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.' 🤷‍♀️

Hey @Leaannb - what happens to those people after five years?

Let me ask you the same.

What should happen to those people who aren't disabled or unable to work if they still haven't got a job after five years?

People like my mate's brother who is fast approaching five years of sitting on his arse smoking weed and playing online games. He would get a job in a flash if either his benefits were stopped or his mum kicked him out (he managed to work for a whole two years last time but she let him move back in 'to save money for his future' and he left his job within a couple months).

@FrogspawnSmoothie

Hey *@Leaannb* - what happens to those people after five years?

Let me ask you the same.

What should happen to those people who aren't disabled or unable to work if they still haven't got a job after five years?

I’m surprised you feel the need to ask me that - the state continues to support them. Obviously.

But the five year idea was @Leaannb ‘s theory, not mine. Interesting you’ve responded to this post rather than any other question posed to you, were you struggling for attention? Have you ordered Poverty Safari yet? Have you read this thread? Are you still ignorant?

@FrogspawnSmoothie

People like my mate's brother who is fast approaching five years of sitting on his arse smoking weed and playing online games. He would get a job in a flash if either his benefits were stopped or his mum kicked him out (he managed to work for a whole two years last time but she let him move back in 'to save money for his future' and he left his job within a couple months).

You only earn 41K - why aren’t you a multi-millionaire? Why don’t you just work harder?

You only earn 41K - why aren’t you a multi-millionaire? Why don’t you just work harder?

That was my last job if you read the thread. I now earn £50k and am training in a role that could earn me up to £85k in the near future. I'm fairly happy with that considering I had no experience whatsoever in this area two years ago. I don't need to work harder. I have more than enough to lead a decent quality of life in the cheap area in which I live and I value a stress free life over another few grand - most professionals I know who make £50k+ have pretty demanding jobs whilst I just dig holes in the ground and lift things lol.

I'm glad you clarified your belief that able bodied/minded people who don't want to work should be funded by the state indefinitely.

@FrogspawnSmoothie

You only earn 41K - why aren’t you a multi-millionaire? Why don’t you just work harder?

That was my last job if you read the thread. I now earn £50k and am training in a role that could earn me up to £85k in the near future. I'm fairly happy with that considering I had no experience whatsoever in this area two years ago. I don't need to work harder. I have more than enough to lead a decent quality of life in the cheap area in which I live and I value a stress free life over another few grand - most professionals I know who make £50k+ have pretty demanding jobs whilst I just dig holes in the ground and lift things lol.

I'm glad you clarified your belief that able bodied/minded people who don't want to work should be funded by the state indefinitely.

It’s such a shame that your laziness causes you to aim so low. I pity you - that and your lack of critical thinking.

Things ought to be more equal. There should certainly be a living wage and decent housing, healthcare and education and cheap public transport for everyone to create a slightly fairer starting point.
Huge inequalities serve no one. It leads to crime, misery, hate and greed.
But so long as the very rich and powerful are happy with that then things will not change.
There is also the side issue of the fact that there are not infinite resources. If we still want a viable planet fit for humanity then consumption needs to slow down.

It’s such a shame that your laziness causes you to aim so low. I pity you - that and your lack of critical thinking.

Well, obviously you must be an extremely high earner given that £85k is such a lowly salary in your eyes. What philanthropic ventures are you undertaking to change society?

To be fair I am pretty lazy nowadays. My girlfriend busts her ass for under £40k as a digital content manager managing a team of six. Sounds like pretty hard work!

@FrogspawnSmoothie

It’s such a shame that your laziness causes you to aim so low. I pity you - that and your lack of critical thinking.

Well, obviously you must be an extremely high earner given that £85k is such a lowly salary in your eyes. What philanthropic ventures are you undertaking to change society?

Why would you care about that? You want me to be a high earner (easy, if you work hard, that’s literally all you need) and to keep it all to myself. Yet you’re happy with your mediocre wage (like @Leaannb) and are happy to then explain to others why mega-rich people (you’re too lazy to be one) shouldn’t contribute to a fairer society.

It’s almost like you don’t understand what you’re on your high horse about.

@FrogspawnSmoothie

To be fair I am pretty lazy nowadays. My girlfriend busts her ass for under £40k as a digital content manager managing a team of six. Sounds like pretty hard work!

Sounds like she’s not working hard enough to me. Only 40k? She’s even lazier than you.

The reason why people view wealth as public property is because the basis of anyone’s wealth is the law.

Without the law saying that you can amass and own things in specific ways, you don’t have any wealth. So unless you are going to live in some kind of compound with your own private army, what makes your wealth yours is the law.

And as we live in a democracy, laws are decided by the people. That means that if a large enough number of people don’t consent to particular forms of wealth inequality, perhaps the rich building a dam and removing other people’s water supply, or large numbers of people living in such destitution that they can’t raise a family, they vote and get laws changed.

And that is why people discuss wealth as public, because of democracy.

I've not said that he rich shouldn't contribute to society. My issue is with those that expect to be bankrolled without putting in the work in the right places - like the barista DJ above. The type of people like my mate's brother who you think should be funded indefinitely.

