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.' 🤷‍♀️

I've met have been the green hair, anti capitalist types

So good of you to join MN to educate us ignorant womenfolk on hair styles and their significance in political protest. Although green hair went out of fashion about 30 yrs ago but nice try.

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.

What people are asking for is equality of outcome, when the goal should be equality of opportunity. Not all people are equally intelligent, risk taking, innovative or rational. All very well clapping for key workers, but key workers are part of the system, they are not the creators of funders of the system. Penalise the wealth creators more and what do you think would happen to the pot the pays for the key work to be done.

Hardly anybody has an issue with truly self-made wealth. Also those types of people not just pay taxes but also participate in charities a lot.
What is frowned upon is unearned privilege. I.e. "I worked so hard at my elite private school, and you must be lazy because you didn't attend one of those"

Yep, Typical leftie response. When people don’t agree with you, they are simply stupid and need to educate themselves to be as enlightened and socially woke as the drum beating, rich bashing, protesting activists. While the rest of us get on with real life.

Or maybe because the OP is not only embarrassingly wrong, he’s also refusing to acknowledge why he’s wrong. How can you argue with someone who read something on Facebook, engraved it on their heart and only seeks out an echo chamber?

What is ‘real life’ to you? Are you a millionaire or lazy? That’s the options presented to you by this OP.

Catsatepeopletoo.

I think I was trying to say what you said more successfully!

@AutumnLeavesSeptember

Sorry but you're missing the bigger picture here. It's not about earned income on the whole but about assets. Half of England is owned by 1% of the population, and a decent chunk of that is aristocracy. link. We've got a massive housing crisis because we rely on a small number of house builders who land bank to increase prices. Just forcing some builders to actually build would be a good start. And we do need some more effective asset taxes so that those with large land holdings pay a similar amount on asset income than earned income.

That's just one example. You might like a book called The Spirit Level that shows that the more inequality a country has the sicker they are. This stuff has real consequences. If you were a barista working in London you'd by paying £800 for a room in a council flat. In some parts of the country things are really dire for low waged people due to the lack of reform in housing in particular.

Your comments on the housebuilding industry are so flawed that I don't know where to start. The planning system, useless local authority planners and nimby councillors, objections to every application, cil payments, legal agreements, technical work etc etc. Consents are only live for 2 or 3 years so land banking just isn't a thing any more.

Equality recognises people's differences and adjusts accordingly. The aim should be for everyone to fulfil their potential. As humans are all different that is pre-determined by intellect. Hughes schools aiming to for one size to fit all are retrograde. Society desperately needs smaller schools with different focuses. The huge comp may suit some children but it doesn't suit all. And far more money for specialist provision for sen and an acceptance that the brightest children, through education, are entitled to the same opportunities as the richest. A comp opened close to us in about 2006. Only one MFL offered, no classical language and triple or single sciences not available. Wholly inadequate for brighter children and wholly inadequate for those who struggled. There was an apartheid culture between the middle class children who stayed for out of school activities (and mostly read humanities at uni - although to my knowledge not one child has gone to Oxbridge to date from that school). Education in the UK is a shambles and we have created two or three generations of people who are well qualified but not very well educated and who simply do not have the requisite skills required for work. Almost all professional/vocational roles require time management, collation of written information and data. Use of Microsoft (outlook, word, excel) needs to be mandatory in Yr9/10.

I think the good thing about Mumsnet is that you can sample a range of advice coming from a range of sources. It is fascinating to hear about LongPauseNoReply's experience, and would be interesting to hear more about how they achieved their success. Because there are high-flying lawyers on Mumsnet and medics, you can actually get very useful advice.

I agree, @Diverseopinions. One person on here who gets a lot of stick is Xenia, in her different guises. I don't personally agree with her very work-focused approach but she does opens a window onto what is possible if you choose to configure your life in that way. Women can be high earners. There is something to be said for prioritising your career. You can aim higher. She gave a lot of time and advice to people on the earn £1000 a day threads.

I was always fairly clued up, but Mumsnet has definitely helped to educate me on the importance of money: pensions, the implications of divorce, the importance of continuity of employment...

But we don't all start off the same and some people are going to face more barriers than others.

"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.

For women, the most poverty inducing situations are not finishing their education in something that pays a decent wage, having children at a young age, and getting a loser for a partner.

Aren't all those things a matter of personal choice for that person though? Did anyone force her to chose a loser for a partner or have a child at a young age or not finish her education is something that pays a decent wage???

@CatsArePeopleToo

Hardly anybody has an issue with truly self-made wealth. Also those types of people not just pay taxes but also participate in charities a lot. What is frowned upon is unearned privilege. I.e. "I worked so hard at my elite private school, and you must be lazy because you didn't attend one of those"

However, I have worked with people who went to these elite private schools in the City. The vast majority of them do still work hard and take their jobs seriously.

The problem is that none of the stereotypes are true. The vast majority of rich and poor are hard working people who want the best for their families. You get feckless poor and you get feckless rich.

