You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I think it's a product of capitalism. "Fair" depends on your point of view I guess.
So what's yours?
My (overwhelmingly unpopular) point of view is that you reap what you sow, everyone has a chance at making a success of it under a capitalistic system; if you don't then that's tough shit. What's your view on it?
What do you define by "sow", hard work or your parents' ability to sustain you through your education?
You don't need rich parents or an expensive education to make money by inventing things or working hard, that's obvious surely?
But the social mobility statistics would suggest otherwise. Sure, people do make better of themselves, but it's a damn sight harder than it's been since the 1970s. Unless your parents are rich of course.
Britain PLC has to compete with the rest of the world for resouces. A system which fails to make the most of its own human resourses will make it uncompetetive with countries that better exploit human capital. That means giving the poor access to education, health and providing infrastructure that makes them as productive as possible.
Taxing the poor out of education, leaving them little choice but to reamin in cheap areas where there is no work and perpetuating benefit dependancy does nothing to drive the economy forward or ultimately increase tax revenues.
Making the poor pay most of their income in tax is counter productive. Making the rich pay merely half their income in tax has little impact of their lifestyle or ability to contribute positively to society.
A notion of "ability to pay" is essential to a tax system and lacking from most the tax systems in the world. VAT is one of the bluntest tax instruments used and yet institutionalised continent wide by the EU.
The longer this government is is power the more they begin to resemble nazis.
It's comments like these that go to explaining why it took me so long to realise that Surrounded By Zulus and Zulu Eleven are (apparently) different people. That and the fact that I'm thick.
You don't need rich parents or an expensive education to make money by inventing things or working hard, that's obvious surely?
Brutally you do, if you want a house look to the bank of mum or dad, if you want a decent education move to a decent catchment area, you need to know the game, If your poor and working 16hours a day with your kids hanging around on the street, no chance. You will always get the odd person making it against the odds, but the reason they are noteworthy is because they are the exception.
And this is the thing, hard work, look around and you will see plenty of people working hard for crap money, so hard work is not the answer.
Remember that half the population is of below median intelligence, so clearly some people will be better able to do certain tasks compared to others. Effort does not lead to money.
Further the system we have, and have always had favours those with money and passively prevents those without getting to the top.
My (overwhelmingly unpopular) point of view is that you reap what you sow, everyone has a chance at making a success of it under a capitalistic system; if you don't then that's tough shit. What's your view on it?
is that a troll or just naive?
Would you like to use some statistics to show that everyone has an even chance? Why are the cabinet made up of privately educated millionaires rather than hard working council house born folk?
It is a myth of capitalism - yes you may get a richard Branson and an Alan Sugar but you also get landed gentry and inhereted wealth with little change. Old school tie network etc
You don't need rich parents or an expensive education to make money by inventing things or working hard, that's obvious surely?
yes we should all invent something and obviously someone who collects bin is lazy as is the care worker doing 60 hours a week for the minimum wage.
Capitalism is based on winners and loosers , obviously you need far more many looser than winners [ think pyramid ] so most folk will loose. If you are born into wealth you will almost certainly be wealthy and if you are born poor you will almost certainly be poor. The stats do not support your view unless you wish to give great weight to outliers and ignore the overwhelming majority. So yes some may escape [relative]poverty but most dont and hard work alone wont help you.
I stopped contributing to this when the good folk on STW pushed facts to one side to continue an argument, but what I have just read from junkyard is just laugh out loud nonsense! I had a poor family, came to England when I was 12 and have since worked bloody hard to get to where I am today. It really frustrates me when people use the argument of having money to make money. Total b@ll@cks, work hard, be honest, have integrity and live within your means.
mashiehood, no one is saying you can't make it through hard work, but the reality is that far more don't make it than do make it. I can show you people who work 60hours a week and are still relatively poor. You need to work, have the brains and a good amount of luck.
You can say you make your own luck, which is to a point true, but you still need to get the right job at the right time, which means beating the other people going for the same job, it helps to be born in the right town, to be in the right place, it helps to have a supportive family.
However the most depressing thing i have heard someone say, a reasonably bright girl, she wouldn't go onto A levels because none of her friends were going, her parents hadn't bothered. Peer pressure does matter, family background matters.
[url= http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/income_tax/table2-4.xls ]http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/income_tax/table2-4.xls[/url]
Too much middle class guilt in this thread, I'm out
Well said Mashiehood - sensible retort to the patronising and insulting BS above. So much of the current nonsense that typifies these debates stems from the fact that arguments about "what is fair" have moved on from the 18th and 19th Centuries' concept of "equality of opportunity" to the 20th and 21st Century obsession with "equality of outcome." I wonder what happened to UK/GB competiveness over this period??
There are too many Dodo's from Alice in Wonderland crying' "Everyone had won, and all must have prizes" and too few asking Carroll's follow on question, "But who will give the prizes."
Of course, having money will make life easier for some in the respects that people claim. But it was ever thus. Life is not fair - learn to live with it. We are all born into different circumstance and given access to different talents.
So we have Child A - born into a rich family enjoying the benefits that this may bring - lets say the PM
Child B - born with the natural talent to run faster than anyone else - lets say Usain Bolt
Child C - born with the ability to kick a football around better than most - Shrek
Child D - incredible dexterity that allows him to lay the piano better than most - Ling Lang
I might feel uncomfortable with this because A has reached a position that I cannot aspire to, B can run faster than I will ever be able to, C can score goals (and meet grannies) that are out of my reach, and D will lay Lizt better that I can play chopsticks. Tough, I have to live with that. If I am to argue that I have a right to penalise A for having an unfair access to money, shouldn't I handicap Usain Bolt (force him to tie his legs together), blindfold Shrek, chop of Ling Lang's fingers. Of course not, I should allow then to maximise the benefits that the unfair distribution of natural and other benefits produces.
