To not understand why so many people view the wealth of others as public property

[FrogspawnSmoothie]

I've been noticing a lot of posts lately saying things like 'we need to sort out the wealth divide' etc and calling for the wealthy to pay for xyz 'because they can afford to', and I must say I've never quite shared this mentality.

I can see why people start to think this way when we're constantly told things like '99% of the nation's wealth is owned by 1% of the population', making it sound like they're hoarding resources. But the thing is, it's not a tin of biscuits given to the population which is now being hoarded by a few greedy chubsters. It may well have been foreign investment, for instance, which wasn't otherwise going to be invested in a UK business to then benefit the economy through taxes as it does. I go to work and earn my income, and that money is mine - I imagine most people would consider their paycheck to be their own.

I think of it like two farmers. One innovates in his processes and works out how to grow more apples with the same resources. He then reinvests his extra profit into better equipment and buys more land. Eventually, he owns 75% of the apples in the town, despite being only one of many farmers. I'm not convinced he now needs to start giving his apples to the other disgruntled farmers who envy his wealth, especially as he's now paying much more tax.

I'll admit it's a pretty simplistic way of looking at it (I'm no economist) but I'm not convinced that all the people moaning about the rich have given it a particularly nuanced consideration either. I was listening to some prat of a manbunned barista banging on about socialism and 'redistribution of wealth' in Costa today, and gotta admit I just thought to myself 'sounds like you should've worked harder at school, mate.' 🤷‍♀️

@Pinklynx

There are a lot of champagne socialists around who talk the talk but don't walk the walk when it comes to City careers and children in private schools

I hate the champagne socialist trope.

These are people who literally put their money where their mouth is. They vote for a society where they pay more tax themselves in order to support the rest of society.

So much better than off-shore tossers like Phillip Green and Rees-Mogg who are just honest about wanting to shaft the hardworking poor by not paying fair taxes. The fact that they own their shittiness by not voting for a fairer society is no satisfaction at all to struggling families.

Neither Green nor Rees-Mogg were innovators who created wealth from creative industries and brought in income from overseas. Green's overseas forays all failed. All they have done is taken wealth from the country and moved it outside of the country, while avoiding tax. They vote and support the political party that enables and encourages this.

I know which group I loathe more.

Your obsession with Philip Green aside (since he’s not the elected representative of the so-called rich), the richest pay the most tax, fact.

Lots of people here arguing against inherited wealth, true if you speak of landed gentry. However most people inherit their wealth, because their parents made good choices. Why should those people be made to feel bad or constantly fund others people’s bad choices. Having children is a responsibility, not just a privilege. Some will get luckier than others, but the job of the state is to provide equal opportunities, not to fund reckless behaviour followed by pleading disadvantage.

I agree with you OP. MN is left leaning so don't expect much support.

@sst1234

Lots of people here arguing against inherited wealth, true if you speak of landed gentry. However most people inherit their wealth, because their parents made good choices. Why should those people be made to feel bad or constantly fund others people’s bad choices. Having children is a responsibility, not just a privilege. Some will get luckier than others, but the job of the state is to provide equal opportunities, not to fund reckless behaviour followed by pleading disadvantage.

The State does a pretty poor job of funding equal opportunities. That's the point everyone is making.

Save me from the poor people must have made bad choices line as well.

Because a lot of the time, those wealthy people will have workers who don't get a fair or reasonable wage, job benefits, or working conditions, while they have a riddiclously large salary themselves. Or they've inherited money from a distant relative who did that, and are still reaping the benefits.

Sometimes they inherited land or property that they charge huge amounts for in rent for, to the point their tenants can barely afford to eat or live, while they get richer and richer. Sometimes historically that property was ill gained in the first place.

Or they grew up in an area with better education, or parents who could afford private schooling and tutors. So they became better qualified and thus earn more, due to a sort of postcde lottery, nothing their parents did per say other than be born wealthy enough themselves, to be able to afford live in a better area and afford things like tutors etc.

I think it depends on how a person made their money; and their parents theirs. Are they actually intellegent and talented, as with authors, artists etc, or were they just given opportunities in life some can't have, because of ancestors taking the piss out of common people at some stage? Big difference imo.

I don't think it's jealousy for me to be annoyed some local toff is still enjoying the money made, in the factory my great grandfather was decapitated in, leaving my gg a widow with nothing (no compensation for his death, it was just "one of those things").

@ladyvimes

I’ve never really understood the ‘well everyone can be rich if they work hard’ mentality. As a society we need lower paid workers, they are essential! Shop assistants, refuse workers, cleaners, factory workers, the list is endless! And these people work hard too! If you’re rich you should share it more. It’s that simple. No one needs a multi-million pound house!!

Why should I have too? Why should I have to give away what I worked for? If I have to.share my wealth what is the incentive of me to keep earnimg money to share? Why would high earners keep.working like they do just to.be forced to give it away?

