'Rich Privilege'

I'd written out a really long post but decided I would only end up getting berated because I think the tax system is unfair to high earners.

The way it looks is

Labour=the common working man

But when the common working man makes good and becomes successful then you become hated by the labour government so have to turn to the Tories.

Same hourly rate. But do twice as many hours you are rewarded by paying 2.5 times the tax.


Don's flame proof suit
 
BunnyKillBot said:
Its funny, because everything you write literally reads rich privilege. You think your amazing and critics are calling you 'a bad person'.
Click to expand...

No money worries = rich privilege.

Even if you worked hard for it.

You heard it here first.

He also gives to charity...

edit: I thought you were the OP, but its the same tone applies. 'I worked hard'. Maybe, you still had the right connections and the right time and the right circumstances to take you to where you are today.
Click to expand...

Or maybe he just worked hard and was good with his money?

why does everyone play the 'luck/connections/who you know card.'

Not everyone who is rich got there because of luck/ connections/ random chance...

The only difference between yourself and another equally capable but less successful individual is random chance.
Click to expand...

Me and my best friend live down same road, went to same school, went to same college, studied more or less the same things. I am on almost double what he is on. Random chance yes?
 
Last edited:
mattyg said:
I'd written out a really long post but decided I would only end up getting berated because I think the tax system is unfair to high earners.

The way it looks is

Labour=the common working man

But when the common working man makes good and becomes successful then you become hated by the labour government so have to turn to the Tories.

Same hourly rate. But do twice as many hours you are rewarded by paying 2.5 times the tax.


Don's flame proof suit
Click to expand...

You'll only get flamed by the plebs :D.

Got a spare suit?
 
BunnyKillBot said:
Its funny, because everything you write literally reads rich privilege. You think your amazing and critics are calling you 'a bad person'.

edit: I thought you were the OP, but its the same tone applies.
Click to expand...

So, the only way to be privileged is to live on benefits and waz the whole lot up the wall each month?
 
drakioned said:
Well... it was a generalisation about GD. The important part was the rest of that post...
Click to expand...

Don't agree, people can't and won't opt out. Can you really see the poor wanting absolutely nothing. Long term taking what you want is a standard of living not seen in this country for many many decades and well below the quality if life everyone has now.

It's just something you guys like saying and isn't based on reality.

And you get rid of the rich and the poor get poorer. It's the rich who pay for the country.
I won't even be a nets contributor to society and I'm not rich.
Rich also invest and make jobs.
 
From my point of view, it's about trying to create a more meritocratic society. One where opportunity is as equal as it can be - to give everyone the chance to maximise their productivity.

Children from wealthier backgrounds have, as a group, a big skills advantage over poorer children. They get a significantly better start in life in a broad education sense due to attitude and example in the home. This means they will tend to perform better in an economic sense. It's hard to equalise this, but investments in education, for children and families, can help.

Wealthier children also have a familial financial advantage which gives them the freedom to pursue higher risks (they have a safety net), to defer rewards (play the long-game in their career), to take opportunities (which may require funding) and to have greater geographical mobility. It's of great benefit to society and the wealth of the nation to offer more of these opportunities to a greater breadth of people.
 
Cosimo said:
Take it away from those who have earned it and give it to the plebs so it can be frittered away. The socialist's dream...
Click to expand...

I'm sure I read somewhere that if the worlds wealth was divided up equally then the top 2% who have all the wealth now would have it all back within 5 years.
 
mattyg said:
I'm sure I read somewhere that if the worlds wealth was divided up equally then the top 2% who have all the wealth now would have it all back within 5 years.
Click to expand...

Probably, because they are smart. They will most likely invent something that everyone needs. So people will throw money at them.

How they got rich in the first place probably.

Being smart.
 
Glaucus said:
Don't agree, people can't and won't opt out. Can you really see the poor wanting absolutely nothing. Long term taking what you want is a standard of living not seen in this country for many many decades and well below the quality if life everyone has now.

It's just something you guys like saying and isn't based on reality.

And you get rid of the rich and the poor get poorer. It's the rich who pay for the country.
I won't even be a nets contributor to society and I'm not rich.
Rich also invest and make jobs.
Click to expand...

Well, I see the riots in 2011 as an example of opting out. That was an example of a large number of people choosing not to respect ownership/property. It's easy to say that those people were "petty criminals", but what happens when the turn out for that kind of event is 30,000 rather than 3,000?

Tax-wise, I'm actually a net contributor, but if I put myself in a place of an unemployed 21 year old in a rough neighbourhood without much prospects. I can't see that there's a huge incentive for me to abide by the rules.
 
They wouldn't need to invent anything they could do nothing and watch it grow most likely. They would hold key positions in power, oil, food things that we can't live without.

Once we get their money we'd have to not spend a penny to keep them from getting it back.
 
mattyg said:
I'm sure I read somewhere that if the worlds wealth was divided up equally then the top 2% who have all the wealth now would have it all back within 5 years.
Click to expand...

I read somewhere that Tyra Banks was Gordon Banks' daughter.

I learned the hard way not to always trust the written word ;)
 
drakioned said:
Well, I see the riots in 2011 as an example of opting out. That was an example of a large number of people choosing not to respect ownership/property. It's easy to say that those people were "petty criminals", but what happens when the turn out for that kind of event is 30,000 rather than 3,000?

Tax-wise, I'm actually a net contributor, but if I put myself in a place of an unemployed 21 year old in a rough neighbourhood without much prospects. I can't see that there's a huge incentive for me to abide by the rules.
Click to expand...

Rofl. Riots that lasted a few days and was nothing more than thugs having a go. It was not the wider population in the slightest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom