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.' 🤷‍♀️

You’re probably right labyrinthloafer but if randomtree is correct then just google inequality OP.

Something to get you started www.equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-uk www.equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-uk

If

I do think high taxes are a hard sell. The idea that you "make yourself poorer" to help people you don't know / for a fairly diffuse benefit to society is tricky. Also we all have disagreements on how to spend tax £. Governments wasting money on things we don't personally agree with. The hard work thing also makes a lot of simplistic sense. If you do no work you can't expect anything. All things being equal if you work more hours you should have more money. Also, as soon as you work in a typical job, you start to get a sense of the personality types and I guess, myself included, start to judge. There's always someone who "takes the piss", doesn't "work as hard", or is not good at their job. But sometimes this can be true, sometimes it can be a misunderstanding. Mumsnet itself reflects this human struggle of perception of fairness of work. How many posts are there about couples where one perceives the other as not working hard enough (typically childcare or housework). We are obsessed with almost perfect division of labour. Inevitably judgement then about how hard types of work are, childcare vs housework vs business work. It seems to be the central issue on almost every post!
We all have anecdotes about scroungers, work-shy, people who have made bad choices, which seem to be more annoying than the ultra-wealthy dodging tax.
I always finish these thoughts off by saying that capitalism only works if society is functioning well. So if you find yourself obscenely wealthy, you might want to reinvest some of that in society.

Well, it's a bitter apple (pardon the pun) for those not born into wealth

That's not a pun.

@FrogspawnSmoothie

What if this is compounded over many generations so that the biggest determining factor regarding how wealthy and prosperous someone becomes is no longer how talented, innovative or hard working they are but more about how wealthy and well connected their family is?

Well, it's a bitter apple (pardon the pun) for those not born into wealth, but I'm still not convinced it gives anyone else the claim to a share of your money. It's like how we're fortunate to be born in the UK and not Somalia. Of course, in an ideal world the wealthy and fortunate would be philanthropic but that's another discussion.

I have neither green hair nor a piercing. I grew up with not a huge amount and am now reasonably wealthy. I still think you are a dick. It had fuck all to do with me being some amazing person who “deserved” it and a lot to do with the (non financial) opportunities and skills given to me by my parents and the luck of random decisions as a teenager Increasing taxes on the wealthy and redistribution of wealth would make the world a much better place (and yes I say that as one of the ones who would be the taxed one)

@FrogspawnSmoothie

What if this is compounded over many generations so that the biggest determining factor regarding how wealthy and prosperous someone becomes is no longer how talented, innovative or hard working they are but more about how wealthy and well connected their family is?

Well, it's a bitter apple (pardon the pun) for those not born into wealth, but I'm still not convinced it gives anyone else the claim to a share of your money. It's like how we're fortunate to be born in the UK and not Somalia. Of course, in an ideal world the wealthy and fortunate would be philanthropic but that's another discussion.

You speak in such generalist terms that it's hard to actually follow the argument here.

I'm still not convinced it gives anyone else the claim to a share of your money

What constitutes "a claim to a share* here?

Are you and others like yourself, concerned about a one-off "wealth levy" following this coronavirus period? I'm not mocking or saying that's unfounded; I'm just asking you to be specific, as to why we're discussing this?

And what constitutes "a share" - should the wealthy (and I don't mean £80k a year types with £200k+ equity in their home, I mean proper wealth, liquid assets of seven figures) pay a standard income tax just to keep everything fair, and their assets not be touched? Is that what we're saying? And we also know that truly wealthy take good advice on such matters to avoid paying the full "standard" income taxes. So is this a fair system do you think?

I just can't really read any more generalist trolling without things being a bit clearer IYSWIM?

I don't understand why talking about wealth distribution is so polarising.

Of course OP has a point in that lots of wealth is "deserved" and linked to hard work, innovation and talent. Some people do make it despite their start in life and it's frankly insulting for the lefty middle class to demand that these people hand over the spoils of their success in the name of fairness. The poverty cycle is undoubtedly real and opportunity isn't equal, but disincentiving those who are eager to better themselves and prosper isn't the answer.

Lots of people with a hard start in life choose to work hard and achieve in order to give their children more opportunities and advantages than they had, not realising that if they do reach this goal they will be demonised by the left who look to strip them of this hard won wealth in any way they can.

'sounds like you should've worked harder at school, mate.'

Man bunned barista could be studying for a PhD for all you know. But even if he has no GCSEs how do you know he didn't try hard at school? He could be dyslexic, he could have shared a tiny flat with 4 loud siblings, he could be the eldest and have had to cook the loud siblings dinner every night while his single mum did shifts instead of doing his maths homework...you just don't know.

