The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Dee Leigh
: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?'


Lots of people from the upper social strata and particularly those in line for large inheritances, or in receipt of unearned income, do in fact firmly believe they have such a right. The sense of 'entitlement' amongst heirs is probably the most widely noted social phenomenon in relation to the wealthy.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
Lots of people from the upper social strata and particularly those in line for large inheritances, or in receipt of unearned income, do in fact firmly believe they have such a right. The sense of 'entitlement' amongst heirs is probably the most widely noted social phenomenon in relation to the wealthy.


Ok I totally get that but I am talking more about students who get SFE but expect more because they want to continue to fund their party lifestyle.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
Lots of people from the upper social strata and particularly those in line for large inheritances, or in receipt of unearned income, do in fact firmly believe they have such a right. The sense of 'entitlement' amongst heirs is probably the most widely noted social phenomenon in relation to the wealthy.


The difference being that, although the money was left to them by a loved one and wasn't necessarily earned by the person receiving it, it isn't given to them at the expense of the tax payer and therefore doesn't really have an impact on either society or the overall financial position of the country.
Reply 243
People have different aspirations and goals, clearly you seem to be content with settling for whatever you can get, hardly something to be proud of.

I agree that if people act like they're "struggling" when they earn relatively good incomes then that can be irritating, but if someone earns £75,000 and isn't satisfied and wants to earn more, who are you to tell them that it's unjustified, simply because you live off little money?
Original post by xoxAngel_Kxox
The difference being that, although the money was left to them by a loved one and wasn't necessarily earned by the person receiving it, it isn't given to them at the expense of the tax payer and therefore doesn't really have an impact on either society or the overall financial position of the country.


Lots of people get rich at the expense of the taxpayer. People like the shareholders of G4S and Virgin (they get huge public subsidies to fund their profits) and Atos and the banks and the weapons industries... I could go on.
Original post by bc001
Nope.

Lets be honest, being poor is ****. One wants as much money as possible and generally the more money you have, the easier life gets.

Nothing seems more mad than the 'get what you need attitude'. If you work a full time job, you should be able to eat what food you want, live somewhere with ample space and light, have fun at weekends, and get boozy and have hobbies.

Its the 21st century FFS, there is more than enough for everyone. There is no reason for anyone to get up, work all day, tick a box that says ample nutrients, go to bed and repeat 5 days a week. Aspire for more than that in life!


:yep:
Original post by Fullofsurprises
Lots of people from the upper social strata and particularly those in line for large inheritances, or in receipt of unearned income, do in fact firmly believe they have such a right. The sense of 'entitlement' amongst heirs is probably the most widely noted social phenomenon in relation to the wealthy.


There's manifestly a difference between feeling entitled, as against third parties, to property your parents have promised to you, and feeling entitled to everyone else's property in general.


Original post by Fullofsurprises
Lots of people get rich at the expense of the taxpayer. People like the shareholders of G4S and Virgin (they get huge public subsidies to fund their profits) and Atos and the banks and the weapons industries... I could go on.


Well, they shouldn't. I don't see what this proves.

This is highly relevant on the banks:

Original post by TimmonaPortella

Well, they shouldn't. I don't see what this proves.

This is highly relevant on the banks:



Maybe in your perfect Hannanite world of incredibly open free markets and compulsory Euroscepticism for babies, they wouldn't, but the truth is that rich and powerful people have always profited from and manipulated the state, to ensure that they and their heirs remain rich and powerful. In this country, that includes helping themselves to substantial sums of public money at regular intervals. Imposing high taxes on it is just a way of getting some of it back.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
Maybe in your perfect Hannanite world of incredibly open free markets [...] they wouldn't, but the truth is that rich and powerful people have always profited from and manipulated the state, to ensure that they and their heirs remain rich and powerful. In this country, that includes helping themselves to substantial sums of public money at regular intervals. Imposing high taxes on it is just a way of getting some of it back.


Edited to remove childish asides.

The problem with the line of reasoning that jumps from 'some rich people wrongly profit from the state' to 'let's recoup that money by taxing all rich people into the ground' is that it treats rich people as a class each member of which is responsible for all the others' acts. It's the same sort of silly reasoning that leads to 'let's punish all bankers because some bankers were involved in starting the financial crisis'.

The Hannan video was there to a large degree for the quote at 3:40 : "I can't believe that I'm having to come to the Oxford Union and explain that subsidies and nationalisation are not capitalism". I find it remarkably apposite. You can't challenge capitalism on principle by pointing to subsidies.

I note for the sake of the thread that this received no response:

There's manifestly a difference between feeling entitled, as against third parties, to property your parents have promised to you, and feeling entitled toeveryone else's property in general.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by TimmonaPortella
Edited to remove childish asides.

The problem with the line of reasoning that jumps from 'some rich people wrongly profit from the state' to 'let's recoup that money by taxing all rich people into the ground' is that it treats rich people as a class each member of which is responsible for all the others' acts. It's the same sort of silly reasoning that leads to 'let's punish all bankers because some bankers were involved in starting the financial crisis'.

The Hannan video was there to a large degree for the quote at 3:40: "I can't believe that I'm having to come to the Oxford Union and explain that subsidies and nationalisation are not capitalism". I find it remarkably apposite. You can't challenge capitalism on principle by pointing to subsidies.


