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.' 🤷‍♀️

OP, here's why I think differently from you:

First, the extremely wealthy - I mean those entrepreneurs who have set up huge businesses that have become major corporations (Branson et al) - have done so by underpaying their staff. Their wealth is predicated on keeping the majority of their workforce at minimum wage level. Those staff work hard - very hard - to make Branson rich but they don't get the benefits of their own hard labour. They work long hours but struggle to pay for necessities.

Next, the super-rich use countless complicated tax evasions. So while their underpaid staff pay tax fairly to keep the country in school, hospitals and roads, the super-rich don't.

Third, money needs to circulate. Poor people spend the lot because they have to. they don't earn enough to save. Super rich people bottleneck their money in investments. Their wealth doesn;t make it back into the marketplace.

I acknowledge that they play a vital role in creating jobs, in innovating, in shouldering responsibility for offering employment to the majority. But it doesn't need to be such a gaping divide. If the rich paid better wages and paid fair tax and just shared out the enormous profits earned for them by their hard working employees, then our economy would be in a far healthier state.

FWIW, I have no envy. I live in a big house in a very wealthy area, owned outright, and sent my DC to a brilliant private school. I know how hard the parents of their super-wealthy friends work. The answer is: very hard indeed. Just like the parents of their far less wealthy friends.

I’ve read somewhere that you can broadly predict GCSE performance at age 3 based on demographic factors. Social mobility is relatively low. That to me is the issue. I don’t like the idea of a wealth tax And very much hate some of the ideas mooted around savings or pensions raids (to me that is state theft) but I do think more has to be done to even up the playing field so more poorer children have better opportunities. I’d personally not object to paying higher taxes if more went on services like education.

I partly agree, but on the other hand we do need people to perform the lower paid service jobs etc, and people who spend £30k getting a degree are unlikely to want to do these jobs, hence why it seems unrealistic to try and ensure high levels of education for all.

That said, if there was an equal mix of working class/middle class people in each sector (and men/women) then perhaps it would be seen to be less of an issue.

Another way of course is to increase the salary for these low paid jobs, but the laws of supply and demand generally prevent this happening as demand is obv what drives prices up and more people can pick fruit than perform neurosurgery.

@sailingblue agree re social mobility, its key to factor in op, how can you not? and its going down www.theguardian.com/society/2019/nov/21/downward-mobility-a-reality-for-many-british-youngsters-today

My observation from working in a law firm with a lot of high earners (and in fact being one myself) is that we like to think that our good fortune is purely as a result of our merit and hard work, and nothing else.

We don’t see the private education, the support with schoolwork, the family help with tuition fees, the help with law school fees, the (in most cases) maleness, the whiteness, the heterosexuality, the good health, the good luck and the masses and masses of privilege and advantage that underpins our success.

It was ALL my intelligence and hard work. So I should get to keep all my money for myself. Who wouldn’t want to think that? And yes it has been very very hard work at times. It’s uncomfortable to acknowledge ‘actually, I’m not particularly special and I could have ended up on benefits living in a council house if I hadn’t been so fortunate.’ We have to find some way of justifying the lottery.

The focus always seems to be on the super wealthy, but there are a lot of people in between earning £100k. Partners, doctors, directors, etc.

I see both sides however, in reality a lot of wealth is 'handed down' through generations. Having a private education is a huge advantage. Anyone who has received this has done nothing to achieve this at all, it is an accident of birth. Secondly, the UK favours boys and men. Land and property has always passed to the eldest legitimate, male heir. Let's examine that. A landowner (wealth inherited by his father) has 4 children. 3 born illegitimate to working class women, one , a son , born to his upper/middle class wife. Only the son is entitled to inherit. This is written in English law. The son is born with a silver spoon in his mouth. He has a private education and despite several business failures has his inherited wealth to fall back on. The other 3 dispite being intelligent and entrepreneurial, cannot afford to take the leap with their business ideas. This is especially true if they are women and have children. The work falls to them, they cannot take the same business risks as a wealthy male can.
Of course there are exceptions to this rule but you get the gist.
Quite often it's not what you know but who you know. Internships etc are often given to those in the know.
I know women who wanted to train as midwives etc but cannot afford to, so they stay in lower paid jobs.

