They will profess patriotic support for private and for-profit schools having charity status and the incompetent and malicious political class that is churned out by these institutions, along with sycophantic support of the royal family and aristocracy in general.
The UK has systemic classism built into the very fabric of its society, and the ones claiming that classism is unhelpful and divisive tend to be the ones that wage class warfare against the poor and desperate.
My parents had over $1 million saved when they retired, and had never earned 6 figures in a year, combined. How? Investing a little every month in index funds in an IRA. Aside from that they also put two kids through college.
But yes, if you decide to spend every dollar you earn, capitalism will happily accomodate you.
In Europe the tax system works very different, e.g in The Netherlands they would tax you ~1.2% on the return of your stock investment tax plus the other taxes that you would pay means that for middle class incomes saving 1 million is basically impossible.
I assume that GB works exactly the same.
Yeah... no.
Evolution shows us that organisms do grow to the limits of their environment. A "capitalist" system is no different. Making thinly-veiled religious statements about the evils of capitalism means rhetoric is more important to you than understanding.
Edit: for the nay-sayers, who seem to have missed my point: These behaviors aren't a result of capitalism. Blaming capitalism, or using ideological rehetoric, is wrong. These behaviors are a result of reality. Of evolution. Of the Dariwnian struggle for existence.
Blaming capitalism for these behaviors makes no more sense than blaming capitalism for a disease like malaria. Malaria was around long before capitalism, or even people, existed.
> The intellectual tradition is one of servility to power, and if I didn't betray it I'd be ashamed of myself.
-- Noam Chomsky
> Alas! There comes the time of the most despicable man, who can no longer despise himself.
-- Friedrich Nietzsche
————
Edit: in response to your edit:
Healthy ecosystems strive at equilibrium. If a species consumes more energy than its environment can supply or produces more entropy than its environment can dissipate, things go bad for the environment and for the species unless it can move to greener pastures.
What is true for species is also true for non-biological dissipative processes. Capitalism and the growth-fueled financial system are not perennial. In this context, humanity is part of the environment, and greener pastures is the automation epidemics, where capital is becoming self-sufficient.
This is dangerous for humans.
Specifically, it's done an effective job on poor white, poor black men of Caribbean descent and poor Muslims (esp women) of Asian descent.
It's conspicuously failed to keep down poor Asians of Indian or Chinese descent and poor blacks of African descent.
Of course, there are some nay sayers who think that our brand of capitalism might not be the only reason for the persistence of poverty. There have, for example, been rumours that the cultural value of education correlates suspiciously well. Educational attainment definitely does (see ONS stats on same).
Fortunately, we all know that correlation is not causation. It follows, therefore, that no correlation is causation so it's probably capitalism. Unless it's racism. Yeah, it's probably racism.
Compared to what?
http://www.homeless.org.uk/facts/homelessness-in-numbers/rou...
Now universal credit is being rolled out, this is likely to massively increase.
So they'd struggle if they suddenly had expenses that were 2.5% of their income or more? That doesn't seem revelatory.
It is not news to me that in general, relatively poor people do not have a ton of slack in their finances. If it's news to you, well... okay. But I think you just weren't paying attention.
Again, it doesn't seem really surprising that lots of relatively poor people would "struggle" with additional expenses equal to around 5% of their income.
If you rent from a big rental company, then they can absorb that risk so you lose out on those savings.
This has traditionally been the position in Judaism, Christianity and Islam (and I think many tribal societies would greatly frown upon it).
Then again "vulnerable" is an extremely popular word in the UK media this year, and nobody's ever precise about what it means, so maybe it's all meaningless, I don't know.
https://www.fca.org.uk/publications/research/understanding-f...
There are summary sheets for each age group, and detailed tables. I found the ones around self employment particularly interesting.