AIBU to not understand why some people seem to have an absolute hatred for rich people in this country.

[Barbierella]

I cannot understand why people find it acceptable to slate rich people as if they are all the same and responsible for all that is wrong in society.

Surely people can understand that many rich people do pay tax and generally are an asset to society? And without the many successful businesses in the private sector we would not have a public sector?

AIBU to think that people who like to lump all rich people into one tax avoiding bunch of tossers can be the very same people who get outraged at the lumping of all out of work people as benefit scroungers?

Neither are ok in IMO.

The ones who bullied me at school are the same ones who now share Daily Mail propaganda on fb and moan about how people aren't trying hard enough and how ppl are only using food banks cos its free food.
Most of them seem to have been quite successful business wise. I read an article about how you don't have to be a sociopath to succeed in business but it helps.
It certainly explains a lot after the viciousness they subjected me and others too.

Spero
"I don't think anyone on here has particularly moaned about tax but you were asking why the rich are 'hated' - one of the reasons the affluent irritate me (hate probably too strong a word) is the constant whinging about paying tax as it all goes on benefit scrounges and layabouts."

I don't think moaning about tax is a particularly rich persons' thing. I think moaning about tax really comes back to the individual - I know more people on moderate incomes who complain about paying tax than people on high incomes.

My point is that I find it much more offensive when people on higher incomes moan about paying tax because I worry this is just another symptom of our increasingly segregated society where the poor become something 'other', they are poor because they are lazy and feckless not because they are a product of a society that has now annihilated any real chance of social mobility.

There is no such thing as society. There are individuals and there are families.

If you wish to help others, please do so....but don't force the rest of us to do so on your behalf.

The Left - spending other people's money to salve its own conscience since 1917.

Nothing like quoting Mrs T to shore up your claim to the moral high ground, I find.

YY Raven That gave me chills. Not good ones.

True Gent

What a pile of cock.

My chemo must have cost in region of £60K to prepare and administer. Thankfully we do live in a society and society deems it the right thing to do to help people who suffer serious illness through no 'fault' of their own.

If you don't want to live in society and benefit from its infrastructure, its roads, its hospitals, its police force etc, then I believe there are many stylish yurts in remote parts of Wales that would be delighted to be graced by your presence.

What she actually said was, "There is no such thing as society. There is a living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate." The quote from Truegent is actually a misquote where the magazine to whom she was giving the interview transposed the "There is no such thing as society" from the above portion of the interview to the "families and individuals" section.

From the above, it is clear that Mrs Thatcher did actually believe in the concept of society from the perspective of it being a collection of individuals rather than an amorphous concept. Indeed, she conceived of the quality of life being increased by the willingness of people to assist those less fortunate.

TrueGent you conveniently forgot the rest of the quote about our duty to help our neighbour.

Cross post Barbierella

As idealistic as it sounds a more cohesive society benefits everyone rich or poor.

Don't send any idiots to Wales please.....

DarkEyesStare The ones who bullied me at school are the same ones who now share Daily Mail propaganda on fb and moan about how people aren't trying hard enough and how ppl are only using food banks cos its free food

I doubt my bullies are Daily Mail readers. I'm pretty sure they're Labour voters, dyed-in-the-wool socialists.

Most of them seem to have been quite successful business wise. I read an article about how you don't have to be a sociopath to succeed in business but it helps

I don't think any of mine would think to do something like run a business. They bullied me because I was different and wanted to do well in my life. I thought sociopaths generally failed in positions of powers and in business, and such failure was actually a method of recognising a sociopath?

the ones that bullied me were more the type that e.g. disrupted Maths, (which I failed) by constantly poking, prodding and hitting me.4

I think in many communist and socialist countries, people can actually be less caring, because they assume the state will look after you. I think a medium way is better, with the State doing the important, national level things but still leaving some self responsibility for reasonable things for most people to do on their own.

The thing is, for The Left, there is no problem to which the answer is not more state spending/regulation/restriction etc.

Consequently, one can presume that The Left has a dim view of humanity and believes in coercion over cooperation.

They are the guys that want us all to carry ID cards. Remember that.

The Left, the Right, blah, blah, blah who cares.

I want a society where people are free to work hard and get on but don't trample over everyone else to get there.

Wayne Rooney, on his 300k a week, is the subject of quite a lot of rich-bashing.

I don't think he's worth that, especially after the 2nd half against Italy, in which his performance would have embarrassed a kid playing in game 4 at the local comprehensive.

But he's never done anything to me, he hasn't evaded any tax as far as I'm aware of, and I don't spend anything on the football industry, let alone Man United, so all I can see is that he has negotiated a fat salary for himself with his employers.

Some Mumsnetters saw it differently, to the point of starting a thread wondering how he could sleep at night.