I do find that people like to support people until theyve hit a certain tier, and then they're bitter. This is both in everyday and in celebrity- there's a well done for grafting and getting to where you are and then it suddenly jumps to 'what would you even know about X?' And 'they should tax them more' etc. I know of someone with a business who actually is a proper rags to riches story, and the town were all behind him, well done, built it from nothing, family came from bad area and he's done so much for them etc. Then suddenly with no change (and I mean it, nothing obvious at all, and we were all following the same story) 'bet he's not paying tax, well for some' and horrible mean jokes about getting him to fix stuff for the town etc. Anytime he did stuff for people or helped charities it was a tax write off etc.

I used to have a friend who lived at home while paying no rent, she bought a unit that she rented out while living at home, she then invested in a small business, again all while living at home. She then bought a house to live in while having the rental unit.

She had the same opinion as you, other people could have what she did if they just worked harder.

On the other hand, I was raised by a single Mum who worked full time just to pay for the basics, I bought a house when I was 21 and worked by butt off just to pay the bills.

We both worked the same as one another but she was handed all the opportunities that I and many others are not then fails to see that, only see other people who didn't work hard enough.

We are no longer friends, I don't need people in my life who think they are better than other people based on what they have rather than what kind of person they are.

It’s true, you’re definitely not an economist.

"we do need people to perform the lower paid service jobs etc, and people who spend £30k getting a degree are unlikely to want to do these jobs, hence why it seems unrealistic to try and ensure high levels of education for all."

So while believing that everyone can be wealthy if they just make the effort you accept that we have to make sure most people don't or you'll have to do those dirty jobs yourself.

Marie Antoinette would have understand your position I'm sure. How's she getting on these days?

First, the extremely wealthy - I mean those entrepreneurs who have set up huge businesses that have become major corporations (Branson et al) - have done so by underpaying their staff. Their wealth is predicated on keeping the majority of their workforce at minimum wage level. Those staff work hard - very hard - to make Branson rich but they don't get the benefits of their own hard labour. They work long hours but struggle to pay for necessities.

How do you feel about sports personalities, pop stars, film stars, and other "slebs" who do the same, or is it just business owners you've got a problem with?

Lewiis Hamilton buying a private jet through Isle of Man to avoid VAT. Olympic stars only agreeing to come to the London olympics after sweatheart deals with HMRC so that they didn't have to pay UK tax. David Frost commuting into London every Sunday for just a few hours to do his TV show to avoid being UK resident so no UK tax. Pop stars doing year long world tours to avoid paying any tax anywhere. Songwriters, artists, poets moving to Switzerland "for creative reasons". It's certainly not just business owners! How about even HMRC doing a sale and leaseback of its own property via an offshore tax haven??

You also have to consider what the 1% get from a fairer society - g reater inequality causes dessent, the more that you strip away from the poor and the larger numbers that you push down in to this category, as the wealth is flowing up to the 1%, the more you create larger numbers of people with nothing to lose, you end up with public disorder, rise of crime and potential revolution or break down of society. So by paying extra to redistribute the wealth back down you are ensuring that those below you have enough to live on and a reason to work and maintain society, something to live for and more to lose by not doing so. Your gain is safer, cleaner streets and people prepared to do your minimum wage jobs which help maintain your lifestyle.

Problem is, no two people are born equal, some have advantages of wealth, some intelligence, others beauty. These things all have an effect on your prospects in life.

I think the issue is capitalism is at its limit, its destroying the planet and creates massive disparity in wealth. I think socialism doesn't work either and just makes everyone poor. We need a revolutionary idea, unfortunately that hasn't happened yet.

