Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Anyone else sick of rich/privileged people moaning Watch

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Moaning doesn't always have to center around money OP :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    Go give Matt Ridley a blozzer or something and stop pushing your crazy agenda on me.
    You're disgusting (I had to check the definition of the expletive you used).

    My agenda isn't crazy, it merely stands up for hard-working individuals. Soz statist.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DJKL)
    Well we won't get hung up on that, I agree with the 50% tax rate despite the fact when I inherit I will be hit by it on my inheritance, you don't, lets agree to disagree.

    You won't, inheritance tax is not at 50%, but at 40%, and for a married couple on second death only applies to that part of the estate> circa £650,000. In addition certain types of assets (business assets) can be passed to the next generation with no tax.
    My parents don't have business assets we aren't crazy rich. Just a bit rich. Anyway yeah my point was more I am happy to pay up.

    Remember that when the 50% income tax rate bit on employment income it actually bit at 52% due to national insurance.
    Oh that 2% makes all the difference does it?

    I am not sure using someone who may have never existed works.
    In principle then...

    The 50% tax rate was absolutedly nothing to do with raising extra money for the state, is was a political poison pill left by the last government.

    If increasing the tax take was the key reason why did Labour not say introduce capital gains tax on people's principal private residence (other countries have this with a rollover/reinvestment relief) What is "fair" about people banking untaxed gains in the value of their property. I know that I have a latent £195k gain on my house, why is this free of tax from my merely passively owning the property yet if I work and add to the nations prosperity I could (I don't) be taxed at 50% on this activity. Which activity benefits the country more?
    No I agree, personally I think homeowners do need to be taxed more, the homeowner + landlord situation in this country is laughable. I think that is a separate issue though. I still agree with the 50% tax rate.

    They did not take this approach, not from an equity perspective but from considering the number of votes they could lose. Those who earned above the £150k threshold were a small group who it was calculated the voters would not object to being taxed more.

    "Fair" tax is in most people's eyes a tax that in the main has no impact on their own lives, there is no moral high ground with its imposition.
    Well all sorts could be done to make tax fairer, personally I don't think lowering taxes for very rich people is one of those ways though.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iron Lady)
    You're disgusting (I had to check the definition of the expletive you used).

    My agenda isn't crazy, it merely stands up for hard-working individuals. Soz statist.
    Well no not really bearing in mid people who aren't rich are likely to work longer hours in harder or more menial work. The amount of money you have is in no way proportional to how hard you work.

    Also you are sticking up for nepotism and inherited wealth more than anything.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Hey, don't blame the numbers. It's not their fault. Blame yourself, for not being the best of the 50. Should've tried harder.

    no, blame the rich scum like seeing ordinary people compete like animals for jobs so they can make fast profit.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iron Lady)
    You're disgusting (I had to check the definition of the expletive you used).

    My agenda isn't crazy, it merely stands up for hard-working individuals. Soz statist.
    You seem to exist in some fantasy world where everyone who is wealthy made it entirely through their own 100% graft and no element of luck whatsoever. In fact, the absolute reverse is the case - nearly all currently-very-wealthy people had substantial inheritances, were brought up in wealthy circumstances or had a large element of luck along the way.

    In addition, a great many upper-middle and middle class people are the children of other upper-middle and middle class people. The education system and upbringing/culture/home environment are all heavily stilted towards those children in admissions to the better universities and to the higher paid professions and careers.

    I accept that it's very difficult to change the above without some kind of bizarre Stalinist system, so a happy medium is for those well-off people who have gained so much from society to contribute more towards it.

    There are always going to be some "new arrivals" in the circles of the very wealthy who resent this, but I'm afraid they just have to lump it. We would all be much, much better off as a society and our society would be less stressed, happier and more enjoyable, if the massive scale of tax avoidance was brought to an end and people paid their fair share.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rolos12345)
    no, blame the rich scum like seeing ordinary people compete like animals for jobs so they can make fast profit.
    Yes, that's exactly what's happening. It's not that whatever company you're applying for a job with is giving you the opportunity to show that you are the best candidate, so that you might be able freely to contract with them to do that job for monetary gain. Actually, the entire job market is a conspiracy to, like, keep you down, man.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    You seem to exist in some fantasy world where everyone who is wealthy made it entirely through their own 100% graft and no element of luck whatsoever. In fact, the absolute reverse is the case - nearly all currently-very-wealthy people had substantial inheritances, were brought up in wealthy circumstances or had a large element of luck along the way.