And yes some people grow up on a council estate with 4 siblings and a single parent and become doctors and lawyers but as well as being clever they are very lucky!

I think we should all be kinder and share our biscuits (but then again I don't have very many biscuits so I would say that! Before anyone says I'm rich just by living in the UK, we do donate every month to charity).

It’s called inheritance, the vast majority of the idiots running this country would absolutely not be in their position if they didn’t come from wealthy family - generations before then earned it not them (Or in some cases their wife/husband).

Your ignorance and rudeness is sadly unsurprising.

So you presumably feel you pay too much in tax?? The thing is your farmer was educated, had health care, had police and army to protect him, had infrastructure to support his industry... he didn't spring fully formed into a successful entrepreneur. He was a product of a functioning society that costs money to run. He (not she, no?) may have also had generations of access to privilege that society as a whole created and paid for.

Urgh. I really can't be bothered typing much more but you need to educate yourself a bit better op otherwise you sound just as ignorant as your green haired whinger in Starbucks.

@dontdisturbmenow

The issue is that people look at as a white or black subject when those who we really consider in the argument fall into the grey.

We focus on very few individuals or organisations and then expand the view on those who earn a good income and or managed to invest and suddenly, they fall under the same category even though they are in a much shader grade of grey.

The issue is that you believe, as do a lot of people, that everything in life was won through hard work. People with less wealth clearly didn't work hard enough. I don't believe that
This is the perfect example of the above. We look at those very rich people who for their fortune through family, never worked in their lives etc...

Yet most who got there to a certain level of income/investment gave done so through dedication and hard work. This might have started simply through thinking. Thinking of clever ideas of product development when their friends were thinking of the next girl to chase.

We live in a society that encourages envy. Medias are full of temptations because that's what gets people viewing. We want what others have and think we are entitled to it because these people are not so different to us. We focus on what they have Andare not interested in how they got there.

Envy leads to resentment, and then to hate. I don't agree with your examples to illustrate the point OP, but yes, there is definitely a sense of entitlement to what belongs to others in our growing society.

This has pretty much been my experience.

I knew this would be a somewhat touchy subject but the most interesting debates usually are.

I personally hate corporate culture which is why I decided to sacrifice my career progression working for a FTSE company in exchange for for relative freedom, but I don't resent those that were able to press on and succeed in that environment.

Admit that my examples weren't the best, but you get the gist of what I'm saying.

Anyone can do what I did.

Hmm, possibly not. You take your skills, knowledge and resourcefulness for granted and, because you’re not a massive egoist, you think you’re not in any way exceptional, so anyone can do what you have done. This is unlikely to be the case.

Half of the population is by definition below average intelligence and aside from that many/most people will not have the capability to climb into your 1% for many reasons.

The question is, do we value all human life, even those people with limited ability to contribute economically (paid or unpaid work), and decide that everyone should be able to have a decent standard of living, or do we stick with the dog eat dog model? I favour the former, and believe we need to find a way to ensure that happens.

We can start with these allegedly “low skill” jobs that we quite recently found to be high value - care workers, delivery drivers, supermarket staff, bus drivers, shop-floor manufacturers of essential goods, fruit pickers etc. - and ensure they are properly remunerated for the work that they do. We’re benefiting from their toil, and we should reciprocate.

This means higher prices for goods and services and/or higher taxes and ensuring that trickle-down economics means that it’s the wealth that’s trickling down.

And no, I don’t have blue hair - it’s mostly silver on account of my advancing years.

I think the wealth distribution is inherently unfair but I can’t think of a fairer solution either.

Capital (wealth) grows faster than economic output so it can't be true that hard work is what is creating most wealth in our society.

r > g

(where r is the rate of return to wealth and g is the economic growth rate)

I find it hard to understand how you don’t get inequality of opportunity. Just look at the demographic stats for something like medicine or vet science, where the students come from, family earnings etc?

My 4yo is about to start school. She has had access to activities, engaged and educated parents, her school is in a nice area with lots of other educated and engaged parents. It’s obvious that she will have an easier start than a deprived child going to school in a rough area. I don’t doubt that she’ll still have to work hard to achieve but probably not as hard as many others.

Are you and others like yourself, concerned about a one-off "wealth levy" following this coronavirus period? I'm not mocking or saying that's unfounded; I'm just asking you to be specific, as to why we're discussing this?

On a £50k salary?

My reason for discussing it is that I see so many views which seem to stipulate that high earners should share their wealth for no other reason than the fact they have more.

