Do you believe that rich people should exist?

[Bumpitybumper]

Having read lots of threads on here, I am starting to wonder about the proportion of people that believe that rich people shouldn't exist at all and that policies should be enacted to ensure a more or less even distribution of wealth.

So out of interest and just to satisfy my curiosity please vote:
YABU - there shouldn't be rich people in this country and that wealth should be distributed evenly to the extent that people aren't significantly richer than others.
YANBU - rich people are a necessary (and potentially even desirable) part of society

Sorry, that was not very clear.
For example, say that today the lowest yearly income is 15k and the highest 1million. The people over 100k contribute half their income, but still that is a huge gap.

If we want the gap to be 15k (‘poor’) to 100k (‘rich’), it would mean that all the people earning more than 100k today would take home no more than 100k in the new system (‘rich’ cap) and pay the rest in taxes. Great in theory, more income.

But why would they not then cut their hours to earn no more than 100k? Same money but more fee time. And way less tax revenue, so the budget for public spending is what, cut in half?

How is Elon musk increasing climate change?

I also think it's important that people have something to motivate them and aspire to, and for many that motivation will be financial, else there becomes no point in taking risk, pioneering or building.

This. Taking even more from those who already pay more taxes than most may disincentive people to work hard - why try hard if even more of your income/assets are taken away??

It has never been the goal of communism or the russian revolution for people to have the same amount of money.

The russian revolution wasn't a disaster because it aimed for equality - it failed because it attempted to implement a system, dependent upon global revolution, within a single state. Lenin himself acknowledged this.

Having experienced communism in Eastern Europe, I would warn those who think the rich shouldn’t exist to be very careful that they wish for. Animal Farm should be compulsory reading.

The russian revolution wasn't a disaster because it aimed for equality - it failed because it attempted to implement a system, dependent upon global revolution, within a single state.

I suppose murdering and starving millions of people could also be counted as a failure.

Part II - To ask what you'll be doing to avoid the Labour tax - Scandi model | Mumsnet

I started a thread on this, there is an excellent analysis of Scandi model attached.

General consensus from posters was..."yeah, we're different"

You really do not understand what you're talking about. The aim of revolution was exactly to get rid of rich and ensure all wealth is owned collectively.

The unspeakable horror that followed should have been a warning to everyone. Partially modern welfare is a consequence of this. Apparently Russian lesson isn't learned.

Your thread is pointless, because as you have acknowledged, you are completely ignoring the elephant in the room to ask whether the mouse is making it too crowded. The gap between the position and life chances of someone in the poorest 1% in this country and your example of someone on £65k- so just making the richest 10%- is entirely dwarfed into insignificance by the gap between the richest 10% and the richest 0.5%. And pointing and shouting about Ms £65k and trying to make out it’s a massively significant gotcha point that nobody really wants to line her up against a wall and shoot her does not in any way change the fact that a far, far higher proportion of people are very unhappy about the 0.5% and would strongly support a huge chunk of their wealth being removed and used to improve life for those at the bottom.

I don't feel extreme wealth (millions in double/triple digits) should exist in a world where people are starving, live in inhumane conditions and poverty and die of malnutrition and preventable illnesses due to lack of food, clean water, basic vaccination and health care.

I find extreme wealth obscene in these circumstances.

We shouldn't be talking about gap.

We should be aiming for everyone who's working or is unable to work due to true health issues to have a reasonable standard of living - reasonable home to live in, be it rented or owned, enough food, cloth, some holidays. The rest - sky is the limit. It is appalling that people working in critical jobs (teachers, nurses, care workers etc) can't afford to buy or to rent, can't afford childcare, etc. It's totally fine for people to be rich, even if obscenely so.

For the UK the answer is not getting rid of rich, the answer is affordable property. To make it happen we shouldn't be destroying our green belt but we should change mindset and move urban population to flats, the same as people live in cities across the world. For this we need proper planning regulations which make flats suitable for permanent living and raising family - sufficient space, storage, sound insulation etc. If you look at those countries who seem to be examples of good quality life, the difference is not just taxation, it's property market. Our mean salaries and taxes aren't that different, it's housing being unaffordable which kills us.

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

It wasn't a premise at all but a question based on an observation. I wondered what proportion of people didn't think there should be rich people in society but I never suggested what the majority of people think.

Well many people have tried this set up and spectacularly failed. Sadly

The answer is affordable property
I agree, the rentier economy is a very bad thing for most of us.

What do you class as rich. Your question seems vague and meaningless.

Billionaires should not exist.

If I made the rules, nobody’s annual income would be allowed to exceed a million pounds. The self-employed would have to nominate a service, charity or cause to receive anything they made over that amount.

And nobody should be able to leave more than a million pounds of assets to any single individual in their will.

@mariavontarp So if someone starts a company and it’s one of the few that doesn’t fail in the first five years, they shouldn’t work to make too profitable and/or possibly expand it, because they can only earn up to a certain amount?

Anyone who trained more recently paid for their own training, is now likely to have huge student loans as its really hard to work whilst studying on a healthcare course. I did 40+ hours per week in lectures and placements, and then study, essays and revision on top. The NHS doesn't pay enough to pay off those loans quickly.
But more than money, it's patients behaviour which will push me out of the nhs soon. Today I got shouted at, sworn at, about 20% just didn't turn up, others arrived 30/40 minutes after their appointment time but expected to be seen straight away, others moaned when we ran a little late. All this led to me working 2 hours later than my clinic was scheduled, which I wont be paid overtime for. We have security guards on the front door of our clinic due to threats from patients, and our main door doesn't work as it got broken by a patient trying for force it, so we have to take people round the outside to get from reception to clinic.

So don't blame private hospitals for nhs staffing issues. Blame patients who don't turn up on time, don't turn up at all and make wait lists longer, who are rude and aggressive, who disrespect nhs staff and nhs property.
In the small amount of private work I do, I haven't been paid significantly more than nhs when look at total package. But I have been treated with respect, my skills and knowledge valued and I have left work on time.

Because charities have such a strong record of ethical practices?

I don’t think there should be private schools or private healthcare as they perpetuate the social and wealth divide.
If the only options were state education and NHS then both those services would be much improved as the government and influential people would have reason to invest in them and make them better.

I think the poster is referring to the premise upon which your question appears (at least in her eyes) to rest.

‘Bleat’? What an unpleasant way to describe someone giving their opinion. The NhS only ‘wants’ us to use private more because of underfunding and massive lists. Fix that.

Everyone is happier even the richest if the gap is smaller.

Both would be much improved if they were respected more by pupils and their families, and by patients.
The reason private school pupils often do better isn't that they have vastly better teachers, it's pupil behaviour and supportive engaged parents. Friends who are state school teachers say they sometimes they have only covered 50-60% of the gcse curriculum by the time exams take place, as so much time is spent on behaviour management and recapping bits missed by those whose attendance is poor. Of course it's only a minority who are nisbehaving/non engaged parents, but these disrupt the experience for the rest and reduce progress overall.

Working in paediatrics, we cannot discharge when appointments are missed. We send appointment letters, reminder texts and do reminder calls, which itself takes a lot of time, but still get approx 10-15% no show rate. These then have to be rebooked and push wait times higher. I worked out that if we had no 'no shows' and didn't need to do reminder calls, our wait times would be halved.
My private clinics- pretty much 100% attendance. Because they are the ones who pay if they don't turn up. Nhs - it's free, so much more abuse.
If everyone had to pay a charge for not showing up/not sticking to treatment plan I guarantee nhs wait times would drop significantly.