The Rich According to the Guardian

[Judy1234]

www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/aug/04/workandcareers.executivesalaries

Well I don't know what Jesus meant by what is recorded in the Gospels but any god who makes a judgement about who should go to heaven (if such a place exists)based on how much money they have, rather than on the kind of life they lived doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

I never said anybody had been harmed society's attempts to make adequate provision for people.
You asked why the I find the statement that 'inequality is damaging' difficult to accept it its totality, and I explained why.

ah well saying it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom of God isn't a parable.
Yes most people [including myself] find it hard to stomach Christ's teachings on wealth and social justice, that's why the Church has been rather effective at misconstruing his teachings so that lots of rich nice middle class people can feel good about their comfortable lives.
Of course we can't all just give up everything we have and go and build irrigation systems in Africa [well actually we could, but of course we don't want to] but we can carry our social consciences with us at all times and make sure we spend our money wisely and generously.

many Christians [including my parents] go by the old testament teachings of tithing, ie giving a tenth of your salary to charity.

Non doms can very easily avoid CGT as well as income tax, as long as they channel everything through an overseas trust. Until very recently they could also avoid income tax by giving 'gifts' of money to their wife and children that was also untaxed.
At least that loophole has now been closed.
Poverty may be relative, but that doesn't mean that people aren't going cold and hungry right now in this country.

All attempts to make everyone the same, wear the same Chairman Moa suit, have short cut hair, pay doctors what dust bin men are paid (as China tried) have failed.

Why is inequality wrong? It's part of life. In looks, IQ, genetics, all kinds of things and ability or desire to work hard and earn a lot. It's just how things are.

Now you can attempt to tax the rich until the pips squeak and in some Scandinavian countries you will get a smaller gap between rich and poor which the Labour party knows appears to mean people are happier but hasn't the political will to do anything radical about otherwise it woudl become unelectable (not that I accept the role of the state is to keep people happy nor that our own personal happiness is an aim)

I think to say that 'inequality is damaging' is a dangerous statement, not because 'rich people's wealth might be in danger' (a bizarre conclusion which you draw - it really wouldnt occur to me to think like that) , but for the reasons I have described, and Xenia has described.
Inequality is a fact of life. If you always see it as damaging, I think that is dangerous because to follow it to its logical conclusion, you take away freedom of choice.
The only way to eradicate inequality is to try to make everybody equal. Is this really desirable? It would mean, for instance, educating people with low IQs exceptionally well so that they could reach their potential, while simultaneously refusing to educate anyone of above average ability, in an attempt to make them equal with less clever people. People would have to train hard for years for specialist jobs (hmmm, tricky without that education) and then be paid the same wage as someone doing an easy low stress job. And of course, as I said, there would need to be a limit on childbearing as someone with 4 children might end up less well off than someone with 2.
Sounds a pretty dangerous state of affairs to me.

The rich pay their fair share, way more than their fare share. We need to cut taxes on the rich to make things fairer really.

If you want that equality, findt, then we just ensure everyone is a clone surely with the same IQ and looks.

swc - i can see your point, but what about all the things we might individually disagree with re: taxation? There are all sorts of things I don't like my hard earned income to be spent on. Personally, education and health care are two of the things I have the least issue with. I fundamentally believe that everyone should have access to education and health care through the state, and therefore I am happy to pay. If you choose to opt out of that system then I think that's individual choice.

It doesn't work well at Eton. Look at Prince Harry's A level results. Thick children whoever they are remain thick. It's all in the genes.

A fair society is one where once you've paid your dues - say up to £50k a year income tax each you then keep 100% of all you earn over that sum and get a prize from Gordon Brown for having paid so much rather than a load of citizens very jealous at you because you happen to be more successful than they are.

Oh god I give up dittany!! I have explained why I think it is dangerous thinking for ANYBODY! Not for any one particular social group, but ANYONE! Because to eradicate inequality, means going down the route I described!
I'm not sure why you assume that Eton educates thick people exceptionally well. I should think Eton has its fair share of bright pupils, and yes, some fairly dim ones too, but I wouldnt assume that Eton does a better job with them. This says more about your prejudices than anything else.
No, I don't think there is evidence that wealthy people are necessarily more intelligent or hard working than others. You say the 'defining characteristic' of rich people is greed. Where is your evidence for that? I know some extremely wealthy people who are not in the slightest bit greedy. And equally some less well off people who are horribly greedy.
TBH I think this thread is becoming way too emotive! What is the problem with some people having loads of dosh? It doesnt make them 'better' or more clever or more interesting. It doesnt make them happy (in fact in cases of extreme wealth, I would imagine there's a higher incidence of unhappiness, as extreme wealth can often mean other things alongside. I wouldnt want the Beckhams life if you paid me double what they earn for instance. What real quality of life do you think they have? Unable to go anywhere unrecognised? Horrid lurid stories in the press? Yuck!). And wealth certainly doesnt protect against illness, disease, divorce etc etc - yes, I'm sure it can provide a buffer, but it doesnt stop bad things happening.
I think a useful exercise is to think about the person you know he is most truly happy ie content with the life they are living. I bet it's not the richest person you know.

'A load of citizens very jealous at you'

I'd rather be averagely off and have a firm grasp of grammar, personally...

I also think it's bad manners to positively REVEL in the inequalities in life.

Keep pulling up that drawbridge.

Dittany, why do you think that the rich don't pay their fair share? I mean, the richest 10% of our society have to pay tax at 40% of their income. Or 41% really now that they've uncapped NIC.

Every extra project I take on, I think well, I haven't got time for this - it'll be a few 60 hour working weeks with no mumsnetting on conference calls ... But maybe I'll get a bigger bonus. Of which Gordon will take 41%.

Yes you are right Riven, I agree with you but the point that I was making was that Dittany seemed to think that "the rich" whoever they may be, are not paying their fair share. Why does he/she think that? It's possible to argue that "the rich" actually pay a disporportionate amount of their income over in tax.

Absolutely Quattro. Some muddled Maths going on with some posters I think!

Xenia, what have good looks got to do with anything? You refer to it more than once. Being good looking and rich aren't inter-woven. I'm sure there are plenty of plain people who are rich. Or are you so blinded by the pound signs?
And why keep telling us we're jealous? I would b a liar if I said I wouldn't like to have more money, but I'm not sitting at home consummed with jealousy and bile at anybody else.

"Thick children whoever they are remain thick". Lovely.