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

But they are much better than the UK. Partly if not solely because of higher taxes and less of a wealth gap.

I think this is a deliberate attempt to conflate people who are comfortably off with the global super rich, so that they feel threatened by any proposed policies to tax the super rich etc, and vote accordingly. It's a classic right wing tactic, often pushed by newspapers such as the Mail and Telegraph, coincidentally owned by billionaires 🤔

See, for example, Corbyn's Labour's proposed land value tax, designed to affect people like the Duke of Westminster, twisted by the likes of the Mail until people with a semi detached in Doncaster thought it applied to them 🤦‍♀️

That is exactly what I am saying - based on earnings £65k is not rich, esp if the house is mortgaged etc.
We drive 2 nice cars, meals out, 2 holidays a year. Kids get what they ask within limits..but we are not rich. We still have to discuss before making big expenses.
I will feel rich the day I do not have to think twice before buying any more handbags and shoes...or I can jet off to Paris for dinner and back in the blink of an eye.

How would the rich people stay rich whilst the benefits of their wealth were distributed more evenly and ploughed back into society. Nobody on this thread has said they feel rich, not even those in the top 10% or 1% of earners. If you said to these people that the benefits of their supposed wealth should be more evenly distributed across society then I think the so called 'rich' would become moderate earners pretty rapidly.

You can't say you support the existence of rich people on one hand but want to effectively tax them out of existence on the other.

I'm quite happy for people to be rich as long as they are decent, honest and considerate. Many very rich people are philanthropic, the best ones do it quietly. I would be like that if I were rich :-). Not much chance of that but I'm content with what I have.

You need to be clear on what you mean by 'rich' as that is a very relative term. I believe that a certain disparity in income is to be expected. However, I believe the very existance of billionaires to be morally abhorant.

Contributing to society more fairly doesn't mean contributing your entire wealth.

If the Pimilco Plumber fella paid a million more in tax he'd still be very rich.

OP -it's a crazy question! What is 'rich'? Is it just someone better off than you and me? A Russian oligarch with a private yacht in the Med? Someone who drives a Range Rover, or who has children at private school? You need to answer this question first.

I definitely don't believe in an absolutely equal distribution of 'wealth' (again, what's that? Cash? Land? Shares? Art?). I believe in very well-regulated capitalism, where wealth is created and taxed sensibly so that the generators of wealth don't all run away to a tax haven, and still feel incentivised to take the risks and put in the graft to create that wealth.

I believe in a welfare state: NHS, well-targeted benefits for those suffering hard times and good public services, financed by graduated taxes.

There's a quote from Howard's End by E M Forster which I always remember. He was a socialist too. It goes something like this: if we shared things out and gave everyone £40 (it WAS an Edwardian novel!), in 30 years you'd have rich and poor again. I think this is true, unfortunately.

Your example here isn't about a politics of envy. Poorer people do lose out due to private health care and private education.

They are at a disadvantage by not being able to pay for a scan or operation, therefore more likely to suffer complications leading to loss of earnings or reliance on the welfare state.

They are at a disadvantage because more powerful members of society are less inclined to push for change to a system that isn't not working for them personally.

They are at a disadvantage because staff may prefer to work at private hospitals and private schools given the opportunity.

To be blind to these issues and dismiss any concerns as politics of envy is either niave or willfully ignorant.

@Bumpitybumper "You can't say you support the existence of rich people on one hand but want to effectively tax them out of existence on the other."

I don't want to tax them (me? Depends on your definition!) I just want to tax them/us more.

I've just remembered that the Beatles wrote a song called "Taxman" and a quick Google tells me that it was inspired by a 95% supertax introduced by the Wilson government!

If you said to these people that the benefits of their supposed wealth should be more evenly distributed across society then I think the so called 'rich' would become moderate earners pretty rapidly.

The OP thinks that money is the only measure of a society's wealth.

This poll appears to be based on your own prejudices and narrow-minded view.

Incidentally, if anyone sees the expression "politics of envy" I will scream. And that will scare the dog. And it will be your fault.

First post nails it.

@leafybrew Nowhere did I say ALL poor people are poor because they make bad choices. Of course not. There is nothing snobbish in acknowledging that some people are better at managing money than others, some have an instinct for making money, some have rare and lucrative talents, some have different priorities or are naturally of the caringprofessions.. That's basic common sense.

Everyone makes choices in life. Some are naturally more or less risk-averse and so end up with more or less money. I chose a career that pays more than my sister - who is a nurse. Less satisfying but more lucrative.

