The Student Room Group

Are rich people more important than poor people?

Poll

Are rich people more important than poor people?

Like the title says are rich people more important than poor people?
From an economic point of view what do you think.
Personally I think that they are indeed more important : they create jobs,they pay more taxes and they contribute more to the economy.

Scroll to see replies

Thing is, there are more poor people, as in earning around £20,000 a year max I presume, so if they disregarded all poor people then they would lose out on most that they would give the government. Remember you need poor people to fill these jobs as well. But I agree it's a good incentive to not piss people off who contribute more to the economy than the average bozo. Just think of it like saying a horserider is more important than the horse - he's f***ed without the horse, although horses don't actually need humans to exist so probably not a good analogy, maybe let's pretend that horses can only get food from humans.
Reply 2
it depends what you define as important. Rich people are more important economically.

If you looked at it a different way and say that the poor person has lots of family/friends but the rich person didn't have many family/friends, you could argue that the poor person is more important because if he was to die in an accident more hearts will be broken.
Reply 3
Why do people have to be more important than others, and why does it have to be financially based?

If a working class person was killed, that'd be far more important to his family than the death of some rich person they didn't know, and vice versa, but humans shouldn't be categorized into important/unimportant.

I don't like this idea that some humans are worth more than others, when a person's finances may just have been caused by luck - for instance, winning the lottery for a rich person, or being divorced and having everything taken from him for a poor person. If I was asked to choose between a rich person or a poor person, I think I'd take the time to ask them rather more important questions - such as if they have a family, how old their family is (to ascertain the effect it would have on them), than "How much money do you earn a year and are you on benefits?".
Reply 4
Poor people are the backbone of society and economy.
Reply 5
You only have to look at wealthy pop "stars" like addelle ... she is rolling in it but is a complete waste of a considerable amount of space which could be used for a donkey sanctuary or a biscuit factory
(edited 12 years ago)
Remove the people at the bottom and those directly above them will fall to replace them. In essence there can be no rich people without poor people.
Reply 7
It is too simplistic to say that one group of people will be more important to the economy than the other.

Strictly speaking both are important. The rich can create the jobs and wealth, whereas the poorer people can fill those jobs and both may have disposable income to spend. However, poorer people can very much ruin the economy if they choose not to work when they are able and government spending increases on various incentives.

Honestly, you need to look on both sides to conclude.
Original post by the bear
You only have to look at wealthy pop "stars" like addelle ... she is rolling in it but is a complete waste of a considerable amount of space which could be used for a donkey sanctuary or similar


I think 'rolling in the deep' is a metaphor rather than a claim for the cubic volume of space she occupies.
Original post by Chucklefiend
Remove the people at the bottom and those directly above them will fall to replace them. In essence there can be no rich people without poor people.

There can be no rich people without poor people because rich is relative, to have people who have more money than others you need the others to have less money than the rich. But what would happen to income per person if you removed the people at the bottom? Its an interesting question so if any economists know please tell me. My guess is that they would get richer.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by Chucklefiend
Remove the people at the bottom and those directly above them will fall to replace them. In essence there can be no rich people without poor people.


Relatively speaking, yes.
Original post by Sternumator
But what would happen to income per person if you removed the people at the bottom? Its an interesting question so if any economists know please tell me. My guess is that they would get richer.


Capitalism is based upon extracting the surplus value of workers, remove the poor from society and you remove the source of labour. Unless, like I said, the people above them took over the removed workers' roles, the economy would collapse and everybody would become poorer.
no, - in short
We live in a society based upon hierarchy. But what the rich forget is the people at the bottom give them the position they have. If the poor and middle class wanted to rebel the rich person can be easily overthrown. I'd like to think the world is still run by the majority not the minority.

In response to the edit saying the poor earn around 20k. Please try stepping outside.
Original post by Snagprophet
Thing is, there are more poor people, as in earning around £20,000 a year max I presume, so if they disregarded all poor people then they would lose out on most that they would give the government. Remember you need poor people to fill these jobs as well. But I agree it's a good incentive to not piss people off who contribute more to the economy than the average bozo. Just think of it like saying a horserider is more important than the horse - he's f***ed without the horse, although horses don't actually need humans to exist so probably not a good analogy, maybe let's pretend that horses can only get food from humans.


I know you are getting 32k in benefits but leave the rest of us under 20k poor people alone :frown:
(edited 12 years ago)
Reply 15
i think rich people are definitely more important form an economic standpoint. The top 1% of earners in the UK contribute a ridiculous percentage of tax revenue.
They're not more important at all. They just, unfortunately, have more power.
Original post by cambio wechsel
I think 'rolling in the deep' is a metaphor rather than a claim for the cubic volume of space she occupies.


Hey there mr anti joke
Reply 18
Original post by Chucklefiend
Capitalism is based upon extracting the surplus value of workers


No its not. This was a feature of what classical economists thought created wealth, the original Socialists and marx took this replaces "extracting" with "stealing". And if this process what true then you bloody well would be exploiting their labour but not as far as stealing it. This process is not true hence why classical economics, liberal (pro-free marketeers) and socialist (collectivists) of the time died out and neo-classical economics was born, which has been scrutinized over and over since Milton Friedman but the point it the Subjective theory of value IS true NOT the labour theory of value. Only socialists, Marxists, Communists, Social Anarchists and all their branches believe it to be true because they are the only ones that still practice classical economics (if you can find a competent collectivist, I find most to be pretty poor in areas of economics). And the liberal classical economists no longer exist, they have turned firstly in the Neo-classicals, the Austrians, Keyensians, Monetarists, Post-Keyenesians (are the main schools) which all reject the labour theory, it is completely incorrect.




I could have found some shorter videos but Im promoting my Bro' Classical Liberal's youtube channel son!
Original post by prog2djent
No its not. This was a feature of what classical economists thought created wealth, the original Socialists and marx took this replaces "extracting" with "stealing". And if this process what true then you bloody well would be exploiting their labour but not as far as stealing it. This process is not true hence why classical economics, liberal (pro-free marketeers) and socialist (collectivists) of the time died out and neo-classical economics was born, which has been scrutinized over and over since Milton Friedman but the point it the Subjective theory of value IS true NOT the labour theory of value. Only socialists, Marxists, Communists, Social Anarchists and all their branches believe it to be true because they are the only ones that still practice classical economics (if you can find a competent collectivist, I find most to be pretty poor in areas of economics). And the liberal classical economists no longer exist, they have turned firstly in the Neo-classicals, the Austrians, Keyensians, Monetarists, Post-Keyenesians (are the main schools) which all reject the labour theory, it is completely incorrect.


The criticism of labour theory revolves around the alleged undue stress Marx put on labour, ignoring other sources of value such as expertise and technology etc. This doesn't mean the theory is "completely incorrect", it merely means that it has exaggerated the importance of labour. It is plainly evident that extraction of value does take place to at least an extent (in some parts of the world more than others). For example, many high street brands (Nike is an infamous example) employ workers abroad in "sweat shops", where workers are paid pennies to make hundreds of pairs of shoes a day (which retail from £30-£150 in the UK and US markets).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/apr/28/sweatshops-supplying-high-street-brands

If that's not extraction of labour value, what is it?

Quick Reply