You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Wow, imagine applying the same logic elsewhere. Make the wrong choice, tough, live with it......
And with that you've perfectly articulated the attitude of the present government towards the poor, the unemployed, and the disabled. Except that these are people who have had choice removed, and are at the mercy of things completely out of their control
The middle class (if that is what we're now saying £120k a year represents) have many many choices available to them. They're positively empowered, and in charge of their own destinies.
He's prioritised his children's education. Good for him! Entirely noble and understandable. But you can't then moan that this has removed his ability to do things he seems to think he's also entitled too. Thats called having your cake and eating it. Hence getting no sympathy. Because he doesn't deserve any. He can live with his choices and STFU bleating about what is still an incredibly comfortable lifestyle
So this guy "deserves" no sympathy because his predicament is based solely on his choice to invest in his childrens's future?!?! Wow, imagine applying the same logic elsewhere. Make the wrong choice, tough, live with it......
No, it's because he's made choices he can't afford. It looks like, based on the article, he can't afford private schooling, so he perhaps shouldn't have made that choice.
(We've done to death on other threads whether he's [i]actually[/i] investing in his kids' future or just wasting money, so let's ignore that aspect.)
Binners you do remember that socialism is a failed system right? I mean, I'm not suggesting that pure capitalism is the right one (I like George Soros's view that we need free markets with keen oversight and a social conscience) but man you sound like a bitter twisted Marxist who has never been able to get over the fact that what you stand for just never worked.
The middle class (if that is what we're now saying £120k a year represents)
Hmm well if you're working then at most you are likely to be upper middle class; upper class are aristocracy and if they work they're still that whatever they earn.
the fact that what you stand for just never worked.
Well I wouldn't call our current system a resounding success either e.g. people aren't exactly happy (13 million anti-depressant prescriptions last year in the UK), we have wide spread poverty, huge inequality, a political party in power which persecutes the poor and disabled for fun and Nigel Farage to contend with.........
(I like George Soros's view that we need free markets with keen oversight and a social conscience)
It will never work. Capitalism is based upon pure greed. As we can currently see by the increasing disparity between the top 1% and the rest.
Pure socialism doesn't work.
Pure capitalism doesn't work.
I admit I haven't read all 7 previous pages but does wifey work? The telegraph article focuses on him alone and his wages.
We could reduce the tax burden on high earners by having a living minimum wage and a maximum multiplier for the highest pay in the organisation.
Minimum wage of £7.65 (IIRC) would give just under £15k as a salary. Max of ten times that for the highest earner in an organisation?
(Notice the living wage is less than 12% what someone in the Telegraph's version of the squeezed middle is making...)
That would be a terrible thing IMO! Cleaners on 10% of the CEO's income? Never work.
geetee1972 - I'm not bitter and twisted. I'm quite a happy bunny generally. I'm certainly not a marxist
I don't resent people earning plenty of cash for jobs with big responsibility. Thats fine, if a large percentage of them weren't so graceless about it. Regarding all the trappings as some divine right. Or as Dave would call it a 'Culture of Entitlement' perhaps 😉
But what staggers me on threads like this is that some people have genuinely no concept of what most peoples lives are like. Pensions? Savings? Yeah… right. There are plenty of working people in this country who can't even contemplate things like that, as they just about cover their bills every month
If this guy can afford all this without his partner actually having to work, then I'd imagine that puts him in a tiny minority of families in this country. But he still seems to think he deserves more?
Does he? I think he's just saying he used to have more and now it's difficult for him to maintain the lifestyle he developed.
Like I said… its pretty radical stuff. I didn't say it was easy. It might take a while for people to get their heads around it. Getting jobs when you leave school at 16. But desperate situations require pretty drastic measures
I'll lead you back to your own comments on unemployment... Of which the largest sector is unskilled/uneducated 16-24 year olds!!!