The argument about Cabinet representation is equally stupid. So the current political elite happen to have a bias towards an Oxbridge education. What is wrong with that. For whatever reason, they have had access to the best education that the is country provides - should we not make the most of this? Would you rather go back to having a Deputy PM who was barely capable of speaking a coherent sentence, just to satisfy a vague notion of representation?
I don't go into a hospital expecting the staff of the operating theatre to be a cross section of society, I go there expecting them to be the best at operating on me successfully. I don't go to a football match to see a cross-representation of British society. Ditto, Government.
For most of the 20th Century, UK politics focused incorrectly on the search for greater equality of outcome. Money was the most obvious focus via taxation and the focus on taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor. The result - a vast redistribution of wealth - BUT and it is a big BUT, there has not been a more equitable distribution. Instead new classes of privileged have merely replaced the old - the bureaucrats, the local council officials, even TU leaders, the hedge fund managers, the footballers, Ant and Dec....Not exactly the outcome that was intended.
(BTW - Richard Branson was educated at Stowe School - hardly a rags to riches story)
[b]RJ[/b] that is income tax only isn't it? But interesting.
If you had to point to a barrier to social mobility - rather than removing 50% rate (which generates relatively little money, sends a negative message to businesses, and is just a totemic symbol that we are all suffering together...) - I would point to the disgusting way all parties have treated University education. They have encouraged the proliferation of useless courses, third-rate institutions, and an assumption that 50% of people should go to Uni. Then they have realised how expensive that is, and put in place a regime of tuition fees and lack of grant support which discourages those from families who have not been to university. This is a shitty way to treat the next generation.
How do you get to the conclusion that footballers and hedge fund managers are the beneficiaries of a massive redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor?
Would you rather go back to having a Deputy PM who was barely capable of speaking a coherent sentence, just to satisfy a vague notion of representation?
Straw man.
We actually need a large rise in top rate income tax.
This would pay for a significant increase in Welfare
Benefits.An increase long overdue and necessary.
Not much point in debating when people like monkey seem to think that economics is zero sum.
"A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position."
How is using the real-life example of John Prescott a Straw Man?...
...actually maybe you are right, perhaps he was indeed the real straw man - a man without the appropriate ability put position to be one unfortunate accident away from running the country. I had missed that. Good point Konabunny.
On the footballer and hedge fund question - its simple. When laws interfere with people's natural pursuit of their own values, they will (try to) find a way round. They will evade the law, they may break the law or they may leave the country.
In the 1980's a US economist wrote that, "when people start to break one set of laws, the lack of respect for the law inevitably spreads to all laws, even those that everyone regards moral and proper - laws against violence, theft and vandalism." Sounds familiar.
what i want to see is the best in the best jobs, that is best for the job. However the system we have is far to much promotion to limit of incompetence. Rather than taking a good worker and rewarding them in their current job there seems to be this idea that promotion is good, sometimes it is sometimes it is not. I have met to many people whose aim has been to get a promotion to get more money, but who should not be promoted because the skills they have are better used where they are.
But best also means you need to get those from the economic bottom into a position where they can demonstrate their skills. having money should buy you no favours. I want the best as my doctor, if that means the child of a doctor fine, but the chance should be there for the child of a street cleaner. Can anyone tell me that the current government is made up of the best people to run the country?
I am not in favour of trying to say you can do anything you want because it is a lie. If you are intelligent then go to university get a thinking job, but if your not then don't play games and expect someone to take on huge debts, we need plumbers, we need brickies, we need cleaners, someone has to pick the fruit in the orchards,
I do wonder if the way forward is actually to take a step back and look again at grammar schools, to look again at technical colleges, polytechnics, move away from looking solely at academic performance and putting far more effort into apprenticeships.
But i am also of the belief that inheritance tax should be raised not lowered, that salaries should be capped at the top, that tax credits should be abolished, that no job should pay less than what is needed to live on. That housing, should be cheaper i also accept that vested interests mean that the current system is what we have.
In the 1980's a US economist wrote that, "when people start to break one set of laws, the lack of respect for the law inevitably spreads to all laws, even those that everyone regards moral and proper - laws against violence, theft and vandalism." Sounds familiar.
Oh you mean the way people fiddle their expenses?
Oh you mean the way people fiddle their expenses?
Exactly - among other examples!!
But best also means you need to get those from the economic bottom into a position where they can demonstrate their skills
100% agree - equality of opportunity and one of the best ways is....
to take a step back and look again at grammar schools, to look again at technical colleges, polytechnics, move away from looking solely at academic performance and putting far more effort into apprenticeships
Far better than making places like Eton take on set quotas or create free schools as their most famous (currently) old boy seems to suggest. If you ask the heads of most of these schools they know that what you say is correct ie, to look again at Grammar Schools is a much better instrument for creating social mobility and allowing equality of opportunity without requiring @£30k for schools or @£9k for university to achieve it.
How is using the real-life example of John Prescott a Straw Man?...
Because no-one is proposing the thing that you are criticising.
On the footballer and hedge fund question - its simple. When laws interfere with people's natural pursuit of their own values, they will (try to) find a way round. They will evade the law, they may break the law or they may leave the country
This makes absolutely f'all sense as a reply to the question I asked, which was "how do you get to the conclusion that footballers and hedge fund managers are the beneficiaries of a massive redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor?". In fact, it's quite impressively disjointed.
This makes absolutely f'all sense as a reply to the question I asked, which was "how do you get to the conclusion that footballers and hedge fund managers are the beneficiaries of a massive redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor?". In fact, it's quite impressively disjointed.
