To think £100k pa is NOT 'the squeezed middle'?

[ArsenicFaceCream]

Link

The article is very confidently attributing the definition to Danny Dorling, but did he really name this figure?!

These women are fools.

These people aren't the problem - they pay their (higher rate) tax so why begrudge them, the real issue are those who do nothing and are able-bodied but unwilling to work or those at the really top end (oligarch rich) who are non-domiciled and don't pay tax or invest in the UK economy.

people who generate worth (miners, builders, engineers, sculptors) generally receive little of it.

People who shuffle it around, in a zero-sum game (gamblers, bankers, currency traders, libel lawyers) often get to keep quite a lot.

Of course we are not all equal, we have different strengths and weakness, some people are assets, some are liabilities in varying degrees, but this
some people are worth 100x more than others

is just not true.

no one works 100x harder
no one has 100x more talent, or intellect or ability.

What happens is that those with more brains, talent, luck etc are able to capitalise on their assets, they are able to leverage their advantages so that they end up in a position where they earn 100x more than the average person.

Or to put it another way 'money goes to money'
Should that be allowed to continue?
After all it's the law of the jungle, dog eat dog.

I would argue that it is a primitive, backwards and un evolved way to organise human affairs, and that it is to the advantage of all of us to try and make things more equitable.

the problem is how to do that.

Greengrow I found the no.3 bit in your post about pay rises fascinating. It's not something I had given any thought to before.

Arsenic

Someone who has Elle McPherson's body, Einstein's intelligence, Chris Nolan's creative mind, Warren Buffet's business acumen and Obama's charisma would go much further in life than the rest of us...

It's not fair, but that's just how it is...

Suzanne, like the Ecclestone sisters, you mean? One of them doesn't even understand the difference between bread and toast according to Metro this morning.

no one works 100x harder

I remember being told by a friend, when back in school, 'I know my dad earned lots, but he works really hard for it. Whereas your mum's just a nurse.'

I laughed for quite a long time.

Paris Hilton must have very well hidden talents.

SnowBells

And you think that that is what inequality in the UK is all about?

Some people being born less beautiful and intelligent than others?

www.jrf.org.uk/publications/income-inequality-health-social-problems

It's not just working hard though, isn't it? It's about the decisions you've made.

At some point someone decides whether they will work hard in school, what they will study at uni, etc. It's all those little decisions that inevitably form our lives.

Someone may have decided to follow their dream. Another may have decided to be pragmatic.

People always talk about hard work as if that is any measure. It's not.

It's about what financial value you bring. What demand there is for what you bring.

So I write books. They're popular. I sell a lot of copies.

I don't work any harder, probably not as hard as a literary writer who sells far far fewer copies.

Are we really saying that it is unfair that I earn more? That somehow, that less popular writer should earn the same? I don't think anyone would argue that.

Yet people get very het up about bankers and footballers and wotnot. Surely, it's the same principle?

How can it be otherwise in a capitalist society?

And why do people always seem so shocked and outraged?

how did 100K pa juggling mortgage and childcare segue to the Eccelstone sisters? The whole point everyone is banging on about is that there is no common ground between a high salaried professional and an oligarch and their offspring.

At some point someone decides whether they will work hard in school, what they will study at uni, etc. It's all those little decisions that inevitably form our lives.

Someone may have decided to follow their dream. Another may have decided to be pragmatic.

And others will be trying to study in an overcrowded flat, without a desk, or even a dining table, with no space of their own.

They might not know anybody who has ever attended University, nobody who can help and advise with open days, UCAS forms.

They might attend a failing school where just a handful of the brightest and best supported students go on to ex-polys every year.

Their pragmatism could involve quitting A-levels to get a NMW job and assist with family finances.

Careful TheWordFactory. Someone will suggest you share your income with that literary writer...

How can it be otherwise in a capitalist society

it's not a free market though is it, the game is rigged to create incentives and disincentives.

Anyone who thinks that the economic system is determined purely by supply and demand, the 'invisible hand' is just naive

What invisible hand is behind my success?

You only have to look at current house prices in this country to realise that Suzanne.

Careful TheWordFactory. Someone will suggest you share your income with that literary writer...

Not unless it is some extremist loon that hasn't found the thread yet.

TheWord

The point people make about the visible extremes of capitalism (footballers, bankers) is that they skew perception of 'well off' surely?

I agree that it is ridiculous to talk about super-high wages being 'unfair'.

Only a communist would advocate policing the finishing line.

I do think the starting line still needs attention though.

What are your thoughts on the fact that we still produce functionally illiterate school-leavers in this country? It would be interesting to hear a successful writer's perspective.

Of course there is an invisible hand - otherwise known as 'red tape and regulation' which scuppered my plan to become a millionaire marijuana farmer - and apparently financial contracts that you sell to pensioners have to be "fair". Also the invisible hand of NMW, the invisible hand of tax credits to help low paid over the childcare years, the invisible hand of providing subsidies to farmers and major manufacturers to preserve British jobs and sustainability. Gently manipulating the economy to create the correct incentive structure is the raison d'être of vast swathes of civil servants. I would have thought you would have been positive about the need to interfere in free market operation?

I think they call it privatising gains and socialising losses.

What invisible hand is behind my success?

are you not familiar with the phrase from Adam Smith?

There is a view by some on this thread that the rich are dodging tax and not paying their 'fair share', big corporations come to mind but it doesnt stop us buying from them - lets however look at the ones who take and take then, the people who refuse to work and contribute because it just isnt worth it for them. Who run their lives in a feckless way, who are the reason that the NHS need their staff behind glass door?

The high earners paying tax are paying for these people to use the NHS, edcuation etc.

If you drive the high earners and the people starting and running companies away what are you left with? (France perhaps?)

Does no one understand what is meant by the invisible hand of the market??

read the thread, handcream.