News0 min ago
Rich/Poor divide in the UK
34 Answers
From recent posts on here, for example regarding State Pensions, it seems there is still such a minority of well-off people. IS the divide greater than ever? How do people feel about it?
To put it at its most basic, I don't believe anyone should have to experience the constant nagging worry that money problems bring.
I would love to hear your views. Thanks, Lisa x
To put it at its most basic, I don't believe anyone should have to experience the constant nagging worry that money problems bring.
I would love to hear your views. Thanks, Lisa x
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by leelapops. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Report by Joseph Rowntree Foundation provided a analysis of the distribution of wealth over time, and reveals an increasingly divided nation 2007
It shows that already rich areas - particularly the south-east of England - have become disproportionately wealthier over four decades, while in areas of some cities more than half of all households are now "breadline poor", on a level of relative poverty with enough to live on but without access to opportunities enjoyed by the rest of society, yet above the level of absolute poverty, or "core poor".
I am old school labour (left wing Guardian reader, so must be politically and economically naive unlike those who tax their intelligence by the rigorous perusal of the Daily Mail).and consider that the wealth inequality is appalling. Recent research shows one of the most important factor in whether a child 'succeeds' economically is whether they were born in social housing or in private housing.
I believe there should be greater wealth redistribution by a higher taxation system such as the more equitable and progressive countries in Scandinavia
It shows that already rich areas - particularly the south-east of England - have become disproportionately wealthier over four decades, while in areas of some cities more than half of all households are now "breadline poor", on a level of relative poverty with enough to live on but without access to opportunities enjoyed by the rest of society, yet above the level of absolute poverty, or "core poor".
I am old school labour (left wing Guardian reader, so must be politically and economically naive unlike those who tax their intelligence by the rigorous perusal of the Daily Mail).and consider that the wealth inequality is appalling. Recent research shows one of the most important factor in whether a child 'succeeds' economically is whether they were born in social housing or in private housing.
I believe there should be greater wealth redistribution by a higher taxation system such as the more equitable and progressive countries in Scandinavia
yes the southeast of england has become wealthier, but i thought a percentage of the council tax from the south east got redirected to certain ares to help these poorer ares. and this greater wealth redistribution by higher taxes when someone is earning over a certain amount there income tax changes to a higher band,im not sure whot you mean by about your comment in scandinavia ruby . no one should have to worry about constant money problems each week
I don't read the Daily Mail, but personal experience leads me to believe that social housing is not the cause of failure. Lack of respect for society, and lack of personal respect and work ethic, resulting from lack of disclipine and lack of proper education, is the cause of failure.
There is without doubt, a divide, but most people who would be considered disproportionately wealthy are in that position due to extreme personal effort. Nothing more. No one handed it to them on a plate.
There is without doubt, a divide, but most people who would be considered disproportionately wealthy are in that position due to extreme personal effort. Nothing more. No one handed it to them on a plate.
-- answer removed --
I'm a higher rate tax payer, I pay tax on P11D things, I pay tax on all of my insurance, I pay tax to fill my car up and road tax, I pay indirect tax things I want to buy and essentials, I pay National Insurance (which is a Tax), I pay council tax, I pay tax to take a flight, I pay tax on savings....the list is endless.
Well over 50% of my earnings go to some tax or another, and yet some of you want me to pay even more tax?
I know, why don't we simply hand over all of our earnings at source, and then the government can give everybody in the country the same amount of 'pocket money' as everybody else.
Well over 50% of my earnings go to some tax or another, and yet some of you want me to pay even more tax?
I know, why don't we simply hand over all of our earnings at source, and then the government can give everybody in the country the same amount of 'pocket money' as everybody else.
I was recently at a lecture by Professor Leon Feinstein Institute of Education University London.
His work shows in brief, children's cognitive development aged 22 months to 10 years is mostly affected by social and economic factors, so if you are a little dim aged 22 mths but from a wealthy background you will cognitively prosper, if you are very bright aged 22 mths but from a poor background you will not cognitively prosper.
