Tories whose dads are well off.

Shayper · 17 May 2012 at 08:46

I'm a tory.

I'm a skint student, mum is on JSA. Dad is relatively well off, but don't see him much.

krooton · 17 May 2012 at 08:59

Amp34 said:
Which side is ignorant? To me the first thought was inflation. If everyone else had twice as much money as you products would go up in price. The extra £50k may still make you relatively poorer and less able to buy things than having just the £50k. And then there is the question of how that question was asked.

I was assuming the payment in the example is a one-off, and as such wouldn't have any bearing on price hikes.

estebanrey · 17 May 2012 at 09:10

But dad has alsways said if you took everyone's money away and divided equally amongst the population; within a year you'd have rich and poor again

elmarko · 17 May 2012 at 09:16

estebanrey said:
But dad has alsways said if you took everyone's money away and divided equally amongst the population; within a year you'd have rich and poor again

Some people would lose it I'm sure, but not all.

I bet some of the rich would also be in the poor category after a year (those who are rich due to inheritance/owning land & not by possessing any real skills).

Either way, it's a bit of a pointless generalisation - as those born into wealth tend to have access to a higher quality of education & have experience in how to maximise wealth accumulation from having capital, most of the working class will have no real experience of it.

Simply dividing it amongst the population would indeed be foolish, as the problem is the development of the next generation (to give them the skills to handle money/other life experiences) - I'd argue most of the current lot are a lost cause.

estebanrey · 17 May 2012 at 09:20

elm, I think my pops was making a statement rather than a suggestion.

elmarko · 17 May 2012 at 09:57

estebanrey said:
elm, I think my pops was making a statement rather than a suggestion.

I didn't expect anything else, I was just pointing out it wasn't as much of a pearl of wisdom as it was presented.

Amp34 · 17 May 2012 at 20:06

krooton said:
I was assuming the payment in the example is a one-off, and as such wouldn't have any bearing on price hikes.

If everyone got £200k then you don't expect most to go out on spending sprees?

elmarko1234 said:
Well, not everybody would have twice as much money.

Just the distribution would be evened out a little more, inflation is caused by an increase in the money supply - not by a more even distribution.

Products don't magically go up in price just by paying the bottom staff a higher percentage of the wage - the price of products go up due to inflation which is caused by the creation of new money (via quantitative easing or fractional reserve banking - of "theft of value from the rest of money in existence" as it's also called - pending on how you see it).

I'm sure it said give you £100k and everyone else £200k. Admittedly there is already money in the system so money in the bank would be different. Maybe I misread the question (I'm on my phone so can't be bothered to fine the original quote) but basically £200k to everyone, where is that coming from? You've basically created billions of pounds overnight. Even if it was redistributed to the "poor" from the rich you would still have a huge increase of ready money, essentially put back I to the system. You really think shops wouldn't put up prices if millions went on a spending spree?

It's a far more complex question that it appears IMO, especially as we don't k ow how it was properly worded. So no, it doesn't have to be entirely about greed...

estebanrey · 17 May 2012 at 20:34

Amp34 said:
If everyone got £200k then you don't expect most to go out on spending sprees?

I would, I'm shockingly bad with money. I got given a tax rebate over well over a grand a few weeks back and it was gone in a few days (my sig will explain where it went

).

When my nan died I got given £5000 and I honestly don't know where it went. I stuck it in the bank and few months later it had all gone despite me not thinking I was spending any more than usual.

Amp34 said:
I'm sure it said give you £100k and everyone else £200k. Admittedly there is already money in the system so money in the bank would be different. Maybe I misread the question (I'm on my phone so can't be bothered to fine the original quote) but basically £200k to everyone, where is that coming from? You've basically created billions of pounds overnight. Even if it was redistributed to the "poor" from the rich you would still have a huge increase of ready money, essentially put back I to the system. You really think shops wouldn't put up prices if millions went on a spending spree?

It's a far more complex question that it appears IMO, especially as we don't k ow how it was properly worded. So no, it doesn't have to be entirely about greed...

I agree, it's a mistake to say that prices are only sensitive to inflation. I wouldn't even say inflation is the biggest driver, supply and demand law has a bigger effect (As demand for a product goes up, so does the price with the opposite also being true).

I also agree that 'poor people' (if I can generalise for a bit) would be more likely to go out spending than the rich people who currently have the cash now (who are more inclined to 'invest' rather than just spend).