... to think that most MNers live in a bubble?

[frgr]

Seriously, the amount of times I read on here about "oh we earn 70k a year but we're really struggle to provide for little Jacob's polo lessons this year" (or some other such shite).

In real life, the average income of my family and friends is probably circa the national average. I know for a fact that my BIL is on around £6/hr and works 42 hours a week, I know that my best friend's total family income is about 22k because she was talking about mortgages a month ago... I'm talking about hard working people who go out come rain or shine and do their day's work, to provide for their families.... and then I log on here and find out MNers are posting trivial shit about being unable to afford XYZ and feeling hard done by on their incomes of "only" 3x the national average.

I don't know if I've become more sensitive to this crap since starting re-posting on here last year (after a break of about 3 years), but it seems to me that certain members of MN are totally and utterly oblivious as to what the average family is having to endure during this recession.

It's fucking unbelievable, it really is.

In your opinion, why are so many MNers out of touch with reality? Does this site cater to a different class than me? Are avg MNers just generally deluded - do I even belong here any more, with our 21k combined income, worrying about where the next school trip fee is coming from despite the fact that both of us work?

Christ.

I'm not sure if this sort of determined ignorance is why I am involved in education or why it frustrates me at times. Bonsoir, you are (I imagine) an intelligent woman. Are you really so completely incapable of seeing beyond isolated examples amongst your own friends and family, or are you just putting it on for the sake of being controversial? That was a serious question and not an attempt to have a go, by the way, although it no doubt sounds a little irritable.

LeQ our DH's share something in common then: DH also had a Spectrum before anyone else and was making money writing games for publications from around the age of 13.

I;m not sure its a commercial talent as such though: I have to press him hard at times to make sure he earns his worth and doesn;t work for negligible amounts. it's more a drive to produce something of note, if that makes sense? He's quite competitive (as am I) in terms of challenging himself.

I also agree about the value of seeing someone else working; when the business has struggled it;s something we remember: that the boys are seeing DH and I fighting, studyinga dn working- and you cannot put enough value on that.

DS1 has a touch of what some mention though: ay 11 he makes and sells (beaitiful) jewellery to friends and family and at school fairs. He makes enough to buy himself the bits he wants- a hamster cage and the animal to go in it, a new DS game etc. He just seems a nnatural in a family of people who tend to work hard for otehrs (both our fathers were builders self employed whose business aprtners pulled out and left them with debt so we would enver either of us enter into a aprtnership bar with each other perhaps).

DS2 doesn;t have that drive or talent, he ahs others. I;d be amazed if ds2's bank account is half ds1's in twenty years, though I suspect ds2 will do far better wrt to relationships etc.

I think you are being obstinate and obtuse, BoffinMum. It is hardly rocket science to know that we are all a product of both our genes and our environment.

People who claim that genes have very little to do with who they are and what they have become usually have fragile egos and an overinflated sense of their own achievements...

#the only one who positively enjoys having a little group of girls running after him trying to catch him.# I think that's more about attention; all mine are show offs in their own way and adore just this sort of thing: DH a womaniser? Quite the opposite: I was his forst (and I pray last) partner.

I can see why she might ascribe such behaviour to the situation but I really would be amazed. INterpretation counts for so very much.

BA tyhatb only works if one has so called 'good' genes surely?

I would atguer I have achieved as much as my parents but very different and that is becuase I think personality traits are inherited (extroversion as in your friend's son, drive, talents) but I really do not think that so complex a system as environment-genetic interaction can be broken into such specific behaviours.

The little boy in question is no show-off - he's the quiet, intellectual type (glasses, early reader)!

Up the anti to 200k. Whats that a doctor couple? This thread is doing a good job of
taking the taboo out of the money question

People tend to freeze when it comes up

cheers "Gabby"

We're just muddling up a few things. Some of us are very innately entrepreneurial (I am a fair bit) and it's just random. However there certainly are huge numbers of people who expect things to be handed to them, think sick pay exists for everyone and the state will always provide and will never work. Both points are valid but the fact some people are born entrepreneurial (which will be very very few) doesn't mean we can say the rest could never start a business. It's like saying 0.x% of people are born with perfect pitch genes which I have and therefore there's no point in any other children learning music.

