'Rich Privilege'

[misteranonimous]

But hypothetically, even if you took all the money in the world and split it evenly amongst everyone, what would happen?

The people who used to be rich will get rich again because they know how to spend/save money properly. While the people who used to be poor would get poor again, because they don't know how to spend/save properly.

There's a reason why majority of lottery winners are broke again after a few years because they've squandered all their millions instead of spending/saving wisely.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

But hypothetically, even if you took all the money in the world and split it evenly amongst everyone, what would happen?

The people who used to be rich will get rich again because they know how to spend/save money properly. While the people who used to be poor would get poor again, because they don't know how to spend/save properly.


There's a reason why majority of lottery winners are broke again after a few years because they've squandered all their millions instead of spending/saving wisely.

This is wrong on so many levels. Are you seriously saying that poor people are poor because they can't manage their finances?

Most people are rich because their parents were rich and they pay clever people to ensure they stay rich.

For example, if you removed the queens wealth, do you think she could "earn" it back?

 

[robgmun]

This is wrong on so many levels. Are you seriously saying that poor people are poor because they can't manage their finances?

In part yes

Most people are rich because their parents were rich and they pay clever people to ensure they stay rich.

Misconception, a fallacy

For example, if you removed the queens wealth, do you think she could "earn" it back?

Certainly not back up to previous levels and it'll take her several years but she'd be back into the 1% given time.

 

[Lightnix]

This thread is such a joke. It's a bunch of people complaining about how hard they have it to have a well paying job and many people suggesting that we should be trying to scrape as much from the poor as possible. I'll tell you some truths:

The wealth distribution is an exponential curve. You might say, "well people worked harder to deserve it!" They did not. People do not get exponentially more productive as salaries increase. As you increase salaries, the productivity curve tails off (i.e. is logarithmic). People who are being paid more than average are being overpaid, in some sense, as a result of this.

Moreover, targeting "benefit scum" is a terrible approach. That group is a small minority who are not making or consuming very much money to begin with.

There's a good chance, going forward, that your job will be automated. More things are being automated, the point of the automation is to reduce the cost to complete a particular task (by reducing the amount of man-hours it takes to complete it) and so the pool of available jobs fundamentally must shrink (particularly at the lower end of the skill level). At some point, we will likely have to introduce a universal minimum income or we will not be able to sustain our population with the work available. Benefits for everyone!

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Misconception, a fallacy

Really?

59% of the billionaire list are self made link. But, if you look past the headline figure, there is a caveat to that.

Of those, a staggering 96% had substantial inherited wealth that they used and nutured (i.e. paid someone to tell them how to invest) to make it onto the billionaire list.

Only 8.5% of billionaires are ranked as coming from a poor background and 7% have entirely inherited fortunes (i.e. they've done nothing at all to "earn" any of it"). Even someone like Donald Trump, often put forward as a poster boy for the "self mades", inherited a decent size business to grow. Could he have got where he is today without that inheritance? It's debatable - money breeds money is a timeless truism.

If you check the stats for millionaires, it's broably comparable.

So, my statement "most rich people are rich because they have inherited wealth" is true. If you don't think it's true, then how about providing some evidence to refute the statement?

 

[Danthus]

That's life, deal with it.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

That's life, deal with it.

It's a situation I disagree with, therefore I'll continue campaigning to do something about it if it's all the same to you. Thanks

Let's be clear, it's the concentration of wealth and it's damaging effect on society that I disagree with, not inheritance per se. Inheritance is just a mechanism that promotes concentration of wealth. If the concentration of wealth can be tackled without touching inheritance then that's fine.

 

[Lightnix]

It's a situation I disagree with, therefore I'll continue campaigning to do something about it if it's all the same to you. Thanks

That's a good way to deal with it.

 

[Groowie]

I'm not so sure as to why are you so concerned about what other people think of you. If you're happy with yourself and you think you've made it - great, ignore the haters and enjoy life as you should.
That being said - put yourself into the shoes of people who never got the chance to succeed (for whatever reason outside of their own influence) or people who worked hard and still didn't make it (even though they should've been neck to neck with you). You're not being hated because you're rich or successful, you're hated because you've made it when they didn't.

