To be annoyed/hurt by my good friend and think high earners should be willing to pay more ?

[whatislife]

i have been lurking on MN for a long time and never posted. Decided to join today and thought I'd mark the occasion with a rant.
I got in an argument with my friend (2 days ago) and the anger re-appeared when she sent me a text this morning. This doesn't really matter though.

The argument started when she made a snarky comment about an old friend of ours (not very close to be honest). The woman had been complaining about money and started ranting about high earners, tax and all sorts. My friend , a very high earner (think 6 figures), kept quiet the whole while and then started talking about it to me. This is where she said something along the lines of 'No one forced her to messed around at school and screw her life up. Im not going to feel bad because I worked hard' and 'why should I pay more tax when I already pay a ridiculous amount and she doesn't pay any'. These comments really angered me because I am also a low earner and rely on benefits - she knows this ! So we got into an argument about tax and benefits (silly i know but personal comments were also made).

My question is ; AIBU to think my close friend (and high earners in general) should realise how lucky she is and be willing to pay more tax so people like me can also have a normal life?

frumpet yup! Nurses are apparently going to be one of the last to go...way after research scientists like myself.

Only on mumsnet does being lazy, disorganised and irresponsible become "disadvantaged" and all down to luck

Not quite, Scremersford ... sadly, there are still some schools where that attitude is all too common

Actually, I can't help feeling the "all must have prizes" mentality at too many of them is at least partly responsible for underachievement, encouraging the idea that all should be rewarded equally

Sorry, though - I appreciate that's probably another thread!!

Oh dear, Tinkly! Or should that be

Had I been responding to your post of 23:23, then I would have quoted from that. As I quoted from your post of 23:48, I think it is pretty clear that's the post I'm responding to, wouldn't you say? You know - the one where you quite clearly say There are definitely costs associated with working, and they are higher, the more prestigious your job.

Who was it that said there were a lot of straw men on this thread? They're not wrong!

There's a certain element of luck as well as being in the right place at the right time. But then I believe that to a degree you make your own luck too.

Some people increase their chances of being lucky with hard work & preparation, others are just destined to be unlucky....

That's life unfortunately....

Jassy Did you seriously paraphrase being disabled, not academic or possessing certain skills or just plain not very bright, and having rubbish parents into being 'lazy, disorganised and irresponsible'? After directly quoting what the PP had said? That's quite disgusting. Which did 'disabled' become, out of interest?

You've lost me somewhere in that. Maybe you could just give me a helpful list of words and phrases not permitted to be used?

Oh, and link to the legislation that prohibits them too, ta.

IceBeing I really can't understand the idea that people already working should work even longer and be paid even more, rather than giving work to those who are currently unemployed.

Because only certain people have the skills/talent/drive? Because some of those people might want to earn more money to buy nice things? Because some of them might not mind working longer hours during a certain period in their lives to progress their career/make more money?

Certainly in my profession, you simply cannot get away with putting in less hours. The work simply needs to be done - if you have a court case or a meeting, and you have done your 40 paid hours per week, you cannot turn around and say "Well m'lord, I feel I already worked enough hours this week so I know absolutely nothing about this case". Its like that almost every weekend, btw. Firms want to employ people who can be relied upon to do the work even if it means their personal lives get disrupted. Even if that means sitting up until 4 am reading files and researching case law, for an 8am start. IMHO you need a lot of money to compensate for that and I was doing it on 55k pa, which I didn't think compensated me sufficiently for leading that sort of horrific lifestyle. Hence I do much less now and work part-time and in a research/consultancy non-practising role. But I'd happily still be working full time if I had got a better salary.

"IMHO you need a lot of money to compensate for that and I was doing it on 55k pa, which I didn't think compensated me sufficiently for leading that sort of horrific lifestyle."

I very much agree with this. I think that the stressful lifestyles and unavoidable expenditures of high earners pass some lower earners by completely.

You quoted a PP saying:

^
I think the immigrant success stories are people who are only disadvantaged in the specific manner of starting from nothing. They are not then further disadvantaged by disability, low academic ability, low parental aspirations, low personal tenacity..etc etc^

.... And responded to that direct quote with:

Only on mumsnet does being lazy, disorganised and irresponsible become "disadvantaged" and all down to luck. This in a country where every British person is entitled to free extensive education and health care of a higher quality than provided in the vast majority of the world. That comment about immigrants is particularly appalling in its first world ignorance.

Given the method of quotation and structure of your post overall, it reads very much like you were paraphrasing her list of things that might constitute further disadvantage as 'lazy, disorganised and irresponsible'.

No one forced her to messed around at school and screw her life up. Im not going to feel bad because I worked hard

Did she be lazy and unbothered? Did she have the chance and threw it away?

I think in terms of your conversations with friends then context matters.

Is ranting friend someone who earns enough but won't budget, spunks money up the wall and expects handouts from friends whether they are richer or poorer?

Because if they are then the annoyance is justified from other friend.

I am not a high earner in any way but would rant if someone who had money enough to live on but was crap with it expected more just because they cannot budget.

I would say to them however and tell them that it's their problem not one to build a rant around.