We could probably do with more risk takers and more business starters in the UK at the moment to help us compete with BRIC countries so if the Government can think of some ways to make that easier - carrots (much lower taxes for new businesses etc) and some sticks (much worse deal if you're on benefits or not working very hard) that might help and women can be at the forefront of all that because we tend to be extremely good at starting and running businesses well. Abroad you always give small loan finance to women in India and the like, never to men who often tend to piss it up the wall or spend it on girl friends.

Xenia knows that despite being a partner of a self empplyed person and having just called teh IR for a form to follow suit I totally disagree with hititng benefits claimants hard- at elast all of them. I have my least favoured sections naturally but doubt that enough would be raised and I would bever ever support a targeting of those who cannot follow another route due to SN, carers status or basic lack of employment opportunity.

But we've debated that so many time before and our own opinions will never change or move any closer I suspect.

BA- he sounds very much like me, I am geeky glasses wearer and yet to teh utter surprise of many I love nothing better than gflamming up for an awards do or dancing the night away on a carnival float, something I frequently do.

Hi Xenia

Have you heard about the alleged taxdeal premiership footballers have got? Read it and weep

It's a fundamental right for us all to organise our tax affairs within the law to minimise what is paid so that say husband and wife both work so both get a single person allowance rather than just one or people claim pension tax relief. Then it's up to Governments to determine which arrangements they choose to prohibit.

If I tried to suggest a customer paid part of what they owe me for my services for image rights I'd be laughed at. If I genuinely had a valuable image right as indeed some footballers have then I don't see why they cannot run companies to own and manage those image rights. They then take a director's loan from the company and i think it's those who don't pay interest on it or who expect to wind up the company in due course without paying the loan but who have not moved off shore by then who are more likely to have the problem.

I am sure the newspapers would like to find more areas like this to go into at the moment as it sells papers. We've done MPs' expenses. We've done bankers and now there are footballers. Any more very high whipping boys we can generate?

On the question of generating more tax if we really cannot cut back the frontiers of the state hugely which would instead be my preference then we have to tax those earning between 20 - 50k as that's where most of the money is.

Xenia

That is not an "all in it together " statement you have just made.

Does all BUSINESS think like you?

Or are there sensible divisions of opinion

Will you oppose if the Tory-led government decide to act? cheers "Gabby"

It is absolutely the right of people to do so within law; which means my preference is to tighten up the actual laws 9though in relation to footbalelrs have yet to see that).

The benefit claimants who ahve zero options are already whipping boys: those who do have options need to be enabled to get back to work but tbh, there needs to be a rise in eployment ops forst. it;s bloody ahrd to get back to work from a very low income. Childcare for example- 6 month waiitng list for after school here; you cannot afford to pay the reg fee or risk starting your child without a job when you couldn;t afford fees, but you also cannot know usually if you will have a job and when it will start 6 months ahead.

A lot of it is creative thinking. Allow the TC childcare portion to be used for Au Pairs provided by agences and thereofre encourage employment of au pairs, childcare access and agencies as businesses.

It takes creative thinking though and IMO this Government isn;t half as good at it as the concept of a coalition might suggest.

well said A dose of lower income reality

If you can attract good sports people and business people here by low tax then you have way more money to pay to the poor. So yes anything which keeps us competitive is great. There was a table in yesterday's FT or Times. Wee were at the bottom. It startd with Suaid tax or UAE at 10% and down and down they went though Zug and then down to the UK of the countries it picked at the 52% top rate of Tax and NI. If I were choosing where to work it would put me off so much.

As for taxing footballers more tightly and changing the law to do so I don't have very strong views. There are not many footballers so they are fairly irrelevant. I don't watch any competitive sport but I can see that it helps control the masses and gives particularly men a direction for their aggression so I suppose just as the Romans used to think I can just about work out the point of it as a tool to control the masses but when you get down to it it is stupid little men kicking a ball around rather pointlessly.

Well one strong reason for tightening tax law is that as the poorest are already being targeted and told 'we're all in this together' then at elast the lies would end!

There's a difference between punitive taxation that sends all entrepreneurs abroad (not that all would go anyway unless being a loner and having no family is a criteria of entrepreneurship? Or self interst as an extreme own goal of course) and tying up loose ends and acknowledged tax 'get outs'. Interstingly teh giovernment ahs pledged too tackle these in the lower earners- for example if you work your sdocks off in a job for 16 hours a week from 2013 you will no longer be classed as working and unable to claim tax credits (unless anothher adult in your household works over 8 hours- a new 24 hour cut off); equally if you are starting up your business and taking a lower than minimum wage pay, you might be behaving well morally but again the Government will not class that as work- even if like us ATM it just goes to stock.