    In addition, a great many upper-middle and middle class people are the children of other upper-middle and middle class people. The education system and upbringing/culture/home environment are all heavily stilted towards those children in admissions to the better universities and to the higher paid professions and careers.

    I accept that it's very difficult to change the above without some kind of bizarre Stalinist system, so a happy medium is for those well-off people who have gained so much from society to contribute more towards it.

    There are always going to be some "new arrivals" in the circles of the very wealthy who resent this, but I'm afraid they just have to lump it. We would all be much, much better off as a society and our society would be less stressed, happier and more enjoyable, if the massive scale of tax avoidance was brought to an end and people paid their fair share.
    Out of interest how would you tax people, i.e. the percentage and income levels?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    My parents don't have business assets we aren't crazy rich. Just a bit rich. Anyway yeah my point was more I am happy to pay up.



    Oh that 2% makes all the difference does it?



    In principle then...



    No I agree, personally I think homeowners do need to be taxed more, the homeowner + landlord situation in this country is laughable. I think that is a separate issue though. I still agree with the 50% tax rate.



    Well all sorts could be done to make tax fairer, personally I don't think lowering taxes for very rich people is one of those ways though.
    You do of course appreciate that the "lowering" was merely reversing a last ditch Labour increase, the norm for a considerable number of years was 40% as the highest rate, the new highest rate is 45%, so lowering is only really pertinent as a descriptive looking at the rate that had been imposed by Labour just before they left office. (The 50% rate I think, became operative on 6 April 2010, the coalition held the government from May 2010, accordingly the new rate bit under Labour for less than 2 months)
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DJKL)
    You do of course appreciate that the "lowering" was merely reversing a last ditch Labour increase, the norm for a considerable number of years was 40% as the highest rate, the new highest rate is 45%, so lowering is only really pertinent as a descriptive looking at the rate that had been imposed by Labour just before they left office. (The 50% rate I think, became operative on 6 April 2010, the coalition held the government from May 2010, accordingly the new rate bit under Labour for less than 2 months)
    I don't think the 50% tax rate is unfair, whatever the reasons for bringing it in, so that doesn't really matter to me.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    I don't think the 50% tax rate is unfair, whatever the reasons for bringing it in, so that doesn't really matter to me.
    Just so you know, there's no economic argument. So your reasoning is purely out of jealousy and prejudice. Good one, mate. Please do not go anywhere near politics.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    It annoys me when people spend alot more money than me, then complain that they have no money afterwards. They know where the "2+2" is and they know where the "4" is, they just don't know where to put the "=."

    Example, housemate whos wardrobe collection is worth trillions, has relied on the rest of us to pay the heating bill WHICH HE MAINLY USES (he washes and dries his clothes here)

    Now all of a sudden his latest idea of making money needs capital up front so he admits he might struggle to pay for the essentials again......NO MATE - YOU CAN **** OFF.

    I spend nothing on clothes that aren't dirt cheap and essential, all my money goes on textbooks, heating, food, electricity, rent and the odd night out. It annoys me that people who have more of a loan than me and more grants, blow it all, then apply for the hardship fund. Which I can't because I actually look after my money
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iron Lady)
    Just so you know, there's no economic argument. So your reasoning is purely out of jealousy and prejudice. Good one, mate. Please do not go anywhere near politics.
    By "no economic argument" - you just mean that the wealthy are going to cheat and hide their income anyway?

    That's something that should be addressed actually
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jellybean1234)
    So rich people should work hard to get money and then give it away to other people?
    So all those people on low incomes should just be left to rot then should they?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    By "no economic argument" - you just mean that the wealthy are going to cheat and hide their income anyway?

    That's something that should be addressed actually
    No, private investment is the way to boost the economic not state-sponsored theft.

    So with more disposable income - people are more likely to keep local businesses open, create jobs directly or indirectly, and feel the incentive.

    If you were taxed a disgusting half of your income, you wouldn't be sitting at your computer chair with such a smug look on your face.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iron Lady)
    Just so you know, there's no economic argument. So your reasoning is purely out of jealousy and prejudice. Good one, mate. Please do not go anywhere near politics.
    Well no, they have more than enough money to live on anyway, it makes little - no impact on their lives and I would rather that money enriched the lives of many rather than the individual.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iron Lady)
    No, private investment is the way to boost the economic not state-sponsored theft.

    So with more disposable income - people are more likely to keep local businesses open, create jobs directly or indirectly, and feel the incentive.