There are just about ZERO prospects for most kids leaving school without any real qualifications these days, or that is at least how it is portrayed. Certainly you don't have the wealth of apprenticeships you had in decades gone by, or the trades to go into. If this blokes kids left school the only wage they would likely be able to contribute for a while would be dole money!
Society these days almost dictates that you need a degree to flip burgers. Well ok that is being over the top, but part of Blair's goal for Britain was to get as many kids as possible through a university degree. Which of course only devalued the education system and drove the cost of doing a degree through the roof, rendering everything pointless!
I'm interested to know too why you think someone should have to be so damned to a life so ordinary too. Ok, I've got little sympathy for the guy in the original article when he's paying £45k a year on school fees (he could save 2/3rds of that and still put them through private education elsewhere if he needed to!) but if you want the best for your kids you'll go out of the way to help them out surely?
[i]I'm interested to know too why you think someone should have to be so damned to a life so ordinary too. Ok, I've got little sympathy for the guy in the original article when he's paying £45k a year on school fees (he could save 2/3rds of that and still put them through private education elsewhere if he needed to!) but if you want the best for your kids you'll go out of the way to help them out surely?[/i]
Well said mboy....and despite the fact there are some very wealthy people sending their kids to private schools, there are also shopkeepers (for example) working 20 hours a day (both parents) and foregoing any holidays in order to send their Kids to private schools.
mboy - Member
Like I said… its pretty radical stuff. I didn't say it was easy. It might take a while for people to get their heads around it. Getting jobs when you leave school at 16. But desperate situations require pretty drastic measures
I'll lead you back to your own comments on unemployment... Of which the largest sector is unskilled/uneducated 16-24 year olds!!!There are just about ZERO prospects for most kids leaving school without any real qualifications these days, or that is at least how it is portrayed. Certainly you don't have the wealth of apprenticeships you had in decades gone by, or the trades to go into. If this blokes kids left school the only wage they would likely be able to contribute for a while would be dole money!
Society these days almost dictates that you need a degree to flip burgers. Well ok that is being over the top, but part of Blair's goal for Britain was to get as many kids as possible through a university degree. Which of course only devalued the education system and drove the cost of doing a degree through the roof, rendering everything pointless!
I'm interested to know too why you think someone should have to be so damned to a life so ordinary too. Ok, I've got little sympathy for the guy in the original article when he's paying £45k a year on school fees (he could save 2/3rds of that and still put them through private education elsewhere if he needed to!) but if you want the best for your kids you'll go out of the way to help them out surely?
Interesting post, to which I'd like to counter with a couple of personal examples, having experienced a similar hiatus in my life, not that I ever cleared 120k p.a.. However I was forced by circumstance to pull my youngest out of private education at 16 because we couldn't afford it, she was also the laziest academically of all of ours and never had a part time job, she did however fortunately have an interest in cooking which has not only saved her ass but elevated her to the highest paid 17 yr old that has ever passed through Fish towers thanks to a Chef course and part time job as a Commie then Sous Chef.
Another example is of my third daughters best pal who took up hair dressing rather than accompany mine into UNI, she now drives a Mercedes, whilst mine is still sofa surfing in town unable to afford rent in order to work in London the only place in the country to offer work for her qualifications.
So not entirely true the zero prospects, what is true is the failure of the promise that a University Education would deliver, the absolute scandal that those encouraged into the path with its subsequent debt burden have suffered and with it a sense of entitlement that makes it difficult for them to consider the 'lowly paths' of the hairdresser, cooks & bottle washers and other trades.
Difficult as it may be for you to grasp, not everyone bases their happiness and sense of self-worth on how much money they earn.Maybe he earns 'enough' and is quite happy? Imagine that.
Why would you work the same job for less than the going-rate?
Charity?
Yeah that's completely true....I have a few friends who's daughters have got their degrees, one who has spent the past few seasons as a chalet Girl in the Alps and is now heading to Oz to work/travel.
Another just completed her degree and is she getting a job? No she is going off travelling for a year. Am I jealous? Probably! But I do wonder what the hell its all about!
