[Closed] Life is hard living on £120k a year.

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?)

A blip caused by the global economic crisis. It's inarguable that the long-term trend is increasing inequality.

jambalaya - Member

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.

Aspiration is completely irrelevant to this. And no, I'm not quoting "old marxist dogma", I've not said that anyone is underpaid or overpaid.

In your example- where does the money come from, if not from the 99%? Your company of 1%ers isn't creating something from nothing then selling it to nobody.

(Easy to google if you think otherwise though ie that the facts are important.)

I did, the figures I saw completely contradicted your claims.

True but look at what has happens in recent years

You want to ignore the long term trends and focus on a short time period that is the exception. Yep you are defiantly an economist.

Sorry, not true at all. The LT trend that you describe is easy to falsify with a basic google. Ther trends in income inequality show a variety of trends from shallow u-shaped, to distorted Us and all manner of odd shapes between. But there is no evidence (without picking suitable points) of the LT trends that you describe either over many centuries or even the past one.

Edit: reply for ransos but relevant to MSP point too. Check the data it's all there.

Read what the gini research publishes and shows

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

I'm not sure what part of saying that people with more money have more choices is especially the preserve of Tories. Instead of the lazy ad hominem, maybe it would be more convincing if you actually addressed the points in my post?

10 pages of typical STW class war and other bullsh*t, ultimately all drummed down into "wage growth hasn't matched cost of living, across the board bar a few at the very top".

If you have an income of £120k and prior COL expenses around £80, and then wage freezes result in £120k income staying stagnant but COL expenses going up 10%, you are just as badly off in percentage terms as anyone else.

Just because he earns more and doesn't work down t'pit or whatever, doesn't mean he doesn't feel the pinch.

You need them pointing out? Where to start? Seriously? You need it pointing out to you why this is so deeply offensive, pompous and patronising..

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.

Unbelievable!!! I reckon I've sussed it though. You are Ian Duncan Smith and I claim my food bank parcel 😆

Nice stealth edit there BTW

Edit: reply for ransos but relevant to MSP point too. Check the data,mugs all there.

Read what the gini research publishes and shows

I have. Unless you're going to pick just the last few (post economic crisis) years then income inequality is increasing.

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.

You've lost me there. But on the subject of social mobility, it's a simple case of having access to a decent and affordable/free education all the way up to graduate level, and being in an environment where learning and self-improvement is encouraged. In the vast majority of families (in any social class), the second aspect is true, sadly though for those from poorer backgrounds you can't say the same about the first.

Although I think it's laughable for a £120k salary to be considered part of the "squeezed middle" it is a good thing that he's noticing the squeeze because it means he's spending his money which keeps others wages and plenty of tax behind paid. Same reason I think that stupid footballer salaries are a good thing rather than the club owners making tons of profit.

I have. Unless you're going to pick just the last few (post economic crisis) years then income inequality is increasing.

Again completely falsifiable, but never mind.

, it's a simple case of having access to a decent and affordable/free education all the way up to graduate level, and being in an environment where learning and self-improvement is encouraged.

If that were the case then there would be a very poor correlation between a person's job 'status' (for lack of a better word) and their parent's.

However, study after study has shown that this is not the case and there are other factors at play such as social skills, business mindset, financial assistance etc

I'm not sure what part of saying that people with more money have more choices is especially the preserve of Tories.

So my sarcasm radar wasn't faulty after all 😯

I think it was the bit where you said working class parents are too thick to be able to help their kids with homework, and too stupid to realise that a decent education is a thing worth having.

Again completely falsifiable, but never mind.

If you wish to ignore the facts, you carry on.

So, binners - you consider that it is "offensive" to state that working class parents are less able than middle class parents to afford to live in a good school catchment area? Bizarre. I suggest you obtain a map of (for example) the catchment areas for Aberdeen schools, and compare it with a map of house prices. Crossing the road into the Aberdeen Grammar catchment area gives a clear bump.

Money gives you choices - that's why we have it.