I would tend to agree, footballers and hedge fund managers aren't the right example, now have a look at FTSE directors, there role is to ensure a return for shareholders, on that measure if there salaries and bonuses match the performance of the stock then fine, but it isn't and hasn't for a while. Then compare there packages with those on the shop floor, and again the two do not stack up.
I have just read from junkyard is just laugh out loud nonsense! I had a poor family, came to England when I was 12 and have since worked bloody hard to get to where I am today. It really frustrates me when people use the argument of having money to make money. Total b@ll@cks, work hard, be honest, have integrity and live within your means.
you obviously did not work hard at reading or thinking did you?
You get the odd exception who works hard and breaks through but it is far from typical as all the stats on social mobility previosuly presented demonstrate. No one has said it is impossible just hughly unlikely. It is not alevel playing field or a true meritocracy nor is ther ethe same access to opportunity. The inference there is that everyone who does not make it is lazy and that is BS
sensible retort to the patronising and insulting BS above
WOW poweful words and what an example you used there. 3 get there because of what they have [ natural /meritocratic] and how hard they work and one because of who they were born to. If you cannot see the difference between the three and someoen form born to millionaiires, educated at Eton and joinindg the Bullingdon club then there is little point explaning it further to you.
For whatever reason, they have had access to the best education that the is country provides
could you remind us of the rates of private v public schools in Oxbridge graduates? It is money that primarily got the majority there even though your whole rant is to suggest money is not a factor in what you achieve in life... you cannot even pick good examples to demonstrate this view.
You get the odd exception who works hard and breaks through... ...No one has said it is impossible just hughly unlikely
The concept that [b]any[/b]body can be successful, is not the same as [b]every[/b]body can be successful.
The fact that, by your own admission, those who work hard [b]can[/b] break through, proves that the system works!
Celebs and footballers get paid huge sums, but they don't just sit on it at home, they go spend it. I know that Michael Owen keeps the economy going very nicely in the Cheshire/Welsh borders with all his stables and horses. Katy Price spent a fortune on a pink Range Rover from a dealer near where I live. So Celebs & footballers do add to the economy.
The that concept that anybody can be successful, is not the same as every[b]body can be successful.The fact that, by your own admission, those who work hard [b]can break through, proves that the system works!
But the system doesn't work, you only have to look at the quality of those at the top. If the system worked those at the top would be the best and clearly in many cases they are not. Hard work does not get you to the top, too often it is who you know not what you know that gets you through.
Hard work does not get you to the top
Yep, lazy b'stard shirkers the lot of them:
[img] 
[/img]
ice cream/care homes/gyms
logistics
knickers and pens
ceramics/textiles/holidays
phones
A complete shortage of opportunities for people to make good for themselves in the UK isn't there!
Fine then, "Usually hard work doesn't get you to the top" if you prefer.
Any evidence that their work ethic is any stronger than anyone else's?
no it proves that some can for it to be true all would have to. Are you really claiming we live in a meritocracy and that wealth offers you no advantage in life ? are the people foolishly sending their kids to private school - as has been mentioned oxbridge graduates do so much better and yet they get there disproportionately from private schools.
To argue their is equality of opportunity irrespective of wealth is ludicrous and not even worthy of debate or serious consideration.
You will be telling me next that rupert murdochs son got where he is today due to hard work rather than who his dad is I assume or that the Duke of Westminster got where he is today due to hard work.
exception - One that is excepted, especially a case that does not conform to a rule or generalization
so those are the exceptions, and out of interest what are there backgrounds?
You can argue as much as you like but the brutal reality is that for the majority hard work is not going to get you to the top. It is far more complicated than that.
I don't see carers in the working 60hours a week, and i mean working not skiving off in front of some PC or on their way to some lunch meeting, earning £100k a year?
Nope, I'm saying that there is nothing [u]stopping[/u] anyone in the UK, from even the humblest of backgrounds, being a success, other than luck and perspiration.
You still seem to be using equality of outcome as the measure of equality of opportunity 🙄
Nope, I'm saying that there is nothing stopping anyone in the UK, from even the humblest of backgrounds, being a success, other than luck and persipiration.
True there is nothing stopping anyone succeeding, if they are LUCKY, but to be honest i would rather this country relied more on ability than on luck. Can you honestly tell me that David Cameron is the best candidate for PM?
Zulu-Eleven - MemberNope, I'm saying that there is nothing stopping anyone in the UK, from even the humblest of backgrounds, being a success, other than luck and perspiration.
Well that's all right then- all you have to do to make a success out of nothing is work like a dog, and be incredibly lucky. I'm sure that's a great comfort for all those who work like dogs and then aren't incredibly lucky.
Northwind, you're still using [i]equality of[/i] outcome as the measure of [i]equality of[/i] opportunity.*
*[i]edited to clarify point[/i]
Hey, we'd all like to have a ten inch cock, but that's life isn't it?
I suppose some of us are just lucky 😆
Zulu-Eleven - MemberNorthwind, you're still using outcome as the measure of opportunity.
Of course- you can't possibly deny that there's a correlation.
Correlation does not prove causation (also, see my edit above)
Zulu-Eleven - MemberCorrelation does not prove causation
Correct. But in this case, do you deny it? Increased opportunity certainly leads to improved outcomes.
True there is nothing stopping anyone succeeding, if they are LUCKY, but to be honest i would rather this country relied more on ability than on luck. Can you honestly tell me that David Cameron is the best candidate for PM?
Surely LUCK is only one, and one very small, element in achieving success.
Surely LUCK is only one, and one very small, element in achieving success.
Luck is one aspect, but so is personality, intelligence, and i would suggest crucially birth.
If you are born into money you have a far greater chance than those born in the gutter.
Junkyard - I guess you understand the expression, "if the cap fits, wear it?"