One who didn't go to uni but got her A levels and a job in Estate agency, is now working in a top Agency, working hard, earning money, is debt free and building a career.
she now drives a Mercedes
How is that a measure of success or wealth?
You should be paid what your job is worth
hmmmm... I think this is the crux of the issue
there would seem to be an awful lot of city folk drastically overvaluing themselves..
It's pretty perverse
Claims last week that children from poorer backgrounds are to be given priority at a great many grammars comes as yet another setback. But it is one the Squeezed Middle will, as is their wont, find a way to cope with.
But with taxation at its current levels and the rising cost of essentials, it is quite difficult for people like me to maintain our standard of living in the current climate, and that is a worry.”
🙄
Won't somebody think of the poor, huddled masses of the squeezed middle, beset on all sides by the evils of social mobility, mildly redistributive taxation and preposterous school fees that they actually [u]choose[/u] to pay?
And "click here for ideas on growing your wealth". Chance would be a fine thing! When does the next rocket leave for Planet Telegraph?
Indeed yunki . Interesting article by Will Hutton on exactly that
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/19/executive-pay-ceos-dont-need-cash ]Extravagant CEO pay doesn't reflect performance - its all about status[/url]
and they're still not happy as there's always someone else earning more.....
Does he? I think he's just saying he used to have more and now it's difficult for him to maintain the lifestyle he developed.
This. But don't begrudge the inverted snobs their opportunity to compare Working Class Hero credentials.
You missed the opportunity to use the term 'politics of envy'. You're slacking 😀
[img] 
[/img]
One who didn't go to uni but got her A levels and a job in Estate agency, is now working in a top Agency, working hard, earning money, is debt free and building a career.
Speaking as someone who dossed about for 3 years after uni and didn't get a job until I was 24, I can honestly say had I left school and got a job when I was 16/18 my life would now be far more miserable and empty than it is now. Why the rush to push kids into a job early on? You've got your whole life to do the job/career thing so you might as well live a bit first.
LHS - Member
she now drives a Mercedes
How is that a measure of success or wealth?
She's not yet 25, took me until 50 for my first Mercedes, they're neither cheap to buy, rent or insure and have always been a status symbol, particularly amongst her (and my)peer group.
[img] 
[/img]
😀
I'm not sure such CEOs exist. You need to be pretty ruthless and selfish to get to the top....Even many large charities are run by cut throat money grabbing individuals, whose sole aim is to earn more and don't give a monkeys about the charitable cause.
Try the CEO of Next for starters - [url= http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/04/10/simon-wolfson-next-bonus-staff_n_5123316.html ]CEO gives his entire bonus to staff for the second year running[/url]
[img] 
[/img]
😀
She's not yet 25, took me until 50 for my first Mercedes, they're neither cheap to buy, rent or insure and have always been a status symbol, particularly amongst her (and my)peer group.
I remember the excitement I felt as a nipper when my dad came home from work one evening and said "Guess what? I've been promoted! I've got a new company car - it's a big, white Mercedes!"
Bounded outside to have a look there's one of these sitting in the street:
[img] 
[/img]
have always been a status symbol
And their in lies the problem.
If you put having a Mercedes as a priority, you will make it a priority. They are not expensive to lease.
You would be amazed at how many people will happily spend £500 a month but not bother putting any money aside to save for a house / retirement. You can lease a brand new C-Class Coupe for £300 a month.
You can lease a brand new C-Class Couple for £300 a month.
C-Class couple..?
[img] 
[/img]
They're not waiting for an Ocado delivery? How frightful!
If I bought a Mercedes I think my mates would laugh me out of the pub 🙂
Has her Merc got heated wing mirrors?
