Romeo Beckham gets £45 grand for a days work.

[Pollyteacakes]

How much does this family need. Burberry have paid 12 year old Romeo £45.000 for one days work modeling. I don't wear Burberry myself but if I did that would probably put me off ever buying it again. How far will this family go for publicity and money. Small change to them though. But isn't there something wrong when a 12 year old gets in one day what it might take most of us a year or two to earn?

Yes, its just used to shut down arguments.

I am not envious of the Beckhams in the least little bit and I wouldn't want any of what they have, not the fame, the lifestyle or even the way they look. I'm happy and content and simply don't envy anyone who is richer than me or who has more than me materially.

I'm very well aware that I'm immensely privileged and lucky in that I have a house which I can afford to heat, a healthy budget for the supermarket shop, and can clothe my family without having to worry.

I hardly think I'm unusual.

Wow. This thread has really kicked off since I last posted.
Very rich parents have a huge problem getting their dc to understand the value of money. The Beckhams have commented on this and said that's why they wanted their eldest son to work in a coffee shop. It therefore seems bizarre they should then allow another son to earn £45,000 for wearing a coat [confused[

I know you're wrong, because you are looking at one tiny aspect of the problem, rather than the whole picture. We have never had such a wide gap between the top earners and the rest, either. And we have widespread abuse. And of course the top percentages actually cover a massive range in actual earnings. Levying the top rate of tax where we currently do is ridiculous, but so is the percentage of the top level of tax. The top marginal rate of tax is also a clear and serious issue which needs to be resolved. That's actually a bigger problem for the economy than the impact of bunging a percent or two on e.g. people earning over 200K and having further progression up the scale would be.

I do agree that France appears to have serious structural problems.

When you personalise the conversation rather than talking in general terms it's quite difficult to avoid looking like envy is one of the motivations

Isn't that a rather unimaginative interpretation?

No.

I don't see why not. Why limit a child's income? Clearly he is going to be protected from the risks of having a lot of money. I was reading about Hayley Mills (child start years ago) and her finances recently. Her parents were careful to ensure her money was protected. I don't think the answer is in not stopping children earning if the child wants to do so.

Nor do I want debate closed down. I am always up for an argument with the communists - should we all be given the same pay? China tried a period paying doctors the same as dustmen. the UK in a sense tried it when supertax reached 99%. The confiscation of 40% of your money on death in the UK is similar by way of inheritance tax on money you already were taxed on at almost 50%.

Why is it Beckham gets what he gets for wearing the coat? Because he makes even more money than that for Burberry which my son who although a bit older looks very similar to actually would not. Why do I earn more than my cleaner and is that wrong and unfair? Should all the money I earn over what she earns be taken back by the state in tax to ensure everyone is on say the minimum wage plus tax credits and housing benefit? Should in fact we do what North Korea does? State provision from cradle to grave. In fact they have sent the better workers to Qatar to work on the football stadia and all their wages are taken by the state because the good all powerful state provides everything you need so why would you need cash on top of that other than to engage in pointless consumerism.

Well it seems rather wilful and eccentric to me Rabbit.

I would go so far as to say disingenuous .

Anyway, mustn't stop, got to get back to earning my £130 per day.

Rabbit, I'm afraid I dispute that. For a tiny tiny period from about 1945 - 1980 we had a slight narrowing of the difference between rich and poor mostly due to the 1914 Russian revolution and rise of Labour and the like. That could be regarded as a temporary aberration from the norm. We have now perhaps moved back closer to the usual more natural norm which reflects the big differences between people and their abilities and are back into safer water IF you believe Piketty is right. the Ft were not so sure he is correct anyway that there has been an increase in the differentials in any event between rich and poor.

Just read this whole thread - blimey!

OP- you sound terribly jealous and bitter.

I agree with Cats and MrsDV.

That is all.

