If we are all in this together, what cuts have the rich suffered?

[Grennie]

I know mumsnetters seem to be better off than average. So just want to point out that in 2012 the mean national average wage is £29,900. The median was £20,000. And only 10% of people earned £50,500 or above.

So what cuts have this 10% of people suffered?

If you want to argue about the rich and the poor, you need to talk more importantly about the middle. The middle class is where a country's economy lives or dies, and a large middle class is what decides how many poor people there are since the middle class are the true job creators.

We live in a capitalist, consumerist economy. It should work a lot better than it does, but sadly the very wealthy have stopped investing in the country and in businesses, and built an empire of other people's debt.

This TED talk is the best explanation I know about what's happening and why

YouAre - I'm not assuming anything. Do you know how many do/don't? Please share the figures. I'm saying people have choice.

Mumsnet really is full of intolerable knobjockeys at times.

Good points ThePerfect. Will watch the video later.

draw - what choice do you think people have? what is involved in using a tax minimisation scheme?

Is it radical to think if you don't have enough money, get off your ass and make some instead of moaning your handouts aren't enough?

If I was fortunate enough to be a higher rate tax payer I think people moaning they didn't get enough of my money spent on them would make me quite angry!

Richer people pay quite a lot of their salaries in the form of taxation. And what about poorly paid single people. A person on £12,000 a year does not get benefit and yet pays income tax. In no way is this fair when the benefit cap is £500 a week. No one ever gives them a thought.

Funny that you mention being 'keen to play the system to their advantage'. There have been experiments which show that the more affluent people are they more likely they are to cheat, less likely to act generously, and even less likely to stop for a pedestrian when driving.

Anyway, as other posters have said, I don't think people really tend to mean couples 50-150K earning when they talk about "the rich". I think they are more concerned by the fact that a tiny, tiny number of people control such a huge proportion of the country's unearned wealth.

I think there's growing support for taxing unearned wealth at higher rates, including inheritance tax, and for reforming Council Tax more broadly.

And as above, rich people 'take' from the state in all manner of ways. The security of the NHS (because private health insurance won't help you much if you have a serious accident and need emergency help), policing, the promotion of UK business interests abroad, heavily subsidised high arts, transport networks - the whole fabric of our lives.

And while low earning people may not be net contributors of tax, that's quite a naive way to look at our national economy. People working for low wages 'put in' their time, labour and effort, for very little personal reward. Often working for state subsidised wages, which rich employers and shareholders benefit from in turn.

you are confusing income and class.

www.theguardian.com/science/2012/feb/27/upper-class-people-behave-selfishly

"Upper class people are more likely to behave selfishly, studies suggest.
Higher social classes more likely to lie, cheat, cut up other road users and not stop at pedestrian crossings, say researchers"

This may be controversial but the "rich" pay for their own lifestyle and don't rely on the government. What more do you expect them to do? They already pay half of their earnings as tax, surely that is enough?

Well said Foxy. I'm sick of hearing 'Oh the rich this and that'. We pay in our extortionate taxes for all the "free" stuff everyone else enjoys, like healthcare, education, etc, and we take very, very little.

My own family has a small amount of healthcare (vaccinations, routine doctor's visits, basic dentistry), but as net givers, not takers, I really think the 'rich' bashing should stop. Those of you that rely on benefits better hope there are plenty of people like us to pay for them, because otherwise you're up shit creek without a paddle!

"Cuts" is probably the wrong thing to compare. Cuts is what poor people are being asked to contribute. rich people never needed benefits, so obviously cuts will be less- mainly to universal benefits such as child benefit which I think was quite right.

Lets ask, what are the rich doing to contribute their share of cutting the deficit and stopping the recession? I wonder about the top rate of tax. People like to say that if it goes up they will leave the country. In practice, some wealthy foreigners might relocate but most families will not. Education, security of currency and assets and lack of corruption, will keep them in London.

If the government were to ask me they might be surprised to hear that I don't give a flying proverbial about some odd allowance for being married and I would support an extra 2 to 3% on my tax bill, if it was spent on disabled and young people living in poverty. And I would want universal benefits ended for all age groups, and all to come through means tested benefits.