I think it was the bit where you said working class parents are too thick to be able to help their kids with homework, and too stupid to realise that a decent education is a thing worth having.

Aaah - I see your problem. I didn't say either of those things, so we can narrow it down to your poor reading skills.

ransos - Member
Again completely falsifiable, but never mind.
If you wish to ignore the facts, you carry on.

On the contrary, the facts are income inequality is much lower than in previous centuries and over the past century there have been improvement, stability, deterioration and then ST improvement. So the trends are very clear, thanks! I will carry on in their knowledge.

From those distorters of truth 😉 at Harvard, the tends in the US which are not dissimilar to those in the UK:

The united states is becoming even more unequal as income becomes more concentrated among the most affluent Americans. [b]Income inequality has been rising since the late 1970s, and now rests at a level not seen since the Gilded Age—roughly 1870 to 1900,[/b] a period in U.S. history defined by the contrast between the excesses of the super-rich and the squalor of the poor.

Early in the twentieth century, the share of total national income drawn by the top 1 percent of U.S. earners hovered around 18 percent. That share hit an all-time high in 1928—when top earners took home 21.1 percent of all income, including capital gains—then dropped steadily through the next three decades. Amid the post-World War II boom in higher education, and overall economic growth, the American middle class swelled and prospered, and the top 1 percent of earners took home less than 10 percent of all income through the 1960s and 1970s. Since then, the topmost 1 percent have seen their share rise again: it shot past 15 percent in 1996 and crested at 20.3 percent in 2006, the most recent year for which numbers are available.

Its not the choices bit. I don't have an issue with that.You're stating a truism. However….

working class parents are less aware of the value of education, are less able to provide role models for education

The deeply offensive implication that the working classes are too thick to value education? Seriously? Is that because they can't afford to live in the catchment area of a decent school? Or just because they're, as a class, all so dim, generally? The thicko's eh?

Like I said…. pompous, patronising, and more importantly… completely incorrect twoddle. Actually, thinking about it…. are you Michael Gove? 😆

. It's inarguable that the long-term trend is increasing inequality.

I would suggest there is a higher portion of low income families (parents) that don't value education in comparison to middle income families. It is such factors which help to perpetuate the income divide.

Or just because they're, as a class, all so dim, generally? The thicko's eh?

More fantasy. Why not try addressing what I actually WROTE ??

For a start, let's define "class" by income, just to make things clearer.

Do you deny that there is a correlation between income and level of education? And if you don't, how can there NOT be clearer role models for education in a middle class household than in a working class household?

Aaah - I see your problem. I didn't say either of those things, so we can narrow it down to your poor reading skills.

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

Yeah I obviously can't read. It must be the council estate up-bringing 😀

Yeah I obviously can't read. It must be the council estate up-bringing

Maybe, but I was brought up on a council estate myself, so don't despair.

working class parents are less aware of the value of education, are less able to provide role models for education

Not working class as such but the people on the council estates in West London I used to have contact with with had little interest in education. Basically they saw little need to work as they had their needs met by the state and anyway good jobs weren't for the likes of them. The charity I was involved with looked to change this attitude.

On the contrary, the facts are income inequality is much lower than in previous centuries and over the past century there have been improvement, stability, deterioration and then ST improvement. So the trends are very clear, thanks! I will carry on in their knowledge.

You seem to be having trouble with basic comprehension, in particular the meaning of "the last thirty years". Still, if you wish to talk about the effect of the 1773 Enclosures act in order to win the internet, do carry on. Sensible folk who can a) read a graph and b) understand what might be relevant to today will give your posts the attention they deserve.

Edited to add: your edit to add the Harvard reference proves what I've been saying, so thanks for saving me the trouble.

Interesting programme on Radio 4 yesterday about 'pushy parents'. I can't link to it as I'm at work. They did briefly discuss the involvment in a child's education being less for parents from deprived areas (for want of a better term).

Sweeping generalisations aside of course...

