'Rich Privilege'

krooton said:
I think if some people in their 30s worked out how much money they have spent on holidays, booze and restaurants over their adult life, and what that would have translated to if they had funneled it in to a mortgage instead, they would be quite shocked.

Some people value their annual holiday more than residential security, life is subjective like that.
Click to expand...

Exactly. This is often at the root of those who say they can't afford to buy a house.

What that actually translates to is "I can't afford to buy a house and keep my current lifestyle"

I have lost count of people who have told me they can't afford to buy a house but who are out on the town every weekend and going on at least 1 two week holiday per year and like to wear new fashionable clothes etc.

I buy clothes when the old ones fall apart. It is not because I dont like new clothes - I would love to wear all the best designer clothes and look great. But I can't justify it over paying a mortgage. That is my personal choice, however.

You pay your money and you make your choices, afterall.
 
cheesyboy said:
In which case, why don't we just give more to the poor: they get a better standard of living (more in line with their more fortunate contemporaries), whilst the rich actually benefit.

Who loses?

(you're about to have an epiphany here...)
Click to expand...


Why should I work hard to GIVE it away. (thats probably another argument though about are the poor just lazy)

It depends on what the definition of rich is though.

Bill gates rich. Well he does give a massive amount away so do a large number of other very rich people.
 
Jono8 said:
ay?

So the man who owns a brewery will want to give money to the poor...so they can give it back to him but in exchange for a product that has cost him money to make...

How is that going to work? An economy will not work if you just start dealing out money to people for nothing, poor or otherwise.
Click to expand...

You need to think bigger than just individual businesses.

Tax the top, redistribute to the bottom. The poor spend it all so it goes back into the coffers of the rich, where it gets taxed again and redistributed....

The increased domestic demand fuels domestic growth, increases jobs and helps the country compete on the world stage, bringing in more money.
 
cheesyboy said:
The increased domestic demand fuels domestic growth, increases jobs and helps the country compete on the world stage, bringing in more money.
Click to expand...

No it won't. Too much tax, and no one will want to run a business in this country and will go elsewhere. Then we really will be in the ******.
 
mattyg said:
Why should I work hard to GIVE it away. (thats probably another argument though about are the poor just lazy)

It depends on what the definition of rich is though.

Bill gates rich. Well he does give a massive amount away so do a large number of other very rich people.
Click to expand...

Why? because it generates the possibility of even more money.

Not on an individual level, but on a economy-wide scale. As per previous posts.
 
cheesyboy said:
You need to think bigger than just individual businesses.

Tax the top, redistribute to the bottom. The poor spend it all so it goes back into the coffers of the rich, where it gets taxed again and redistributed....

The increased domestic demand fuels domestic growth, increases jobs and helps the country compete on the world stage, bringing in more money.
Click to expand...

What your saying makes perfect sense on the face of it.

But

Why would I do 80hrs weeks to earn just a little bit more than I would doing a 40hr week. If i'm taxed so much.

That system runs the risk of stifling growth.
 
mattyg said:
I understand that their is a finite amount of money in the world
Click to expand...

That is a misconception. There is both no money, and infinite money. rEconomics is a speculative valuing system that attached a desirability rating to a community - nothing is truly worth anything, other than what people are prepared to pay.

Take magic the gathering trading cards for example. Cheaply printed card, with no holograms or fraud prevention techniques, but can be sold at value according to the desirability of the inky words printed on them.

Zero real world value, potential infinite price by desirability.
 
cheesyboy said:
There's a balance, of course
Click to expand...

Which is exactly what we are trying to achieve and have been for years.

If you take away the incentive to make millions or even billions of pounds, people just won't bother creating million/billion pound businesses. Then there are millions less jobs and then no one has anything.
 
cheesyboy said:
How so?
Click to expand...

It shifts the money from the people that have earnt it to the people who can't be bothered to earn it.


I however agree we need a benefit system. Just not for the lazy.

We are no having generations who solely live on benefits.

Hey why should I go out to work. My parents got given money for sitting at home and so did their parents etc etc.

I may have ranted about the family up the street with all that:rolleyes:
 
BunnyKillBot said:
That is a misconception. There is both no money, and infinite money. rEconomics is a speculative valuing system that attached a desirability rating to a community - nothing is truly worth anything, other than what people are prepared to pay.

Take magic the gathering trading cards for example. Cheaply printed card, with no holograms or fraud prevention techniques, but can be sold at value according to the desirability of the inky words printed on them.

Zero real world value, potential infinite price by desirability.
Click to expand...

Paid for by what though.

How do I buy them? I mean if I have NO money and have never had any money how do I acquire these cards
 
BunnyKillBot said:
That is a misconception. There is both no money, and infinite money. rEconomics is a speculative valuing system that attached a desirability rating to a community - nothing is truly worth anything, other than what people are prepared to pay.

Take magic the gathering trading cards for example. Cheaply printed card, with no holograms or fraud prevention techniques, but can be sold at value according to the desirability of the inky words printed on them.

Zero real world value, potential infinite price by desirability.
Click to expand...

A £10 note also has no intrinsic value, it's just a piece of paper. Its value is purely derived from other people's willingness to recognise value in it.
 
mattyg said:
What your saying makes perfect sense on the face of it.

But

Why would I do 80hrs weeks to earn just a little bit more than I would doing a 40hr week. If i'm taxed so much.

That system runs the risk of stifling growth.
Click to expand...

So... don't? I don't necessary see a problem with a tax system that discourages 80 hr weeks. Somebody else can pick up the extra work and the economy can have 1 more job available.

Any job that requires 80 hours should already be disallowed by working time directive anyway (having an opt-out completely defeats the purpose of the law).
 
cheesyboy said:
In which case, why don't we just give more to the poor: they get a better standard of living (more in line with their more fortunate contemporaries), whilst the rich actually benefit.

Who loses?

(you're about to have an epiphany here...)
Click to expand...

id stop going to work and just take the free money as many would. which would mean youd very quickly run out of money to give.
 
My girlfriend and I are currently in the process of buying a house.

The property is a new build, £285,000. We're using the help to buy scheme, which means we have a deposit of 5% of the total price, £14,250. The help to buy scheme enables us to have a deposit of 4.5 our combined salaries, £211,500, and the government will own 20% of the equity of our property (which we can buy back at a later date), £57,000. There's then a shortfall in the deposit of about £3,000, which we will be covering. Stamp duty on that is £4,250 (I believe).

All in all, we need about £24,000.

OK, that's a fair amount of money.But we both live with our parents, these figures have to be paid over roughly a 9 month period (looking at moving in in September), but with planning in advance, we are able to pay that. We've had to ask our parents for £5,000, but this is simply because we didn't start saving early enough, not because it's an unachievable amount of money to save. Living at home, combined we save £1,800 per month. That's saving for 13 months to afford a house in Surrey. I really don't think that's too bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom