AIBU to conclude that it is not a crime to be a "Champagne Socialist"

[Rosaxpxp]

I hear this term getting bandied around as an insult. Surely it is better to be an affluent socialist than a well off Tory!?

@Iggly

So, if you’re a socialist, what should you do exactly when living in a capitalist society?

Giving your money away won’t change things and make it socialist….

Also what is this nonsense about thinking that business is somehow better? Capitalism ultimately is about exploiting other people for excess personal financial gain. The likes of Jeff Bezos are the extreme end of that. But that’s where capitalism takes you.

Newsflash. Without business and private wealth, the public sector would cease to exist. You can bring as much emotion into it to make your political point but the basic laws of economy don’t change.

@StoneofDestiny

Nothing wrong with being a Socialist and having the money to drink champagne. Surely you don't have to be poor to be a Socialist? If you have worked your way to enjoying a good standard of living and still retain a good moral conscience and sense of social responsibility - great.

"Nothing's too good for the working classes", as my dear old dad used to say when he opened a bottle of Veuve Clicquot every Christmas.

Newsflash. Without business and private wealth, the public sector would cease to exist. You can bring as much emotion into it to make your political point but the basic laws of economy don’t change

Newsflash, the private sector wouldn’t exist without the public sector. We wouldn’t have regulations, we wouldn’t have education in its current form, no roads, rail or public transport.

If you think the private sector as it is today would exist without the public sector, you’d be wrong.

One is not better than the other. They are both needed IMO.

The balance has tipped too far towards valuing a very rich minority at the expense of 99% of the population.

The worst "champagne socialists" I've met have been colleagues from the US. They're all on six figure incomes.

They all want free healthcare but put their fingers in their ears when you explain you'll be waiting hours on an ambulance, you'll be expected to labour in a waiting room, and you can go years without seeing a doctor.

They all want child benefit, free childcare etc but refuse to understand just how much more they'd be expected to pay in taxes, and that there are no write offs.

They claim to care about minorities but not when it comes to understanding why they might be hesitant to take a new vaccine.

They're 1000% on the TWAW train with little regard for women's rights.

They're some of the most closed minded people I know to be honest. Like them as people but can't stand their politics. I've never voted tory in my life but they jokingly/ affectionately say I'd be a trumpster in America me who grew up on a council estate and know more than a thing or two about poverty.

They all want free healthcare but put their fingers in their ears when you explain you'll be waiting hours on an ambulance, you'll be expected to labour in a waiting room, and you can go years without seeing a doctor

These things have happened because the Tories have underfunded the nhs. It wasn’t always this way 🧐

It's the kind of person who sends their kids to private school whilst hating selective schooling.

The kind of person who wants to abolish the Lords then accepts the honour.

The kind of person who screams about taxing everything else but takes full advantage of any loophole possible. (e.g. Flipping your main residence whilst an MP or stamp duty avoidance a la former Labour PM's)

Or former working class area MPs who rarely visit the area then piss off to become the director of a large London museum.

The kind of person who is happy to spend other peoples money on what they believe to be what the poor people want whilst making bloody sure the path of themselves and thebpoor people never ever cross.

Champagne socialists are hypocrites they campaign against inheritance tax thresholds rising but do everything they can to minimise their own inheritance tax bill by setting up trusts etc the miliband brothers and Tony Benn did this, , they mock the perceived values of the poor,or they campaign for actions that see the poor penalised the most, blocking the tube by extinction rebellion so poor people can't get to work or arrive late asand as on zero hour contracts or paid by the hour they get paid even less due to actions of ER, but ER activists can get a taxi home. Or they exploit workers themselves "Polish plumbers work so much harder and cost less failing to realise that the only way the polish plumber gets business is by undercutting not that he wants to work for less, but working for less is better than having no money, but they don't want their kids at same school as polish plumbers kids with the TA concentrating on those that have English as second language, or they think diversity is being with people with same views as themselves but with different coloured skin or sexualties but not people with different political religious viewpoints. It is a failure to see that the policies they advocate have the most detrimental effect on the poorest, adding green taxes to energy or fast food etc

There is nothing wrong with being affluent or successful AND to be on the side of working class”

It's not about sides. It's about a fairer society for all. I think a socialist society genuinely would be better for 99% of people. The rich can avoid state schools but only the extremely rich can avoid the NHS, as there isn't sufficient private provision for intensive care. Clean air can't be bought by individuals. And surely no one wants to see beggars in the street and low level crime that results from poverty.
You'd have to be selfish or stupid to think that our current way of doing things works for anyone other than the very rich and selfish. Stupid = believing that all poor people are lazy, or that rich people are inherently more deserving

Also I don't believe you can be on the side of the poor if you are rich. Unless you want all other rich people to give away their money but retain your own.

These things have happened because the Tories have underfunded the nhs. It wasn’t always this way

Right, but we voted for that? And we continue to vote for it? Which is my point - if they want ambulances within minutes and yearly doctors check ups, and they don't want to labour in waiting rooms or things like triage where they might be waiting days if others are in need, then they will have to pay for that through taxation - yet they all do whatever they can to make sure their tax bill is shockingly low and appear gobsmacked when I tell them what our tax rates are 🤷🏻‍♀️.

They wouldn't stand for the above (all of which I've experienced personally over the last ten years) but like us, apparently wouldn't be happy to fund it properly either.

In reference to Public v Private Sector, It’s fair to say that one can’t exist without the other and that’s true. Though, it all comes down to the NOLAN principles of selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership.

In respect to phrase Champagne Socialist, it refers to the hypocrisy that exists as these public servants enjoy the wealth created by the tax payer and is morally questionable. As a taxpayer, we don’t have a choice as to how much we pay, where that money goes, how it’s spent, the value of that service, the efficiency of civil servants and potential waste of money - we are legally bound too all of this. The only option is tax avoidance and socialists and use avoidance schemes too. That’s where the hypocrisy exists.

It’s different with the private sector, as consumers have the choice to support companies by using or buying their goods. If consumers don’t like the perceived greed or corruption, consumers have the right to use a different supplier. With the public sector, we have no choice, but to accept their behaviour.

So, in the news, if you think parties during the pandemic were only at No.10 (Tories), you’d be mistaken. How many MPs (Labour included) in Parliament used their offices for drinks? How many teachers had gatherings in their staff rooms with wine or beer, how many gatherings were in staff rooms at hospitals, how many council workers had parties in their chambers etc. None of this we know for sure, only I know of few businesses that held socials, against the rules, but businesses don’t abide by the NOLAN principles.

Greed is everywhere.

Also it's not always wrong for labour MP's to send their children to private schools. I would think badly of anyone who sacrificed their child's happiness for their principles. There might be some cases where local schools are poor and the child is at risk by attending them. I am thinking of Diane Abbot. As long as the mp in question is campaigning for better schools and voting the right way then that's fine. What's hypocritical is to only send your child to the best state school and pretend all schools are as good. In general I would expect labour MP's to send their children to the local state school

In respect to phrase Champagne Socialist, it refers to the hypocrisy that exists as these public servants enjoy the wealth created by the tax payer

Not really. Public servants get paid for a job and pay tax on their salary, just like any employee. Anyone can work in the public sector and "enjoy the wealth" e.g. bin.men, dinner ladies, a variety of jobs

@SnackSizeRaisin

In respect to phrase Champagne Socialist, it refers to the hypocrisy that exists as these public servants enjoy the wealth created by the tax payer

Not really. Public servants get paid for a job and pay tax on their salary, just like any employee. Anyone can work in the public sector and "enjoy the wealth" e.g. bin.men, dinner ladies, a variety of jobs

How do public servants create wealth? They don’t, they merely make a contribution by law from income tax. The level of taxation generated by public sector works from their in not comparable to the taxes that businesses pay. In reference to wealthy public servants, these are middle to upper management with influence and power to make budget decisions that favour themselves or the lucrative contracts they award their friends or relatives or the kickback they earn from pharmaceutical companies for example.

The idea that, for what ever reason, you become more comfortably off, or even rich, you have to change your politics is just utterly ridiculous.

I had a very working class up bringing, but basically married into middle class, and live a lower middle class life style now. But I am still socialist through and through, as is my husband. I pay my taxes, would happily pay more to support society. We both volunteer. But because we have a comfortable life style, I should suddenly be a Tory???

@ColletteTheLot

The idea that, for what ever reason, you become more comfortably off, or even rich, you have to change your politics is just utterly ridiculous.

I had a very working class up bringing, but basically married into middle class, and live a lower middle class life style now. But I am still socialist through and through, as is my husband. I pay my taxes, would happily pay more to support society. We both volunteer. But because we have a comfortable life style, I should suddenly be a Tory???

I respect your comment.

If you would happily pay more to support society, why don’t you? What is holding you back?

its just another quasi-insulting sneery label that some people use to denigrate people who are different to them (opinion and circumstances). It phrased just right to get the target's back up while allowing the user a satisfying glow of smug self-righteousness....

Quasi-insulting sneery label? I find it’s the “champagne socialists” who largely do the sneering - despising others and claiming to be morally superior when in fact behaving no differently themselves.

@DottyHarmer

Quasi-insulting sneery label? I find it’s the “champagne socialists” who largely do the sneering - despising others and claiming to be morally superior when in fact behaving no differently themselves.

i'm not saying they don't.... just that, that's the level political discussions seem to be at... "you're a tory snob" "you're a champagne socialist" "you're a thick brexiteer" "you're lefty europhile" It's all about sneering put-downs and less about trying to understand and respect other people's points of view...

Why don't I pay more? I'm not aware I can choose to pay more tax? Can I?

I had a very working class up bringing, but basically married into middle class, and live a lower middle class life style now. But I am still socialist through and through, as is my husband. I pay my taxes, would happily pay more to support society

Perhaps you have too much, why don't you give more up in line with you socialist ethos?

I'm not aware I can choose to pay more tax? Can I?

Maybe you have a spare room, you can invite someone to live there for free? Surely you have some clothes you don't use every day, you could hand those over? You get the idea...

@ColletteTheLot you absolutely CAN pay more tax. The government has a dedicated webpage and you can just pop in your details. Well done for following through on what is usually empty blather.

@ColletteTheLot Well the central principle of socialism is equality, including equal distribution of wealth.
If you're comfortably off (compared to others who are poorer) then how is that being a socialist, unless you're willing to give away a large chunk of your money to the poor.
Everyone pays tax, that doesn't make us all socialists.

a champagne socialist is hypocritical, you can be comfortably off and a socialist vote labour
a comfortably off genuine socialist pays any employee properly and fairly, they pay their taxes, they don't falsely claim to be self employed when they are not; they don't pay themselves just in dividends or share options, they don't set up trusts to avoid inhertance or capital gains tax, if they are landlords they don't evict good paying tenants just because new tenants might pay more, they don't gazump people to get second homes in picturesque villages, they don't pretend that local secondary is good enough for everyone else but their children. They do not say immigration benefits everyone then complain to the school that children with English as a second language take too much of teachers time. They do not think increasing taxes which affect the poor most are the best way of advocating for climate change, they do not try to exclude poor families from local school by agreeing with extravagant uniforms that effectively deny entrance to poorer children
But most importantly real socialists do not sneer at the poor or disparge their views as being thick bigots that need to be told by better educated socialists how to think and that their problems are not real