AIBU to think that people with low income generally contribute more to economy than they take

[MagnificentDelurker]

Hi there
l mostly lurk as most of the time what I want to say is said much more eloquently by others. However every once in a while when the question of tax or benefits comes up someone comments as self evident truth that if you pay little or no tax then you are a burden. Some poster a while back went as far as saying unless you are high earner then you are a burden. While these views are challenged, they are not challenged enough.
Today a poster speculated that children of a particular family were likely to become adults on minimum wage and hence a burden. Do we really think that we can have a society full of bankers and lawyers?
Maybe if robots take over but seriously where do people think goods and services come from?

Those of you that say that low incomes don't contribute anything, they are the taxi drivers that take you out and to the airports, out at all hours and missing out on their families growing up.
They are the people who cook and serve you food, that give up their weekends and christmases/New year's to serve the people who are off and having fun.
They are the ones who clean up after your parties/weddings/nights out and your breaks away.
The ones who serve you in the shops when you need milk and bread.
Not just the street cleaners and the people who look after your kids while you are at work.
We might not get paid a lot and 'contribute' but you would be stuffed without us.

No one is saying the rich don’t contribute more, they are just defending the lower earners because their value is more than simple mathematics - TheCupboard. We are a family with a larger household income who do pay for childcare etc, but I still defend the contribution of lower earners despite our own relative wealth. We actually hoard a lot of money as we don’t spend lots, we do this to save for the ridiculous house prices. I also moved from a public sector career - because I wanted to make a difference - into the private sector and a more respected profession with higher potential earnings. I make less of a non financial contribution now and very much value the people earning less who do those jobs. The company I work for take more public money than bring it into the economy. Many companies make millions from the public purse and add little or no value to the GDP.

And we can’t all be highly trained professionals, if we were the wages would go down due to the oversupply in labour. Basic economics.

Our tax and social security systems are designed (presumably intentionally) so that about half of all households are net givers to the state and the other half are net takers. So no matter how industrious or lazy the lower earners of the UK may be, they will always be net takers, by design of the tax and benefits system.

I don't know why MN doesn't encourage everyone to keep train and chose sensible careers, be aspirational and the best they can. I don't think I've ever read a post on here that suggests that. Just everyone moaning and saying the lowly paid street cleaners and childminders are the only essential employees, bless them.

They certainly aren’t the only essential workers.
But none of us would get far without a midwife at our birth. A nursery teacher. An education. Healthcare throughout our life. Our bins emptied. Carers when we are sick and old. Public transport. Manual workers to provide the cars and electrical goods we need. Police to keep the streets safe. Tradesmen to build us somewhere to live. Food on the supermarket shelves.
And all of the people who provide these things, barring perhaps the medical profession, will be under the threshold for higher tax.

Why would it be so hard to believe they did not aspire to be the best they could?
Many of these people will require degrees and qualifications beyond that to be suitably qualified for the job they do. Bless them.
But as they aren’t higher tax payers they are just lowly, non aspirational drains on society.

This is so interesting. I hadn't really thought about low income people as fair contributors but they so obviously are. Every day's a school day ..

You need a mixture of people in the economy:

-professionals for banking, law, medicine, engineering, etc
-public service: social care, police, etc
-lower paid: cleaners, shop workers, etc

Without a mix, the economy fails. No point having bankers if the streets fill with rubbish. Pointless having police if there are no shop workers.

Those that earn the most pay the the most tax, but this is a very poor measure of somebodies contribution to society.

It's quite ironic on this day the anniversary of the end of WW1, for posters to be still saying that the 'Lower orders' contribute less. We were, in fact, the cannon fodder, the foot soldiers and all the other major contributers in every World War.

Having watched the ceremony. I was interested in Doria Ragland's heritage. The Commonwealth wreath laying inspired this. I love history. My research took it back to Slavery and Indentured Servents, both which made their owners a lot of money.

Thinking about were the original wealth came from, it was on the backs of the lower orders. Most of it was stollen.

I meant to add that although we suffered the greatest loss in any conflict, I use we meaning those at the bottom, We didn't start or choose those conflicts.

Hmmm. No convincing counter arguments to my theory that high income households cost the taxpayer more than lower income households through their higher environmental footprint.