Ok before I do something a lot more interesting like going out on my bike, I will answer your points and those of mrmo (crikey, we were coming close to a consensus at one stage!!):
1. I don't understand the logic of a stance that is happy to generalise that people who have been successful in monetary terms (and does that = success BTW?) have not worked for it, while lots of poor people work like a dog but do not get rewarded. That is simply facile.
2. I used the footballers as an example because they caught my eye in a lot of the paper debate over the weekend. There are parallel arguments here admittedly but not disjointed ones. The first point I was making is that when people see obstacles being placed in the way of them receiving the rewards of their labour (eg high tax rates), they will do something about it. I have some (albeit limited) experience of contracts here and am aware of how things are structured to avoid these obstacles - so yes, they have been beneficiaries. Second, do you not see the absurdity of the amounts of disposable income that low income households spend on football tickets/sky sports/replica kit which is transferred almost directly to those on the pitch - its hard to design a model that does this more successfully (I am being ironic here BTW). The business model is even worse than banking for being designed to benefit the employees before anyone else. But I guess that is their choice, but please if you want to spend your money in this manner rather than on education etc, then live with the consequences.
3. It is illogical to separate the different factors that luck of birth brings - the only reason for separating the money question is that money invites envy more easily. I was not born with the money or privilege that DC has/had, nor the skill of a Bolt, Shrek or Ling Lang. But I have no right to take any of that away from them. They are lucky and blessed to have these benefits and should do everything they can to use them sensibly....which leads on to...
4. ....why waste the skills and experience that Eton/Oxbridge education gives. Far better that this is put to good use than let the politics of envy result in it being wasted.
As Zulu-Eleven and I have stated before, your are mistaking equality of opportunity with equality of outcome. There is no moral or any other right to equality of outcome. So to borrow a quote, "If you cannot see the difference [s]between the three and someoen form born to millionaiires, educated at Eton and joinindg the Bullingdon club [/s]then there is little point explaning it further to you." 😉
Now there's a few hours of sunlight left - where's my bike?
p.s. LUCK is vastly under-rated as a contributor to success.
Mrmo
Lets say I took a representative sample of the community, and gave them ten thousand pounds each, to invest in whatever they wanted.
A year later, I came back for the results - some might have invested it by buying aloe vera, some might buy bike parts to sell on Ebay, some might have started making and selling hand made birthday cards, some might have bought a car and become a taxi driver, and some might have gone into the casino and put it all on red...
What I can say for sure, is that some would have lost it all, and some would have multiplied it many, many times over.
In my example, what causative correlation is there between equality of opportunity, and equality of outcome? Would you suggest in any way that the fact some people lost it all, and others made a million, was unfair?
to reply
1. i dont understand how you dont get this there are thousands of examples of people inheriting wealth/opportunity and millions of people who work hard and dont get wealthy. Why is this hard to comprehend?People are saying that just because you are wealthy it does not mean you have earnt it. Wealthy folk are more likely to have wealthy off spring and poor folk more likely to have poor kids - this is not a debatable point. Perhaps you can exaplin how murdochs son or the duke of westminster worked hard ?
2 & 3. Three of them were lucky - you seem to think being born to wealthy parents is lucky rather than causal - whatever kids these rich folk have will all be "lucky". As you note we could all become a great football player , pianist or sprinter we cannot all be born to millionaire parents unless everyone who has kids is a millionaire. In your example three are too do with merit [ poverty is not a bar to being a sprinter. footballer or pianist but it is a bar to going to eton and therefore makes it harder to go to oxbridge etc] Also the talent ["luck"] of the other three belongs to them the wealth ["luck"] comes from DC parents so it is nothing to do with his talents. Again I cannot see why this confuses you.
4. Apparently everyone form oxbridge earned it, worked ghard and wealth was not a factor here. The % of intake from private educated individuals borne of wealthy parents will of course demonstrate the equality of opportunity irrespective of wealth you stress so much. I note you chose not to engage on this point.
your are mistaking equality of opportunity with equality of outcome.
It is ridiculous to claim we have equality of opportunity - which is to say that wealth confers no advanatge on you. You even accept wealthy DC is "lucky" how can he be? He just has the same opportunity as the person borne to poverty apparently 🙄
It is not credible to claim we live in a meritocracy or that there is no relationship between opportunity / outcome or there is an equal opportunity irrespective of wealth as your "lucky" DC example shows.
What about the people who inherited money and pissed it up the wall Junky?
Those who lost the lot, spent it all on slow racehorses...
People are saying that just because you are wealthy it does not mean you have earnt it.
And just because someone is poor, it doesn't mean that they are a "victim" who didn't have the chances that others did!
[b]Junkyard[/b]
I'd agree with you that success based on inheriting money rather than being born with ability seems unfair. And we should be aiming for equality of opportunity for all based on their potential.
However - lots of the success of the kids from well-off families is not necessarily down to the money the parents have. Some of it may be down to innate ability and the genetics of being born to parents who may earn more [i]because[/i] they are more intelligent, some of it may be down to being brought up in an atmosphere where education and work are valued more.
Another aspect is the way that amongst boys in some groups (social and ethnic) it is not seen as cool to study or to achieve.
And then you introduce the Class Warrior - Oxbridge thing... well the colleges there are reaching out trying to recruit excellence, but lots of State Schools seem not to be pushing their pupils in that direction. It is changing though. And in 2009/10 73% of the Oxford University intake was from households with an income of less than £50,000 per year. This hardly suggests that most people get in because of tons of parental dosh does it?
lots of the success of the kids from well-off families is not necessarily down to the money the parents have
Of course that is true but it does not disprove that wealth confers advantage to you as clearly it does.
And then you introduce the Class Warrior - Oxbridge thing
if you read back someone else brought it up I responded.
How would it be a class war point if it was equally open to all classes?