On one hand vast inequality is damaging to a country (not U.K. but Gino coefficient list will show equal to unequal). More equal tends to have higher happiness in studies.

On the other, if you tax too high people will find new ways to avoid it. Over half or somewhere around there.

I think it’s ironic that you’ve described the ‘man-bun wearing’ costa coffee employer in a condescending way when you probably know less about the topic than he does. At best, you may be on the same level...

I sit left of centre on the political spectrum - I believe in a free market economy but I also believe that the wealthy have a moral obligation to use their wealth, in part, to look after and protect those that aren’t as well off.

It’s not as simple as each person is responsible for their own wealth creation. In order for there to be a wealthy class, the less affluent HAVE to exist. Not everyone in the UK can get to the same level in terms of wealth - it would be impossible.

There’s also the idea if you earn a lot that if you can do it anyone can. When in reality many businesses fail and many people can’t take the risk.

I think it’s vanishingly rare for someone to become rich based on personal ability alone. I get around £30k as a teacher in London which is more than some earn, less than others. Yes I worked bloody hard in my PGCE year and my job is endlessly challenging intellectually and emotionally BUT I am only able to do this job because...

• I did well at school because I had a safe environment at home with space for homework and educated parents who helped and encouraged me.
• As a straight white woman I didn’t have to deal with racism or homophobia at any point.
• I’m able-bodied so don’t have any barriers from that either.
• I went to a nice grammar school because of parental support with the 11+ which gave me confidence in my abilities and decent grades.
• My husband earns enough for my wages to drop significantly when I decided to re-train. I could never have supported my family during my PGCE year without him.

And I’m not even that rich! I don’t have any inherited wealth. But I’m intelligent enough to recognise that what I do have isn’t purely down to my hard work. And I’d be more than happy to pay a little more tax to make the system a little more fair.

Quite often it's not what you know but who you know. Internships etc are often given to those in the know.

That's not just rich nor business though is it?

Look at the "famous" sons and daughters of actors, pop stars, etc., who've only "succeeded" because of their parents.

Our neighbour is a GP practice manager (NHS) and got her son a job at their surgery after he was thrown out of the police.

Loads of "normal" jobs go to friends/family without formally being advertised.

I think the issue is capitalism is at its limit, its destroying the planet and creates massive disparity in wealth. I think socialism doesn't work either and just makes everyone poor. We need a revolutionary idea, unfortunately that hasn't happened yet

Or in Hegelian/Marxist theory - we’ve had the thesis and the antithesis - now we need the synthesis

It's quite telling that many of the responses have echoed "i can't be bothered to say anything but educate yourself".

YANBU op

Oh come on Op.
The research and pretty much everyone agrees that a more equal society benefits everybody.

It’s not a case of political leaning. It’s just bloody obvious.

Oh don't bother feeding the goat.

^^This.

The focus always seems to be on the super wealthy, but there are a lot of people in between earning £100k. Partners, doctors, directors, etc

Because the gap between the super wealthy and us mere normal folks is widening, and has massive implications for us all. In the last 10 years the numbers of billionaires on the planet has doubled. You don't earn a billion through your own pluck and hard work, you earn it through massive amounts of exploitation and/or inherited wealth. Don't you think the existence of the super wealthy is problematic? Look at the impact it has on democracy around the world - it's near impossible to get into positions of real power without huge amounts of wealth behind you.

It’s quite hard. There are too many who evade and avoid tax payments despite or because they are very wealthy.
Wealth is increasingly polarised and that’s not good for many. The level of overt corruption by government has grown into an unchallenged norm which makes many cross and embittered.
But
There is also salacious interest in others money. Having your salary strewn across the press for all to see, being called ‘fat cats’, or worse, as a reasonably earning public sector executive is both unpleasant and unfair. People assuming you had privilege to get there is often unfair too.

i'm a health professional, i'm highly educated and experienced and my job has alot of responsibility. I earn 35k. TV presenters earn 300k. Lots of jobs are not paid what they are worth.