To think we can feel for poor people without bashing on those who have more ?

[bereal7]

I've just been reading a thread where the OP is going through a very hard time and everyone, ofcourse, sympathises. Then , like is usual, someone brings up the fact that CEOs are earning millions plus and we should be angry about this. This isn't a TAAT; it happens too many times where people divert the thread to attacking people who are earning more than average (I.e lawyers, bankers, CEOs etc). I just think this doesn't help the OP , or anyone for that matter, and just contributes to a divide amongst the well - paid and average/below - average earners. So AIBU to think we can all (or most) feel sympathy for poor people whilst celebrating other people's success?

Good luck with that on here!

Yanbu

I don't think it's bashing them to be angry about it. I have nothing against them personally however I can't see it as anything other than an injustice that some people earn ludicrous amounts of money when there are people shoplifting 75p mars bars because they can't afford food.

But we should be angry about CEOs who are raking in 100s of 1000s whilst paying their employees so little that they have to rely on top-up benefits just to pay the rent.

I tend to find that Mumsnet approval is reserved for those on benefits.

People who work and fall on hard times get a good old scolding.

I went to a party at what is basically the home of the landed gentry (to be clear, these are not the circles I tend to move in) and while they were all lovely people, you can't help but be a little bit peeved that through working your bollocks off, you're just about scraping by and certain people have these opportunities handed to them due to an accident of birth.

Its not something I dwell on, but its very unfair that there are decent hard working people who don't get a look in.

Yanbu. But you ate urinating in a very strong breeze on here OP. Good luck!

are

"Then , like is usual, someone brings up the fact that CEOs are earning millions plus and we should be angry about this."

Don't you think we should be angry about unfairness and inequality?

I hear you,

"I'm struggling on benefits, can't afford to feed my kids"
"That's terrible, bloody Tory voters should hang their heads in shame"

"If I choose to spend £8,000 on a handbag why is my poor friend upset with me?"
"She's just jealous, you deserve it for working hard"

"Fucking rich banker bastards"

Bertrand do you honestly think that all jobs should have the same salary?

"Bertrand do you honestly think that all jobs should have the same salary?"

No, of course I don't.

Btw im popping out so will reply to any messages directed to me when I come back.

IMO the current situation where many hard working families have to rely on top up benefits as wages are so low is very very wrong. It is often the CEO's of these big businesses (plus their Board of Directors) that are on these huge salary/bonus packages so yes we should question it and keep on questioning it.

People who work and fall on hard times get a good old scolding.

Simply not true, in my MN experience.

Batman you're confusing equality of outcome with equality of opportunity and basic living standards.

The only salaries I take offence to are those of private banks bailed our by the public purse. But a CEO of a private company? Good on them. People don't just walk into these jobs out of uni. The work that goes into getting to that level, responsibility, work load and commitment is immense.

That's exactly it redannie. We are one of the richest countries in the world, and we still have full-time workers having to choose between food or heating or whether to fix the car so they can continue to get to work to earn a living. It's a disgrace.

BB- how do you feel about people who are working but still can't afford to feed their families?

Batman Yes and how much of their hard word would be as effective if they weren't born into a society that has given them massive opportunities? Only fair that they should give back

It's not 'bashing' anyone to question whether the balance of remuneration is right.

For example: is it right for high earners in the private sector to receive remuneration packages that allow them to buy a London house in cash in a year, while members of their own workforces are paid below a living wage, and have their wages (and therefore the wider business) directly subsidised by the state in the form of tax credits, and indirectly through HB?

Is it right that home buying is skewed in favour of BTL and foreign investors thanks to the way the tax system treats different categories of property ownership?

Is it right that the attainment and opportunity gap is enormous in pre-school aged children and widens while children are at primary school?

Is it right that the tax system skews in favour of consumption taxes that see low earners pay disproportionately more of their income in tax than high earners?

All perfectly valid questions, which means discussing relative pay is relevant.

Disclaimer: I earn well above the average, both nationally and for London. I own a nice house. I don't feel 'bashed' when people question these things.

The work that goes into getting to that level, responsibility, work load and commitment is immense.

And government subsidy. Don't forget government subsidy.

I'll put it out there now, if you budgeted for your children with the assistance of wtc/ctc etc then I feel sorry for your kids but not for you. Children are a privilege not a right. I've waited until I am 40 to have a child because I (not I + benefits/credits) can now comfortably afford one.
However, if the government recognise a living wage, I cannot understand why that isn't the minimum wage. But then if minimum wage rises dramatically, will the cost of living? So those that were struggling before may be taking home more but paying out more? Would there be any difference at the end of the day? I don't know.