I think things could be improved but I don't believe socialism could ever work. It relies too much on the premise that everybody 'does their part' and human nature doesn't work that way from what I've seen. Very few people will want to put in the overtime and do the high risk dirty jobs if there's no monetary incentive.

YANBU. Nobody’s saying poorer people don’t work hard, but those who have worked hard to earn that money should benefit fully from it, as should their families and generations of descendants.

Life isn’t fair, it’s that simple. You can’t make it so with ridiculous socialism.

Getting outside of the farmer analogy stuff.... how do people on here feel about the likes of Amazon? Our government and many others are staring up at them, wide eyed, in hock to the promise of a trickle down system where Amazon employs lots of "fulfilment" people... yet it pays so little in tax in the country it operates in, uses and pounds it's roads as much as any other retailer, sells its goods to millions of UK users and generates enormous profits from

Amazon isn't like that though. Most of the items sold are from private small businesses using it as a platform (like ebay) - the difference is that Amazon will store their stocks and pack/deliver for them. Yes, Amazon take a percentage for their charges etc., but it's huge numbers of small businesses (mostly paying their taxes) who are selling the goods. In fact, Amazon has facilitated many one man bands and tiny businesses to grow - people who would never have been able to trade a few years ago because they didn't have the resources to rent a shop, pay overheads etc.

I find it hard to understand how you don’t get inequality of opportunity.

Did anybody say you don't?

Some people are gifted in certain areas. Usain Bolt was born to be an outstanding runner and no amount of training will allow most athletes to catch up with him.

Well, the main issue with your position is that it assumes that everyone starts equal then some people work harder than others.

Which is, of course, a fantasy.

I think you need to define wealth. I don’t count a household income of 100k whilst mortgaged and working for that money as massively wealthy for example - although clearly they’re going to have the option to be comfortably off.

Wealthy to me is the people I know who were able to buy half a million pound houses (and more) with no mortgage & without having to work for it because their parents gave it to them. Those parents usually had their houses given to them etc. I wouldn’t lose much sleep over increasing their taxes tbh.

But another way would be as described above. Start paying people doing essential jobs appropriately. The pandemic has shown exactly which jobs fall into that category - Maybe we could go the way of New Zealand and measure the success of our society on wellbeing rather than wealth creation? I suspect it might improve things for many - rather than the angry divided society we seem to have now.

My son is reliant on 24 hour care from other people. When his company was taken over by a hedge fund backed corporate he was treated as an asset and his human rights were breached (you may think this is hyperbole but his case was mentioned by the parliamentary joint committee on human rights as an example of a breach of human rights). Now he is supported by a wonderful small company who value wellbeing and support over profit. Having the right values changes everything.

@heartsonacake

YANBU. Nobody’s saying poorer people don’t work hard, but those who have worked hard to earn that money should benefit fully from it, as should their families and generations of descendants.

Life isn’t fair, it’s that simple. You can’t make it so with ridiculous socialism.

Fully agree. What is needed is more opportunity for the "have nots" to become the "haves". The internet is a wonderful opportunity to do that as it enables people with limited resources to start businesses, look for new opportunities in terms of training & employment etc. Some people are grasping that opportunity with both hands. Others are frittering away the opportunity by spending their time on Facecloth and Twatter and looking for pictures of fluffy cats.

Fully agree. What is needed is more opportunity for the "have nots" to become the "haves".

Exactly. We shouldn’t take wealth away from others, we should provide more ways for people to gain wealth themselves.

There are some people who won’t help themselves though; they’ll just sit and whinge about how poor they are while doing little to better their life and improve their situation.

I do think that in general if you get a good education and work hard you've got a good chance of attaining a decent quality of life

At whose expense OP?

Just have a think for a moment about the logical consequences of what you’re saying. Yes, an individual who has a degree has a better chance of achieving a high salary than someone who left school without GCSEs, but at a population level there will still be a need for people to do “menial” jobs.

Even if the entire population could “get a good education and work hard” there will be those who get the six figure jobs, and those who end up making your coffee and cleaning the toilets. Does their good education drive up these wages?

High earners are not really the issue. It's massive accumulated capital that entrenches inequality and destabilises societies.

The Gini coefficient of the UK is 0.35. Denmark's is 0.25. There's a lot we could do. There are more options than capitalism vs socialism. Denmark is a corporatist market economy.

Very few people will want to put in the overtime and do the high risk dirty jobs if there's no monetary incentive.

High risk dirty jobs like working in social care and driving buses at the height of a pandemic?