A 46-point margin is a rout by any standard, and on a question this loaded — 50 families versus half the population — a lopsided result was always the likely shape. Of the 45 with profiles, 33 said the rich have more than their fair share; only 12 dissented.
The interesting wrinkle is generational, not the usual young-versus-old story. The 25-34 bracket, the platform's largest cohort here at 21 votes, broke 71% Yes, comfortably in line with the overall tally. But the 35-44s, seven voters, were the one group to tip the other way, 4 No to 3 Yes — a rare mid-career pocket of scepticism sandwiched between younger and older voters who were near-unanimous. The over-55s, admittedly thin in number, barely registered a dissenting vote at all.
Gender told no story worth chasing: men and women landed within two points of each other, both comfortably Yes, suggesting this fault line runs through age and outlook on inequality rather than sex. It echoes the wider argument that has run since the 2008 crash and sharpened again post-pandemic — over wealth taxes, non-dom status and whether Britain's distribution of assets has become politically unsustainable, an argument this chamber answered with unusual unanimity.
The only voters who hesitated were those in the thick of paying mortgages and building careers — perhaps the group most conscious of how far they still are from "the top", and least keen to concede the ladder is rigged against them too.
0 Opinions
Weigh in on the debate.