I think there are some really interseting issues on here. We had a mumsnet thread on mumsnetters who earn £1000 a day once. It was very interesting. Who makes what, what people ought to earn, how much of what they earn should be taken from them to others and the like.

Just want to say that I do not envy the beckhams. Bringing the children up in the public eye like they have chosen to do is not worth the price.

A good mix of posts on here and some points of view very well expressed, especially the ones who manage to convey what they think without resorting to the same old tiresome and unoriginal chestnut of "you sound jealous".
We all have lots of reasons for dislike but jealousy very rarely comes into it.
To say it as a form of attack against a poster only shows a lack of anything intelligent and worthwhile to say Imo.
Anyway, thanks for all the replies everyone ......Weekend is calling

I envy them on the surface, it all looks very glamorous and exciting, lots of foreign travel, plenty money to do or go where you like, great careers....then I realise the pressure must be horrendous never to be able to just walk to the corner shop with your hair unbrushed or your kids to go out playing with their pals....it looks like they live in a very expensive bubble, not the everyday world where simple things matter.

The Beckhams have commented on this and said that's why they wanted their eldest son to work in a coffee shop. It therefore seems bizarre they should then allow another son to earn £45,000 for wearing a coat

Perhaps Romeo Beckham understood the value of money but the eldest son didn't, hence a less in monetary value for the one that needed it. It's highly possible the eldest son (Brooklyn?) was going through what money they gave him like water, whereas Romeo wasn't. It's not the first time a parent has done that kind of thing (obviously on a different scale).

It's one thing saying they wanted their eldest to work in a coffee shop and him actually doing it, week in week out, not a one off photo opportunity

and to say they let Romeo earn 45k for a days work but not the eldest one as he isnt good with money is daft in the extreme

I'd be surprised, first of all, if that advert only took one day to do. I'm willing to bet there was more to it. (not that that is the point, but just saying) Rehearsals, fittings, set up, filming, and so on. That was not one day's work.

Secondly, I didn't say that's what they DID do. I said perhaps. And it isn't daft. If the elder son is bad with money and is looking at a career in football, there's a possibility that he could be earning a lot of money. If he's not good with money, he needs a lesson. Working in a coffee shop for a small amount of money, even for a short time, might teach him that he's in a privileged position and make him realise that without his parents' backing, he could be working on NMW and trying to make ends meet, which perhaps will make him appreciate not only his life but any money he makes. I see no problem in them having him work a NMW job temporarily to teach him about money. Otherwise, he'd be relying on the Bank of Mum and Dad forever.

Maybe Brooklyn has absolutely no interest in modelling, as he is obviously interested in a career in football. Maybe Romeo really does have an interest in modelling or acting. Maybe they are both very independent boys that are looking to line up their careers while they are young, knowing that both modelling and football careers can have a very limited shelf life. Why does it matter that one does one thing and makes more money than another? Different children, different situations.

Maybe people are getting their knickers in a twist over nothing. I too find this ridiculous stream of vitriol towards the Beckhams absolutely puzzling. I think they have a good work ethic, stay well focused on their children, and are capitalising on their skills and opportunities to make money now so they will be able to retire without worrying and still be able to support their children.

I agree. They are a lovely family. Their son was playing ni some schools football league and my son and his school's football team were there. DB actually took the time to come over to my son's school football team and is on the group photo with my son and the team. There was no need for him to do that but he did. It is a very nice attitude and meant a lot to the boys playing that day.

Also as people will know from other threads I am very keen women realise they can earn a lot of money, work hard and reap the rewards. VB is a very good example of that. She does not live off male earnings and she earns her own money. We need more like that. People should look at the Beckhams and think - wow I could do that rather than just saying "it's not fair".

oh x come on, people should look at the Beckhams and think I could do that

People should look at the Beckhams and think - wow I could do that rather than just saying "it's not fair".

Have you ever been involved with kids football? becks was 1 in a million and it's cut throat in the football game ,only the most talented and determined get to the top.