To think the system’s set up so the rich get richer and the poor get screwed?

[ThatGreenBear]

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how society is structured, and it feels like no matter how hard some people work, they’re always struggling, while others just seem to get wealthier with minimal effort. Whether it’s the tax system, housing market, or even access to education and opportunities, everything seems stacked in favor of those who already have money and power.

AIBU to think that the system is rigged to keep the wealthy at the top while making it incredibly hard for the rest of us to get ahead? Or is this just how life works and we should all just accept it? I’d love to hear others’ thoughts on whether the playing field is as unfair as it seems, or if it’s possible for anyone to get ahead with enough hard work.

Monopoly is both a game of chance and strategy though. The roll of the dice decides where you land, whether you get chance or community chest cards, going to jail etc.. It has nothing to do with skill at that stage. Whether you invest where you land has a certain amount of strategy to it. It is a known fact that when people succeed in something, they tend to attribute it to being better at it, and disregard the role of luck altogether.

Are you working as Head of department in teaching now? If so, I'm really curious to know what sort of salary you earn to consider it so low?

No, I left teaching 10 years ago and now work for the council. Can't get full time hours as there's no money so work 4 days 🙄. My fte is a smidgen under 30k a year.

Well.. It depends on a person, I guess.

One set of grandparents grew up in Siberia, married there, came home after that absolute fucker stalin died (this is not UK, obv). Their parents were killed before exiling the orphaned kids, all they had was confiscated by the state.

They were hustlers though, came back, started a farm, sold produce, grandad went to russia, belarus and Ukraine to bring back goods to sell, etc. They prospered. Had kids, helped them start businessess. My dad's a millionaire (not the yacht kind), uncle is richer and my aunt is the wealthiest of us all. All three kids had good business brains, just like their parents.

Other set of grandparents were very risk-averse, 'dont even start because you'll definitely fail, it's not for you, it's for other people' people. Be content with your lot, etc. Both had good jobs, but didn't take any risks and any opportunities, grandma's insecurities influenced my mom's life choices a lot. She didn't achieve much, other than marrying into money.

Thank god, my sibling and me have my dad's brains.

But would you have won if at the start she had been given normal amount from the bank plus park lane & mayfair and you had been given no money or property? You might have done, but it would have been far less of the time and much harder to do so.

Why did they change the system if it worked so well?

Housing as asset has brought us all to this point. If housing was cheaper, there would be money for other things, national minimum wage wouldn't have to keep increasing, everybody needing the next salary increase. I know council housing was never perfect but the current situation is dire.

This is where you are wrong.
You don't personally know the kind of rich where money is not worked for.
Money comes from investments, and inheritance. Money makes money.
Even managing the money and investments is done by someone else that you pay to do this for you.

Well, I left school at 16 with absolutely nothing.
come from a working class family ( and Keir Starmer’s version of working class )
my Dh the same.
We have both worked hard all our lives in average paid jobs ( have children too ) but our house is worth nearly 1 million. ( mortgage almost paid off )
So, on paper at least, we’re millionaires.

I would love to know where all this inherited wealth is from.

Multiple generations back, usually. Sometimes back several hundred years.

The real skill in Monopoly comes in the phase of negotiating deals with other players. After at least half of the cards have been bought.
Deals such as: "I will trade you this property for those two stations".
"No, that gives you all four stations, but I will offer these two low properties for that high one and X cash, so we both get a set".
You have to play the game loads of times to know the value of each card and set, to recognise a good or bad deal.

In real life, rich people have parents and advisers who can tell them what is a good or bad deal.

I would agree with the OP but inheritance tax is high at 40% in this country. Farm land is exempt which I think is unfair.