Some people choose to only have one child so they have more to spend on quality of life. Some have 3 or 4 or 5 children, and have much less disposable income. Neither is wrong, but the 'one and done' family will probably be more financially affluent because of their choice.

I think the issue is that ‘rich’ means something different to everyone, it’s all relative.

DH and I have a combined income of £155k. This seems like loads and yes, we are better off than most. Some people may define us a ‘rich’. However, living in the SE makes a huge difference. We live in a £600k, 4 bed semi-detached house. DH has to be able to commute to London so we need to be in close proximity to a train station, we can’t just move ‘up north’ as is often suggested.

We do have a nice life which means we don’t have to worry about mortgages, bills etc. we can afford nice food and to eat out, but I don’t consider us rich. We couldn’t afford private healthcare or private schooling on our wages. We have one modest holiday a year, not Sandals type resorts. Our cars are nice but not top of the range. I love our house, but it’s not particularly huge or fancy or detached.

No one should have $239 billion while people are dying from lack of access to things easily correct with a basic amount of money (basic health care, food, shelter etc...).

Its not that everyone should have to be exactly equal but everyone should have enough for the basics as a given and no one needs to be or should be allowed to be a fucking billionaire.

It is the hoarding of more money than you could ever possibly need that causes the issue. Its taken something thats limited that you don't even need and will never even use just because you can even if others suffer... pure selfishness.

That issue is then painted as down as it being the working class are after destroying the middle class and making them 'poor' and the working class work hard to fund freeloaders in the lower class who are stealing their money etc... which is utterly ridiculous.

It’s such a difficult question, yes the super rich may have huge amounts of money but they are the ones that DO pay far more into the economy than others, by way of taxes, spending power, employing others etc.
One of my sons works in the city as an accountant and said yesterday that several of his colleagues who have dual nationality have already gone or are making plans to leave the UK since Labour got in. That’s the tax they were paying here and all their spending gone from the economy.

I am neither naive or ignorant. I could accuse you of the same.

Using the example of a poor person unable to afford an operation or scan. They aren't necessarily disadvantaged by the existence of private healthcare at all. Firstly private healthcare generates additional capacity in the healthcare sector. This means more people are getting scans and being operated on then would otherwise be the case. This ultimately means that waiting lists are shorter and people get seen quicker. It also means that the NHS can save the money that they would otherwise spend on private patients and direct it to other people and services.

The NHS has many powerful advocates and this is unlikely to be weakened by the offering of private healthcare. Most people only use the private offering as they feel that they have no other choice but they do so reluctantly and still support the NHS as a concept.

The issue around staffing is complex. Many medical staff work in the private sector in addition to working for the NHS hence the additional capacity.

I don't want to scare your dog, Curlew!

But that phrase (won't risk typing it...) has a real meaning - most cliches are based in truth, or they wouldn't exist. I've come across people whose dislike of wealthier people is definitely not a principled, reasoned matter - they just don't like anyone better off than them!

Someone I used to know ranted on to anyone who would listen about how awful car drivers/owners were (while, it has to be admitted) accepting lifts from them. She used to rattle on in my car when I was younger and less assertive. Then she got a good job and immediately bought a car and was driving all over the place. That was pure "p o e*".

There are lots of celebs who blathered on about being socialists until they made it big, and then, hey presto - their children are at top public schools. Not saying everyone is like this, but it's a thing.

These 1% of earners who pay 29% of income tax are only able to make that much money because of the society they live in. They may be extraordinary driven and talented, but without wider society they would not be able earn that sort of money.

The tax they pay helps the rest of society to function. The society that they essentially rely upon for their wealth.

I've often heard them called wealth creators, but their wealth is always built on the hard work of others, whether people buying from them, or making the products they sell

If you think that you're one of these 1% and are making money without any support from wider society I'd be very interested to hear what you do

£65k? In what world is that rich?
Very comfortable as a single person, but I think even with one child it wouldn’t be easy on that amount as a household income.

I believe that is almost double the average salary in the UK, but I would assume those earning half that amount are eligible
for top ups from the govt.

@Bumpitybumper which are you "rich" over 65k or "poor" under 65k?

housethatbuiltme · Today 14:43

But how do you incentivise people to study for long, hard years to enter extremely demanding professions? My son's a barrister and half his income goes in tax. He's not the high earner he appears to be on paper! But he often works 16-hour days in a very stressful job, has to put work first all the time and studied for ages, taking really challenging exams to get to this point.

Why would people do this - or become surgeons etc - if there were no financial rewards?