned a Rover and a VW would be poor.So get out there, work hard, invest, start your own business and get rich. No one who works for wages and spends all of it will be rich. Getting rich requires self-discipline and sacrifice and an increasing number of people don't have those qualities.

Answer 3

There are 4 ways of generating wealth. The first is as an employee where you work for someone else, trading hours for dollars. This is how most people attempt to develop wealth and it is the least effective in doing so. It does provide a certain sense of security. The second is as a self-employed individual. Similiar to an employee, but now you are in charge. You have more ability to control your income, but are still limited to the hours in a day. The third way (which many wealthy individuals use) is investing in which they get their money to work for them. However, the challenge here is you have to have money to make money. The fourth way, and the way to generate the greatest wealth is through a business system. Owning a successful business that generates profit you take part in provides the opportunity for the largest gains (and largest losses - there is no reward without risk). Most wealth in the US lasts 3 generation, with the first generation creating the wealth, and the 2nd and 3rd losing it (they didn't do the work to create it and often don't have the desire needed to keep it).

Answer 4

Try this book:
Rich Dad, Poor Dad: What the Rich Teach Their Kids About Money--That the Poor and Middle Class Do Not! by Robert T. Kiyosaki and Sharon L. Lechter

Here is the Amazon review:
Personal-finance author and lecturer Robert Kiyosaki developed his unique economic perspective through exposure to a pair of disparate influences: his own highly educated but fiscally unstable father, and the multimillionaire eighth-grade dropout father of his closest friend. The lifelong monetary problems experienced by his "poor dad" (whose weekly paychecks, while respectable, were never quite sufficient to meet family needs) pounded home the counterpoint communicated by his "rich dad" (that "the poor and the middle class work for money," but "the rich have money work for them"). Taking that message to heart, Kiyosaki was able to retire at 47. Rich Dad, Poor Dad, written with consultant and CPA Sharon L. Lechter, lays out his the philosophy behind his relationship with money. Although Kiyosaki can take a frustratingly long time to make his points, his book nonetheless compellingly advocates for the type of "financial literacy" that's never taught in schools. Based on the principle that income-generating assets always provide healthier bottom-line results than even the best of traditional jobs, it explains how those assets might be acquired so that the jobs can eventually be shed. --Howard Rothman

From Library Journal
Reissuing a self-published best seller.
Copyright 1999 Reed Business Information, Inc.

As to Labour stopping this situation, well maybe Old Labour but not New Labour.

This makes me think of the Weekending version of the Red Flag which had the line "The working folk will sweat and strive to keep your jaguar in your drive. To keep the middle England vote, we promise not to rock your boat."

You gotta laff!!

Answer 5

I read somewhere a long time ago that if all of the money in the world would be split evenly between every person, the rich would be rich again and the poor would be poor again within a matter of a few years. Because the rich know how to earn and handle their money. The poor never learned how to handle or make money.

Answer 6

Old Labour did stop this sort of thing. But we have what is called 'New Labour' and seem just like the Conservative Party that was befor them, with the same old things happening Sleeze, Sleeze & mor Sleeze! Then breaking all their promises! I totally agree that this party just seems to make the rich richer & the poor poorer! I gather that since labour have been in power that we have developed some of the poorest area's in western europe! & we are now one of the highest taxed countries!

Answer 7

Well, it seems to me, you don't get rich sitting on your bottom, you have to work hard at it, or be extremely lucky.

The poor are being hit with increases in community tax,
telephone, electricity, gas bills, and what little savings they have, get eaten away.
If they save even a little, it seems to me they cannot get support on their income.
Then they are told the yearly increase in their state pension will cover those increases. Not in your wildest dreams does it come anywhere near covering costs

We certainly can't blame the rich, why shouldn't they have the rewards of hard work?

I love talking to people, and I learn a lot about how they are coping , they all say thank god it was a mild winter.
Also, admit, they will be frightened to vote for any other party, than Labour, because at least they get a heating payment at Christmas.

I can't even begin to think what the answer is to this problem.
The people I speak to say, at least we have food in the larder!
So they are grateful for what they do have...

Good question though!

Answer 8

Because the poor will not take the initiative to change their lives for the better.

I hate to make a generalized statement like that, but for people to BLAME poverty on someone else other than themselves is irresponsible.

I was at one point considered living just below the poverty level for almost 3 yrs., but around age 25 I took advantage of what the government was allowing me to do by accepting federal grants, and student loans to pay for a college education.

I will never be the richest person in the world financially, but my knowledge will serve me and my family well, far into the future as I now have the skills that will always be in demand.

Answer 9

Money equals power. If you have enough of either, you can always trade some for the other. Some of the rich pay politicians to make laws that help them get richer. Then they can pay more and more and get richer and richer. They don't have to pay directly to the politicians. They can have corporations pay the politicians through political lobbyists like Jack Abramoff.

In some cases the rich are the politicians themselves who make the laws that help themselves and their friends get richer. Two good examples of this are George Bush and Dick Cheney.

Answer 10

Because the rich work for it generally .If as in the past Labour try to take the money from the better paid you end up with a 'Brian Drain' and everybodys standard of living drops.

Answer 11

Just the opposite is happening in the US. Under the previous democrat administration the richest did get richer. The richest 1% went from having 13.9% of all income in 1993 to 20.81% in 2000. However, since 2001, the share of income for the richest has gone back down.