 

[mid_gen]

There's a good chance, going forward, that your job will be automated. More things are being automated, the point of the automation is to reduce the cost to complete a particular task (by reducing the amount of man-hours it takes to complete it) and so the pool of available jobs fundamentally must shrink (particularly at the lower end of the skill level). At some point, we will likely have to introduce a universal minimum income or we will not be able to sustain our population with the work available. Benefits for everyone!

I've seen this come up on a few articles.....people declaring a future catastrophe because robots will do all the jobs.

****ING GREAT! Why does life have to be about 9-5 til you're old and knackered so you be a mortgage slave then die. The more machines can do all the work and leave us to enjoy...you know....living...the better.

 

[balky12]

Well, I'm also against individual countries as well. One world government imho.

On a very basic level that is like opening a joint bank account with your whole street.

Would you open a joint back account with your whole street..?

Also the world can't decide on what sky fairy is the right one. Let alone something tangible.

 

[subbytna]

This is wrong on so many levels. Are you seriously saying that poor people are poor because they can't manage their finances?

Most people are rich because their parents were rich and they pay clever people to ensure they stay rich.

For example, if you removed the queens wealth, do you think she could "earn" it back?

We have a winner....That's exactly right.

 

[topshot]

How is inheriting your parents wealth classed as "working hard"?

Let children earn thier own wealth.

Surely this should be the parents call and not the Governments. If I want to leave all of my wealth (which I have paid taxes on already) to my children then why should they be taxed on it?

 

[mattyg]

On its most basic level, a person that is well off is not necessarily going to buy more groceries than say your average "commoner" therefore the same amount of money will be spent and put in the economy should they go grocery shopping regardless of if it is some rich tycoon or someone just getting by, thereby meaning that the rich tycoon in this case is just retaining his/her wealth instead of passing it on.

What a load of bull.

Yes groceries maybe. But all you've done is take a slice of what people buy and apply across the board.

Rich people do spend. You see the extravagance on the news all the time.

One of the lads from one-direction spent £1million on a bottle of champagne for his mates birthday. What do you think happens to that £1million. Most of It goes back into the economy.

£300million on a yacht. Thats money back into the economy.

£100milion pound houses. Stamp duty.

I could go on

 

[balky12]

Yes groceries maybe. But all you've done is take a slice of what people buy and apply across the board.

I would argue that richer people spend more on groceries. At least I have noticed a difference in what we buy from when we were doing ok, to being comfortable.

Better quality food. More food. More snacks, etc.

 

[cheesyboy]

Rich people spend a lower proportion of their income or any additional income

Give a poor person £100, and it'll be spent straight away. Give it to a rich person, and it'll not affect their spending.

It's why all the chatter about spongers milking the system is a little silly: anything they get goes back out into the economy. Money is cyclical, except where it's tied up in economically inactive assets. Like houses.

 

[OhEsEcks]

I think the government should really be chasing down tax dodging companies and individuals before going after the citizens. But I think we've reached a point in time where business dictates policies to government and not citizens under the threat of "we'll take our business elsewhere". Someone needs to turn round and say "well go then, but your entire brand, image and anything you make and sell will be banned from this market, confiscated upon detection of importation and destroyed". For example... $6 billion in profit Apple made from the UK. It paid $10 million in tax on that. They'll whistle a different tune when $6 billion in profits looks set to disappear.

 

[Diagro]

My Wife and I take home £3k Per month after tax. And I know people who are jealous of the fact we wholly own a detached house at our age (26).

We don't stress about money, does that make us Privileged?

I know people at work who are earning over 80k... are they also Privileged?

 

[balky12]

Rich people spend a lower proportion of their income or any additional income

Give a poor person £100, and it'll be spent straight away. Give it to a rich person, and it'll not affect their spending.

It's why all the chatter about spongers milking the system is a little silly: anything they get goes back out into the economy. Money is cyclical, except where it's tied up in economically inactive assets. Like houses.

True. But then rich person buys a house for £5m and pays ~£500,000 stamp duty. How long would it take a poor person to pay £500,000 worth of taxes..

 

[mattyg]

My Wife and I take home £3k Per month after tax. And I know people who are jealous of the fact we wholly own a detached house at our age (26).

We don't stress about money, does that make us Privileged?

I know people at work who are earning over 80k... are they also Privileged?

Nope I'd argue it makes you smart. But I don't know how you came to have no mortgage. If it was inheritance then I'd say great your family earnt enough to not saddle you with any debt and were clever enough to buy property to leave to their loved ones.