6th Richest Country in the World?

[Chippy_boy]

Reading Corbyn's opening sentence in his Your Party letter, he tries the usual trick of trying to con everyone how rich we are, and what a travesty it is therefore that we have 4.5m children, because that's more emotive than adults - living in poverty.

Well let's debunk this for a moment. What do the following countries have in common?

Singapore
Luxembourg
Ireland
Macao SAR
Qatar
Norway
Brunei Darussalam
Guyana
United States
Denmark
Switzerland
Netherlands
Iceland
Austria
Hong Kong SAR
Sweden
Germany
Belgium
Finland
France
Canada
Australia
Japan
New Zealand
Italy
Israel
Spain

Any idea? They are ALL better off than we are. In raw GDP terms we may be 6th but that's because we are a relatively populous country. But when to look at GDP per capita, we are 18th. Worse, goods and services are in the UK more expensive than elsewhere. So when you consider what the average person in the UK can actually afford, we are 28th. 28th not 6th.

(And we don't have 4.5m children living in poverty. Poverty is NOT earning less than a 60% a median. Or else someone on £1m a year in Monaco is living in poverty. And the numbers living in poverty DECREASE if median earnings decline... Which is plainly nonsense. The numbers in actual real poverty, like shortage of food or clothing, is between 1m and 2m. Still way too many but not as sensational an argument as claiming it's 4.5m)

 

[hampshireblue]

As of the first quarter of 2025, the United Kingdom’s GDP per capita is approximately $54,280 USD. This places the UK around 15th globally among the 55 countries tracked for quarterly GDP per capita.


Quarterly Snapshot:

• Q1 2025 GDP per capita: $12,894 USD
• Annualized estimate: ~$54,280 USD
• Growth: Up $990 from the same quarter in 2024

The definition of poverty he refers to is specifically for the UK, and therefore not comparable to other countries.

 

[Chippy_boy]

And, BTW the above list is in order. Richest per capita (and in purchasing power terms) at the top. What shocks me is which countries in Europe are better off than us.

Ireland
Norway
Denmark
Switzerland
Netherlands
Iceland
Austria
Sweden
Germany
Belgium
Finland
France
Italy
Spain

What a ****ing mess.

 

[inbetween]

This is the lie that has been sold for many years. We somehow believe that we're a rich country but you only have to walk around to see how false this is. What we really have is a powerful financial sector and a powerful London in the south which vastly skews everything else.

For anybody north of this or not working in the financial sector then it's essentially a fight over scraps and suckling at the teat. This is made even worse given successive governments are heavily London focused or even as with our last PM the country is run by the kind of people who have only worked in the financial sector.

Other countries are far better regionalised, Germany is the largest country by GDP in Europe and yet it doesn't have a specific capital economically. Each city has its own strengths whereas London just out muscles every other city here economically by a factor of 10 or more.

Unfortunately this has all come from the fact that London and its minority overclass has always been more important and so investment and infrastructure spending will always remain focused there. That isn't going to change anytime soon and the only solution is to well move to London but the irony is nobody can afford to do it, not even Londoners!

Corbyn isn't the solution either, what is really required is an industrial revolution in the regions but it isn't going to happen no matter how hard he or anybody else tries.

 

[johnny crossan]

And, BTW the above list is in order. Richest per capita (and in purchasing power terms) at the top. What shocks me is which countries in Europe are better off than us.

Ireland
Norway
Denmark
Switzerland
Netherlands
Iceland
Austria
Sweden
Germany
Belgium
Finland
France
Italy
Spain

What a ****ing mess.

Still wouldn't swap ;-)

 

[Chippy_boy]

This is the lie that has been sold for many years. We somehow believe that we're a rich country but you only have to walk around to see how false this is. What we really have is a powerful financial sector and a powerful London in the south which vastly skews everything else.

For anybody north of this or not working in the financial sector then it's essentially a fight over scraps and suckling at the teat. This is made even worse given successive governments are heavily London focused or even as with our last PM they are the kind of people who have only worked in the financial sector.

Other countries are far better regionalised, Germany is the largest country by GDP in Europe and yet it doesn't have a specific capital. Each city has its own strengths whereas London just out muscles every other city economically by a factor of 10 or more.

Unfortunately this has all come from the fact that London and its minority overclass has always been more important and so investment and infrastructure spending will always remain focused there. That isn't going to change anytime soon and the only solution is to well move to London but the irony is nobody can afford to do it, not even Londoners!

You know you make a seperate point, which actually makes my figures worse.

My figures are GDP per capita in relative purchasing power - which is what matters. But on the basis of the UK average we are 28th, and yet our GDP is heavily skewed towards London and the south. I can only speculate where we'd be if you excluded London from the figures. I doubt we'd be in the top 50.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Still wouldn't swap ;-)

I'd swap with Switzerland to be fair. The only minor problem is that everyone working there earns a mint and everything there costs a mint, so it cancels out. But to move there as a retired person on fixed income, as I am, it would be prohibitively expensive. Beautiful country but just too dear.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

And, BTW the above list is in order. Richest per capita (and in purchasing power terms) at the top. What shocks me is which countries in Europe are better off than us.

