Is there an 'underclass' on MN?

[wildswans]

I have name changed for this.

I have been on MN for about 6 months - off and on - and one of the most interesting aspects is the insight into people's lives and the contrasts and similarities. You can communicate with others you probably wouldn't meet in RL and in circumstances where they feel able to be completely open and frank about themselves, their families, their worries, their aspirations etc.

However, I can't help wondering if there is an 'underclass' who subscribe to MN. I have noticed, in particular, that any site which relates in any way to money or status - such as jobs and level of earnings and spending or whether a SAHM or WOHM - provokes very strong reactions. By this I don't just mean engaging in heated debate - which is part of the fun - but there is an undercurrent of envy and spite, which is very unattractive.

There are clearly a lot of high earning, highly successful women in MN and a number who have DHs who are well off. There are also lots who are earning less but do worthwhile and fulfilling jobs and others who are happy to care for their DC full time. Most MNs agree that it's all about choices and it doesn't really matter what you choose as long as it's right for you.

Yet the 'underclass' often seek to highjack interesting and constructive threads by pouring scorn on anyone who is a high earner, can afford tickets to the theatre (or even the zoo in one case!), or go on decent holidays. Presumably these are the ones who want the entrepreneurs to be taxed into exile and for a 'mansion tax' to be imposed. I can tell you that you don't get a 'mansion' for £2m in london or the South East, so what is that all about? In my view, it's nasty spiteful class envy and emanates from a small number of people on MNs who haven't achieved much in their lives so don't think anyone else should either.

Has anyone else reached this conclusion or AIBU?

'I think some people are confusing 'being left wing' with 'being jealous of others'"

I agree.

I've certainly noticed competitive poverty at times. It can sometimes can get a bit Monty Python's Yorkshireman sketch.

Ok, perhaps I should have used the term 'underprivileged class' instead since it's the word 'underclass' which seems to be upsetting so many people.

How dare us plebs post on MN

OP it is vile that you use the term 'underclass' regardless of what shitipedia defines it as.

"in London and the South East a normal family home can easily cost £2m"

Now you see, I believe this to be nonsense. I live in an area which is one of the most expensive in the country and my house (detached, 4 bed, garden) is around a quarter of that and I still consider it to be a privilege to live here. If you can link to a single property on Rightmove for £2m which is small with no garden I would be astonished. In fact, I've had a quick look around Winchester (not where I live but well known for being over-subscribed and rather desirable - and I present you with this. Not exactly a dive...

I think the problem is, no-one likes to think of themselves as rich. Even those who clearly are. And normally, people mix with people of a similar standard of living, and they then back each other up - convincing each other that they're not rich, that things are in fact difficult, etc etc.

But the thing about MN is you'll meet people here whom you wouldn't meet in other walks of life. And frankly, to someone with an income of £17k, listening to you bleating about the horror of managing on £100k is going to piss them off. How could it not? Someone on six times your income saying they can barely scrape things together would have a similar reception from you. Instead of calling them an "underclass" - thereby assuming they're not quite human and so therefore don't need the sort of things you do - have a bit of humility, and accept that many of the things you take for granted, other people would bite your arm off for.

The gap between rich and poor has always existed, more or less.
The big difference today is that the internet (and Mumsnet in particular in our case) has given us an insight into how the gap manifests itself.
Also it has given everybody an open forum where they can voice their opinions.
That may be a good or bad thing but it is a fact and there is no turning back the clock now.

Underprivileged ??? In what way ? I'm educated to degree level , have a middle management job, my health, a lovely family, lots of friends and the gift of seeing people for who they are and not what they have. I wouldn't say I was under privileged! Skint maybe but certainly not underprivileged!

And yes I also agree with the poster further up the thread who pointed out that often people who post crass stuff are inviting the scorn of others, rather than jealousy.

For example, there was someone who used to keep on saying (long time ago this was) that their dh earned had a 100k salary but it wasn't that much these days.

We already pay far too much tax in the UK compared with other countries. It is a well known fact that lower rates of tax lead to more tax being paid - if people feel that the rate of tax is fair, then they will not try to avoid paying it.

In my view, Inheritance Tax is an iniquitous tax - if people have already paid tax at 40% on the money during their lifetime, why should they pay tax again when they die?

No, you haven't done anything to earn it, but I don't think that's the point. People don't earn benefits either, but they get defended on here, not criticised for not earning it. Yes, there are benefit bashing threads, but there are far more people defending the benefits system and those who claim it than there are attacking it. There is no more a sense of entitlement over inheritance than there is over benefits. There should be no more shame in having one over the other. A benefits claimant is not more worthy than someone who inherited.