Blimey, you should get a job in climate science! Anyway moving on (since the LT trends are clear)

Blimey, you should get a job in climate science! Anyway moving on (since the LT trends are clear)

Indeed they are: inequality is increasing.

Speaking of climate science, did you know that the earth was warmer 125,000 years ago than it is today? So if we apply the THM approach, we can say with confidence that the earth is getting cooler, not warmer.

[url= https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2930/14114436356_dc73563697_z.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2930/14114436356_dc73563697_z.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/nvfbbY ]cdn-media.nationaljournal.com[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/people/75003318@N00/ ]brf[/url], on Flickr

http://www.nationaljournal.com/next-economy/essay-the-growing-income-gap-in-the-u-s-harms-the-economy-20120927?page=1

Footflaps, that is perfect axis selection. Your partially prove the point, thanks. Extend the graph at either end and......

Back to the original issue on school fees - the country can't afford to school all it's children. If all Private schools closed, the parents of those kids would save a fortune in school fees, but the cost would be born by general taxation, meaning that low wage earners would then be subsidising the education of the middle classes.

Currently, anybody who sends their kids to private school pays twice - once through general taxation, then again from Net Income for private school fees.

US specific graph presumably.

US and UK trends are quite similar but not perfectly so. Of course, income inequality increased over a period between mid 70s and roughly the crisis. But that does not mean that the the LT has been upwards. We have returned and fallen back from inequality levels that have been seen in history over several cycles. It's not a brand new phenomenon.

Similarly income inequality has improved in the past few years - as I said ironically under a Tory government but don't read too much into that correlation!

Do traditional (i.e. pre-1980's) classes still exist?
As pre-1980's white collar workers have their suits & ties removed do they become blue collar workers?
Do the aristocracy still form the majority of the 1%?

Haven't we moved into the underclass / middle / superclass# model where the underclass don't work (as a wild generalisation) and neither do the superclass (who just swan about as celebs)?
Whilst the burden of payment in society is carried my the middle.

#which are the 10% of the 1% if the 1% earn over 100K.

All societies have segregation of some sorts. The constituents of each segment vary over time but they don't just disappear. Many developing economies have much higher levels of inequality than developed ones.

Not read the article, CBA - this thread is further evidence of just how wrong LHS is about absolutely everything.

A well thought out, articulate and intelligent statement.

back to the original issue on school fees - the country can't afford to school all it's children.

back to the original issue on school fees - the country can't afford to school all it's children.

Wikipedia tells me 7% of kids are in private schools.

The DFE spends about £2bn per year. Assuming all of that gets to the kids, which it doesn't, you're talking about an extra £140m per year if all those privately educated kids went state educated instead.

That's a lot of money - it's a bit more than what 1100 financial compliance bods earn - but in terms of government spending it's not a lot.

Would have to buy some land and build a few schools first which would be pricey - or just seize the private ones?

Would have to buy some land and build a few schools first which would be pricey - or just seize the private ones?

Some of the state schools in leafier suburbs will see an increase in student number, so may need extending. But, we're building and extending schools all the time so I'm sure they could easily be absorbed.

What is this 'bobbins' - lots of mention in this thread!

I see what you did there!

dantsw13 - Member

Back to the original issue on school fees - the country can't afford to school all it's children.

This is utter mince. But,

dantsw13 - Member

If all Private schools closed, the parents of those kids would save a fortune in school fees, but the cost would be born by general taxation, meaning that low wage earners would then be subsidising the education of the middle classes.

This is true.

But I'm not sure what your point is? Yes there are people that believe private schools should all be closed but they're a pretty extreme minority. The point here is, I think, that you can't really choose to send your kids to private school- and a particularily expensive one at that- then complain about your higher-end-of-the-first-world problem, and not be the subject of a righteous pisstaking.

I've got a reasonable income, I use it largely to buy ridiculously expensive pushbikes and everything that comes with it. And that's fine, it's my choice to spend money on that and not other things- as long as I don't go around complaining that life is hard because I could only buy one set of £500 suspension forks this month and I just sold one of my titanium frames. If I ever do, I reckon y'all may have the right to throw bricks at me.