Aside from fairness or not, this appears to be very wasteful for British society - we should invest in the poorer to reap the rewards of such an investment. Increased or decreased cognitive ability isn't the be all and end all, but it is certainly better that the populace reaches its potential is it not.
His work shows in brief, children's cognitive development aged 22 months to 10 years is mostly affected by social and economic factors, so if you are a little dim aged 22 mths but from a wealthy background you will cognitively prosper, if you are very bright aged 22 mths but from a poor background you will not cognitively prosper.
Aside from fairness or not, this appears to be very wasteful for British society - we should invest in the poorer to reap the rewards of such an investment. Increased or decreased cognitive ability isn't the be all and end all, but it is certainly better that the populace reaches its potential is it not.
Totally agree with NAOMI24 & FLIP FLOP
I was born into into a deprived household, by todays standards dirt poor.
By hard work & application at school I attained a position at university. & this was in the early 60"s when it meant a lot more than it does today
On leaving Uni, I joined the RAF as a commissioned officer, and after leaving. a successful career in Civvy St.
I didnt do this by sitting around bemoaning my lot.
A lot of peoples money problems arise from an inability to manage their finances in a responsible manner. We live in a society which wants everything today, where the havenots want to live the good life without working for it.
Of course we live in a divided society, we always have & hopefully, always will
I was born into into a deprived household, by todays standards dirt poor.
By hard work & application at school I attained a position at university. & this was in the early 60"s when it meant a lot more than it does today
On leaving Uni, I joined the RAF as a commissioned officer, and after leaving. a successful career in Civvy St.
I didnt do this by sitting around bemoaning my lot.
A lot of peoples money problems arise from an inability to manage their finances in a responsible manner. We live in a society which wants everything today, where the havenots want to live the good life without working for it.
Of course we live in a divided society, we always have & hopefully, always will
Parents' mentality is the key, rather than wealth. There a plenty of children from poor backgrounds who succeed simply because their parents care enough to take their responsibilities seriously. How many kids from poor homes are left to drag themselves up and allowed to rake the streets mixing with all and sundry wherever and whenever they want to? They haven't a chance in life - and we wonder why they don't succeed? Good parenting is the answer. Parents who will give children their time, who will teach them to respect others, and who will discipline them and say 'no' when 'no' is appropriate - and who don't sit their kids in front of the television from the moment their born to keep them from under their feet. We could throw all the money in the world at poor 'problem' parents, but it wouldn't change a thing. Even if we gave them a nice house in a nice area to go with it, their children would still fail, because the parents' mentality would remain the same.
Ruby, when you say we should invest in the poorer, in what way? I'm with flip-flop as far as taxes are concerned. It sounds as though I'm in a similar boat as she? (he?)
is. What would be the point of working hard to achieve a certain standard of living if all we're going to do is give more and more away to people who haven't worked to achieve the same? OK I know some aren't as intellectually capable as others - and just as well because dustmen are essential to society - but nevertheless, if high earners were to be taxed to the extent that they were left little better off than the poorer in society, what would be the point of them striving for a better standard of living in the first place? We may as well all say 'ok, I'll sit on a till in Tescos', rather than commute for 4 hours a day and spend 10 or more stressful hours at the office because everything we're working for is being given to someone else. (No offence to those who sit on tills in Tescos - it's just an example). Bear in mind that high earners take very little from society's 'kitty', and if that did happen, and there were no high earners, and hence no top rate tax-payers, then where would all the revenue you say we need to improve the lot of the poor come from?
is. What would be the point of working hard to achieve a certain standard of living if all we're going to do is give more and more away to people who haven't worked to achieve the same? OK I know some aren't as intellectually capable as others - and just as well because dustmen are essential to society - but nevertheless, if high earners were to be taxed to the extent that they were left little better off than the poorer in society, what would be the point of them striving for a better standard of living in the first place? We may as well all say 'ok, I'll sit on a till in Tescos', rather than commute for 4 hours a day and spend 10 or more stressful hours at the office because everything we're working for is being given to someone else. (No offence to those who sit on tills in Tescos - it's just an example). Bear in mind that high earners take very little from society's 'kitty', and if that did happen, and there were no high earners, and hence no top rate tax-payers, then where would all the revenue you say we need to improve the lot of the poor come from?