Your statistic is incorrect btw so I assume it must show what i said
The breakdown of household income for 2009/10 show that[b] nearly 73% of Oxford's intake that year were students from households with an income above £50,000[/b]. This is the cut-off point for a government maintenance grant.
As only 5 % of households earn over 50 k it may well
suggests that most people get in because of tons of parental dosh does it?
correct figure
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/mar/11/oxford-record-state-school-intake
Household income data
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_in_the_United_Kingdom#Post_tax_household_income
Zulu-Eleven - Member
In my example, what causative correlation is there between equality of opportunity, and equality of outcome? Would you suggest in any way that the fact some people lost it all, and others made a million, was unfair?
It's a fairly outlandish example. But clearly some of your group will have a huge advantage over others- there's still no equality of opportunity.
zulu eleven, whilst i agree with what you are saying re giving money, what if you take that sample, give some of them money, some a little, some a lot and some none, some of those with money will blow it all, some will start with nothing and make some money. But those who have the most money are the ones who are best placed to make more. Now you add a bit more, those with money are given extra education and those with least money are given the poorest education.
I guess think of leafy surrey and inner city London.
That is more like life than your example.
Now if you have that same sample, look at each individual, to some you give money to start a business, to others you give the money in the form of education, to others you give them a plane ticket and tell them to get lost...
That is the system i would prefer, one that looks at each individual and plays to their strengths, a system that provides opportunity.
No system can be fool proof, but i would rather the system gave opportunity.
Blimey Junkyard - are you just trying to have fun and provoke debate by deliberately misquoting what I am saying 😉 ?Thanks goodness I have had a good ride before reading this!!
to reply
1. ....there are thousands of examples of people inheriting wealth/opportunity...and millions of people who work hard and dont get wealthy.True...
Why is this hard to comprehend?Equally true..
People are saying that just because you are wealthy it does not mean you have earnt it.It isn't.
Wealthy folk are more likely to have wealthy off spring and poor folk more likely to have poor kids - this is not a debatable point.Quite possibly, so what? What is the point of such a generalisation? I assume that you are not denying that equally there are lots of people who have become wealthy and have earned it. This is not an argument on either sided, merely observations.
Perhaps you can exaplin how murdochs son or the duke of westminster worked hard ?Again most probably, but that is an outcome and I am not sure that criticising the former is going to help the latter.
Three of them were lucky - you seem to think being born to wealthy parents is lucky rather than causalI have no idea as I do not know them. Equally how can anyone conclude that they haven't worked hard. Sure, they have both had advantages of being born into new/old money. Nothing that I/you can do or should do about that. They may have benefitted from nepotism in their working lives and one/either/both may have been involved in illegal activity. But how do I know. This sounds like a chippy comment based on envy more than an serious point. I seriously doubt that you can run News International or the DoW's estate by sitting on your backside.
- whatever kids these rich folk have will all be "lucky"Your are right - it is luck and essentially random and very few people are fortunate to have that luck (although it might not always be good luck...see below)
As you note we could all become a great football player , pianist or sprinterPossibly but not necessarily...plenty of rich kids have had miserable lives to falsify this point.
In your example three are too do with merit [ poverty is not a bar to being a sprinter. footballer or pianist but it is a bar to going to eton and therefore makes it harder to go to oxbridge etc]I haven't said this at all. In fact the odds of being a great football player, concert pianist or world record are very slim indeed. That is what makes them special. It would not matter how hard I work, I was not born with the talent to run <10 second 100m. I was not lucky in that respect.
Also the talent ["luck"] of the other three belongs to them the wealth ["luck"] comes from DC parents so it is nothing to do with his talents.Ok - now you are starting to say something interesting. I have no doubt that Rooney (I will stop the infantile reference to Shrek now), Bolt and Ling Lang have all worked very hard to get to where they are. And I applaud them for that. But, and this is the subtle but important bit, they have also had the luck in nature's lottery that has given them talents that I will never have. Not everyone has the opportunity to achieve what they have achieved, not matter how hard they work. Life is unfair - Scar was correct in this observation.
In a nutshell, there are people who resent the inheritance of property but not the inheritance of talent. I think this is where we disagree. As much as I would like more of both, I do not resent those who have more than me. They have been dealt luckier cards in some ways, I have been dealt them in others.
I agree that poverty is a bar to going to Eton and therefore possibly with Oxbridge. But as I mentioned before, the answer is not to attack Eton (it hasn't done anything wrong and this is not the solution, it is merely envy) rather it is to focus on giving others the opportunity to achieve an place at Oxbridge - hence I agree about grammar schools.
Apparently everyone form oxbridge earned itTo a point, but doesn't genetics have anything to do with it? It is not as clear cut as you make out. Have you ever considered that DC may have worked hard at some point in his life?
worked ghard...probably true...and wealth was not a factor here....undoubtedly true especially these days...The % of intake from private educated individuals borne of wealthy parents will of course demonstrate the equality of opportunity irrespective of wealth you stress so much. I note you chose not to engage on this point....It is ridiculous to claim we have equality of opportunity...certainly "a'' factor, but I haven't argued otherwise.
At no point have I said that equality of opportunity exists - this is what you are missing. What I have said is that we should focus on achieving this rather than focusing on equality of outcome - hence my quote from Alice in Wonderland right at the start. To come back to the issue of higher rates of tax, I believe that this focuses (1) too much on equality of outcome (potentially) at the expense of equality of opportunity (which as you say, still does not exist sufficiently) and (2) doesn't achieve either more revenue or better income distribution.
nor evidently without being related to the owner which is the point. He is there because of who his dad is not his work ethic.I seriously doubt that you can run News International or the DoW's estate by sitting on your backside.
Possibly but not necessarily...plenty of rich kids have had miserable lives to falsify this point.