Oh, how the other half live……
*wonders what 120k squeezed middle bloke drives*
She's not yet 25, took me until 50 for my first Mercedes, they're neither cheap to buy, rent or insure and have always been a status symbol, particularly amongst her (and my)peer group.
oh the aspiration !
samuri - MemberAbsolute bobbins. The majority of tax comes from the real middle income earners, £20,000 to £50,000
@Samuri, yes of course the majority 99% pay the majority of the tax ie 75% of the total but the top 1% pay 25% of the tax a hugely disproportionate amount as @mashiehood's chart shows. Think of how much extra the 99% would have to pay, they would have to pay close to 30% more in tax each to cover the loss of the 1%. What his chart also shows is that raising taxes beyond a certain point leads to a fall in tax revenue, we saw this a number of times in the past and we saw it again when taxes went to 50% (as the chart shows). When the tax rate was dropped from 50 to 45 tax revenue went up.
@Northwind - this view that the 1% make their money off the labours of the 99% is ideological not factual viewpoint, it isn't reality. A lot of people join a business with the hope of being promoted, maybe one day being the CEO. In reality not everyone can make it but it doesn't mean the CEO is "treading on" everyone else, the 99%.
As for the quiz, I've been open in the past on here. I've worked in finance for nearly 30 years and have been fortunate enough to earn good money over that period.
this view that the 1% make their money off the labours of the 99% is ideological not factual viewpoint, it isn't reality.
You sure about that?
The lack of any correlation between remuneration of CEOs and their companies performance would suggest otherwise....
despite the fact there are some very wealthy people sending their kids to private schools, there are also shopkeepers (for example) working 20 hours a day (both parents) and foregoing any holidays in order to send their Kids to private schools.
This assumes private education is 'better'. It also assumes the benefits of a private education outweigh never seeing your parents.
We send our kids to the local state school. Does that mean we don't value their education?
@Samuri, yes of course the majority 99% pay the majority of the tax ie 75% of the total but [i]the top 1% pay 25% of the tax a hugely disproportionate amount[/i] as @mashiehood's chart shows. Think of how much extra the 99% would have to pay, they would have to pay close to 30% more in tax each to cover the loss of the 1%.
Or, the top 1% are paid a hugely disproportionate amount, which brings an increased tax burden.
We send our kids to the local state school. Does that mean we don't value their education?
It's a fact. Working class parents love their kids less than middle class ones. They also beat them and lock them in cupboards to instill discipline instead of using some tv-guru inspired attachment parenting technique.
We send our kids to the local state school. Does that mean we don't value their education?
It's a fact. Working class parents love their kids less than middle class ones. They also beat them and lock them in cupboards to instill discipline instead of using some tv-guru inspired attachment parenting technique.
It gets worse: the school only got a 2 in its last Ofsted inspection and we haven't moved house to get them into an outstanding school. I'm waiting for social services to call.
mboy - MemberWell ok that is being over the top, but part of Blair's goal for Britain was to get as many kids as possible through a university degree. Which of course only devalued the education system and drove the cost of doing a degree through the roof, rendering everything pointless!
It's actually a myth, this- the rise in degrees has been pretty much constant since the early 90s, it's definitely not a Blair thing or even a Labour thing. (the highest spikes in UG numbers all came under Tory governments but that's probably more or less coincidental- tons of factors go into this stuff)
As for devaluation, the forecast is that on average you'll earn £150000 more over your life as a university graduate than as a school graduate, and you're about half as likely to be unemployed. So it's pretty good.
(further ed actually gives higher employability than a UG degree on average, once you get past the lowest levels. But you need to get up to the higher end before you start to see earnings match)
I bet you've bought a massive telly too, haven't you? And watch the footy on Sky? Apparently this is the greatest crime you can possibly commit, you woking class oik!! Worse than kiddy-fiddling
jambalaya - Member@Northwind - this view that the 1% make their money off the labours of the 99% is ideological not factual viewpoint, it isn't reality. A lot of people join a business with the hope of being promoted, maybe one day being the CEO.