Since when has income been unrelated to class?

I'm not confused.

Lets ask, what are the rich doing to contribute their share of cutting the deficit and stopping the recession?

I employ 5 people on wages £30k - £50k and have grown my business through the last 3 years.

what more do you think I should do?

you changed upper class to rich.

so are all rich people upper class?

I thought Arisbottle got it right. It always amazes me how many well-off Brits go on about how since they use private schools and (at least at the margins) private medicine, they don't get anything in return for their taxes. Er, you don't appreciate police, law courts, roads, emergency rooms? If you don't approve of what the army are doing, doesn't that mean you should even more enthusiastically fund our diplomats and (yes) politicians? You have forgotten that though your train and bus tickets have gone up shockingly, they are still heavily subsidized? That though you pay council tax, still most local government funding comes from central tax revenues, so yes, it is your taxes not just your council taxes that fund rubbish collection?

We had a thread last week by the way that pointed out that most benefits (eg housing) go to people who are working full-time, and so should be viewed as subsidies to the employers that pay their workers less than a true living wage. If you live in London and pay a child minder, you are certainly not paying what it costs to house them and fund their medical care, let alone educate their children privately. The government is doing that for you the employer not just for them!

But most to the point, even though my family don't (lucky us) need housing and other direct benefits, I think we DO gain from them. I have lived in countries where there were children and old people starving in the streets, and believe me, every day I see it as a direct and priceless gain to me and my children that we don't have that here.

You need to employ people, if you run a business and can't do all the work yourself. It only makes sense to hire someone if they make a net contribution to the company through the value of their work. If you paid every person according to the actual value of the work they delivered for you, you would not be able to grow your profits or business.

You hire them. They deliver for you. You are not doing anyone any favours.

And please don't anyone take that last from me as bashing the rich. My point is that by averages if not reality, as other posters have said above, we ARE the rich in my house -- and we are not just grateful for being rich but for what our taxes buy us.

(ps. It's obvious that class and wealth correlate across the population. Don't derail the thread by narrowing in to tiny numbers of exceptions. Besides, the research was American, and their class system isn't exactly the same as Britain's, and data was based on income groups and occupational status, rather than other markers of class)

heads - you asked for me contribution to cutting the deficit.

the more jobs there are, the higher wages people can command.

whats your contribution to cutting the deficit?

I wish people wouldn't assume someone is on benefits because we speak up for the poor and say we have little sympathy for the rich. There are rich people who acknowledge how lucky they are and see the injustice in people's circumstances when one set have been lucky and one set have been unlucky.

Your - your employees make you rich so it's hardly a selfless act (not that you said it is) and there is loads of info on tax avoidance. Google it.

Anyway, my driver is waiting for me. I'm off to have a nice day out and you lot can continue arguing! No doubt some bright spark will be hugely offended at the suggestion that wealth is born of luck and not just hard work.

I didn't ask you what you did to cut the deficit. Different poster. I don't ask personal questions on internet forums.

CHJR great post

I don't think you can state "rich = upper class", it's definitely not a given.

I know a few rich people, but they most definitely are not upper class, (and wouldn't want to be catagorised as such).

heads- i can still ask........... you don't have to answer.

the first study in the link as about they brand of car people drove. clearly you have to have money to have a flashy car. but you also have to be a certain type of person to even want a flashy car.

oh and we do need job creators....we really need job creators.

oh course you don't have to see that!

It's a tit-for-tat question, and I didn't ask you.

Anyway, I think it's beside the point. Employers and business people have to hire staff if there's work that needs done, and it only makes business sense to take on an employee if they make a net contribution to the company. It's a business decision, not a benevolent act.

By contributing to growing the company, and delivering more than they are remunerated for, and by being in employment, the employee is contributing to 'cutting the deficit' just as the employer is. We're all interdependent.

(Again, I think it's derailing to split hair about the study, but as for being a "certain type of person" to want a flashy car...that's a difficult call. Plenty of upper class people drive hunks of junk as a matter of personal taste. Plenty of working class people may want flashy cars, but be unable to afford them. Money and occupational status are the key criteria in those American studies)