Ireland
Norway
Denmark
Switzerland
Netherlands
Iceland
Austria
Sweden
Germany
Belgium
Finland
France
Italy
Spain

What a ****ing mess.

They’ve not had 50 years of Tory government for the last 75 years…

 

[inbetween]

You know you make a seperate point, which actually makes my figures worse.

My figures are GDP per capita in relative purchasing power - which is what matters. But on the basis of the UK average we are 28th, and yet our GDP is heavily skewed towards London and the south. I can only speculate where we'd be if you excluded London from the figures. I doubt we'd be in the top 50.

Per capita statistics get skewed anyway because of weird economic anomalies in that specific country.

Take Luxembourg for example, how is such a huge GDP generated from a small population? In reality it isn't and I'm pretty sure that the likes of Amazon can speak for this..

Ireland features highly too but I highly doubt that the Irish are all rich. It probably has more to do with the simple fact that a number of corporations put their books through Ireland to take advantage of the favourable corporation tax rate..

 

[johnny crossan]

I'd swap with Switzerland to be fair. The only minor problem is that everyone working there earns a mint and everything there costs a mint, so it cancels out. But to move there as a retired person on fixed income, as I am, it would be prohibitively expensive. Beautiful country but just too dear.

too many like this bloke over there - and they make you put red flowers in your hanging baskets!

 

[somapop]

I'd swap with Switzerland to be fair. The only minor problem is that everyone working there earns a mint and everything there costs a mint, so it cancels out. But to move there as a retired person on fixed income, as I am, it would be prohibitively expensive. Beautiful country but just too dear.

My brother lives in Geneva.
He lives out in the burbs surrounded by incredible scenery.
But...it's a bit of an emotionally cold place. Can't say I got a love for the place working around the city when I visited him, as picturesque as it was.

I've loved my trips to the Netherlands however. Everything seems 'looked after' with a sense of pride. There's a hell a lot of cultural stuff going on too so wouldn't be missing out on gigs etc.
Can't say I saw any deprived high street after hight street with buddleja growing form the brickwork.
Bikes left outside all the homes (but no 'us and them' between cars and cyclists. A grown up pragmatism is evident.

Think my daughter may end up living there (she has a boyfriend who lives not far from Amsterdam.

I'd happily give that a whirl (and perhaps some of those Scandi countries but they can be every expensive).

 

[hampshireblue]

Interesting to see many of the countries better off than us are in the EU. Quelle surprise!

I'm not sure about Guyana though.

 

[KS55]

Per capita statistics get skewed anyway because of weird economic anomalies in that specific country.

Take Luxembourg for example, how is such a huge GDP generated from a small population? In reality it isn't and I'm pretty sure that the likes of Amazon can speak for this..

Ireland features highly too but I highly doubt that the Irish are all rich. It probably has more to do with the simple fact that a number of corporations put their books through Ireland to take advantage of the favourable corporation tax rate..

Chippy’s chosen metric is about the best but, as you point out, still has many flaws. Countries use many different methods to calculate GDP so comparisons are very rough. Also, what is included makes a difference. I remember the EU telling us we had to include an amount for prostitution. The inclusion of Construction always gives me a chuckle.
As an aside, Luxembourg’s PM did secret deals with multi nationals for extra low tax, at the same time as he was railing, in his capacity as EU Commissioner, against others doing similar deals.

 

[DiscoSteve]

Reading Corbyn's opening sentence in his Your Party letter, he tries the usual trick of trying to con everyone how rich we are, and what a travesty it is therefore that we have 4.5m children, because that's more emotive than adults - living in poverty.

Well let's debunk this for a moment. What do the following countries have in common?

Singapore
Luxembourg
Ireland
Macao SAR
Qatar
Norway
Brunei Darussalam
Guyana
United States
Denmark
Switzerland
Netherlands
Iceland
Austria
Hong Kong SAR
Sweden
Germany
Belgium
Finland
France
Canada
Australia
Japan
New Zealand
Italy
Israel
Spain

Any idea? They are ALL better off than we are. In raw GDP terms we may be 6th but that's because we are a relatively populous country. But when to look at GDP per capita, we are 18th. Worse, goods and services are in the UK more expensive than elsewhere. So when you consider what the average person in the UK can actually afford, we are 28th. 28th not 6th.

(And we don't have 4.5m children living in poverty. Poverty is NOT earning less than a 60% a median. Or else someone on £1m a year in Monaco is living in poverty. And the numbers living in poverty DECREASE if median earnings decline... Which is plainly nonsense. The numbers in actual real poverty, like shortage of food or clothing, is between 1m and 2m. Still way too many but not as sensational an argument as claiming it's 4.5m)

what did you expect from this left wing looney FFS?

 

[xmusampa]

And, BTW the above list is in order. Richest per capita (and in purchasing power terms) at the top. What shocks me is which countries in Europe are better off than us.

Ireland
Norway
Denmark
Switzerland
Netherlands
Iceland
Austria
Sweden
Germany
Belgium
Finland
France
Italy
Spain

What a ****ing mess.