I've been thinking about some of what's not said in the article.

The fact that they state they're not taking city breaks anymore implies that they're still going on other holiday(s).

By the way - bear in mind that this guy was quite possibly stitched up by the journalist to get a shock story.

By the way - bear in mind that this guy was quite possibly stitched up by the journalist to get a shock story.

The article includes this:

A survey by Nutmeg, an online savings and investment management service aimed at professionals, recently revealed that around 72 per cent of UK adults across the socio-economic spectrum have had to cut back every day expenditure due to the rising cost of their monthly bills.

The chap featured, Guy Jackson, works for Nutmeg. (Isn't LinkedIn wonderful for stalking people?)

I reckon a PR firm wrote this for a set of clients which include Nutmeg, and passed it on to the journalist.

Wikipedia tells me 7% of kids are in private schools.

The DFE spends about £2bn per year. Assuming all of that gets to the kids, which it doesn't, you're talking about an extra £140m per year if all those privately educated kids went state educated instead.

That's a lot of money - it's a bit more than what 1100 financial compliance bods earn - but in terms of government spending it's not a lot.

Erm - DfE budget is £57.6Billion

Add in the capital expenditure required to build an extra million school spaces, I would say it's quite considerable.

A well thought out, articulate and intelligent statement.

You consistently come across as selfish, shallow, money/status-obsessed, grasping, blinkered and un-self-aware. Does that help flesh it out a bit for you? 😉

A little, all it really proves is that you found a thesaurus.

There's a handy catch-all word for that Grum.

Tory 😀

Oh... And you forgot patronising

Missing ten pages.

If you're on 120k and everyone else in your vicinity is on 250k, you would be "struggling".

Im on 14k. I know people on 28,56,100k. Everybody struggles to get by: I can't afford a meal out, they can't afford a holiday home.

Everybody's got their own shit, having a decent salary doesn't automatically make you a dick.

The idea that we couldnt afford to educate all the children in the country is idiotic. Obviously some changes to the tax system might be needed but it could easily be done. I reckon mr 120k would be happy to spend 10k more on tax if he saved 45k on private education. That would leave him 35k to spend on coke and...... well you know.

He works in compliance AA, it's not the wolf of Wall Street!

Everybody's got their own shit, having a decent salary doesn't automatically make you a dick.

I think that sums it up perfectly, let's wrap it up there shall we.

You're new here aren't you.

You're new here aren't you.

He works in compliance AA, it's not the wolf of Wall Street!

He's only doing a maternity cover too.

oh please don't mention the wolf! we will start a whole new debate about rights of dwarfs and how bankers take advantage of them!

Erm - DfE budget is £57.6Billion

Add in the capital expenditure required to build an extra million school spaces, I would say it's quite considerable.

You're right, hasty Googling. That means an extra £4bn for Education spending if we were educating those privately educated kids too. Which is a lot, but it's a drop in the ocean in government spending terms.

Instead of the Telegraph chap spending £45k to send his kids to private 6th form, he'd only be paying an extra £8k in tax so he'd be quids in.

a drop in the ocean

1% on the VAT rate is a drop in the ocean, I am sure all shoppers will agree with you.

I million places looks wrong, google suggests there's under 10 million kids in school in total in the UK, so 7% of that gets you 700000 not 1 million.

Also, the basic funding info is wrong too, yes the DfE's total budget is 57.6bn but a decent chunk of that goes on tertiary education, some of it will be central services, standards, inspections etc. Can't find an actual split down to primary and secondary pupil costs but it's going to be considerably lower.

Tertiary education is in the BIS budget now isn't it?

Only the Grauniad could spin a story about people moving into self employment as being a negative thing. Oh you're self employed, poor you. Things must be dreadful.

More data on the self employed:

http://www.rsablogs.org.uk/2014/enterprise/selfemployed-unhappy-gripe

[i]What is this 'bobbins' - lots of mention in this thread![/i]

It's a phrase poor people use. 😉

Oh... And you forgot patronising

Classic pack behaviour. Good one.