Inheritance is already massively taxed. And it doesn't take into account the age that people have lost their parents. I inherited, but I lost my Dad as a teenager. I couldn't afford to live in the house so I downsized, and paid tax. But if my Dad had been around, he may well have helped me with a loan for a deposit, or in buying things for my dc, like many many parents/grandparents do. Its fine to charge inheritance tax to people who have had a chance to earn for themselves and provide their own house etc. I disagree with taxing teenagers for losing parents though.

Ah. So it's a political discussion you want to have. Why post in AIBU?

And why have you namechanged? You still haven't answered that question.

I hate debating stuff with people who are too cowardly to use their usual name.

But the thing about MN is you'll meet people here whom you wouldn't meet in other walks of life. And frankly, to someone with an income of £17k, listening to you bleating about the horror of managing on £100k is going to piss them off. How could it not? Someone on six times your income saying they can barely scrape things together would have a similar reception from you. Instead of calling them an "underclass" - thereby assuming they're not quite human and so therefore don't need the sort of things you do - have a bit of humility, and accept that many of the things you take for granted, other people would bite your arm off for.

Exactly whatLongtalljosie said. I don't notice jealousy but I notice frustration with people who make crass statements. I despair of the term 'underclass' and I really resent the assumption that if you don't earn a lot of money you haven't worked hard. Working in a manual job for 45hrs a week on minimum wage isn't 'easy.' Someone has to empty the bins and should be paid for it or do they not deserve a decent wage because they are the 'underclass' who should clear up after people who have had different opportunities? It is the failure of some people with relative wealth to empathise in any way with people who have less that gets many people frustrated.

Blimey, I have had some shit thrown in my direction in my time for being frank about what I earn but wouldnt call them the underclass. I do think that there is a bit of a "gang" mentality and generally peope who earn more than £25k seems to get a hard time but that is usually when they appear to have lost sight of reality, i.e. that they do earn a lot in comparison.

It is the failure of some people with relative wealth to empathise in any way with people who have less that gets many people frustrated

Absolutely agree. But it has to work both ways. I think what OP may have been getting at is that it doesn't work both ways, and I find that equally as frustrating.

People who do have more financially are not sympathised with if they are struggling to pay for things, they are told that they should think themselves lucky, because someone else who has less can manage to be grateful. That's not productive.

I can see why it would irritate someone who is near the poverty line to read, for example, a complaint on here about a council tax rise for a 5 bedroom house, but everyone deserves equal understanding because these things are all relative.

Someone with a bigger, privately owned house can easily have less to live on after bills are paid than someone who is on NMW and tax credits. But that gets forgotten and the poster who owns gets told that they shudo think themselves lucky.

I, personally, believe it is to do with the tone in which things are posted. I often post about buying something, going somewhere or saving up for a holiday and no-one has ever given me grief for it.

But then I don't believe that I am any more entitled to have these things than the next poster.

We are working poor and it baffles me how someone could say they struggle on £100k. I get that it's all relative and the more you earn, the higher your overheads seem to be. I just don't get why? It's your choice, if you can't afford private school and luxerious holidays then you must make a choice of which is more important. Whining about it on MN is not going to change things. It doesn't annoy me, it just plain baffles me how someone could struggle on an income 5 times higher than ours, when we are muddling along just fine most of the time.

There is no point, as I have a seen from a few OPs, laying the blame at the feet of benefits claiments. They also have choices to make, only they have to chose between basic things that you and I take for granted such as warmth or food

We conciously chose a house with a far smaller mortgage than we could have gotten because we would rather have the extra cash to enjoy ourselves a little bit and do the holidays and the day trips while the kids are young. We can buy fancy houses once they've grown.

TSC, but they are already massively taxed. And that is fine, Idont have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is someone being considered lucky to have been given a leg up through inheritance, but someone who is given a leg up through social housing or HB, or tax credits is considered to be deserving.

Underclass OK then just the fact you said that makes you U and a bit of a snob so just as bad as the people you are complaining about , people get jealous and snappy when they see people spend money like water or as they see it , its few and far between IMO most dont care who lives where or what they spend their money on ,

Far too hung over to reply really but I have never noticed this on mumsnet.

Are u sipping early morning tea brought to u by a member of the underclass by any chance?

op you are George Osbourne and I claim my reward.

I don't have to claim benefits but am [jealous] of mumsnetters for whom having a cleaner/maid is not a luxury. I am sometimes about people who have a household income of over 150,000 and complain about having to pay a higher tax rate. That kind of 'poor me' makes me want to shake some sense into them.

Does that make me part of the mumsnet underclass?

Personally, I would have thought if there was an 'underclass' on MN it was the lower earners.

Just goes to show that each person reads their own prejudices into the forum (as with everything in life).

The point about the mansion tax (which I will not have to pay because it isn't going to happen) is that there is no point - it will cost more to administer than it will raise in revenue. It's a tax to punish people who are perceived to be rich. Why? So that the underclass, or whatever you want to call them, can be made to feel better. It's the politics of envy and should have no place in a democracy.