Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Boom Boom

The Wealthy Middle Classes Will Never Stop Whining

Recommended Posts

Most of the capital gains collected on real estate property is a form of welfare for the rich. The middle class's welfare system is being cut back, hence the loud screaming and choking. It is unlikely that it wil be cut into to the same degree as the working class welfare, which is unfortunate because it is more economically damaging.

Edited by Stars

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the capital gains collected on real estate property is a form of welfare for the rich. The middle class's welfare system is being cut back, hence the loud screaming and choking. It is unlikely that it wil be cut into to the same degree as the working class welfare, which is unfortunate because it is more economically damaging.

Yep, we have a land oligarchy who expect to get rent for their entire life without lifting a finger. If the serfs complain we are communists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest happy?

Shut-it commie!

I voted Dave and got Marxism by the back door:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rentier_capitalism

Rentier capitalism is a term used in Marxism and sociology which refers to a type of capitalism where a large amount of profit-income generated takes the form of property income, received as interest, rents, dividends, or capital gains.

The beneficiaries of this income are a property-owning social class who play no productive role in the economy themselves but who monopolise the access to physical assets, financial assets and technologies. They make money not from producing anything new themselves, but purely from their ownership of property (which provides a claim to a revenue stream) and dealing in that property.

Often the term rentier capitalism is used with the connotation that it is a form of parasitism or a decadent form of capitalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the capital gains collected on real estate property is a form of welfare for the rich. The middle class's welfare system is being cut back, hence the loud screaming and choking. It is unlikely that it wil be cut into to the same degree as the working class welfare, which is unfortunate because it is more economically damaging.

I don't know what they are whining about. The proposal on CGT is to simply put back the approximate rates which existed until 2007 and to which most people were subject when they bought second properties or buy to let in the first place. It was a massive surprise that Labour of all parties put in an 18% rate!! The fact is the country is skint and those with more than one property should expect to help out if they sell their asset. I have no problem with those that create and benefit from wealth, but there does have to be some taxation to help those less fortunate.

There are all sorts of reliefs, so the moaning is even less attractive frankly. Otherwise, I would suggest a 60% tax rate on all income over £150k instead. That was the rate on a very much lower real terms income until 1988. I say this but I am no leftie. Just thinking of the country bankrupted by Labour. We all need to be part of putting it right and the wealthier should help more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what they are whining about. The proposal on CGT is to simply put back the approximate rates which existed until 2007 and to which most people were subject when they bought second properties or buy to let in the first place.

Yes - gauging by the outrage, you would have thought these were earned incomes, like the earned incomes of people who work for a living who are presently taxed at a higher rate to provide services that raise these people's asset values

It is amazing how conditioned people have become to this parasitism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes - gauging by the outrage, you would have thought these were earned incomes, like the earned incomes of people who work for a living who are presently taxed at a higher rate to provide services that raise these people's asset values

It is amazing how conditioned people have become to this parasitism.

Yes, and even worse was the rip off to taxpayers of a tax treatment to 'holiday' second homes. There they have for many years just set off their mortgage 'loss' from the lack of rental income against their own income tax! Buying a second home at other taxpayers expense and then expecting to sell at very little CGT!!! No wonder 50% of Devon homes are holiday homes and locals are priced out!! Sounds much like the MP's second home outrage. Outrageous and stopped by Darling in the last budget - the only thing he got right poor fellow. I have personally told Cameron and Osborne to keep that as Darling left it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.....

Marx loved to blur issues

I'm not 100% certain but I am fairly confident that Karl does not contribute to Wikipedia much these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest The Relaxation Suite

I voted Dave and got Marxism by the back door:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rentier_capitalism

Rentier capitalism is a term used in Marxism and sociology which refers to a type of capitalism where a large amount of profit-income generated takes the form of property income, received as interest, rents, dividends, or capital gains.

The beneficiaries of this income are a property-owning social class who play no productive role in the economy themselves but who monopolise the access to physical assets, financial assets and technologies. They make money not from producing anything new themselves, but purely from their ownership of property (which provides a claim to a revenue stream) and dealing in that property.

Often the term rentier capitalism is used with the connotation that it is a form of parasitism or a decadent form of capitalism.

The irony is that for a little while back in the 20th century ordinary workers were able to buy houses at a sensible price relative to their wages and pay them off without too much difficulty. This reduced the overall number of landlords because more people owned or were on a pathway to ownership. After the Labour Party inflated house prices beyond infinity they ended all this and thereby increased the number of private landlords and in doing so further impoverished the people.

Good old Labour. F**king the poor since 1900.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not 100% certain but I am fairly confident that Karl does not contribute to Wikipedia much these days.

The article is clear as crystal, it's Marx that is blurred

Edited by Stars

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She's correct from a media point of view. The Daily Mail doesn't go a single day without screeching and catawalling in the name of people who "quietly cope" and allegedly "don't like to complain". There are plenty of people our society doesn't give a flying ****** about, the middle classes don't feature in that list however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest The Relaxation Suite

She's correct from a media point of view. The Daily Mail doesn't go a single day without screeching and catawalling in the name of people who "quietly cope" and allegedly "don't like to complain". There are plenty of people our society doesn't give a flying ****** about, the middle classes don't feature in that list however.