I think we could start to reign capitalism back in with a couple of simple changes.
Firstly, personal responsibility. Any fines for breaking the law should go to the owners/CEO's of companies. These people claim they are well paid due to the responsibility of running a company, which is fine. But why should customers face higher bills or personal loss when those CEO's screw up? Make them personally liable to pay the fines and you can bet many services would improve if the money was coming out of their own pocket.
Secondly, slowly reduce housing benefit to a (much lower) flat rate across the country. Do it over 5 years to give the market time to adjust. Giving people better rates in some areas just artificially inflates house prices in those areas which has a huge knock on to the rest of the country. It would also encourage companies to move into historically under invested areas.

And once you have sufficient money, you can bankroll political parties, have access to lobby government, buy newspapers and social media outlets and use them to influence voters towards the system that will best keep money flowing upwards.

Firstly, personal responsibility. Any fines for breaking the law should go to the owners/CEO's of companies. These people claim they are well paid due to the responsibility of running a company, which is fine. But why should customers face higher bills or personal loss when those CEO's screw up? Make them personally liable to pay the fines and you can bet many services would improve if the money was coming out of their own pocket. But first you have to get those CEOs to agree the change. It's not for nothing they donate to political parties.

Big rumours that this will change in the budget. Could be a huge huge change to the agricultural world. Why do you think it’s unfair?

Inheritance tax and capital gains tax are among the few measures that act against the built-in effects of capitalism.
To tackle inter-generational equality, they both need to be much higher, with lower thresholds. And of course farm land should be included.
Tax on dividend income should be completely aligned with income tax, or higher.

There's a difference between a farming family wanting to pass down a viable business to the next generation, and a wealthy landowner looking for an IHT-free investment. Sadly any concession can become a tax loophole.

There’s a big boy club and we ain’t in it.

Fair play. I’m a farmer so have a slightly vested interest! I do agree with you to an extent. Just hope they manage it so that farming businesses aren’t decimated. I always think they should have a tractor test. If you can back into a grain store, drill a field or something you’d be exempt!

I would be really interested in hearing some innovative solutions to this challenge beyond the 'Robin hood' approach. How we can get children in so called 'poverty traps' out of them, improve aspiration and self belief.

Some of labours election manifesto had some good suggestions - such as universal free primary school meals and universal free breakfast clubs - to give people the opportunity to work longer hours - as most school hour jobs are lower paid apart from teachers. But these seem to have gone very quiet now they are in unfortunately.

There also needs to be some work around universities - Tony Blairs 'I want 50% to go to uni' has increased the social divide - the academic expectations have reduced, so it's now not based on your ability but whether you can afford to attend. When admissions were a lot stricter and a smaller number of universities, it was feasible for the taxpayers to cover the tuition fees and even give living expense grants to the most able students to enable them to attend.

And more apprenticeships and mentoring oppurtuinities to give able children access to 'influence' which us usually more associated with private schools.

The biggest challenge will always be attitudes though!

@Bushmillsbabe

There also needs to be some work around universities - Tony Blairs 'I want 50% to go to uni' has increased the social divide - the academic expectations have reduced, so it's now not based on your ability but whether you can afford to attend.

This just isn’t true. I live on Carers Allowance. DS got a loan for university because a university accepted him. A university accepted him because he got super high marks in GCSE’s and A-Levels.

I like your tractor test!

It's quite startling seeing who the greatest beneficiaries of farming subsidies are.

This. I recommend watching Gary’s Economics. He was from a poor family, had a good brain for numbers, got into investing and his eyes were opened to how much money people have and how easily it comes to them. He’s trying to tell the masses.

Because grifters will grift, natch.
People don't know what they've got until its gone.
Persuade a population that publicly owned resources are being squandered or that public services are mismanaged, or or that someone else (usually an 'immigrant') is somehow benefiting from said resources or services more than you, and you'll be surprised at how quickly people are prepared to sign over ownership of those same resources to someone who will supposedly 'sort it out', and reap massive dividends in the process. The thin edge of the wedge in my country was the academisation of education and the creation of free schools, but utilities and pretty much all public services have since followed suit. And the new shareholders are laughing all the way to the bank. Like stealing sweets from children.