There's no morally acceptable argument IMO for targeting the lower paid in this weay and then elaving higher earners alone: except some 'ooooh we'll all migrate' whinge (if you wanted to you would) or self interst.

Frankly let's all be in it together for real.

Footballers are not irrelevant to many men. For good or ill it is our national game
If football is stupid; then all the drama of life would be stupid.

A Right-winger mentioning "the masses" is unusual indeed. You should be an assistant referee, Aenia.

May I ask you again: Do all business people think like you? Or is there a sensible division of opinion

Are there some bus-types who would say. "That Premiership tax story makes our government look as credible as a ferret in a care home for rabbits?"

Inherited....you bet.

I find it incredible that people dont mention what we all inherit. Its not just eyes, nosse and mouth: Looks. but many other characteristics.

A geezer on tv, film star, was asked
"how did you get your good looks?"

He said "inheritance" and killed the question. They wanted tales of jogging and body lotion

They would have got it from my near name sake. It was keanu reeves. He looked unusual to me. like my spelling of his name

I cannot speak for other people in business. The public's view of high pay in a recession is an important political issue. People tend to be happy for footballers to earn a packet, but not business people.

There are two issues - one is what is morally right. In my view if someone pays £50k tax and someone else £10k then even if the £50k payer earns £100m but is only due to pay £50k tax they have paid 5 x what the others have paid and should be lauded for their hard work etc not castigated because the proportion is lower but we're a jealous nation so I don't expect that will change. In other words it might be very unfair that someone pays £50k when someone else only pays £10k.

The second issue is what keeps people happy and feeling everyone is feeling the pinch together certainly might well help the public mood even if a good few people some by choice do no work at all and are supported by the hard working poor in the main nad others earn more through luck inherited genes or hard work.

ANyway there is no question but that we have started with higher earners. They have had massive tax increases.

yeh, Nil desperandum epidural, Xenia.

cheers "gabby"

Well, not read the whole thread but we certainly don't live in a bubble.

DH earns over 100K and I work part time so a healthy income. But dh was married for one year and had one child when he was young, we pay his exwife One thousand pounds a month in maintenance. Obviously dh pays tax at 40% so when we take that into consideration plus the maintenance it really isn't so huge.

The other issue is that I work freelance and used to earn over 50K. I almost died four years ago due to negligence in a private hospital and so my health is compromised and therefore my ability to earn. I work when I am well, and that's not too often at the minute. So, we have to account for bills based on dh's salary.

I am aware we are well off but just not as well off as people imagine when they hear 100K plus.

Dhs ex wife has four other kids to three other dads, she gets her rent paid, child maintenance from all of the dads and income support and tax credits. When it is all added and worked out, she is 'earning' or bringing in, more than we are per month.

It's all relative. When times were good we holidayed in Barbados and Venice at the Danielie. When they are lean, as they are now, it's a caravan in Scotland. I don't mind, you cut your cap to fit your cloth. I just think we should be wary of making judgements on people's lifestyles and earnings, all is not what it may seem.

I am not unhappy for anyone to earn a packet but I am unhappy for anyone to live in strict penury (and no measure so far has only targetted choosers) when others have more than they need.

Is all.

I think people see footballer and top-earning rock stars and film stars as somehow "apart" from their lives, and their earnings are so stellar at the top of their game that they almost don't exist in the real world. There is no hope of ever knowing or being anyone like them.

High-earning business people seem more "real", more tangible... you may know some through your friends or family. You want to examine what they do more, because it seems to have some kind of relation to a job you can understand doing. So yes, you do sort of wonder how they made their money and what it involved.

That could all be bollocks, but it's the way I rationalise it!

perfumed, that's another ball game I suppose, all the mostly women (but I suppose my ex husband too) who made a lot through their sexual relationships with an ex spouse. At least the pop singers, footballers and top accountants of both sexes make their money through some kind of paid labour rather than the sexual and personal services they provided to an ex spouse who happened to work hard and do well. There's certainly no moral entitlement taht if you were a nurse and always a nurse and divorce you should suddenly get £20m of someone's fortune. The value of your services to that marriage was not £20m. I suspect the British population feel unhappier about the earnings of bankers than they do of the housewife ex wives of rich men though.