I have a friend like that who does earn more then me but you would not now it because she spunks money away on designer clothes, games and a very expensive sports car.

She often borrows from me and it annoys me that she believes she should get something for nothing which is why I have distanced myself from her.

I do believe she is so crap with money and expecting handouts (she wanted her inheritance early from her parents before they even decided to leave her any!) and if she justified charging others for her bad choices I would be annoyed.

If your friend who was moaning is bad with money and expects entitlement or friends to subsidise then I think anyone would moan.

I think the truth my PSHE teacher once told me does ring through, that religion, politics and money are things not to be discussed without someone coming away offended or upset.

Jassy Did you seriously paraphrase being disabled, not academic or possessing certain skills or just plain not very bright, and having rubbish parents into being 'lazy, disorganised and irresponsible'? After directly quoting what the PP had said? That's quite disgusting. Which did 'disabled' become, out of interest?

You've lost me there. What do all these accusatory words mean? Have I committed some kind of crime? Maybe you better just issue a list of words and phrases that people aren't allowed to use.

Oh, and link to the legislation that prohibits them too, ta.

IceBeing I really can't understand the idea that people already working should work even longer and be paid even more, rather than giving work to those who are currently unemployed.

Um, because only certain people have the training/skills/motivation?

I would do the job I do for a lot less money than I get...

I certainly wouldn't. At 55k pa, I made the decision it didn't compensate me for the constant difficulty of the work, stress levels, pressure to bring in clients and long hours and I saw the even longer hours and more stress and difficulty that would be necessary to even approach 80k pa. In my profession, you need people who can be guaranteed to do the work even if it means finishing reading files and researching the law until 4am and then up at 7.30 am the next morning to commute into court in time. You cannot have people who say "Well, M'Lord, I reached my work hours self imposed limit already and so I know absolutely nothing about this case". There just aren't that many people about who can work on their own if necessary on difficult cases and be relied upon to do the work. That's why the best ones get paid a lot, and I don't mind admitting I'm too lazy and unmotivated to give away my social and personal life for the salary I was on. If I was on 150k pa then I would do it.

OTOH I know a few people on 120k pa plus and they are way way better than me, and also much less lazy. But they are really good at what they do, reliable as hell and talented too. You don't get many with those characteristics.

Scremersford, I've responded to you already. Which part did you not understand?

And where did I suggest any words were 'prohibited'?

I have posted that twice. Please ignore the second.

Jassy Given the method of quotation and structure of your post overall, it reads very much like you were paraphrasing her list of things that might constitute further disadvantage as 'lazy, disorganised and irresponsible'.

Can you be a bit more precise in what misdemeanour you think it is that I have committed, and again, where it is prohibited exactly?

In real life I socialse with people with varying incomes and different jobs & responsibilities.

I encounter none of the bitterness that I see on MN every day.

"Binkybix Thu 08-Oct-15 13:17:51

We do have low productivity figures compared to other countries, but that is calculated as output per hour of work (or something like that!) so it's not down to part-time working (apart from an effect if you think part time working is inherently less efficient)."

So we're just pretty lazy. Does not surprise me.

On full employment:
www.theguardian.com/business/2015/feb/18/uk-employment-rate-hits-highest-level-since-records-began

"David Cameron has hailed news that Britain’s employment rate is at the joint highest level since records began in 1971 as evidence that the economy is strengthening. Speaking at the Rolls Royce car factory in Goodwood, Sussex where the luxury car firm has just announced plans to build an SUV, Cameron said: “I’m not saying we have solved all our problems in the British economy in the last four and a half years, but we are on our way.”

Employment increased by 103,000 in the three months to December, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), driving the employment rate to 73.2%, as the economy continued to grow.

The ONS said that this figure was higher than the pre-crisis peak of 73%, recorded in early 2008, and has only been matched once, in 2005, since records began more than 30 years ago.

The prime minister has said he wants to create full employment, and the latest rise will boost his hopes of stoking a feelgood factor in the runup to the general election in May.

The ONS pointed out that the record employment rate for women, at 68.5%, partly reflected the increase in the state pension age, “resulting in fewer women retiring between the ages of 60 and 65”.

Unemployment fell by 97,000 over the three-month period to 1.86 million, the ONS said, and average wages rose at the fastest pace since mid-2013. The unemployment rate continued to decline, to 5.7%.

Measured on the claimant count, which only includes the number of people in receipt of out-of-work benefits, unemployment also fell, by 36,300 in the month to January, to 843,100.

Average pay including bonuses was up by 2.1% on an annual basis, the ONS said. With inflation running at an annual rate of just 0.5% in December, that confirmed that the long-running squeeze on living standards has come to an end for the time being."

Goodness me, really?

When a poster posts:

They are not then further disadvantaged by disability, low academic ability, low parental aspirations, low personal tenacity..etc etc

And you quote that paragraph directly and respond with:

Only on mumsnet does being lazy, disorganised and irresponsible become "disadvantaged" and all down to luck.

it is reasonable to interpret that as you paraphrasing her list of things that can constitute 'further disadvantage' (including disability and low academic ability) as 'lazy, disorganised and irresponsible'.