I agree but we should not give disproportionate weight to exemplars from both poor and rich. Exemplars exist but social mobility from the real world shows this is an infrequent occurrence.
i cant really do much about evolution. It is some way from redistributive taxes and promoting social mobility/opportunity programmes to eugenics. It may be unfair but it is also a lottery. Wealth is not quite the same lottery though , like genetics, it runs in families 😉there are people who resent the inheritance of property but not the inheritance of talent.
it is merely envy
it is not envy to dislike injustice. Wishing for everyone to be treated equally and have an equal chance in life is not envy.
Have you ever considered that DC may have worked hard at some point in his life?
plenty of people work hard, care workers on the minimum wage, carers, etc but hard work alone is not the reason for DC success. Granted he is not quite royalty so he did have to put in some effort 😀 The real issue is would someone from poverty , who worked as hard as DC, achieve the same? We both accept eton would have been harder to access so it seems unlikely.What I have said is that we should focus on achieving this rather than focusing on equality of outcome
I am not sure how you hope to achieve equality of opportunity whilst accepting that wealth gives advantages if you dont address this as well.
I dont disagree with the sentiment nor do I disagree with grammar schools but that is another thread.
[b]Junkyard[/b] apologies - you are right and I was wrong. Nots sure why I read "above" as "below". I was surprised by the statistic - now I know why... 😳
time to exit with tail between legs...
Touche!! 😉
I am not sure how you hope to achieve equality of opportunity whilst accepting that wealth gives advantages if you dont address this.
Good question - it is possible. I can accept wealth and the advantages that it gives in exactly the same way as I can accept the unequal distribution of natural talent. But, I prefer to think about ways that can create the opportunity to create wealth (however, defined) rather than ways that seek to give everyone the same outcome. In that we at least agree on one thing - grammar schools!! But as you say that is another thread!!
As an aside (and this is not a value statement in any way), I was chatting to someone recently whose son was privately educated. Joking apart, the one thing that struck me from the conversation about his son's timetable was how hard he was asked to work. A long day, followed by two compulsory homework sessions that didn't finish until 9:00 in the evening. So without commenting on any of the other issue, I would guess that he had at least 20-40% more organised work time that peers in state schools. That alone is going to help get better grades - Whether he worked hard during this time, I don't know..I didn't like to ask!!
stoatsbrother- you leave with my respect few on STW would have even replied - we all get stuff wrong on here but very few front up to it.
Chapeau [ roadie term - doffs cap/salutes]
I agree hurtmore but I cant see how you will achieve it without redistributing wealth to some degree.
I’m a 40% payer – when you add on NI and 9% student loan* i’m knocking on the door of 60% tax for any pay increase. If i’m completely honest work is a means to an end for me – I enjoy my job, but certainly wouldn’t be doing it if I didn’t have to (i’d be off mountain biking round the world!) – i’m working to live rather than the other way round. I can only speak from personal experience, but for me the fact that i’d only see 40% of any pay rise does not incentivise me to get a dump load more pressure and responsibility.
I don’t think Britain is a particularly unfair society, I did benefit from two good parents, but I went to a very average comprehensive, and had to work hard at college and uni to get a decent job. Certainly didn’t get it all provided for me on a plate. Hard work seems to do ok as far as I can see, same for all my mates as well – we come from a diverse set of backgrounds, but none of us it doing badly.
As for social mobility I’d assume that anyone with half a brain can see which careers are going to pay well and which aren’t, and make a choice between earning loads and not earning loads. There isn’t anything wrong per say with either choice, but it does seem silly to moan that a social worker (for example) earns less than a hospital consultant - the laws of supply and demand apply to the labour market so if you want to earn a lot, learn to do something not every can do (or chooses to do) and you’re set as far as I can see. The market clearly thinks that a bunch of people could be social workers but only a small number of people can / want to put the time in to become hospital consultants.
*A tax in all but name.
Been away for the weekend (very nice, thanks for asking) so interested to see the way this thread has developed. It seems to have gone a bit OT, but never mind.
Personally I have very little truck with the "all my success is down to shear hard work, anyone could do it" POV. Like some others here I know people who work their asses off for very little financial gain and others who seem to earn ridiculous sums of money for apparently only moderately taxing (no pun intended) work.
HOWEVER... If it were the case that the cream always rises to the top, then surely just paying a bit more tax would hardly be an insurmountable obstacle to those destined for greatness? (Or could it be that most of them know damn well they don't especially deserve their wealth?)
Just coming back to some of the other comments:
@Poly, the notion that people decide to move from their 40k position to a 50k position purely on financial grounds seems laughable to me. Once people are in that middle/upper management world it seems to me they are far more motivated by power/influence than money anyway and the pay rises just come along as a bonus.
@RJ I can't beleive you actually think that that [url= http://www.sidesofmarch.com/index.php/archive/2011/04/25/beer-and-taxes/ ]Tenth Man[/url] sh1t is really applicable in real life? You'll be teling us that a plane can't take off on a moving conveyor next. But just to join in for a moment, how do you think the Tenth Man feels now that he has no friends and has to sit around at home on his own of an evening? And lets face it, he probably only got into that position by exploiting the other nine in the first place. As I said, it is up to the rich to spread their money around a bit - otherwise revolution!
Or to put it another way:
[i]Lord Finchley tried to mend the Electric Light
Himself. It struck him dead: And serve him right!
It is the business of the wealthy man
To give employment to the artisan.
[/i]
Anyway back to the OP - no this is not a BBC campaign. Why do you think an organisation widely believed to be too left wing by the Tories would do that? Or the Guardian who also covered it a lot.
Yes, why indeed, that is my very question. I wouldn't expect them to do it, but my point is that they are doing it.
