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

How??

You'd either have to invade/Nuke them or you'd have to pay them billions to give up the tax haven status.

Tax avoidance includes investing your savings in ISAs or pensions, it includes people investing their money into start-up businesses via VCT/EIS investments, it includes people investing in the film industry.

All things explicitly introduced by successive governments both in the UK and lots of other countries too!

Most of the "tax avoidance" industry is driven by politics using incentives introduced by governments to encourage certain behaviours.

You can't cry foul when people are doing exactly as Parliament intended!

Obviously, there are less legitimate and downright illegal tax "evasion" options out there too, but most "tax avoidance" is entirely legal and actually encouraged!

I said that the aim wasn't for everyone to have the same amount of money / pay. This was in response to the post I quoted which stated "why should i do a shitty job if i can get a better job like doctor etc for the same pay"

Communism is about the means of production being collectively owned - which is different to 'wealth' and russia / the USSR was never a communist economy.

Amen.....
None of those were introduced or promoted as tax avoidance, they were investment benefits, but only the well off have surplus cash sitting their, rather loans to payback. You'll be saying next no rules were broken, or "l didn't realise" like zahawi said after giving HMRC away it £6,000,000.....

None of those were introduced or promoted as tax avoidance, they were investment benefits

That is the same thing!

I am encouraged to save money and buy shares held in an ISA or a SIPP because I can avoid paying tax.

Tax avoidance/tax savings are there specifically so that people are encouraged to use these vehicles

And this was exactly the vision of October revolution - to make all assets (means of production) to be collectively owned. Which resulted in collectivisation of all wealth and death (in many cases torturous) of tens of millions of people

Ideally, rich people should not exist. Why would you NEED to have more wealth? Being rich is fundamentally immoral.

I’m a social democrat, which means a managed market economy, public services where they are better fit, and wealth and income redistribution to mitigate the natural consequences of capitalism.

What are you on about?

I have a good life but everyone wants better things for themselves. It's not essential but I'd like to own a nice fancy car, I'd like to fly first class.

I'd even like to have some luxury watches. Nothing immoral.

That’s not rich in the context we’re talking. This is about more money than anyone could ever spend.

Tardigrade001 · Today 14:35
Ideally, rich people should not exist. Why would you NEED to have more wealth? Being rich is fundamentally immoral.

Maybe revolution is the way forward?
Keep the palaces and stately homes or burn ‘em down?
The helicopters and private jets will have to be put out of action or some of the rich will escape.

Immoral?

Immoral to create companies, to work hard, to do well for yourself and family?

What do you mean??

The seriously super-rich, i.e. billionaires, couldn't spend all their wealth if they wanted simply because it's not tangible. Most of it is tied up in businesses/shares/investments, etc which are "paper only". Likewise they'll own high worth assets such as aircraft, super yachts, multiple homes, even islands, etc., which again, can't readily be sold and value liquidated. All those assets rely on someone being willing and able to pay "real" money to buy them. Most of such assets are probably grossly over-inflated in terms of value and wouldn't reach their "book" value if the billionaire owning them wanted to sell up! I would also imagine that for a lot of them, they'll also have huge loans/mortgages/leases secured against some of their assets. Many will have lots of "assets" because they've been able to borrow to buy them, not because they had ready cash to buy them.

The entreprenneurs and innovators are mostly motivated by money and wealth. If they didn't see massive end benefits, they simply wouldn't bother to innovate, invest, research, develop, etc.

What would the World look like if there wasn't anyone creating new "things", developing new ideas, new products, etc?

It’s beyond me why you’re so eager to defend the wealthiest on the planet @taxguru when they wouldn’t piss on you if you were on fire.

I don't think there should be billionaires. Nobody needs that much money. I'm not saying rich people shouldn't exist though. I enjoy the fact that rich women like dolly Parton and JK Rowling use their money philanthropically so they are not billionaires even though they could be. The very wealthy should be more like that!

I completely agree, both excellent examples of wealth being used constructively. Also Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffet who have pledged to give away half their wealth.

No they shouldn't. All of those things are reliant on the labour of other people, so unless you're a slavery enjoyer...

Also again, you will never eradicate poverty, it is impossible.

If people were not allowed to do well and become wealthy, why would anyone bother to work hard, to innovate, to research new medicines, to develop new technologies etc etc?!

I don’t know why you quoted my post when it’s completely unrelated to yours but I’ll answer. Because those people are very rarely motivated by money - I don’t imagine Marie Curie, Alexander Fleming, Robert Winston or Christian Barnard gave a second’s thought to any wealth they might gain. Or Tim Berners-Lee. I’m absolutely sure the amazing Kate Gilbert who developed the Covid vaccine in record time wasn’t motivated by money.

It’s astonishing how many people in this ludicrously materialistic world fail to understand how little vast wealth matters to some of our greatest brains.

I have a very rich relative and they have all their money in trusts, offshore accounts etc and pay way lower than they should in tax!!!

Great examples.

Kate Gilbert wasn't motivated by money, but AstraZeneca's LT who made this vaccine available to masses at speed most definitely were.

People like Jeff Bezos, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Zuckerberg etc etc did change the world we live in, you like it or not.

Yet you could guarantee that these jealous types buy lottery tickets every week, if they won it wouldn't count, like you say the politics of envy just eat these people alive.

Not motivated by money, but should be able to have a standard of living commensurate with their contribution.

Yes they did but we don’t know why. And the Gates give big chunks of their fortune away. What’s Kate Gilbert’s motivation got to do with the company that employed her?