'Rich Privilege'

When we discuss wealth, how much money are we talking about?

I ask as working class people who purchased a 3 bed semi inside the M25 for a sensible amount 15-20 years ago can now have property worth £500,000.
 
Toxteth in the 80's was more than about deprivation. Personally I think a re-run of that will happen somewhere in the UK within the next five years.
History shows that the greater the inequality the greater the swing politically.

Deprivation and inequality are not the same thing though, inequality in of itself doesn't lead to deprivation.
 
The wealth and privilege gap is disgusting, what is also disgusting in the slack arse pigs who sit at home and do nothing.

I have no objection whatsoever in a % of my income supporting those less fortunate than me. Not everyone can be a Engineer, doctor etc its hard and it take a decent education or some luck and stick-ability at something. A great deal of these people you would have seen down the mines or working in manufacturing doing well nasty jobs BUT there was a community a sense of pride and massive social aspect.

Thatcher and the Conservative`s destroyed all this by selling our skills to the far east so the profit margin for the big boys will be greater. Now we struggle to manufacture anything and by manufacture i dont mean assemble a super car when all the bits for it came from the far east.

Labour are just as bad, 12 years and they did nothing to address the housing shortage, a war we should have never got into and a multitude of other sins.

So pay for those less well off than you, for the majority its not there fault but the conservatives would make you think otherwise.

For the past 35years every government has failed its own people in the UK unless you are born well off in the first place.

V
 
I normally don't post in these sorts of threads, and haven't read more than the first (man sized) page, so excuse me if this has been asked before, but...

What is inherently wrong with being rich? Unless it was done immorally (big multinationals who exploit third world countries, I'm looking at you!), then surely someone should keep what they earn? It's THEIR money.

This is coming from a guy who lives in a council flat, and lives paycheck to paycheck, while trying to get on in life and have a good time.

Can't people just be happy with themselves? And if they don't like something about themselves, change it?
 
When we discuss wealth, how much money are we talking about?

I ask as working class people who purchased a 3 bed semi inside the M25 for a sensible amount 15-20 years ago can now have property worth £500,000.

House prices go up, deal with it. My grandparents bought their house for about the same price as a family hatchback and it is now worth half a million+. So what.
 
What is inherently wrong with being rich?

I think the general consensus on here is it is fine if you've earned it yourself from nothing, but not so much if your're Mr. Cadbury Jnr, and you inherit all you'll ever need and have no requirement to be good at anything but will still earn more than 99.9% of others because of your placement in society.
 
Simply put: because you can afford to. If you're earning enough to pay the top rate of tax, you're into the top 1% of earners in this country. Whether you feel it or not, you're rich compared to most people.

But I can't afford it. I have a really big house. And a V12 car to run. And my holidays aren't cheap. Not to mention my designer clothes.
 
I think the general consensus on here is it is fine if you've earned it yourself from nothing, but not so much if your're Mr. Cadbury Jnr, and you inherit all you'll ever need and have no requirement to be good at anything but will still earn more than 99.9% of others because of your placement in society.

+1

I'd like to see all estates upon death go into funding infrastructure projects.
 
I think the general consensus on here is it is fine if you've earned it yourself from nothing, but not so much if your're Mr. Cadbury Jnr, and you inherit all you'll ever need and have no requirement to be good at anything but will still earn more than 99.9% of others because of your placement in society.

I don't want to fan the flames of debate, and I'm perfectly cool with a meritocracy, provided it puts everyone on equal footing, meaning getting rid of benefits, as well.

Maybe somehow we all start from £0 when we're born, and we only get out of life what we earn through merit. No benefits or hand-outs to taint that "merit".

Sounds a bit harsh, really, but fair.

I sort of view wealth-redistribution as theft by proxy, though. I wouldn't go rob someone because they have more than me, so why should the government?

I have no objection whatsoever in a % of my income supporting those less fortunate than me.

And neither do I. I don't have a lot, and try to give bits and bobs where I can (usually while drunk at some sort of fundraiser!), but ultimately, it should be up to people to choose. If I want to give away my money, fine. If I want to keep it, fine. Having it done through the government seems coercive, though.
 
The OP seems to forget that parents dont just bequeath money, they provide the nurture needed to succeed. Sadly not everyone gets this. Many problems for people essentially boil down to social problems. State taxes help redress these by interventionist policies, like good schooling and a social welfare system. So thats why he pays tax and thats why those who are wealthy and ignorant of how fortunate they were are so despised.

Behind every successful person there is normally wealth/loving family/fortuitous luck mixed with a bit of tax dodging.

example, Richard Branson. Dirty tax dodger throughout his career, actually born to a wealthy upper-middle class family. 'self made', my arse. Had the gaul to send a daughter to medical school to help infiltrate and then get her out of clinical practice to head up his shameful private health care business.
 
Back
Top Bottom