I do think that education and skills training is a key plank in making society more equal (it will never be fully equal - Communist countries aren’t). We need to move away from the over emphasis on academic/theoretical knowledge and value practical skills too. We also need to tackle poverty of aspiration. The education system should sit within a wider social framework that supports young people with issues like period poverty, no place to study, access to materials, books etc.

I did go to a bog standard comp but I am very academically minded and driven so I am a higher earner now. However, I also have a family where education was valued and I have inherited. My DC will have a better start in life than me as they go to a better school (private) and we will be able to help them financially.

I think building more support for young people is the way forward.

".e. "I worked so hard at my elite private school, and you must be lazy because you didn't attend one of those""

The majority of people who attend private schools have parents who work incredibly hard to send them there. That hard work ethos does run off yes, but you can still get to where you want to be, going to a normal high school.

Dont fall into the trap of thinking because it's a good private school that the kids who go there are all from landed gentry families. The majority are from normal backgrounds.

OP - how much did you pay for your HGV training and how long ago was it?

@user1497207191

For women, the most poverty inducing situations are not finishing their education in something that pays a decent wage, having children at a young age, and getting a loser for a partner.

Aren't all those things a matter of personal choice for that person though? Did anyone force her to chose a loser for a partner or have a child at a young age or not finish her education is something that pays a decent wage???

Perhaps if people couldn’t avoid paying their fair share for their own child so easily and childcare wasn’t so eye watering you expensive it would be such an issue.

@FrogspawnSmoothie

I actually made exactly the same point earlier in the thread - i.e. that we need people to do these roles and that people who've spent £30k getting a degree probably won't want to work in a low paid service job.

That depends on the degree doesn't it? If someone is taking a highly value degree for a specific profession, then they're more likely to get a high paid quality job. But someone taking a random degree without any real idea of future career is more likely to end up in a low paid service job. So that comes back to making the "right" choices based on research etc. It's quite a big difference between people stuck in poverty because of not having choices compared to those who've had choices but made the wrong choices!

Some high earners are paid totally disproportionately to their worth to society.

Many footballers (for instance) earn more in a week than most people earn in a year.

MaybeDoctor Yes, people are generous with their time and advice on Mumsnet, and it saves time and avoids costly mistakes to have a basic steer on what could be pitfalls, and which general wisdom to heed.

@Orchidsindoors normal wealthy backgrounds

The one thing that separates private school kids from none private school kids is money. You can work as hard as you like in most jobs (and plenty of professions) and not be able to privately educate your children no matter how much you scrimp and save and do without.

We are not born equal, OP. We do not all have the same opportunities. Our future is limited by our intelligence. The smarter people get the better paid jobs, and if they are already wealthy they get even better opportunities - that's how it works.

I say this as someone who came from a council estate background, unskilled (very clever) parents, got good GCSEs then pissed around for the next 10 years doing many low paid non skilled jobs. Once I decided I needed more I had my clever brain to fall back on. I was poor, got the qualifications I needed through my employer to work bottom rung in a bank then worked my way up. I am naturally bright, no degree,but I'm really quick and see things others don't. Not bragging- it's just how it is. This set me apart from my peers and I'm in a top paid job now. BUT, I recognise that it is my brain that got me here and we don't all get born with great brains. Why should those who are not as clever not have access to great childcare,, food, education, health etc?

My view is I got genetically lucky and I want to pay back. Did you know the highest amount of benefits budget is paid to pensioners and working people in receipt of additional credits they need? And yet some people are hung up on this mythical massive amount of people who are scroungers- the numbers are minuscule. Look them up.

So,unlike you,OP, I am delighted if I am asked to pay more tax, the more I earn, the more I pay to help those who are less able due to being born into poverty AND not inheriting good intelligence Gene's- it's not their fault. And yes, I donate loads, too. If you can,you should.

The education system is a different matter. The "one size fits all" clearly doesn't work. Wasn't it something like 50% of 16 years old who didn't achieve C or above at GCSE Maths & English? How can anyone say a system like that is working?

We need different options, different schools catering for different types of children. Obviously not back to the old grammar versus sec mod system which had well documented faults, such as the inability to move from one to the other and lack of flexibility in each. But the alternative "throw everyone in together" system doesn't work either.

I thought the technical schools were a brilliant idea, but badly implemented by Labour which led to them disappearing again after a pretty unsuccessful period.

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!!

"11:11Porcupineinwaiting

@Orchidsindoorsnormalwealthybackgrounds

The one thing that separates private school kids from none private school kids is money. You can work as hard as you like in most jobs (and plenty of professions) and not be able to privately educate your children no matter how much you scrimp and save and do without."

Not true. The majority are from normal backgrounds whose parents have worked hard and made the right choices, and are now wealthy because of it. Not from families who had money to start with.

"If you’re rich you should share it more. It’s that simple. No one needs a multi-million pound house!!"

But why? And where does it end. Not all rich are in multi million pound houses. So if my neighbour works hard and gets a degree in nursing, she should give some of her money to me if I cant be arsed?