Andrew I think you are right it is Margaret T..
Looks like her Gosia.
Interesting there is no UK on the graph. I wonder why that is?
Curious to me too, Marie. Hopefully not because the graph would go off the page.
You are very right about Maggie T.Sigh on the graph. Not one I like to see us towards the top.
EC, no it is not to be envied about.
Margaret Thatcher and Ted Heath?I don't understand that graph; in particular in relation to the United States and Australia. Lets suppose the richest one percent had all of the wealth of their country doesn't that mean their 'share' is 100%? If so, how can their 'share' rise above 100%; i.e. how can their share be more than the 'total' wealth of their country? What am I missing in the logic (or the maths)?
Yes, Ted Heath. Well done. Now Victor, you were supposed to glance at the graph, mutter 'outrageous' and move on. Typical of you to study it, and now I must to understand what you mean. As I see it, it is not a percentage of income, which would be limited to 100% but a percentage of the increase in the share of income by the rich. IE, the rich can increase their share of income by over 100%.
If you say so Andrew.
Rich? oh yeah easy to lauh at the UK rich in amusing art by Sue Macartney-Snape who grew up in Australia before going to London to live link to collection of images at Pinterest and when you get there check the 83 fab boards of me iODynemwah mwah
Wow, thanks Annie. So interesting. Yes, I have now joined Pinterest but so far only perved on collections of sexy 70s and 80s pop stars.
'laugh' [sigh], and annie odyne on Pinterest could amuse you for some long time ...
Our President Reagan was a good match with Prime Minster Thatcher. With Trump as President I only see possible growth for the wealthy. Your chart of the share of income will only grow.I keep hoping I'm wrong...Coffee is on
Dora, there is no doubt things are going to change, but is Trump going to disadvantage all those people who voted for him? As Clinton foolishly in my opinion called them, the basket of deplorables.
Sigh on the rich getting richer, that's a process that may never end. Not in our lifetimes anyway.that portrait does look a lot like Maggie Thatcher, perhaps she was the inspiration.
River, given what Annie and Victor wrote in comments, I am sure it is Maggie. There have been times in the past where the poorer of society increased their share of wealth, and I am sure there will be again, but as you say, maybe not in our lifetime.
I have just spent a week in melbourne, great tennis, awful bourke street tragedy. I can't believe how cheap the public transport is, I caught lots of trams and trains and explored. What annoyed me though is the number of 20 and 30 something young men and women sitting down, I saw a 7 month old pregnant woman who was struggling to hang onto a strap, several elderly people struggling, several parents with young children , and the young fit ones never offers anyone a seat.
Thanks for the comment Anon. Admittedly they are well brought up private school children but I have often seen them offer as seat to adults. Also many of our young Asian and Indian students offer seats. Maybe I look my 60 years, but I have been offered a seat a few times and my older partner more often. People are often so distracted from what is happening and the people around them. No excuse really and you called it as you saw it. Cheap our public transport is, unless you want to go one tram stop or one train station.
i like them they look great in an office/waiting room situation...looks like Margaret Thatcher
Margaret, I am not one to lecture about looking at previous comments, but in this case you should and the link from Annie.
Took a peek - thanks Andrew.
Oh no :( Being second worst after the USA is not a position of great honour.
Hels, it is not. Our leaders and we who elect them should be ashamed.
Democracy is all very well, but why give it to the people? - Audrey Forbes-Hamilton.