Amsterdammer, good for you. My own background is similar.
The thing is all societies are divided - and they always will b - because that's human nature. Even in communist Russia, society was divided - and very much so. Socialism and communism do not bring equality, despite what people would like to believe. There are the 'haves' and the 'have nots' in all societies.
The problem now is people don't take responsibility for themselves - their troubles are always someone else's fault.
The thing is all societies are divided - and they always will b - because that's human nature. Even in communist Russia, society was divided - and very much so. Socialism and communism do not bring equality, despite what people would like to believe. There are the 'haves' and the 'have nots' in all societies.
The problem now is people don't take responsibility for themselves - their troubles are always someone else's fault.
Naomi makes a very good point - I have private medical insurance for me, my wife and my child (soon to be children!), I also have long term disability insurance and I have a company pension and a personal pension.
In theory, should I need treatment I will not cost the NHS a bean (and indeed I have used my PMI insurance on a number of occasions as has my wife), and should I be long term sick I am insured up to 75% of my income until I reach the age of 65, so would not need disbility allowance (which appears to be a bit of a cash cow for so many nowadays). At 65 my pensions will kick in.
Despite my PMI & LTD Insurance I stall pay a vast amount in NI, which is a tax by any other name.
If anything, shouldn't those of us who have the wherewithal and/or the foresignt to purchase such insurance policies pay a much lower rate of NI?
In theory, should I need treatment I will not cost the NHS a bean (and indeed I have used my PMI insurance on a number of occasions as has my wife), and should I be long term sick I am insured up to 75% of my income until I reach the age of 65, so would not need disbility allowance (which appears to be a bit of a cash cow for so many nowadays). At 65 my pensions will kick in.
Despite my PMI & LTD Insurance I stall pay a vast amount in NI, which is a tax by any other name.
If anything, shouldn't those of us who have the wherewithal and/or the foresignt to purchase such insurance policies pay a much lower rate of NI?
-- answer removed --
Hi Leela!!!!!!!
I agree with naomi - BUT! Please don't infer that just because they do a vital job that dustmen can't be as intellectually adept as anyone else! We have a friend whose son left university and decided to travel. Before that happened, he took a job as a dustman - and loved it so much that he's still there! we also know another one who's doing an OU course - for the fun of it!
I agree with naomi - BUT! Please don't infer that just because they do a vital job that dustmen can't be as intellectually adept as anyone else! We have a friend whose son left university and decided to travel. Before that happened, he took a job as a dustman - and loved it so much that he's still there! we also know another one who's doing an OU course - for the fun of it!
Steve5
Lost my roots? No, left them behind, yes.
You say you had a career in teaching, and then go on to call yourself a have not?
Did you not stick at it & receive a pension, or are you still teaching.
I never had a holiday with my parents, my first bike I built from from bits I got off the scrap heap, I could go on, but I don"t wish to bore you. No, I"ve not forgotten my roots, but Im not sorry to have left them behind.
To say I have an obscene air of supremacy, I find this remark quite astonishing!!
Lost my roots? No, left them behind, yes.
You say you had a career in teaching, and then go on to call yourself a have not?
Did you not stick at it & receive a pension, or are you still teaching.
I never had a holiday with my parents, my first bike I built from from bits I got off the scrap heap, I could go on, but I don"t wish to bore you. No, I"ve not forgotten my roots, but Im not sorry to have left them behind.
To say I have an obscene air of supremacy, I find this remark quite astonishing!!
I have strong feelings about this subject. Capitalism is the only structure that is proven to work. It allows that those who are born into poverty can envisage a way out and can be inspired to do so by those that have preceded them.