I prefer to think about ways that can create the opportunity to create wealth (however, defined) rather than ways that seek to give everyone the same outcome.
OBVIOUSLY taxing the rich at 50% IS NOT "seeking to give everyone the same outcome"
So if you want those of us who differ in outlook from you to take you seriously, then stop insulting our intelligence.
But to address the arguable part of your point (which I'm going to characterise as "trickle down being preferable to level down") I still think you're wrong. There is NO trickle down effect. Money continues to be concentrated more and more in the hands of fewer and fewer people. That is a fact. And the reason it happens is BUILT IN to a debt based economy. When money is lent at interest it is BOUND to happen and the only way that that can be adjusted is by redistribution. Sure there will be individuals who make a lot of money through business, but they are actually a small part of the problem. The main part of the problem is the accumulation of more money simply from having money to begin with.
But then of course you also have to think about what the aims of redistribution should be - how should the taxes be spent, which hasn't even been addressed here (don't you think it's important?). Clearly if the money were being spent on new plasma tellys for workshy benefits scroungers that would be a slightly different issue to it being spent on education (giving youngsters that equality of opportunity that you are keen on). But I'm sure we can all trust the Tories to spend our money wisely eh?
Rightplacerightime - you can accuse me of many things, but insulting your intelligence is not one of them.
I think ultimately we all have the same objective - higher economic growth and a better distribution of income - but we differ in how those objectives can be achieved. Leaving aside the moral/emotional issues involved this is not surprising as the evidence from the economics profession remains mixed. For example, the IFS and the Treasury come to different conclusions about the impact of the 50p tax rate. Why? Because while the concept of elasticity of supply is easy to describe on paper, it is very difficult to measure accurately in practice, plus as has been pointed out by others, the degrees of causation are very difficult to prove. Economic history is littered by controversies over the shape of demand and supply curves - and the answers will not be found on SWT!!
So where does this leave us? I'm not sure. Whatever the links (perceived or otherwise) we live in a society that carries a relatively high tax burden. Despite this, we agree that income distribution remains heavily skewed and largely unchanged over time, although the constituent parts of this distribution have changed - hence my example of footballers. A further irony is that income inequality actually increased under a Labour government. Even worse, ONS analysis suggests that we have to resort to the short term solution of benefits before income inequality is addressed and only slightly even then. No way to run an economy.
RPRT - of course, it is important to consider how government money is spent. But, all other things being equal, taxation and government spending have a neutral effect on aggregate demand. One is a withdrawal that funds the other which is an injection. Net effect - neutral.
I think ultimately we all have the same objective - higher economic growth and a better distribution of income - but we differ in how those objectives can be achieved.
I am not sure that is the case, many of the wealthiest seem to see it as a competition, where their relative success is more important than overall success, hence seeing tax as a burden rather than an investment is society to everyone's benefit.
MSP - I meant on this thread.
elasticity of supply
how does this apply to taxation?
My understanding [ i did an A level over 20 years ago so be impressed] is that this is to do with how much a unit increase in price affects the supply of a product. i dont see how it applies to taxation can you explain ?
Please dont show me the laffer curve in response as it is not matched by real world data which does tend to show you get mor emoney if you tax higher rates.
You keep saying the uk is a high tax country - who are you comparing us to ? Tax havens?
g8 by rank - tax as a percentag eof GDP
Please note we have a NHS which would remove circa 8% if we changed this to a "private company" rather than a tax.
usa-26.9
japan-27.4
canada-32
UK-39
germany-40.1
italy - 42.6
France-46.1
It is not really accurate to describe us a high tax considering we have the lowest of our EU competitors.
I think a bit like you calling our tax "penal" you are just giving your own view rather than a fact.
THM
I think ultimately we all have the same objective - higher economic growth
No, we don't.
I don't want higher economic growth, because I realise that we live on a finite planet.
I know you won't agree with my point of view, but you seem to have a fundamental inability to grasp this idea even as concept.
GDP as a measurement of progress is a busted flush.
But, all other things being equal, taxation and government spending have a neutral effect on aggregate demand.
Again, you seem to be unable to think in anything other than economic terms. The most important aspect of Government spending isn't whether or not it creates "demand", it's whether people get educated, made well, stopped from starving/rioting etc.
Again, you seem to be unable to think in anything other than economic terms.
That argument works both ways though, doesn't it? When you're there saying that people don't have equality, because Nurses work really hard but don't get paid as much as they're worth (apparently) - then the counter argument is that money isn't everything... Investment bankers who went to Eton may get better paid, but that doesn't mean they are better off!
They may not be any happier - that's true, but I think that's a point in support of my view, not yours.
Having lots of money in some cases gives one group of people power over others. I think that's wrong. That doesn't mean I think there should be a free for all, but I don't think the amount of cash one has is a very good measure of the amount of influence you should have. That's one reason that I'd like to see a more even distribution of cash than we currently have.
Personally I'm not terribly driven by money and I'm not particularly after any more for myself, but I do see the hugely corrosive effects that the profligacy of the super rich has on society, particularly amongst those at the less financially well off end of the spectrum who are also sucked in by consumerism.
[img] 
[/img]
Personally, I'd prefer a method of organic, sustainable farming of the rich, but it's a start.
OK , JY, I will try to answer both!!
On the tax ranking issue - very good question.
My original comment was based on the KPMG stats. This is arguably an overly simplistic set of data as it merely compares marginal rates of taxation. On this basis, the UK has the 83 out of 86 highest rate of marginal tax. Hence my subjective conclusion that we have a penal rate of tax 😉
Thinking about it, it is probably better to use effective rates of tax. The OECD did a study on this. It still shows us as having a relatively high rate of effective tax (ie, including social security contributions etc) and ranks us as 6th highest among 30 economies. But in this case, the gap between the UK and other economies is not a high/penal (you chose :wink:) as when you only look at marginal tax rates.