It is about a balance. Allowing people to excessively hoard wealth and assets deprives others of opportunity. Denying people the ability to improve their lives removes incentives to grow businesses and create jobs.

The problem we have at the moment is that we have a clear rentier class, both in terms of individuals and companies. People and organisations that don't actually contribute, just extract "rents" and dodge taxes because they can access capital easily. We should be reforming a taxation and rates systems to discourage such behaviour and encourage true entrepreneurship.

@Devilishpyjamas
The public certainly doesn’t think so. As the country spoke only 8 months ago.

@roarfeckingroarr

I agree with you OP. MN is left leaning so don't expect much support.

The silent majority rarely shouts as loud as those who consider themselves to be progressives.

@DameHannahRelf

Because a lot of the time, those wealthy people will have workers who don't get a fair or reasonable wage, job benefits, or working conditions, while they have a riddiclously large salary themselves. Or they've inherited money from a distant relative who did that, and are still reaping the benefits.

Sometimes they inherited land or property that they charge huge amounts for in rent for, to the point their tenants can barely afford to eat or live, while they get richer and richer. Sometimes historically that property was ill gained in the first place.

Or they grew up in an area with better education, or parents who could afford private schooling and tutors. So they became better qualified and thus earn more, due to a sort of postcde lottery, nothing their parents did per say other than be born wealthy enough themselves, to be able to afford live in a better area and afford things like tutors etc.

I think it depends on how a person made their money; and their parents theirs. Are they actually intellegent and talented, as with authors, artists etc, or were they just given opportunities in life some can't have, because of ancestors taking the piss out of common people at some stage? Big difference imo.

I don't think it's jealousy for me to be annoyed some local toff is still enjoying the money made, in the factory my great grandfather was decapitated in, leaving my gg a widow with nothing (no compensation for his death, it was just "one of those things").

No one is forcing someone to rent from me. Not here in the US and not my homes in the UK. Especially when I'm charging fair ,market rate. Should I just give my renters these homes? What if they. Can't afford the upkeep and taxes on the home? So I should give them the homes and still pay for the upkeep?

Dontdisturbmenow, but it's not people with one extra property, it's the individuals who own ten, or a hundred, or a thousand, who are pushing people out of the property market
I totally agree, yet half of LLs own only one other property but are treated with the same hatred. A number of these will earn no income from it after tax, repairs, decoration, legal fees etc... and the property will only serve as a pension fund, yet again are treated again like the pariah of society.

"So basically you are one of the privileged who believe "anyone can be anything if they work hard enough"? And that the poor are poor because they spend their money wrong?"

There is a lot of truth to this. I think everybody has a fairly good start as we all get a good education in the UK. Some people chose not to use it and make wrong choices throughout life. Why should they benefit from people who have made the right choices and worked hard etc. There is also a bit of luck involved, but often it's often based on choices

Do you honestly believe that everyone in the UK has access to a good education?

This in itself is untrue for myriad reasons, but even if it were true, access to a good education is often countered or hampered by any number of other factors in one's life (including lack of support from a mentor/parental figure, inadequate housing, inconsistent nutrition, ill health (mental and physical), poverty, coercion and/or other abuse, discrimination, family/social situation (child carers, erratic parenting, chaotic homelife, etc).

It's really not as simple as "well everyone gets a basic GCSE level education so we start on a level playing field". The inequality begins well before each child's birth.

And obviously heaps of children don't have access to that basic education anyway for all sorts of reasons so even that statement isn't true. We don't all get the same choices in life.

[quote sst1234]@Devilishpyjamas
The public certainly doesn’t think so. As the country spoke only 8 months ago.[/quote]
The voting system needs a complete overhaul. commonslibrary.parliament.uk/insights/general-election-2019-turning-votes-into-seats/

It's why we need proportional representation.

@dontdisturbmenow

Dontdisturbmenow, but it's not people with one extra property, it's the individuals who own ten, or a hundred, or a thousand, who are pushing people out of the property market I totally agree, yet half of LLs own only one other property but are treated with the same hatred. A number of these will earn no income from it after tax, repairs, decoration, legal fees etc... and the property will only serve as a pension fund, yet again are treated again like the pariah of society.

In many areas second homes have had a negative impact on the local community. Surely you can understand that?

The average price of a house in Salcombe for example is over £800,000. The average salary in Salcombe is 21k. You don't need to be a trot to work out why that might be problematic.

Your post is shocking OP. What is your idea of a “good education”? Lots of people of people hold degrees and get paid less than someone with no degree. Lots of people work hard but are not particularly a high earner (even with a degree). A lot of it is luck or who you know. I’m not sure I agree with your view.

@Hopoindown31

It is about a balance. Allowing people to excessively hoard wealth and assets deprives others of opportunity. Denying people the ability to improve their lives removes incentives to grow businesses and create jobs.