But there plenty of have nots who are not prepared to work their way out of poverty and to tax the rich to give to them is hardly going to inspire them to better themselves is it? If stevie.5 could prove that every poor person is desperately trying to better themselves to lift themselves out of poverty then fair enough. Sadly this is far from true. I have known many people over the years who think the world owes them a living. They simply bemoan the fact that others have more than them � and do absolutely nothing about it. The poor are getting poorer because they are taking on more debt � simple as that.
The amount of tax I have paid as a higher rate tax payer every year is astronomical and could finance a family of four comfortably. What additional benefit do I get out of that tax? Nothing. I am FAR less of a burden on the government than the poor. Why should I have to pay even more?
But there plenty of have nots who are not prepared to work their way out of poverty and to tax the rich to give to them is hardly going to inspire them to better themselves is it? If stevie.5 could prove that every poor person is desperately trying to better themselves to lift themselves out of poverty then fair enough. Sadly this is far from true. I have known many people over the years who think the world owes them a living. They simply bemoan the fact that others have more than them � and do absolutely nothing about it. The poor are getting poorer because they are taking on more debt � simple as that.
The amount of tax I have paid as a higher rate tax payer every year is astronomical and could finance a family of four comfortably. What additional benefit do I get out of that tax? Nothing. I am FAR less of a burden on the government than the poor. Why should I have to pay even more?
Steve You are so wrong - and you are wrong because you make assumptions. I came from an extremely poor background, and I have been a divorced single parent - so been there and done that. However, my child wasn't neglected, I didn't stick her in front of the TV whilst I did my own thing. She was encouraged to do well at school and she had a different activity to go to every night of the week - and I knew where she was and whom she was with at every moment. All my free time was hers, so she was well educated and is now an extremely successful young lady - and she is a LADY!! I worked, I didn't expect the world to owe me a living and I didn't depend on state handouts to keep us.
I'm not for one moment undermining people who work at Tescos. They work for a living, they do a good job, and that's what matters, so don't you dare suggest I undermine it. I was simply using that as an example of a fairly low paid job. I'd scrub floors if I needed to, and that's the truth. I've known times when I could afford to buy a newspaper, so there's no shame in that. Yes, I am now in a better position, but no thanks to anyone else. It's the result of hard work. And, yes, I do now have private health insurance, and all the trappings of a good lifestyle, which surely takes the burden off the state, doesn't it? Your response is a prime example of the mentality of many in this country. If you're not happy with your station in life, then do something about it. Don't expect others to do it for you. Meglet is absolutely right. And like Amsterdammer, I didn't lose my roots - I simply left them behind.
Sorry, Ice, I didn't mean to infer that Dustmen are dim - I've known one or two and I know they aren't. I was simply pointing out that they are essential to society. Let's face it, what would we do without them?
I'm not for one moment undermining people who work at Tescos. They work for a living, they do a good job, and that's what matters, so don't you dare suggest I undermine it. I was simply using that as an example of a fairly low paid job. I'd scrub floors if I needed to, and that's the truth. I've known times when I could afford to buy a newspaper, so there's no shame in that. Yes, I am now in a better position, but no thanks to anyone else. It's the result of hard work. And, yes, I do now have private health insurance, and all the trappings of a good lifestyle, which surely takes the burden off the state, doesn't it? Your response is a prime example of the mentality of many in this country. If you're not happy with your station in life, then do something about it. Don't expect others to do it for you. Meglet is absolutely right. And like Amsterdammer, I didn't lose my roots - I simply left them behind.
Sorry, Ice, I didn't mean to infer that Dustmen are dim - I've known one or two and I know they aren't. I was simply pointing out that they are essential to society. Let's face it, what would we do without them?
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Steve is simply displaying the politics of envy. Ignore him.
I'm not going to apologise for striving to achieve as much as I can or for looking after myself and my family.
Steve and his ilk should be pleased that there are those of us who are prepared to strive for better things, because if we weren't there, who'd bankroll those that can't be arsed?
I'm not going to apologise for striving to achieve as much as I can or for looking after myself and my family.
Steve and his ilk should be pleased that there are those of us who are prepared to strive for better things, because if we weren't there, who'd bankroll those that can't be arsed?
