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 have no problem with people being rich as long as they have a socal conscience. For instance look at Richard Branson this week with his bid for Virgin Care to take over Devon Childrens Nhs services. People trying to make money out of people who are ill when they already have more than enough money.

Things like that do get my back up there is nothing wrong with nice things but everyone should realise that many people are worse of than themselves. Even on a low income if you look at globally we are very very lucky and i dont think we should forget that. I also think that during this recession my main concern is about the poor carers, disabled and the vulnerable

Are you using the word 'entitlement' ironically OP?

I think the assumption on MN is that anyone who is "rich" doesnt have a social conscience. Its proved wrong time and time again, but still the assumption prevails.

Exactly that BIWI.

I just can't fathom the sheer mean-spiritedness behind the op.

Not at all novice many people that have money have a social conscience and care about the rest of society and use their money and power for good however many dont. No problem with the first group at all and good luck to them

Hop skip and a jump from Barnes here. House is worth about £3m. Actually, it isn't grand at all but it is large, it is Victorian and its position puts a million on the price tag. We don't live extravagantly, we don't look down on other people. Oddly you can buy a very nice terrace 4 beds, extended kitchen, good road for about a million round here and a mile away for a couple of 100k less.

If we wanted a mansion for our money I suspect we would have to move to to Coombe but we don't want to live in Coombe.

However, we can continue to live where we do and maintain it because DH is a high earner. Our council tax in the London Borough of Wandsworth is incredibly low and the services, except education are incredibly good. If a "mansion" tax were introduced then I would expect to have a great deal more say over local services. It would make more sense to introduce higher rates of income/investment tax in my opinion.

People are rarely nasty to me on here, or in real life, perhaps because I try not to be nasty to them.

TSC, people don't have a go at me, I didn't say they did. I said I got an inheritance and pointed out that my income is as unearned by me as a benefits claimants income is unearned by them.

You say you get tax credits, and of course they are for basics like living on. If I didn't have what I inherited I would claim some kind of benefit too.

The point is that we are as well off as each other on money that neither of us have earned. I am no better off than you and you are no better off than me. I just think that understanding of other peoples situations needs to go both ways.

1. I don't see why it's in any way unreasonable for people to be envious of the level of largely unearned (or underearned in the case of 'entrepreneurs') wealth. I don't think that anger at that is anything to be ashamed of. Most poor people have worked far harder than Richard Branson/Alan Sugar/rich people on MN.

1. A 'mansion tax' is blatantly not targetting high earners, it's targetting people who inherit huge wealth (or obtain it by gambling e.g. on stock market, lottery). No one gets a mortgage on a 2m house ffs. But I don't see what's wrong anyway in asking high earners to contribute more to the society they benefit the most from.

1. It is idiotic to claim that level of income is a 'choice'. I speak as someone for whom to an extent it is a choice because I think that most high-income jobs (that I could not get now but probably could have when I left uni) are unethical and socially parasitic. But if someone has a learning disability, or a serious health problem, or doesn't manage to get qualifications as they grew up in care, or is caring for ill children/family, they absolutely do not have a choice to earn more. That is the whole point. Claiming it is a choice is offensive.

From the POV of someone unemployed for 9 months, not entitled to benefits and DP's wages only just covering the bare essentials:
Going on £20k holiday - have a lovely time
Buying a 5 bedroom house in a nice area - fabulous.
Complaining that other posters have no idea how awful it is struggling on a £100k salary - kiss my arse.

TSC, I love it when that happens on MN, people start out disagreeing and then find a common ground in similarities so end up agreeing!

That's pretty much what I did, had to sell the big house because I couldn't afford to run it. It worked out fine for me and I do have the benefit of owning a house now with no mortage or rent to pay. I realise that makes me very fortunate, but I don't think it makes me any more fortunate than someone who has a council house and their rent paid by HB.

We all come at these things from our own perspectives, and I think about a lovely friend of mine who lived in a house that is now probably worth about £2m. Both her parents died at the same time when she was quite young, and understandably she wanted to stay in the home she shared with them and had known all her life. So she got loans to pay the inheritance tax, had a succession of lodgers that made her life hell, and worked her butt off to earn a living. All while dealing with her own disability and the loss of her only family. Her case does make me think inheritance tax can be unfair sometimes, because ultimately that's what made her lose her home and end up in so much debt. She has sold it now, and is still paying her debt off. It devestated her when she had to leave her home.

wildswans I give you pretty much the entire Scandinavian region with its high tax and its equitable and good standard of living. On the contrary the USA, low taxes, zero universal health care and one of the most inequitable countries in the world.

Underclass is gross. Shame on you. You should have said feral, that is what you really think no?

And, puh-lease do not use sources such as Wiki-bloody-pedia.

Op is merely displaying the misplaced arrogance of the arriviste. IMHO.

My husband's aunt lived in a very ordinary house in Notting Hill Gate which she and her sister bought many years ago, before the area became a 'desirable' place to be. She was devoted to her sister. They were very close because they had been evacuated from London during WW1 and lived with a family who were quite cruel to them - apparently some people took in these children just for the money and didn't treat them very well. They were separated from their parents and other siblings so for a number of years they only had each other.

My husband's aunt nursed her sister through terminal cancer. She loved her. She loved her home and the precious memories it held. And guess what, she had to sell the house to pay the Inheritance Tax because it had gone up in value so much.

You will not persuade me that this is a fair and just tax.

Sorry, of course I meant WW2 - she's not that old!

some posters on here are all fur coats and no knickers

Cornflowers- or the desperation of a journo with a deadline to meet

Inheritance tax is paid by the dead person, ie. the estate. So you are being taxed on already taxed money.
It's a hugely unfair tax, which is why it's been abolished in the Scandinavian countries.
I think it would be much fairer to tax the lottery winners. What have they done to deserve the money?

Based on the true definition of "the underclass", no there isn't.

Some posters have described friends and relatives as belonging to that group, but posting on MN, i have never seen what could be described as a member of the underclass.

Agreeing with the welfare state,good quality rented houses and disability benefits are not the same as having a sense of entitlement.

Underclass isn't just about income ,it is also about a way of life that can include, no intention of ever working, minimal educational attainment and no interest in education (not including disability),living of the proceeds of crime (this includes high income people as well), general lawlessness, often feral children, lacking in quality relationships, rejection of norms of society.

Underclass can cross over into general disfunctual families, but there is usually a child protection/criminal aspect.

What some people wrongly class as the underclass, especially the DM,is actually the section of society that would have once engaged in manual labour and the manual labour jobs no longer exist.

BIWI i didn't like the way you said 'there are well educated intelligent posters and there are ill-educated ignorant posters - came across (i may be wrong?) as if somehow people who have been to uni' are some how far superiod to those who have not. i know many people who have been to uni' and whilst they are more educated 'in the book' it certainly doesn't make them nicer or more superior. because someone hasn't been to uni' doesn't automatically make them ignorant either . one thing i do notice on MN is how alot of women who have openly been to uni' (gets mentioned) seem to like to put down others whose grammar or views are wrong, very quick to call them ignorant, sometimes i think going to uni' breeds an awful sense of superiorority

YABU. The "underclass" don't tend to post on parenting forums although you might find a few on Netmums