Everybody's got their own shit, having a decent salary doesn't automatically make you a dick.

This.

Tory

Not quite, fiscally republican, socially democratic.

@aa if I may say you've fallen into the trap of suggesting that the extra funding required to educate the private school kids would come from an adjustment to the tax system, the good old tax the rich (ie not me).

As you know I've spent most of the last year in France where all the best schools are state run, there is the small matter that taxes for everyone are in the 40% range (at least). Make no mistake I'd love to see a top notch state system with class sizes capped at 25 but I cannot see us getting there. When the Labour party significantly increased funding for the NHS the staff took most of it in wages, good for them but no benefit for the patients.

The Self Employed. Be. Very careful about trying to interpret these stats. Being self employed gives you big tax advantages, extreme example being Greece where most Doctors are self employed so they can fiddle every which way. Set that against the fact that many people can't find traditional work so they go self employed. It's a hard one to decipher.

mefty - Member

Tertiary education is in the BIS budget now isn't it?

Hmm, it figures in the 2013 budget figures for the DfE, is that a recent change?

LHS - Member
A little, all it really proves is that you found a thesaurus.

No thesaurus here - and I didn't even go to a private school!

I imagined more UKIP than Tory binners.

Northwind - Member

Hmm, it figures in the 2013 budget figures for the DfE, is that a recent change?

Depends what you mean by tertiary

Further education is DfE and Higher education is BIS both are classed as tertiary I think.

Hmm, actually that looks like the explanation- we use tertiary as a shorthand for "everything between school and university" but it turns out we're just omitting universities because they're not relevant to us when we're talking about this stuff! So yep, my bad on the terminology.

Being self employed gives you big tax advantages

Really? If you are honest about your earnings and expenditure, then no, it doesn't really.

I have a business income that is 100% declared. Against that, I offset only genuine business expenses. The difference is my gross income, upon which I pay the same rate of tax and NI as somebody on PAYE.

Registering my business with Companies House and becoming a salaried Director on PAYE - now that will give me bigger tax advantages.

@aa if I may say you've fallen into the trap of suggesting that the extra funding required to educate the private school kids would come from an adjustment to the tax system, the good old tax the rich (ie not me).

Yeah **** it tax the poor more the dirty useless ****s and cut their benefits the scrounging parasitic ****s

@aa - tax everyone, that should be the test, will the broad population pay for it ? If you want to see increased expenditure are you personally willing to pay for it ? Without the tax paid by the 1% everyone else would be paying 30% more tax as I've posted numerous times, "taxing the rich" to pay for the latest budget increase isn't a viable strategy, you can't keep going to that well. The 50% rate showed that, the tax take went down. So if we want an increased education budget (which I do) it should be funded by a 1% increase in all tax rates or better still a 1% increase in VAT

The whole concept of wealth redistribution via tax policy is deeply flawed

Really? If you are honest about your earnings and expenditure, then no, it doesn't really

Also as a simple minimum a self employed person can pay earning 50% to his/her spouse thus having the benefit of two £10,000 tax free allowances.

The whole idea of basing policy on the fact that people will worm their way out of paying tax is deeply flawed. What other laws do we make on that basis? 'Rape is very difficult to prosecute, so let's not bother trying.'

The 50% rate showed that, the tax take went down.

I think that's been strongly contested.

"taxing the rich" to pay for the latest budget increase isn't a viable strategy, you can't keep going to that well

Why not? It's the deepest one after all.

better still a 1% increase in VAT

What? How is that better?

The whole concept of wealth redistribution via tax policy is deeply flawed

Why?

[img] [/img]

A well thought out, articulate and intelligent statement.

That's Robin Hood, widely regarded to be a good guy. So where's your argument?

Also as a simple minimum a self employed person can pay earning 50% to his/her spouse thus having the benefit of two £10,000 tax free allowances.