Geektastic:

SaltyNZ:

KiwiNZ: 

There is also the other aspect the higher up the chain the greater risk exposure.

In absolute terms, yes. Proportionately, no. If I only have $20, and you take $5, I'm 25% down. If I have $100 billion, and I lose a billion, well... I don't about you but I'd be happy to be sitting on $99 billion.

That depends. If I lost it due to changes in asset valuation, fair enough.

If it was taken as tax to fund the poor, then no, not happy.

jeffnz: be nice to get back on topic instead of argueing about the political compass or stating our political beliefs.

jeffnz: be nice to get back on topic instead of argueing about the political compass or stating our political beliefs.

KiwiNZ:

jeffnz: be nice to get back on topic instead of argueing about the political compass or stating our political beliefs.

I think ones political leanings are relevant in this thread

jeffnz: be nice to get back on topic instead of argueing about the political compass or stating our political beliefs.

SaltyNZ:

KiwiNZ:

jeffnz: be nice to get back on topic instead of argueing about the political compass or stating our political beliefs.

I think ones political leanings are relevant in this thread

I'm about as left, and a little more down than ajobbins, it seems.

wongtop: Both you and ajobbins must dispair at the state of Australian politics then. The Australian Labor Party is almost certainly to upper right of the NZ National party, and things pretty much only go further upper right from them!

alasta: It would be really interesting to know what proportion of national wealth is controlled by the top 1% in NZ.

When people talk about the 'rich getting richer' they really need to clarify who they consider to be rich. I personally don't know anyone who I would consider to be rich, or even well off. I earn enough money to pay the bills and have a few simple luxuries like owning a car and occasional travel, and most people I know are either in the same position or struggling. It seems to me that NZ has a general standard of living problem rather than a distribution of wealth problem.

ajobbins:

alasta: It would be really interesting to know what proportion of national wealth is controlled by the top 1% in NZ.

When people talk about the 'rich getting richer' they really need to clarify who they consider to be rich. I personally don't know anyone who I would consider to be rich, or even well off. I earn enough money to pay the bills and have a few simple luxuries like owning a car and occasional travel, and most people I know are either in the same position or struggling. It seems to me that NZ has a general standard of living problem rather than a distribution of wealth problem.

Some stats here.

Top 1% hold 16.4 percent of the wealth.

Bottom 50% hold only 5.2% of the wealth

NZtechfreak:

There was a piece on this a while ago, I think in the Herald. If you're paying attention this isn't news.

EDIT: Yep, this January in the Herald with similar pieces reported at several junctures in the last decade. I should refine what I said about paying attention earlier, because many will have seen these figures but consciously or unconsciously not given them the thought they deserve because they fail to affirm their world views.

gzt: Wasn't paying particular attention. Also I'm getting a 404 on that link.

ajobbins:

NZtechfreak:

There was a piece on this a while ago, I think in the Herald. If you're paying attention this isn't news.

EDIT: Yep, this January in the Herald with similar pieces reported at several junctures in the last decade. I should refine what I said about paying attention earlier, because many will have seen these figures but consciously or unconsciously not given them the thought they deserve because they fail to affirm their world views.

Do you have a link? I think the numbers I quoted are a few years old, and I suspect it has worsened in recent years.