Me too Spero, also one that cares properly for those who are less able or fortunate, and to care willingly not have to be dragged kicking and screaming to the idea that we all benefit if everyone contributes and all contributions are equally valid and worthwhile. I begrudge no-one their wealth, I begrudge the behaviour displayed by some of those with wealth and also dislike the means some of them obtained that wealth and status.

I think its really odd to discuss someone's wealth/income when talking about whether you like them or not.

it says for more about the person commenting than the person they are talking about.

Darkesteyes

The list of shows you kindly provided:

Benefits Street.
We All Pay Your Benefits.
Benefits Britain. Life on the Dole.
Benefit Claimants and Proud.
Britains Benefit Tenants.
How to Get A Council House.

These all have one thing in common ,they feature - shall we say, 'less educated' people. These people are quite easy for a well educated , silvery tongued journalist to manipulate into participating in his programme with promises of being on their side, telling their stories sympathetically, even money. (This is exactly what happened in 'benefits street').

The same tactic simply does not work with the rich, the conversation would go something like this:

Journo: Hello Mr banker / businessman , I am a journalist working for xxx and we're making a show about rich people.

Banker: Fuck off, not interested, you'll just stitch me up!

Journo: But if I may explain a moment, our show will be...

Banker: Listen , I said fuck off, now stop harassing me or I'll set the expensive lawyers on you.

And that's why there are loads of shows about benefit scroungers and none about bankers.

there have been numerous tv programs about what wrong with banking: by Evan Davis, Robert Peston, Niall Ferguson.

and lots on Radio 4.

The difference is that the programmes about what is wrong with banking are generally economics / analytical programmes. They may well criticise banking practices, culture, even individual bankers but they aren't exploiting them.

I am comfortably off and work in the City and I can see a huge difference between the programmes that analyse the financial crisis and things like Benefits Street. I hate the Benefits programmes because I do think that they are based on exploiting vulnerable people to reinforce prejudices. Often the people on these programmes have never really had a chance in life, they may not be well educated and they probably have had few opportunities open to them. They are not even representative of most benefits claimants as a lot of benefits are paid to people in work.

I don't agree stereotyping rich people but I do agree they are better able to defend themselves than those in some the most financially vulnerable positions in society.

I am quite happy to be judged for my dislike of the pampered, the insulated, the greedy, the exploiters and the tax avoiders.

Of course not all rich people are like that. But a great many are, it seems to me.

Yes but I've never seen one where the makers were able to dupe an actual high ranking banker into participating and looking stupid.

The shows I've seen about bankers have always consisted of the presenter pontificating into the camera and naval gazing against a backdrop of glass skyscrapers, cut with some 'arty' shots of commuters buzzing around like ants in the financial district. Occasionally they'll get a low level former city worker (failed banker basically) to come on as some sort of 'expert'.

The problem is that money is power, the rich minority have all the power, the middle have very little power and the poor have none. Naturally people resent their foreign policy, trade deals, laws on mass immigration etc.. led by powerful money interests.

When people have no affordable housing and their schools/hospitals overcrowded it's because the rich have insisted on bringing millions of people into the country so they can reduce wages for everyone else without the infrastructure to cope with those extra millions, it causes huge problems for everybody, locals and immigrants. Screaming racism at anybody not delighted to be negatively affected only fuels resentment and anger. Unfortunately it's often immigrants who bear the brunt of that and not the idiots in charge who are responsible for it.

When the rich use their power to promote wars in the name of fighting 'terror' or 'humanitarianism' because their profits/political ideology/wishful thinking/personal interests makes it their interest to do so, everybody should have a problem. Especially when the media lines up to sell their propaganda and politicians happily give it power so they can proudly strut on a world stage feeling very important.

The world is dominated by a few very wealthy people whose interests are in direct conflict with the rest of us. It's not communist to recognise the huge dangers created by vast wealth/power imbalances within societies, it's not communist to prefer to live in a country not dictated by the profit margins, personal interests and pet projects of the extremely rich.

The existence of the very rich makes everyone else poorer, they drive up the cost of housing in the areas they live in and they can't spend enough in the local economy to make their contribution worthwhile. There's a great documentary, inequality for all by a former Clinton advisor that explains this. inequalityforall.com/

I am quite happy to be judged for my dislike of the pampered, the insulated, the greedy, the exploiters and the tax avoiders.

Fine, you're a jealous, oh so politically correct, wannabe trendy left wing type. (Probably a vegetarian who still eats fish too)!
You're so goody goody and worthy it hurts and the rest of us are evil and should just go jump under a train.

the program makers are giving people what they want. there is no agenda.

some people want to learn about the banking crisis. some people want to watch benefits street.