I don't want to see him starve, but he'd get a job again pretty sharpish if all he had was food vouchers (can't buy weed with them!).

I'm more bemused about how easy it is to get a job as that hasn't been my experience. I have at least two failed job seeking cycles under my belt alongside a 6 month period to get an entry level job. when facing redundancy it took my 1 year and a double digit number of interviews to get a job.

so yes, if I were unemployed I should still have state funding indefinately when job seeking for however long it takes. Don't forget that jobseeking itself is very mentally corrosive. Benfit sanctions are about as effective as black magic since being threatened doesn't magically make you more employable.

The Op seems to lack empathy but i'm prepared to give the benefit of the doubt that you are still on the thread. Hope you find your reading list instructive.

@FrogspawnSmoothie

I've not said that he rich shouldn't contribute to society. My issue is with those that expect to be bankrolled without putting in the work in the right places - like the barista DJ above. The type of people like my mate's brother who you think should be funded indefinitely.

I don't want to see him starve, but he'd get a job again pretty sharpish if all he had was food vouchers (can't buy weed with them!).

Or we could threaten him with the lethal injection for settling for the pathetic wage you bring in.

And as we live in a democracy, laws are decided by the people. That means that if a large enough number of people don’t consent to particular forms of wealth inequality, perhaps the rich building a dam and removing other people’s water supply, or large numbers of people living in such destitution that they can’t raise a family, they vote and get laws changed.

And that is why people discuss wealth as public, because of democracy.

And this is also why the rich find ways to circumvent these laws.

Or we could threaten him with the lethal injection for settling for the pathetic wage you bring in.

Lol, you really are quite riled by this. 😂 Ad hominem attacks are always the first resort of the socialist/lefty/antifa without a good argument.

If you want to give someone food vouchers OP then they will have to be paid for from somewhere, so even you don’t agree with your own OP.

And if the rich will always find ways to get around any proposed changes, you don’t really need to worry about people complaining and demanding change, as it will have no impact.

@FrogspawnSmoothie

Or we could threaten him with the lethal injection for settling for the pathetic wage you bring in.

Lol, you really are quite riled by this. 😂 Ad hominem attacks are always the first resort of the socialist/lefty/antifa without a good argument.

You can’t follow a good argument though, you haven’t engaged with any post bar ‘you’re right OP! Fuck the poor!’ You don’t know what you’re talking about - I was embarrassed for you, but now I’m quite enjoying just how many people have made you look a complete tit. That’s the beauty of mumsnet, there’s a lot of knowledgable posters who take a thread like this and take time out to educate. Aren’t you lucky! A free education! Now you won’t have to be completely mortified when you have this conversation in real life!

Have you ordered Poverty Safari yet?

I’ve just ordered it! I’m beginning to get interested in how all this works. Any recommendations of basic economics for a novice books?

I'm more bemused about how easy it is to get a job as that hasn't been my experience. I have at least two failed job seeking cycles under my belt alongside a 6 month period to get an entry level job. when facing redundancy it took my 1 year and a double digit number of interviews to get a job.

so yes, if I were unemployed I should still have state funding indefinately when job seeking for however long it takes. Don't forget that jobseeking itself is very mentally corrosive. Benfit sanctions are about as effective as black magic since being threatened doesn't magically make you more employable.

The Op seems to lack empathy but i'm prepared to give the benefit of the doubt that you are still on the thread. Hope you find your reading list instructive.

I've no doubt it would be harder to get a professional job than one in my current sector which has a huge shortage of skilled workers. But I'm likely in the minority of middle class individuals who would be prepared to drive a bin lorry to get the skills needed to progress. My mate's brother refuses to do any job he sees as 'below him', but at 38yo and having not worked in almost five years he can't really afford to be picky as his good A Levels don't balance out the rest of his poor choices.

I'm not entirely without empathy. Driving a bin truck at night in several very deprived cities up north I encountered homeless people every single night and was on first name terms with many who I'd see at the same jobs every week. Used to spend a small fortune on buying them sandwiches etc as I'd probs get food for at least a couple of people a day. But those aren't the type I'm talking about. I'm more talking about the people who could work but choose not to due to benefits, often being in the situation where they wouldn't make much more by working more, which is equally a structural problem with our system.

I also think we're too education focused at times. It seems odd to push for more deprived people to go to uni when there are skilled trade jobs earning well above the national average which are crying out for workers (and don't require you to be as well spoken and presentable as most corporate roles).

There isn’t an option when claiming benefits to state you will only take a middle class job.

@Stripesgalore

And if the rich will always find ways to get around any proposed changes, you don’t really need to worry about people complaining and demanding change, as it will have no impact.

Exactly. You could end up like the 70s when nearly all the "creatives", i.e. writers etc moved abroad to avoid the stupidly high tax rates. It's a lot easier for a bestselling author to move abroad and stop paying any UK tax at all - they have the money to move, the advisors etc. Mabel who works in Tesco can't do that!

If we had a benign tax regime, there'd be no need for the likes of pop starts, footballers, olympic athletes, actors, TV presenters, etc to "move" abroad.