The Rich According to the Guardian

[Judy1234]

www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/aug/04/workandcareers.executivesalaries

I can't bear these uptight people who go around telling everyone how sorely they feel for the less fortunate. I am satisfied with my inner decency and I certainly don't walk through life with an ongoing pang for the less fortunate.

Swedes - it's the widows mite, isn't it? £50 a month from a city banker is hardly the heights of generosity. When I worked in the charity sector, I'm sure it was the elderly who gave more than the young, and the poor who gave more of their income - they are more generous with what little they have.

How did you know it was the poor who gave more of their income? I'm intrigued. I can see that the elderly may have given more than the young; probably because they have more disposable income having paid off mortgage.

We all live our lives of luxury at the expense of others. That's just how life works. If you're happy with that, super for you. But it's hardly unreasonable to feel some discomfort at the disparity between our lives and those of, say, the children that make our children's clothes.

Xenia- very interesting post thanks, but too long to read all replies so I will just dive in: Just one thing, do you believe in govt at all? If you do then you surely have to support some level of taxation? When I was last in US, I spent time with a wide range of New Englanders who all envied our NHS and it looks like a big election issue for them. How do you pay for these things if not by some sort of taxation/levy?

I can't remember, findtheriver. And the point about the elderly giving most is that generally as a group they are less well-off than younger people. I'm sure (but can't look up the source at the mo) that those who have least give proportionately more of their income than the rich. Yet the rich are the ones who get things named after them.

What's happened to the tradition of wealthy people being philanthropists, anyway? In ye olden days, we had Guinness and Peabody and that guy who funded lots of libraries and all sorts. Now it's just Bill Gates and whatshisface Getty.

I read article sometime back about research claiming that people's happiness was more correlated to where they think they are on the pecking order (relative comfort) rather than their absolute comfort. So although a majority of people today are more better off than most people say 200 years ago, they are not necessarily any happier.

Govt would probably argue that less people are in poverty although there are many many billionaire private equity billionaires.

A board director was whinging that his lot earn a pittance compared to hedge fund managers. I guess the hedge fund managers are now whinging about how much "easy money" the private equity boys and gals made from the credit boom. It's all relative.

I see Rebelmum hasn't come up with any answer as to how the poor are to be educated and given medical care without all this evil taxation. I'm not surprised.
Re the charity point - it's a matter of giving as a proportion of your income - which is what the report is all about, if read.
As it happens, the law on non doms was indeed created by the rich for the rich. Its an old law revived to support colonialism. A noble history.
The rich, though a tiny minority, are a disproportionately powerful lobby.

That's an interesting thought, edam.
We had generous benefactors back in Victorian times, when people were very religious. Then the Labour party started heavily taxing the very rich (i.e. 'institutionalised' philanthropy) and people haven't given on such a large scale since then.

remember those people who kept their fridges and washermachines in the sitting room as a status symbol a few decades ago or was that just the people i knew ?

And the argument 'you're just jealous' thrown at anyone who argues in favour of fairness and justice is utterly peurile and childish. Men throw it at women who protest against porn ffs. Claire Short was sneered at as 'jealous' of Page 3 girls. People who live nowhere near church schools but think they are unfair in principle are always accused of being jealous. It's a real ner-ner-ner argument and very tedious.

purits so let's abolish taxation and depend on the charity and patronage on the billionaires then? or do i misunderstand in my haste?

I haven't read this thread properly, but I am bound to disagree with anything Polly Toynbee says!!

Gosh yes, and when we had such 'generous' benefactors in Victorian times, the poor lived the life of Riley, didn't they? Yes, let's go back to that. Workhouses, child prostitution, no medical care...happy days.

Purits- want to see how feudalism works in terms of equality then try being a junior lawyer/accountant at one of those firms and see what your hourly rate is. Only worth having one of those jobs if you are going to become a partner. Otherwise it is a mugs game.

You do misunderstand me TD. I was merely answering edam's query as to where all the philanthropists have gone. I wasn't commenting on the rights or wrongs of the matter.

I don't really understand why PT is coming in for quite so much venom on this thread. I'm also bewildered by the attitude of so many posters on here that if a wealthy person displays any desire to reduce inequality rather than just saying a big "fuck you, I'm alright jack" to the poor, they must be a complete hypocrite. Why for fucks sake?

I earn a decent living and would pay less tax if I could, frankly, but the moral side of me says that it is right that I pay so much tax so that it isn't a winner take all game. Doesn't mean that there isn't civil service wastage etc. There always will be but i am always amazed by how self centred some of us are.

Purits- apologies then for directing these comments at you altho' i stand by them

I think a genuine desire to reduce inequality usually results in some kind of action. The claptrap we're fed by some journalists who want to appear to be empathetic isnt the same thing.

Apologies accepted TD

(Are you new here? I don't think that I've seen someone apologise before on MN!)

friver- aren't you just shooting the messenger (Ms Toynbee)? Isn't she just giving us the stats?

Not shooting anyone. Just pointing out that a genuine desire would presumably result in action of some kind.

What exactly would you suggest she does? She's a journalist so bringing it to people's attention via the national press seems a pretty appropriate course of action to me.