Make do and mend must cost the taxpayer less than frequently replacing kitchens, appliances, furniture etc to landfill instead o

I've often thought that super busy high earners must consume more for convenience than others. Takeaway lunches and coffees through the day, drive the kids to school instead of walking to save time or driving to a fee paying school instead of going to the closer state one, higher turnover of mobikes, ipads etc, bigger car, cosmetic treatments.....

"I've often thought that super busy high earners must consume more for convenience than others. Takeaway lunches and coffees through the day, drive the kids to school instead of walking to save time or driving to a fee paying school instead of going to the closer state one, higher turnover of mobikes, ipads etc, bigger car, cosmetic treatments....."

That's a rather large generalisation to make.

Actually many of the high earners I know have a strong eco conscious and buy organic, local, seasonal food and better quality higher-end natural products. Same with less items of longer lasting clothing, not yearly disposable primark fashion. Also can afford to choose hybrid or electric vehicles, or buy newer cars with better fuel efficiency than older cars on the road. Most of these choices come at premium cost and they are in a position to be able to afford them.

Not intending to be inflammatory, but I'm not convinced just because someone is a high earner they fit the model you describe.

Not intending to be inflammatory, but I'm not convinced just because someone is a high earner they fit the model you describe.

Have to say the same. My "richest" client is a millionaire. You really wouldn't know it. He dresses like a tramp, cycles around, his house doesn't look as if it's been touched for decades and he doesn't even have internet, let alone ipads etc. Yet, he's always the first to volunteer for litter picking, always involved in local community fund raising activities, etc. Literally, no one would have a clue he had money as he doesn't live "that lifestyle" and doesn't broadcast it. His monthly charitable donations are eye watering to literally dozens of local charities etc. I've seen his will (I was party to drafting it), and I know that those dozens of charities are going to be even happier at some time in the future.

The idea is not to put high earners against low earners but to counter the abuse that many low earners get in the form of advice:

Have children only when you can afford them,
Spend within your means, don’t eat sugar etc.

These are good advice for individuals but if everyone follows it we as a country will be in deep trouble. For example most of our economy runs on debt. If we all spent within our means then economy would crash. I can spend within my means because some other people go on debt.

Finally, we should not put the banker against the bin man. I wonder how many bankers would choose to be teachers, couches, bakers etc. If the prospect of low income was not so scary

Botanica

In the end an economy that considers money finite and natural resources infinite will not be sustainable specially if the cost of sustainability is pushed to consumers which means lower income brackets cannot afford to be sustainable.

Again the point is not about which socioeconomic group is morally superior. Most of us do what is best for our families to the best of ability and opportunity, that’s not the point. The point is some problems are systemic and cannot be solved by individual responsibility.

I don't disagree that being able to live sustainably should be more affordable. In some ways it is, and where we can make those choices, we should all aim to do so, irrespective of income.

There was another thread a while away that suggested all low income families should be growing their own veggies for their families to live on. Nice idea, but when you're working all hours of the day and live in a high rise flat with no outdoor space, it's not going to be achievable.

"Have children only when you can afford them,
Spend within your means,"

I think this is advice we all should live by and don't see why you advocate low income family should be exempt.

Spend within your means includes taking on sensible debt when needed, in line with what you are able to repay.

However it's wrong to suggest that the high earning population should be funding low income couples consciously breeding large families that they can't afford, and the rest of the population having to fund irresponsible debt.

Interesting as it is, I think this argument is taking us away from your original point though OP.

Fundamentally, I think it's a sad state of affairs that anyone feels the need to prove that they contribute to society. For me it has nothing to do with income and everything to do with mindset, personal accountability and a shared sense of societal responsibility.

YY to your point about debt. Even the transactional nature of capitalism/modern economies is pretty morally dubious. Eg, pharmaceuticals make a drug. Those people who need it can only have it at a massive cost. Obviously the pharmaceutical companies would cite their own costs, having to make a profit etc as justification but it' s still exploitative.

My point about higher income households sometimes/often - I know there are exceptions - leaving a huge footprint ties in with what you say about debt and transactions I think. Basically people are greedy and don't want to share, even with those in genuine need.

Apparently some of the older religions, Buddhism and Christianity started when money became prevalent as a way of promoting the practice of giving to people in need instead of putting them in debt. If I have 3 cows and you have one, just take one of my cows instead of selling me it or expecting some sort of return favour.