No, it is a mathematical fact- the only thing that can sustain the highest wages is the work of a much larger group of people. Whether people aspire to be in the 1% is irrelevant to that.
the forecast is that on average you'll earn £150000 more over your life as a university graduate
Historically I can believe that, but as degrees become universal and therefore devalued as a differentiator, I can't see the earning premium doing anything other than falling....
It's a fact. Working class parents love their kids less than middle class ones.
I doubt it, but it may be the case that, however much they love their kids, working class parents are less aware of the value of education, are less able to provide role models for education, and may be less able to optimise their childrens education by helping with homework, moving to a better school catchment area, paying for additional private services etc.
you woking class oik!
Yeah Woking isn't the greatest place - in Surrey anyway.
No, it is a mathematical fact- the only thing that can sustain the highest wages is the work of a much larger group of people. Whether people aspire to be in the 1% is irrelevant to that
I don't agree at all. You can have a business where all the employees are in the top 1% of earners nationally. They are not earning their money off the 99% who don't work for the company. Most people who start out in their working life aspire to improve their position or skills, they aspire to be in the top 50%, 25%, 10%, 5% 1% etc
What you are quoting is old Marxist dogma that the rich only get rich because they underpay the poor for their efforts.
Historically I can believe that, but as degrees become universal and therefore devalued as a differentiator, I can't see the earning premium doing anything other than falling....
@footflaps for me the way to think about this is that you are competing globally, by having a more broadly educated population you are trying to move the country as a whole up the value chain. It's interesting that China is now losing jobs to lower wage cost countries (like Vietnam). If you don't upscale your skillset then the risk is you have no employment or only that a wage level which is competitive with very low cost countries.
It's a fact. Working class parents love their kids less than middle class ones. They also beat them and lock them in cupboards to instill discipline instead of using some tv-guru inspired attachment parenting technique.
Surely it's the other way round? Tv parenting technique on the estates, fagging and beatings in the boarding schools?
…. and the award for the most patronising, pompous post ever typed onto STW (and possibly the whole interwebz) goes to…..
😆
[i] samuri - Member
Absolute bobbins. The majority of tax comes from the real middle income earners, £20,000 to £50,000
@Samuri, yes of course the majority 99% pay the majority of the tax ie 75% of the total but the top 1% pay 25% of the tax a hugely disproportionate amount as @mashiehood's chart shows. Think of how much extra the 99% would have to pay, they would have to pay close to 30% more in tax each to cover the loss of the 1%. What his chart also shows is that raising taxes beyond a certain point leads to a fall in tax revenue, we saw this a number of times in the past and we saw it again when taxes went to 50% (as the chart shows). When the tax rate was dropped from 50 to 45 tax revenue went up.[/i]
Sorry if I don't believe a chart published in a newspaper.
Look at the actual HMRC stats and the real figure is less than 10% I think. I don't have time now but IIRC the Institute for Fiscal Studies issued a paper on this a year or so ago largely in response to high earners claiming they supported the entire country.
I think these numbers are right, £200k pa puts you in the top 1%
So the top 1% is a very wide band of incomes from £200k to £2 billion (and more). Clearly someone having an income at £20m pa would be considered pretty rich by most of us but £200k ?
The 99% a less wide band but still, is someone on £175k part of the downtrodden ? Or a couple each earning £100k, they are individually in the 99% but together they are the 1%
Another factor is that if you do reduce the gap between the highest earners and the average you must increases tax rates on the average as I posted earlier. That's the biggest practical issue with a flat tax rate as in the UK it would have to be in the high mid 30's %
What you are quoting is old Marxist dogma that the rich only get rich because they underpay the poor for their efforts.
It's not the only reason but you do have to consider why over the last 30 or more years at the top wages have increased massively while those on lower incomes have had virtually no real terms improvement. The only reason these people have seen improvements in living standards is through technology and credit.