What the hell are the middle classes anyway? There are several different models to classify the classes, most seem to come out with five categories (lower, working, lower middle, upper middle and upper) and these are defined by a combo of education and money. I have come up with a four category system (white collar, grey collar, blue collar and no collar) to categorise simply by occupation. While grey collar already exists as a term to my mind most of the jobs its present definition describe are simply blue collar jobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2

Yeah, and most of them are to be found in the Grauniad columnist pages.

"Now, I don't quite understand why people imagine that time and effort spent on working is more taxable than time and effort spent on having a lovely time at the weekend"

I demand that my effortless wealth 'creation' at the expense of the next generation is lightly taxed! And why don't all those scroungers find jobs (that are marginally taxed at 97% above benefits).

Edited by sillybear2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the hell are the middle classes anyway? There are several different models to classify the classes, most seem to come out with five categories (lower, working, lower middle, upper middle and upper) and these are defined by a combo of education and money. I have come up with a four category system (white collar, grey collar, blue collar and no collar) to categorise simply by occupation. While grey collar already exists as a term to my mind most of the jobs its present definition describe are simply blue collar jobs.

I think classes are best defined by attitudes, values and culture (ie. Pierre Bourdieu's view of stratification). Money is a very vulgar American way of looking at things and tells you very little. Exhibit A; The lottery winning chav who blew it all, went to jail and is in debt. The strength of Bordieu's view is it explains (I think anyhow) why both the left and the right are infuriated to find neither enforcing equality of opportunity or equality of outcome lead to what they want to happen and the only solutions they can ever come up with are "what we did that didn't work last time - only more of it"

Edited by Cogs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest The Relaxation Suite

I think classes are best defined by attitudes, values and culture (ie. Pierre Bourdieu's view of stratification). Money is a very vulgar American way of looking at things and tells you very little. Exhibit A; The lottery winning chav who blew it all, went to jail and is in debt. The strength of Bordieu's view is it explains (I think anyhow) why both the left and the right are infuriated to find neither enforcing equality of opportunity or equality of outcome lead to what they want to happen and the only solutions they can ever come up with are "what we did that didn't work last time - only more of it"

I would agree that classification must include more than simple money, which yes, is the crude American way of doing things, although there are American models that incorporate education. I think occupation is a winner because a person can strive towards any occupation, so a man's occupation is the best reflection of his class. White collar jobs are broadly taken by upper middle class people and vice versa, grey collar work is done by lower middle class, working class do blue collar and lower class do no collar. And the upper class do notihng of course, merely own and let.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would agree that classification must include more than simple money, which yes, is the crude American way of doing things, although there are American models that incorporate education. I think occupation is a winner because a person can strive towards any occupation, so a man's occupation is the best reflection of his class. White collar jobs are broadly taken by upper middle class people and vice versa, grey collar work is done by lower middle class, working class do blue collar and lower class do no collar. And the upper class do notihng of course, merely own and let.

Thank you for your interesting theory.

But what about white-coaters?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wealthy Middle Classes Will Never Stop Whining

I thought it was farmers who always whine. I suppose a lot of farmers are middle class, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think classes are best defined by attitudes, values and culture (ie. Pierre Bourdieu's view of stratification). Money is a very vulgar American way of looking at things and tells you very little. Exhibit A; The lottery winning chav who blew it all, went to jail and is in debt. The strength of Bordieu's view is it explains (I think anyhow) why both the left and the right are infuriated to find neither enforcing equality of opportunity or equality of outcome lead to what they want to happen and the only solutions they can ever come up with are "what we did that didn't work last time - only more of it"

I think class is a useless concept unless it represents blocks to mobility. A landed class matters because it is a self-perpetuating entity. The hobbled, low-vision, low-aspiration trap which forces so many people to remain poor (your chav blowing his £9.7m lotto win) is another example.

Working and Middle class as conventionally understood doesn't mean anything to me; they merely represent small differences in income.

Any government, in my opinion, is far better occupied understanding and removing those educational and capital-based blockages to social mobility. And by education I don't mean school funding, I mean the process by which some people are raised to see the World as their oyster, open to their valuable selves to forge the life they want from, and others raised to see only the bars. A fully self-empowered, socially mobile population would create wealth on a scale never seen before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think class is a useless concept unless it represents blocks to mobility. A landed class matters because it is a self-perpetuating entity. The hobbled, low-vision, low-aspiration trap which forces so many people to remain poor (your chav blowing his £9.7m lotto win) is another example.

Working and Middle class as conventionally understood doesn't mean anything to me; they merely represent small differences in income.

Any government, in my opinion, is far better occupied understanding and removing those educational and capital-based blockages to social mobility. And by education I don't mean school funding, I mean the process by which some people are raised to see the World as their oyster, open to their valuable selves to forge the life they want from, and others raised to see only the bars. A fully self-empowered, socially mobile population would create wealth on a scale never seen before.

I'm not so sure about that assumption.

If our current trend is anything to go by, encouraging more short term selfish individualism results in, well more short term selfish individualism.

For every Dyson or Branson you create a thousand 50 cents worshipping at the altar of 'get rich or die trying' who decide to 'get theirs' by becoming gun totting drug dealers at the age of thirteen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 259 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.