Must be a big mark up on potatoes!

 

[KS55]

You know you make a seperate point, which actually makes my figures worse.

My figures are GDP per capita in relative purchasing power - which is what matters. But on the basis of the UK average we are 28th, and yet our GDP is heavily skewed towards London and the south. I can only speculate where we'd be if you excluded London from the figures. I doubt we'd be in the top 50.

Some areas of the North are amongst the poorest in the Western world. A disgrace.

 

[KS55]

This is the lie that has been sold for many years. We somehow believe that we're a rich country but you only have to walk around to see how false this is. What we really have is a powerful financial sector and a powerful London in the south which vastly skews everything else.

For anybody north of this or not working in the financial sector then it's essentially a fight over scraps and suckling at the teat. This is made even worse given successive governments are heavily London focused or even as with our last PM the country is run by the kind of people who have only worked in the financial sector.

Other countries are far better regionalised, Germany is the largest country by GDP in Europe and yet it doesn't have a specific capital economically. Each city has its own strengths whereas London just out muscles every other city here economically by a factor of 10 or more.

Unfortunately this has all come from the fact that London and its minority overclass has always been more important and so investment and infrastructure spending will always remain focused there. That isn't going to change anytime soon and the only solution is to well move to London but the irony is nobody can afford to do it, not even Londoners!

Corbyn isn't the solution either, what is really required is an industrial revolution in the regions but it isn't going to happen no matter how hard he or anybody else tries.

The HQ of the Northern Powerhouse is………..in London.

 

[Saddleworth2]

(And we don't have 4.5m children living in poverty. Poverty is NOT earning less than a 60% a median. Or else someone on £1m a year in Monaco is living in poverty. And the numbers living in poverty DECREASE if median earnings decline... Which is plainly nonsense. The numbers in actual real poverty, like shortage of food or clothing, is between 1m and 2m. Still way too many but not as sensational an argument as claiming it's 4.5m)

Your assertions are contrary to those of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation who's most recent report highlights that although the overall rate of poverty (people classed as in poverty) has not changed in 20 odd years. The overall level of poverty and destitution is deepening. Wether we are 6th, 18th or 28th, the situation is still a national disgrace. Labour were elected on a manifesto to ‘develop an ambitious strategy to reduce child poverty’ and to ‘end mass dependence on emergency food parcels’, as well as to ‘review UC so that it makes work pay and tackles poverty’.
Its about time they actually did something to deliver those outcomes on a sustainable long term basis. The Governments own research indicates:

The Resolution Foundation, a living standards think tank, predicted in August 2024 that if there was no change to economic forecasts or policies from the 2024 election, an extra 1.5 million people including 400,000 children would be in relative poverty after housing costs in 2029/30, from a rate for all individuals of 22% in 2024/25 to 23% in 2029/30.

The DWP modelled the effect of the changes made to benefits in March 2025, including changes to PIP entitlements, Universal Credit Health and Work Capability Assessment and found that these changes mean an additional 250,000 people in relative poverty after housing costs in 2029/30, compared to a scenario where these changes were not made.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Your assertions are contrary to those of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation who's most recent report highlights that although the overall rate of poverty (people classed as in poverty) has not changed in 20 odd years. The overall level of poverty and destitution is deepening. Wether we are 6th, 18th or 28th, the situation is still a national disgrace. Labour were elected on a manifesto to ‘develop an ambitious strategy to reduce child poverty’ and to ‘end mass dependence on emergency food parcels’, as well as to ‘review UC so that it makes work pay and tackles poverty’.
Its about time they actually did something to deliver those outcomes on a sustainable long term basis. The Governments own research indicates:

The Resolution Foundation, a living standards think tank, predicted in August 2024 that if there was no change to economic forecasts or policies from the 2024 election, an extra 1.5 million people including 400,000 children would be in relative poverty after housing costs in 2029/30, from a rate for all individuals of 22% in 2024/25 to 23% in 2029/30.

The DWP modelled the effect of the changes made to benefits in March 2025, including changes to PIP entitlements, Universal Credit Health and Work Capability Assessment and found that these changes mean an additional 250,000 people in relative poverty after housing costs in 2029/30, compared to a scenario where these changes were not made.

I don't buy into this "relative poverty" definition. By that definition if everyone in the UK is on £100k a year, someone on £60k is in poverty. That's plain daft.

Socialists (and Marxists) are using Child Poverty as a proxy for Inequality. I get that they don't like inequality, but that does not automatically equate to poverty.

I do accept that child poverty is an issue and 1 child is too many. I just don't agree with the way many of these organizations like to try measure it.

 

[chesterbells]

And, BTW the above list is in order. Richest per capita (and in purchasing power terms) at the top. What shocks me is which countries in Europe are better off than us.

Ireland
Norway
Denmark
Switzerland
Netherlands
Iceland
Austria
Sweden
Germany
Belgium
Finland
France
Italy
Spain

What a ****ing mess.

I’m not being flippant here, but having seen the cost of a Guinness in Dublin, I’m surprised to see Ireland at the top of that purchasing power list.