Samuri as ever a voice of reason
- the 1% pay 25% of the total tax 😆
oh their tax accountants would've been fired if they had to pay that much OR they are [s]avoiding paying [/s]earning so much that we should have a great NHS, excellent state education and fantastic roads if they paid the correct amount.
@footflaps for me the way to think about this is that you are competing globally,
But competing on ability, not on qualifications... The ability bit is fairly unchanged by having a piece of paper from an ex-poly saying "BSc" on it....
Anecdotal I know, but I went back to my Uni about 7 years after graduating and popped into my old department to chat to my lecturers. In that time they had had to drop the entire 3rd year (of my degree) and spent year 1 doing A level revision and years 2 & 3 just doing my 1st and 2nd year course, as the quality of undergraduates had dropped so much (although the numbers were up). You'd still get the same qualification, BEng, but had studied a lot less to get it. Hence most employers now insist on 4 year MEngs. Devaluation at work.
@samuri I am enough of an anorak to look at IFS and HMRC data, I have it downloaded on my computer at home as a matter of fact. The top 1% don't support the country as such as they pay "only" 25% of the taxes but without them taxes on everyone else would be 30% higher.
I can tell you personally that when tax rates went to 50% more than a dozen high earners I know left the country (people earning £1m+) transferring their jobs abroad. Also everyone at that tax rate made sure they maximised all legitimate tax shelters (like pensions). Overall this group paid much less to HMRC than they did at 40% rate, a rate people felt was fair and it was better to have the money in their pocket to spend.
I appreciate your cynasism regarding charts in the press but they reflect the world as I see it on this issue.
[i]oh their tax accountants would've been fired if they had to pay that much OR they are avoiding paying earning so much that we should have a great NHS, excellent state education and fantastic roads if they paid the correct amount. [/i]
I suspect that's more like it. They'd pay 25% of the tax bill, *if* they paid the appropriate amount of tax on all their income. Which of course, rich people don't do.
I can tell you personally that when tax rates went to 50% more than a dozen high earners I know left the country (people earning £1m+) transferring their jobs abroad.
All the studies of this 'mass exodus' failed to find any significant numbers of people who left...
Samurai cant hear you..... 😀
Samurai - if you have the time, read [url= http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/statistics/tax-statistics/liabilities.pdf ]this[/url]
Perhaps, but studies have also showed that tax revenue decreases above a certain tax rate. It's called Tax Income Elasticity (TIE) and we get into lovely economists's speak with income and substitution effects. Irrespective of the mass exodus stories, TIE is proven and quantified - the only debate comes in determining the exact number! But that's economics for you....not an exact science despite the over use of maths to try and suggest otherwise!
footflaps - what are the studies you refer to?
@jambalaya - I think your findings reflect my guesswork then. I'm largely cynical about these things not because I resent high earners, I earn a good wage myself, but because we all recognise that the richer you get, the less likely you are going to follow the absolute line in tax payment. Rich people are far more likely to have access to resources that allow them the avoid tax.
I would even hazard another guess that you can almost guarantee that up to a certain wage limit, people just pay all the tax they have to, beyond that limit (no idea what it might be), people are increasingly less likely to just pay the appropriate level of tax without looking to avoid it in some way.
footflaps - what are the studies you refer to?
You'd have to google but I did read a few articles at the time on the subject in the Guardian, as the 'mass exodus' was a headline in the tabloids. But, no one who looked in to it could find any significant numbers who quit the UK from the City over it.
I would argue he is an ordinary person. Ordinary people are earning a lot more than they used to 20 years ago. A mid ranking compliance officer isn't a senior person. He's not a high flier and he wouldn't describe himself as such I am sure.
The average salary is around £25k, not £120k. £120k puts you into a rarefied salary bracket, and is very much a senior position, however one chooses to self-describe.
My point was that wages at the top end of the market have risen much faster than the average. Why?
@mashie - Sorry, have to go in a minute but are 'tax liabilities' not exactly what saying? A 'tax liability' is how much we would expect someone to pay if they followed the line in tax payment? That's different to 'actual tax paid'.