    If you were taxed a disgusting half of your income, you wouldn't be sitting at your computer chair with such a smug look on your face.
    Yes, and I'm sure the majority of money belonging to wealthy people is recycled into British businesses, not lodged in Canary Island banks or boosting the Chinese economy? If it went to companies who paid their taxes, grew and employed people and paid a fair wage then I'd be sympathetic, otherwise (as is I believe in the real world) no.

    And actually no, I'm sitting here aghast at the level of unemployment and realising how an excellent source of finance would be to increase taxes, (if they didn't dodge them) allowing areas due for cuts (such as the NHS) to be financed fairly.

    I'm not selfish, when I get taxed 50%, I'll be thankful that at least it goes to helping those in need, not angry that some people are given a place to sleep for the night.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xoxAngel_Kxox)
    I'm not aiming this at you particularly, but..
    The bit in bold.. why does this shock people so much? Why are people surprised when they find that their student finance covers only the bare minimum? Why does everybody think they're entitled to money they've done absolutely nothing to earn? Student finance is quite rightly available only to cover the course, the rent, with a small amount left over for essentials. In the majority of cases, if individuals learn how to budget, it's absolutely possible. There is no way SFE should be paying for people to go out and get drunk, or to go on trips or have luxuries, because that's just not what it's there for.

    The only thing that I believe needs to be said about this thread is that..

    The family in the article work for their money.
    Students are handed money to enable them to complete a degree, which they are INCREDIBLY lucky to receive. Imagine you were in a country that doesn't have this system. You'd have to save up for years and years in a crappy job if you wanted a degree.. and that's assuming your country offers education at all.

    I genuinely don't understand why you feel so hard done to because you have to work to survive.. you'll be doing so for the rest of your adult life, anyway.
    I agree. I am a student but I knew I'd always get less, because SFE would expect my parents to help me out, so I worked before starting uni. My student loan doesn't cover my accommodation, but sometimes my parents struggle to help me out.

    I have noticed that quite a lot of students seem to care more about the party lifestyle - going out every night, getting drunk, sleeping around - but they care less about getting a job to fund that lifestyle. In fact, they don't seem to think about getting a job to help them fund uni stuff e.g. and they don't seem to realize that getting a job could give them more work experience. For some it is just not a priority. For others the thought of working a low wage job isn't something they find appealing. But some touch into their overdrafts to fund their party lifestyle :confused: while I'm avoiding touching my overdraft like the plague. People are so complacent about these things.

    I remember before starting uni there was a girl on TSR who said that she was surprise that her student finance didn't cover her accomodation, and she didn't know what to do about it. She called SFE and they told her that her parents have to help her out. She was saying that her parents couldn't help her out, and she asked, "Do I have to get a part-time job like any other student?" I replied to her and said yes, of course. Tough in this recession, but of course. Or she could take a year out and work. Another guy replied to the thread and said exactly what you are saying: students care more about the party lifestyle that getting a job.

    It's not just about the party lifestyle, it's also the same for other aspects of social life i.e. shopping, restaurants, cinemas. I even remember a while back someone I know at uni who couldn't understand why I hardly went shopping. But at a time when I am struggling to pay my rent, going on shopping sprees isn't a priority for me. I can't afford it. Yet she didn't seem able to comprehend this.

    This doesn't apply to all students though. I am currently looking for a job, and have been doing so since January. Same with a couple of my flatmates. And I couldn't care less about the nightlife party lifestyle, I have other ways to socialise. But I don't spend like a maniac.

    There is nothing wrong with a social life. But I'd say: try to get a job to fund that social life. Your loans are supposed to be for your education.

    And don't bunk lectures and seminars in favour of your social life.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xoxAngel_Kxox)
    It was just the "I'll have to work to survive" comment I was focussing on, don't worry. Because so many people posting in this thread seem to think they have some kind of right to money.
    :yep: This is true. No one has 'divine right' to be handed money. You can't have everything on a silver platter. Whatever happened to the attitude of 'if you want something, you gotta work for it?'
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iron Lady)

    If you were taxed a disgusting half of your income, you wouldn't be sitting at your computer chair with such a smug look on your face.
    You're not taxed on half your income. After tax and NI, you're bringing home just over £90k per year. It's all taxable; but you pay the 20% tax rate on earnings up to whatever is now, then 40% on the next band and then 50% on the next band. You don't get a tax free allowance.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 16, 2013
Poll
If you won £30,000, which of these would you spend it on?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.