Is being rich, privileged with status okay on any level?

After reading ‘The state visit thread’ it made me think.

I am curious about what others think of this subject.

As I often get confused on why folk react severely over those who have wealth, status and who seem to be held in high regard. This also seems to be the case that shapes political views and deepens my curious nature on how others think about stuff.

Can anyone answer when a person goes from being rich and privileged, as most rich folk end up being… be it getting a better service, buying what they fancy, cars, houses, boats, etc with their thousands/millions, to having at times celebrity status or even being admired for being just one of the super rich.

Folk have to start somewhere…so does it matter where you get your cash from. ?

Do we dislike those with money that don’t work to earn it ?

Or do we dislike those with money who inherit it - although, if someone leaves their riches, no matter how large or small they are to their children, are those children condemned for getting money, privilege, without having worked for it…?

Or is it okay to have status, privilege and all the benefits that goes along with this, if for say you start with nothing and work up to having millions, therefore be seen as one of the ‘working hard for all you have’ crowd and so deemed to be seen as someone - most admirable.

Or will others always regard those loaded with cash , status and privilege as too much and not having any thought to those who don’t have much cash, privilege or status…?

Or is it, that folk just hate feeling skint and seeing others with lots of cash… no matter where it comes from.

For instance if you are born into a family that are seen as being wealthy, have status, etc…

I only hope I’ve managed to post this correctly - never added a subject for discussion before. Not even sure whereabouts to post it, so hopefully it’s okay. Thanks folks… :hugs:

1 Like

An interesting post.
Toby Young, sorry, had a go at Marcus Rashford for having expensive cars, and being an ambassador for school meals provision.
I think it does matter what you do with your money, earned or inherited. The latter does give me some cause for concern as you will have done nothing to gain it. Because of the amount of inherited money washing about it’s difficult to improve inequality in society.

I have to say, being comfortably off but not wealthy, on the one occasion I stayed in a posh hotel, I felt completely out of place, and, although it was an interesting experience, I can’t say that I enjoyed it. I imagine you might have to be born into wealth to feel comfortable in such surroundings.

I also think it matters what you do with your money, as you mention, be it earned or inherited.

So if someone inherits lots of cash, but gives it back into the community, say by opening up a youth centre of funding a womans shelter, then this money would be seen as okay to have, even if it were inherited ?

I have always been a great believer in the saying “Handsome is as handsome does”.

1 Like

My only problem with the, specifically, French sytem of inheritance is that it rewards equally in some (maybe many) cases those who really don’t deserve it. Apart from that, leaving what you have earned to your kids or significant others or charity, should be a right attached to all people with wealth to leave, be it great or small.

Privelege on the other hand is a different matter and, as it seems to equate so often with so-called celebrity, seems very unequal and undesirable to me. Why should anyone get a knight or damehood simply for being a very good, or not very good but long lasting, actor for instance? In other words just doing your normal job although, in so many of these cases, very well paid far above the average?

Before anybody says ‘charity’ I would only say that there must be thousands of people who, with their labours given freely or portions of their wages, contribute in equal measure in proportion to their abilty and wealth. If the ‘lowly’ ones get anything at all it is with one of the lower gongs, often the ones associated with an outdated and inexcusable, empire.

1 Like

Oh would that be Toby Young, son of Lord Young of Hartington, the one who got into Brasenose with rubbish A levels, having a pop at a young black man with soccer skills and a social conscience?

Toby Young is a steaming turd.


The issue I always have with things like this is that it shouldn’t be necessary. I said a very similar thing in the past when it came to religious organisations having charitable or tax exempt status. The comment was made that without it churches wouldn’t be able to provide all the services they currently do like homeless assistance, childcare or whatever else. That’s probably true, and I’m fine with that, because you and I pay more than enough in our taxes for it to be paid for by governments be it central or local. I don’t want rich people or churches deciding to offer these services.

I want the rich people we’ve been speaking about to pay at least as much as you and I as a percentage of their income in taxes, no funny business where Phillip Bloggs or Joe Green “lives” in Monaco but is at their offices on Oxford St running their fashion empire 6 days a week, get them paying properly then use their, and our, tax money to provide the services and hold governments to account if they are not prioritising these services over a multi billion pound track and trace service that doesn’t work or buying PPE from your mate in the House of Lords who may or may not have immediately gone out and bought a boat with the money instead of providing what has been promised, and at a reasonable price.


One day it won’t be necessary.

Meanwhile, where there’s a need, I’m happy for churches to provide for it. Indeed, it should be one of their raisons d’etre.

The problem is inequality, and if an organisation genuinely helps with “levelling up” (that phrase is pretty toxic nowadays, isn’t it?) then it’s a good thing.