Got it now?

Given you're quite happy to describe other posters comments about immigrants (a group to which I belong) as appalling, I'm quite comfortable that it's appropriate for me to describe yours as disgusting without feeling I have strayed into 'banning words' or anything so ridiculous.

Bloody immigrants- have all the luck- they pretend they've worked their way up from nothing but actually a lot of them arrive here in good health.

Bloody immigrants- have all the luck- they pretend they've worked their way up from nothing but actually a lot of them arrive here in good health.

I've been pretty lucky, yeah, ta.

We're quite a diverse group...

Did you arrive with nothing? Well done you.

Not a great deal, no. Couple of suitcases, (vanishingly) small amount of savings (just enough for deposit in a flat share and to tide me over until my first pay day).

I did however have a decent education, good health, youth, no dependants, a very good brain and a natural ability to do high-quality work very quickly, and some early experience, skills and talent in a field the market here has since decided it values quite highly.

I'm not sure if that colours your view of whether I'm a worthy immigrant or not.

Is that immigranty enough for you? At what point of

Oops, please ignore last sentence - editing fail.

Jassy Goodness me, really? When a poster posts:

They are not then further disadvantaged by disability, low academic ability, low parental aspirations, low personal tenacity..etc etc

And you quote that paragraph directly and respond with:

Only on mumsnet does being lazy, disorganised and irresponsible become "disadvantaged" and all down to luck.

it is reasonable to interpret that as you paraphrasing her list of things that can constitute 'further disadvantage' (including disability and low academic ability) as 'lazy, disorganised and irresponsible'.

Got it now?

Given you're quite happy to describe other posters comments about immigrants (a group to which I belong) as appalling, I'm quite comfortable that it's appropriate for me to describe yours as disgusting without feeling I have strayed into 'banning words' or anything so ridiculous.

No I haven't "got it". You don't get to control what people post, nor people's minds and thoughts. And certainly not by positing a load of waffly accusatory hyperbole. You have been unable, when asked, 3 times to post any legal foundation for what it is you are struggling to say.

Its clear you want to insult me. So why don't you just go ahead and do so, instead of hiding behind whatever twisted reasoning you are making up.

Oh and drop the supercilious tone while you're at it. You can't pull it off.

Theres plenty of posters already on here who seem to think hard working, reasonably high earning people are gullible, stupid, misinformed and the rest, and who are all too ready to throw the insults out. If you actually think that benefits anyone, then you are sadly misguided.

IKnowIAm In real life I socialse with people with varying incomes and different jobs & responsibilities. I encounter none of the bitterness that I see on MN every day.

I know! Perhaps someone should carry out a study on the correlation between spending too much time on internet forums and developing a warped sense of persecution?

So we're just pretty lazy. Does not surprise me

Possibly! I've also read that we have some structural issues to do with infrastructure (eg crap broadband) and that our companies kept an excess of employees during the recession as they thought it would be cheaper than laying people off then hiring again.

I don't want to 'control' you, or what you post, for goodness sake, where are you getting that from?

I'm saying - as I've repeated a number of times - that I find you apparently equating 'disabled' and 'not academic' with 'lazy and disorganised' as pretty awful. You are free to equate those things, I'm free to say I find you doing so as frankly not very nice.

I'll repeat - I'm not trying to stop you posting, or 'control' what you post, let alone what you think. I'm commenting on what you've posted, in very similar terms to the way you've commented on others' posts. Why do you find that such a problem?

Can't quite see why you're looking for a 'legal foundation' for someone commenting on what appears to be the content of your posts in a negative way. Talk about hyperbolic overreaction.

You appear to have a problem with me, between your inaccurate rant at me last night, and this today.

It's not a question of worthiness, is it?

I was responding to a pps suggestion that the immigrant success story is usually because despite arriving with nothing they have advantages that the indigenous people don't have.

Maybe this is true in your case, I dunno.

And I apologise if you found my tone 'supercilious', in all seriousness. What went into it was mainly frustration that I couldn't seem to get an answer to whether my interpretation of your post was accurate.

But as I've said - not from round here, and I still find the odd bit where my use of language is interpreted differently here from how it would be where I'm from.

I wonder what DOES make the difference between people who can see that their success is at least in part due to luck in either their genetic make up or their environment....and those that maintain that anyone who was as willing to work as hard as them would have done as well?

I wonder why some people claim personal agency for their intellect, tenacity, parents, lack of disability, country of birth etc. while others see those factors as external to them and down to luck?

My suspicion is that only those people essentially entirely isolated from the random impact of bad luck in life think their good fortune is of their own making.

Well one day it will happen to them too. It will be them that become suddenly disabled. Or their kid that is unable to work in a high stress environment through no fault of their own...and they will suddenly get it.

I know someone who basically thought depression was another word for laziness...until his daughter was diagnosed. I had to put up with years of 'well it isn't a real illness' and now months (so far) of 'it's really serious - it affects every aspect of her life' - like a long term sufferer such as myself would find this to be news....

We are all going to be ill, old or disabled eventually...some people are going to find that more of a shock than others.