The problem we have at the moment is that we have a clear rentier class, both in terms of individuals and companies. People and organisations that don't actually contribute, just extract "rents" and dodge taxes because they can access capital easily. We should be reforming a taxation and rates systems to discourage such behaviour and encourage true entrepreneurship.

I definitely agree that people should be fairly taxed on their income. But that would include all people and not just the wealthy. Everyone should be fairly tax based on their income and not get it back at the end of the year. If I have to pay 35 % income tax (number pulled out of the air) so should the person working at McDonalds. Why should I have to pay for some people to make really bad mistakes? Why should I have to.work just for someone else to.sit at home and make poor decisions? What happens if I decide to.say screw it and not work and you do lose my tax income? That's the way upper middle.class people.think. Including myself. Which part of my wealth should I give away? Houses that I have paid for between 20 and 30 years? Houses that I purchased outright from my savings and military bonusus? Should it be the income I earn through my home health agency ownership, should it even be my military retirememt,or my part time job of CRNA? Which part of my wealth should I.give away!?

This is truly excellent bait OP. 10/10.

Why do you equate poverty with 'bad mistakes?'

Lots of people here arguing against inherited wealth, true if you speak of landed gentry. However most people inherit their wealth, because their parents made good choices. Why should those people be made to feel bad or constantly fund others people’s bad choices

For me, it's not about arguing against inherited wealth - it's about acknowledging that we're not born equal and that economic and/or other types of privilege can help to remove some of the barriers to success that other people might face.

As you say, those people who inherit wealth do so by accident of birth. It's not something they had any control over; they were just born. But in the same way, it's not poor people's fault that they were born into poverty.

If you look back a generation, the same principle applies - those people's parents didn't choose their birth circumstances either, and neither did their parents, and so on.

No-one should be made to feel bad for being wealthy or poor - I think people get angry at the wealthy when they say things like "well poor people should just work harder like I did" as it discounts the invisible structural advantages that helped them and held others back.

@Leaannb what do you mean by “really bad mistakes?” You can’t expect someone on a lower salary than to pay the same amount of tax as someone who may be in a top professional role. You cannot pay what you physically don’t have.

This is a really shitty view

@LonginesPrime

This is why we have a re distributive system, where the 1% pay 28% of all tax and top 10% pay 59% of all tax. What do we want, to make every equally worse off? What exactly is all the irrational envy about on this thread.

Because it is public property.

a) Money is just a proxy for resources. Natural resources such as land, water, air, minerals, plants etc should belong to everyone. That's how it works with all other animal species; you take what you actually need and leave the rest for others (on whom you also depend, whether directly or indirectly).

But some humans have e.g. laid claim to particular areas of land and taken them by force from the common people (i.e. the public) who were using them. And they made up laws so they could retain it and pass it down to their descendants, or sell it.

b) They made their wealth by exploiting others and the planet, i.e. most of the work was done by others, not them. It is not environmentally or socially sustainable to behave in this way. More equal societies are happier overall, even the people who would have been more wealthy in an less equal society are happier.

It isn't like your example of two farmers. The "winning" farmer in our society is the one who does the most damage to the environment, which means nobody is going to eat eventually. You can only win temporarily by these means; and leave a massive mess for everyone else to deal with. If you account for all the money we have to spend resolving environmental issues (which is essential if you wish to continue to exist), the winning farmer is far less cost-effective - he's just managed to pass on all the costs to others instead of being responsible for it himself.

A truly good farmer would share good practice with others so they can also do it that way, instead of trying to take the entire market away from others and accumulate resources he doesn't need to live on. Humans evolved as a co-operative species, and when we forget that and act competitively, bad things happen for everyone.

I don't want a big house, or a Jaguar. I just want access to my fair share of resources.

Completely and utterly agree with @Devilishpyjamas. So many hard working undervalued people doing jobs that are vital. I think lockdown taught us who were the people we couldnt do without. Bin men, supermarket employees, care assistants, nurses, doctors, catering staff in hospitals, nhs porters, nhs administrators, teachers and many others, food factory staff. Apologies for the essential professions I've missed out. Shame that their value has been forgotten so soon

rosiejaune You’re living in fairyland. Life isn’t fair. Want more money? Earn it. Don’t try and take it from others just because they have more.

@NoMoreReluctantCustodians

Completely and utterly agree with *@Devilishpyjamas*. So many hard working undervalued people doing jobs that are vital. I think lockdown taught us who were the people we couldnt do without. Bin men, supermarket employees, care assistants, nurses, doctors, catering staff in hospitals, nhs porters, nhs administrators, teachers and many others, food factory staff. Apologies for the essential professions I've missed out. Shame that their value has been forgotten so soon

The value of work is defined by capability. As much as key workers did an important job, most people possess the capability to do the same, that’s why we will never be short of key workers in the same way as we are of quantum mechanists. The idea is not to put down key workers, but they do not exist in a bubble, there is a small group highly skilled, highly paid people creating value at the top of the economy which is used to create the layers underneath.