1 Like

The difference is that you and I come from polar opposite directions when it comes to religion. I don’t want young or vulnerable people within miles of any religious organisations. If it’s a choice between the local crack house and a church, yes I’d probably rather the church, but that’s like saying would you rather be murdered by gunshot or drowning? I’d probably rather neither thanks :joy:

IMO this is a near impossible subject to debate. I would guess that the most privileged group with whom we are (almost) all familiar are the House of Windsor.

They range from venerated to despised. And everything in between.


Well we agree then :stuck_out_tongue:

I do find strange the idea that many atheist people have, that the moment you put anyone near a Christian, they immediately see the attraction of the faith.

That’s probably just me :rofl:

I’m very comfortable with inequality in terms of wealth provided everyone has enough and those who have vast wealth are unable to work in an extra-legal manner to obtain greater power and privilege or oppress their fellow men.


I spent my whole working life serving the wealthy, the very wealthy and a few who thought they were wealthy because of their borrowing power. The vast majority assumed their wealth gave them status and power so treated me and everyone else who worked for them with little respect and at times outright disdain. It never really bothered me for one simple reason - most seemed bloody miserable, having the status and power wasn’t enough to make them happy which ultimately (assuming you have enough money to live etc) is what it is all about.

The only way to change things things is for us the majority to stop the deference to the rich and famous, if we didn’t then the world would be a more equal place. Wealthy people assume the privilege and status because we allow it. As Kirstea has said, increase taxes for the very wealthy, close all the tax loopholes that only the wealthy can use and utilise the extra money to level up society so there would be no need for so many charities sponsored by the rich for their own tax gains.


I believe strongly that our past lives surely dictates, at least in part, how we perceive others and where we get some of our ingrained views from.

It’s also good to have a healthy balanced view of what it means to be rich, famous with status, (be it real status or imagined)

I agree with ancient mariner in that it doesn’t so much matter if you have great wealth or not, but not to use it to prevent others from living the lives they choose or judging them in any shape or form for doing so, which inevitably creates oppression.

I strongly believe also that no one is any better than anyone else.

After all, we are humans living life, surviving whatever happens to come our way the best we can, while still being able to care for other fellow humans, the best we can.

-Yep I get I think like a hippy, but as humans we’re all flawed in some form or other and no amount of cash makes a ha-pith of difference to that, with the exception of those who “think” they are something due to the amount of perceived power they think they have…but like someone already mentioned, money does not equate to being ‘happy’ -

I guess my curiosity is borne out of coming from a relatively, not so wealthy background, although my gran did have her own business and other relatives were seen as somehow middle class (whatever that means – in real terms) to listening to folk talking throughout my life and being judged by either what they owned, how much cash they had or what job they did for a living.

It made me question why folk thought this way and I suppose why they came to the conclusions they did or do.

After reading the thread on the royal visit, it made me curious, hence the post.

1 Like

I agree in one sense, that everyone should have the same rights, be valued as having the same worth by the legal an justice systems. But plainly everyone is different. Some contributing, building other up, working honestly to feed their family, built a life, make the world a better place. Some steal and destroy, take pleasure in pain and discomfort for others, have no regard for anything but their own pleasure. Most will be a mixture of the 2 sets of characters, in varying degrees.

I see some as being significantly better than others, of greater value as human beings, even though all should have the same basic right and value.


quoted by Ancient mariner - I see some as being significantly better than others, of greater value as human beings, even though all should have the same basic right and value.

I agree with this analogy, however, I do care, that no one should judge others, just due to their wealth or supposed status in society… like you say, only perhaps on how they treat and value others.
Like you have quoted above, some are seen as far nicer humans due to how they treat others, rightly so too…

Edited : I should add to this, that noone is born to become evil as such… Life nature/nurture dictates unfortunately those folk who choose to be (what others might judge as bad) but although we can dislike or even hate how others act, I still feel its important for us to understand others, rather than just simply condemn them.
If that makes sense… lol … it does to me… oh dear…hahaha

1 Like

I wonder how many babies come into the world wanting to be this? I would suggest none.

100% Kirstea.
No such thing as proportional taxation is there?

1 Like

that depends on whether you believe in original sin, kazza1 (and SuePJ).

I didn’t, but over time, I have come to.

I tend to view babies as being, to a large degree self-seeking, yet often responsive to love and kindness.

Setting aside the idea of sin, humans don’t seem to be a blank canvas when born, so I would expect some characters to further develop positively and others negatively. It’s possible that with the right kind of training, a child that would otherwise be destined for a life of harm could be changed in many cases. I don’t know.

1 Like