My point was that wages at the top end of the market have risen much faster than the average. Why?
Simply not true. Look at the official stats. The biggest increases are at the bottom. I know that is not what the headlines pretend, but the stats are there. I have linked them many times.
@footflaps - As we are talking of the 1% you need relatively few people to go to have an impact. Would the government be able to detect that, I don't know but I could give a few examples and have posed them here in the distant past.
@samuri - IMO your last point is true to some regard, many small businessmen and tradesmen are doing jobs for cash etc. However, I would wager they dodge as much if not more tax in absolute terms than the 1%. This is one reason some people favour sales tax, as it's harder to avoid, the downside being that it impacts the less well off more directly (mitigated by no vat on food or rent for example)
thm - thats frankly cobblers, I'm afraid.
It may be the case over the last year or two. But if you take overall stats since the minimum wage was introduced in 1998, if rises had kept pace with average boardroom pay rises in FTSE 100 companies, it would now stand at over 20 quid an hour. Its actually £6.15
The overall trend for the last 20 years has been for hugely disproportionate rises at the top. The fact that that has slowed slightly hardly means we've turned into some type of meritocracy. Far from it!
It's a fact. Working class parents love their kids less than middle class ones.
I doubt it, but it may be the case that, however much they love their kids, working class parents are less aware of the value of education, are less able to provide role models for education, and may be less able to optimise their childrens education by helping with homework, moving to a better school catchment area, paying for additional private services etc.
We've only done one of "helping with homework, moving to a better school catchment area, paying for additional private services". Does that mean we don't value education or not?
Ok Binners, I will stop using official figures. That's the pain of being an economist, you tend to start with them first!
(Your secondary point is largely true though)
Link to those stats?
iirc, the stats for the bottom 1% have been improved by government intervention with minimum wage and tax benefits, but the bigger picture shows an improving % increase as you move up the pay scale.
but it may be the case that, however much they love their kids, working class parents are less aware of the value of education, are less able to provide role models for education, and may be less able to optimise their childrens education by helping with homework, moving to a better school catchment area, paying for additional private services etc.
Either my sarcasm radar has completely failed or that's one of the most disturbing and laughable posts I've ever read on here.
I think we've just been given a terrifying insight into a very deeply disturbed mind. I can only presume he works for a Tory Thinktank 😆
No point MSP, apparently it's all cobblers.
(Easy to google if you think otherwise though ie that the facts are important.)
The role of parents in determining academic (and other) success is very well documented and hardly restricted to a specific political persuasion.
Either my sarcasm radar has completely failed or that's one of the most disturbing and laughable posts I've ever read on here.
I'd say it was [u]fairly[/u] true, and one of the contributing factors to the lack of social mobility we see in the UK. If there wasn't something 'special' which meant middle class kids weren't more likely to get middle class jobs, than working class kids, we would see much more social mobility.
FTSE 100 Chief Executives by definition are only 100 people so they aren't necessarily statistically representative of high earners as a whole. Unfortunately, we seem to have inherited the cult of the CE0 from the US. I think this is a grave shame as it often means that when a new one is appointed, many of the guys who missed out leave the company. I am not convinced this is the best model and feel a primus inter pares model would be better.
@footflaps Excuse the amateur phycology but middle income (I'm not going to use the word class) families will tend to encourage their kids in to middle (or high) income jobs, they will have the skills and experience to do so.
@samuri, the 1% pay 25% are actual stats based upon taxes paid not due or dodged.
Simply not true. Look at the official stats. The biggest increases are at the bottom. I know that is not what the headlines pretend, but the stats are there. I have linked them many times.
I just have. Income inequality is much higher now than it was thirty years ago. The poorest decile has a smaller share of total income, and the richest decile has a larger share.
True but look at what has happens in recent years (ignore the change of government though, that's more of an ironic coincidence, or is it?)
The same LT trends has occurred globally across very different economic and poltical models.