On tax and elasticity of supply, my understanding (gulp!) is that tax affects the price or labour supply ie, if you increase/decrease tax this reduces or increases the price that we get from supplying our labour. A change in tax, will have an income effect and a substitution effect and the net effect of these will determine the overall impact and elascticity of supply. There is lots of debate about these effects and the shape and hence elasticity of labour supply - particularly on whether they differ over time and at different levels of income. My understanding FWIW, is that elasticity of supply increases at higher levels. This is why (leaving any value judgements aside) I do not support higher tax rates - if my understanding is correct, they will not increase revenue that RPRT (and I) wants to spend on educating people, making them well and stopping them starving and rioting. Please do no assume that I am a Tory here - people on both sides of the political spectrum find themselves on both sides of the debate here!! What is also interesting/boring (again you chose) is that there is lots of debate about how these effects vary at different levels eg, 40p, 50p etc. Taxable income elasticity (ie the extent to which taxable income responds to a change in the tax rate) is linked and is another hotly debated issue eg, IFS versus Treasury. There are far more qualified economists at both organisations than you and me (I guess) so if they can't agree, I doubt that we will here!!
Happiness - I was wondering when this would creep into the [s]argument debate! Believe it or not, but given the choice, people will pick a well-paid job with a less happy lifestyle (long hours, stress, uninteresting tasks) over a less well-paid job with a happier lifestyle. That is the main finding from an experiment involving thousands of adults and students conducted by a team of economists.
The researchers asked people to choose between a number of scenarios. Choices included picking either a job paying £49,000 per year which lets you get 7.5 hours of sleep a night or a job that pays £73,000 but which allows just 6 hours sleep. Many gave one answer for what would make them happiest (usually more sleep, less money) and another answer for what option they would choose (more money, less sleep). They would often choose an unhappy option if they thought it would give them greater purpose, social status, control or help their family.
The lesson for the government is simple: ditch all the nonsense about trying to promote happiness, which in fact merely reduces opportunities. At a time when the proportion of young people not in work, education or training is at a record high, we need more jobs and more economic growth, not mumbo-jumbo and compulsory reeducation. We need to boost Gross Domestic Product (GDP), not worry about Gross National Happiness (GNH). The previous government’s obsession with our “work-life” balance was always based on a meaningless artificial dichotomy. It some cases its sole purpose was to justify laziness and a culture of entitlement. It certainly feels very 2007 to speak in those terms these days. If we want to afford to consume more in the years ahead – including more healthcare and other services – we will need to work harder, longer and smarter to pay for it.
mashie,
I think you have neatly summed up the exact opposite of my POV.
rp - sorry! I think we all would love to live in a 'utopian' world, but some of the thoughts / ideologies on here are too simplistic and not grounded on realistic principles
I sense an implied criticism.
OK then, lets look at GDP.
What do you think would be the ideal rate of growth of GDP?
Most economists today agree that 1.5-2% GDP growth per year is the most that our economy can safely maintain without causing negative side effects. Studies have shown that over the past 20 years, annual GDP growth over 2% has caused a 0.3% drop in unemployment for every percentage point over 2%.
However, growth needs to be carefully balanced because over time, the growth in GDP causes inflation, either through oversupply of money or through the effects of low unemployment (goods and services will increase faster than supply, causing prices to rise, or higher commodity prices, raw material costs).
So, its a fine balancing act, I see the next twenty years as being an age of austerity, partly due to the over reliance by man kind on finite resources. We will have to make tough choices, if we continue to consume at our current rate than inflation and low growth will hurt us all, hitting the very poor the hardest (not just in the UK but also the third world)
The age of auterity will be unpopular, governments will fall, there will be riots on the streets, debates about the gap between the rich and the poor will divide everyone, but I am a firm believer that our habbits / expectations / desires need to be rebalanced if we are to survive for the long term and leave a leagcy our kids can be proud of.
RPRT - you started this thread by questioning whether the BBC had a 'hidden agenda' and seemed concerned about a lack of balance. Interestingly two days before your post, they had the following on their website:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/seealso/2011/09/daily_view_should_highest_earn.html
Not necessarily the commentators that I would choose but balanced enough (surely) for your fears to be unwarranted. I am sure you will enjoy the blog of Richard Murphy!
And for some light-hearted relief (including Laffer/Laughter curves) try this:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/05fc4fd4-da18-11e0-b199-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1Xg0q7VIG
mashie,
nice bit of cutting and pasting, but I asked what [b]you[/b] think. Did you not have anything in mind until you found those first couple of paras?
THM,
That article in itself seems reasonably balanced, but it hardly balances the two headline news articles.
i give up!
why so soon mashie that is the third time I have read that cut and pasted on STW- keep it up
Hopefully one of the times I read it it will actually give a reference to the study and some actual details....fingers crossed dont let me down- Economist studying social values whatever next? Psychologists on macro economics? Shall i just cut and past my response ?
WTF are you doing mashie saying reduced unemployment is a negative effect of GDP growth 😯 Dont all right wingers maintain unemployment is because they are workshy shysters rather than because it as an attempt to control inflation "finally balance growth v Negative stuff like low unemployment 😯
TBH inflation matters not one jot if you have no work or wealth or income. It is off course very importnat if you have great personal wealth a swe dont want that to be reduced by inflation . Heartless and I am not even that convinced by the economic argument
mashie,
I am genuinely interested in what you think. But just cutting and pasting someone else's opinion, without even attributing it isn't very interesting. If I wanted to know what some random economists think then I could just stick to Googling and not hang around forums.
I only asked what you thought GDP should be because you said:
We need to boost Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
I was kind of expecting you to have some sort of figure in mind.