As I said, you (and Hannan) believe in a fairytale landscape of perfect capitalist markets sorting us all out and massacring the poor because they deserve it, lol. Meanwhile, here in the real world, things go on as they do.
Original post by roh
This one's even better: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2226615/SHOULD-better-child-benefit-Heres-sides-debate-.html

Apparently they struggle to clothe and feed their kids on over 7k a month...


I like the first woman's (Antonia's) points.

Especially this point:
"Yes, having children is expensive. But parenthood is an honour, not a right."
Original post by Fullofsurprises
Lots of people get rich at the expense of the taxpayer. People like the shareholders of G4S and Virgin (they get huge public subsidies to fund their profits) and Atos and the banks and the weapons industries... I could go on.


To be fair, I think that's scraping the barrel slightly. You don't know how they got their money; anybody can spend or invest their money (that's THEIR money, not TAXPAYER'S money) however they wish- if people make wise investments that's up to them. The question of what the government subsidises or doesn't is kind of irrelevant to the point of this discussion, though.

Investing and receiving a return on that investment just isn't the same as getting given benefits or a student loan for doing nothing at all.

You might as well mention the fact that nurses working for the NHS are paid for by the taxpayer. Or people working for the council.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by xoxAngel_Kxox
To be fair, I think that's scraping the barrel slightly. You don't know how they got their money; anybody can spend or invest their money (that's THEIR money, not TAXPAYER'S money) however they wish- if people make wise investments that's up to them.

Investing and receiving a return on that investment just isn't the same as getting given benefits or a student loan for doing nothing at all.

You might as well mention the fact that nurses working for the NHS are paid for by the taxpayer. Or people working for the council.


Well, to be fair, under pressure from the usual libertarian drivel that infects so many interesting threads on TSR, I drifted somewhat off-topic, onto the general question of wealth-vs-taxation.

However, in response to your point, I would suggest that the middle class and wealthy classes in this country enjoy a much bigger dole handout than do any number of poor people, with a relentless conveyor belt of government jobs, government contracts and government subsidies pointed in their direction.
Original post by roh
This one's even better: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2226615/SHOULD-better-child-benefit-Heres-sides-debate-.html

Apparently they struggle to clothe and feed their kids on over 7k a month...


"I take my life in my hands when I confess that my husband Keith, who works in sales, and I earn even more than Angela and her other half."

So they earn more than £100k!

"And dare I say it we couldn’t live without our child benefit either.

Our monthly income often exceeds £7,000."


The reason she says she struggles is because she has loads of kids, two of those kids go to private school, and she has a lot of expenses.
Original post by OU Student
I must stop reading those articles. Apparently, they "deserve the money because children are expensive to bring up". Aren't they a choice? You're not forced to have children. And why should a childless person earning £10k per year fund your child benefit?

I've come across people moaning that because of the changes, they won't have enough to put the money into their child's trust fund. My heart bleeds. Meanwhile, there are people on £71 a week, who from April, are going to have pay some of their council tax out of that money.


This is what I was thinking. The more kids you have, the more they will cost you. In fact, you don't have to have kids at all. I'm one of 4 children and I've seen how much of a struggle that can be financially.

I've known couples who still go on to have massive families without taking into consideration the financial aspects. But what I've seen is down to culture - where my parents come from, the more children you have the 'better' you are, and if you don't have children, people think there is something 'wrong' with you. Where my parents come from, people are conditioned into having loads of children. My mum once told me that if she'd stayed in her home country she would have had 6 kids. And some people in my parents' culture don't know about contraception...

Anyway, whether I can afford to or not, I really don't want to have a big family and that is for certain. I don't know if I want children yet, but if I do, I will have one or two kids then get my tubes tied.

More and more people nowadays (in the Western world) are choosing to have less kids (even just one) because of the financial costs.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by OU Student
Can I just point out, that some people in the UK do live on the streets? And there are some who have lost their benefits / job and are now at risk of losing their home.



Original post by TimmonaPortella
Duly noted. As I pointed out earlier in the thread, those with access to shelters and food given to them are still in enormously better positions than their counterparts in Africa. By OP's logic, they should stfu and 'be grateful'. The reasoning that no-one should complain just because other people have it worse is stupid.


This.
Original post by abc:)
Possibly... but to be honest I've met her family and I don't think they've really spoiled her intentionally. It's just that they can all afford to be comfortable all of the time, and so being away at uni and on a [slight] budget she is having to adjust and isn't dealing with it very well.


Her parents did her no favours.
Original post by OU Student
I used to live with someone like this. She'd used to moan because she now has to do her own washing.

She'd used to run to daddy when her money ran out. A lot of her money went on nights out. :rolleyes:


Oh dear. :sigh:
Original post by Dee Leigh
Oh dear. :sigh:


That's what I thought too. She also had the nerve to ask me to help her out with money when she knew my loan hadn't been sorted. My parents weren't in the position to help me out either.
Reply 259
Original post by Dee Leigh
Her parents did her no favours.


Yeah, I've always believed it comes to a point where you have to take responsibility yourself.

Latest

Trending

Trending