To be annoyed by the super rich flaunting their wealth whilst normal people struggle

[Mrskeats]

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/10/tamara-ecclestone-10k-playhouse-super-rich-uk-destitution
Some people have no shame

savesome I believe the super rich should be made to give money to those less fortunate, if they haven't got the morals to do it voluntarily.

FWIW I couldn't care less what people do with their money as long as they pay their sodding taxes!

Yes i saw that
doubt thieves could carry the 1 million pound crystal bath tub out though

BTW I love the outside of TE house its a dream I adore it, and I love the play house too.

Not sure I would like the inside of her house though

Why? It's their money!
How about we dictate to those on benefits what they can spend their money on?
No sky, no alcohol, no smoking?

No one would agree to that so why should those with money have to fork out?
I don't donate to charity. I don't agree with most of them so won't give my money to them. That's my choice.

InSpace
Isn't that called 'tax'?

Interesting how Katie Price can pump her instragram account full of photos of ponies she has bought for her kids, and matching jewelry and diamante outfits for her and her daughters and god only knows what other extravagant tat, yet doesn't attract a fraction of the criticism being doled out here. It isn't like she is a paragon of equality and charity, either

The key thing is we don't publish show off articles about it do we?

No, the key thing there is that people want to read those articles, which is why they are published.

You were interested enough to read it yourself, so I'm sure you can get your head around others doing the same.

I don't understand how anyone can be annoyed by this, it's her money so she should be allowed to do whatever she wants with it, it has nothing to do with any of us, these kind of posts always bring out those who have money and those who are struggling and also a lot of jealously and bitterness.

And why should they be made to give money to the less fortunate? When I was younger I was always giving away money and buying things for my friends who were less fortunate than me, but they never really appreciated it, and I refuse to give money to charity because I can't be sure the money will get there.

Apparantly there is a very expensive wendy house in Harrods that costs more than a real house in some parts of the country - 70k or something.

Bonkers, but I'd rather the rich spent their money than saved it, so it can go back in the economy.

"Why? It's their money! " as several posters have said. Is it? Or is it your money that they haven't handed over by using tax avoidance / tax evasion techniques?

www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/f1-boss-bernie-ecclestone-to-fight-1bn-tax-bill-as-settlement-is-torn-up-10268716.html

But the media has an input in what makes us interested

The show of extreme wealth can be a form of escapism much like looking through a holiday brochure or flicking through vogue

What about the extreme wealth that isn't showed in Hello walk along Knightsbridge, Oxford street or Bond Street it's there it's part of our society now and it's something that is to be admired and aspired to an attitude that was very much part of the 80's and seems to have returned

Yes sparechange but the rich often bed up avoiding paying most of their tax. But apart from that why do you need a fifty million pound house and 50 million in the bank?

• end up

Because, love, giving to those less fortunate when you have more than you can possibly use, is the right, compassionate and humane thing to do. Unbelievable that I should be trying to justify this.

What are the super rich meant to do though yes they have more wealth than us but its a playhouse that a mag has chosen to report on if folk were not buying ricj celeb nonsense then we would never hear a peep out of them her dad prqctically invented formula 1 she is mega rich probably very spoiled its not her fault that people are poor.

There is an economic argument that you should spend your money as much as possible - rather than save it. This does help the economy. Lot's of economic evidence for this - from Keynes through to Modigliani (the economist, not the artist - don't know what his views were).

Sticking with Modigliani (and lots of others) there is a strong argument against saving up money and leaving it to your children. It provides a disincentive to them to actually develop and work. That is why lots of very wealthy people (Anita Roddick, the Gateses, Sting) won't leave huge amounts to their kids.

I don't know TE or tbh anything about her. But it looks as if she has never earned her own money - living off her fathers money and her fathers name. So it isn't as if she has earned this cash.

You could argue (preparing for incoming) for an inheritance tax system whereby if you leave anyone more than, as an example, £5m then everything above that is taken by the state and re-distributed (paying for services etc.)

This doesn't provide a disincentive to individual industry and development but does provide an incentive to acquire wealth and spend it.

That's a very nice playhouse

I think whats most distasteful in case of TE is that she has't earned a single penny of the money she spends and its irrelevant how much charity work she does as most likely its for publicity..
Mostly agree with unexpsoc

Silly argument really. There is nothing wrong with spending your money on anything you choose to spend it on as long as no one gets harmed. You will always get people like Bill Gates and his wife who choose to sponsor worthy causes with their wealth and those who choose to spend their wealth on themselves and their loved ones. Some people donate secretly so you don't even know if TA does indeed donate to charities or helps disadvantaged families etc. Either way, none of your business and nothing to get worked up about.

Saying "it's all relative" is one of my least favourite responses to complaints about inequality

Exactly! Total cop out!

Also agree that the very little charity work she does involves throwing parties which her friends attend and (if you insist on going the 'it's all relative' route) raising relatively little!

Trickle down has been repeatedly proven nor to work, the wealthy don't invest or spread the wealth they keep it for themselves! Including in many cases what they SHOULD have paid in taxes. (And I notice a couple of posters couldn't help but benefit bash, benefits recipients like myself are CONSTANTLY being told what we SHOULDN'T be spending on why shouldn't the rich be held to account too?!)

I read an article the other day (can't remember for the life of me where) that was saying the poor (those on benefits, low wages) pay more in taxes and invest more back into the economy than the wealthy.

The headline that made me angry (think it was OK, may have been hello) was that princess Charlotte got a £30k rattle for her birthday, now THAT'S obscene too but heaven forfend you criticise the royals (spending tax payers money that they definitely DIDN'T earn).

Oh and as for 'it's none of your business' I'm afraid I also think that doesn't wash when they're advertising it so blatantly!

"I read an article the other day (can't remember for the life of me where) that was saying the poor (those on benefits, low wages) pay more in taxes and invest more back into the economy than the wealthy."

Depends on how you count it - but absolutely you do in terms of relative proportion. The key regressive taxes are sales taxes. So VAT, IPT, Fuel Duty etc.

i'm not mad at her/him because they are rich. The system that allows them to get away with paying less tax than you and me is what needs to be changed. Who did you vote for as you are so mad?