The Rich According to the Guardian

[Judy1234]

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

Iorek Coren's war against sloppy subbing

Iorek - I don't rate Polly T - she has nothing new to say. The laughable bit was that the Guardian had to apologise for Polly Toynbee's inaccurancies in her Guardian piece. If someone is going to trot out (or Trot out?) a load of hackneyed shite, they have a moral (and sometimes legal) responsibility to ensure their shite is accurate.

This whole thread has made me realise that their are vast misunderstandings and mistrust about how the rich and poor live. A problem exacerbated by the likes of Polly Toynbee. I find it really depressing.

their there

Hugely funny emails from Giles Coren.

Polly Toynbee is to political commentary what Labour's campaign in Crewe and Nantwich (attacks on Tory Toffs) was to poltitics.

IME the rich do extremely dull jobs for 60 - 80 hours a week in order to provide financial stability for their families. IMO that is the choice: a rewarding I'll paid job with probably fewer hours, or a well paid one when you will rarely see your family. (for those who are lucky enough to have options)
I hate sweeping generalizations when applied to any section of society. Some rich are greedy and have no sense of social responsibility, so do some benefit claimants and some people in the middle.

There is a bit of (unpleasant) stereotyping here. You might say that I am a left leaning high earner, but I am NOT unhappy to pay the current level of taxation. But I think overtaxing the rich would very quickly kill the economy. I think current levels of UK taxation are reasonably balanced altho' I know that everyone has there own preference as who should pay what. We have "progressive taxation" in the UK and that is fine. But should the govt squeeze increase taxation more then capital will move overseas.

In any case, I think politicians focus us too much on taxation. I wish that the focus was more on efficiency measures so that we understood better whether we are getting value for money from our taxes. Services like health and education have to be provided and paid for somehow but we need to ensure that the consumer gets the best value. And we also need to consider the social implications of privatising different types of services.

should be "their own"

suey2, the bit about rich doing boring jobs for long hours is a bit of a generalisation as well. It is possible to be in a poorly paid job that has long hours, as well as a well paid job with shorter/flexible hours and every variation in between.

Boring is in the eyes of the beholder. Personally I prefer analytical roles to those that require a lot of people contact - my current job requires both skills.

most people I speak to the US would have preferred to pay for basic level of healthcare through taxation as we do in the UK. But instead even their middle classes feel the squeeze of inflated private health costs.

sure blueshoes, but a previous post implied that the rich had stimulating jobs- not always the case. The bankers and lawyers that I treat every day, in the main, would rather be doing a more rewarding job but would not be able to afford private schools for their children, for example. I fully admit to being biased towards my personal experience, hut I think we all are

Fair enough, suey2.

BTW, I am an ex-lawyer and now still work with City lawyers. I think a lot of them would prefer shorter hours (nature of the job, reason I left) but many do find their work stimulating and intellectually rewarding, my dh included. It is not necessarily a sell-your-soul career.

Out of curiosity, suey2 what job do you do which would have lawyers and bankers bearing their soul to you everyday?

baring

You're in good company, Swedes. I think.

devilskitchen.me.uk/2008/08/shorter-giles-coren-polly-is-cunt.html

I am a manipulative physiotherapist, blueshoes

lol, suey2, in more ways than one.

facts according to Polly Toynbee

whatever, blueshoes, but it does put me in a unique position. It is amazing what people come out with when they are in their underwear and in a confidential environment

dittany - what do you think? I mean, really?

I see we are still in the same stereotypical arena. The rich get where they are by hard work... A working day of 12 hours (door to door) is pretty normal. Many of those with crappy jobs and poor pay work long and antisocial hours to suppliment their incomes, just as a fair number of those earning high incomes do not work 100 hour weeks. One major difference is that those with capital behind them can make choices. So you don't want to be a high flying stockbroker and have no life - the options to downsize are there. So you don't want to be a shop assistant/shelf-stacker/care assistant etc, generally it is much much more difficult to do anything about it. Yes we all make our own chances in life, take up or decline options, but those of us who had a headstart should at least acknowledge that.

Oh, and although we can ship in immigrant labour (and do) for many of the worst paid and least desirable jobs, the rich need nurses and teachers and policemen at least as much as the economy needs entrepreneurs.

Personally I agree with Xenia that the tax system could do with a good overhaul and simplification, and that the days of punitive taxation didn't do anyone any favours, but I also think more should be done to promote social mobility, and from this thread, encourage compassion.