The Rich According to the Guardian

[Judy1234]

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

OK, so we have established () that women don't get to the top because they are "silly" and take time out or don't want high paying jobs. What about the ethnic minorities? You acknowledge that at least some groups are interested in the professions (I'm slightly lol at your description of the masses of reluctant Asian girls having their career options decided by parents - from other threads that doesn't sound massively far off your own aspirations for your children).

The point is that it is becoming more difficult to succeed if you don't come from an established background to break into the higher realms of professional careers. Some of the reasons for this I suspect you would blame on Labour, such as getting rid of assisted places / grammar schools. But I think you have to acknowledge that if you are not privileged to start with it is much harder to make it. Of course some do (the Alan Sugars of this world) , but these are exceptions, not the rule.

Nooka

I am sure that the reason women don't get a long way in many careers is that they either give up work or go part-time which makes career progression much slower (as logically it should).

I think you're right that the rich have got richer. This is partly because Labour has not spent all the additional tax revenues (raised incidentally by increasing the tax burden on the wealthier) either wisely or well, and the Tories before them never had an agenda of addressing inequality.

There are a lot of articles around about university admissions criteria which make it obvious that some universities at least are indulging in social engineering - making it harder for children of two graduate parents to get in to hard courses for instance. That's a bit muddleheaded and worrying IMO.

Quattro - you obviously don't know any criminal barristers because I know more than I care to mention and many of them earn considerably under £100k! No one will be crying for them I realise, but just making the point for the sake of accuracy...Civil barristers on the other hand tend to be a lot richer. The other thing is that the criminal bar has been affected by the sheer amount of HCAs. Solicitors can now do work in court in the way that only barristers used to be able to, if they become Higher Court Advocates. And becoming a Higher Court Advocate is like falling off a rope. So they brief themselves instead of barristers and the client gets an inferior service, but doesn't really know it. But hey, it's cheaper for the government. So fuck the quality, eh?

and isn't it true that they are now paid by the case rather than the hour so in effect many junior criminal barristers are no longer earning the minimum wage?

All the criminal barristers I know are in fact paid by the page with bigger cases, but with the tiddlers, yes, you get paid by the case. Often, there are pleas or Pre-Case Management Reports to be heard in court - this is the bread and butter work - and you get £46.50 for those. A newbie barrister may only get one in a day.

sorry toget away from the barrister/solicitor argument. but what is wrong with "the rich" taking legal steps to avail of loop holes and tax breaks?
surely everyone in the country accepts tax credits and to pay as little income tax as they are legally obliged to?

mq - if you can bear to read through the thread, you will see that there has already been quite a long discussion of just that topic.

I'd like to see Polly Toynbee's tax return.

Mayor there are about 25 pages of this thread which deal with precisely that.

The solicitor/barrister thing is just one of several digressions.

And Swedes - so would I.

fair enough. the 32 pages just looked daunting but i guess i'll persevere.

maybe I can try and sum it up mq. Please jump in anyone.
Lots of discussion re evasion vs avoidance. Everyone agrees evasion is wrong, 2 camps on avoidance. The first agrees with you, the second thinks that paying accountants to minimise your tax burden is wrong. Lots of discussion about the immorality of gold teething rings (yes, really) with the swcond camp saying how much money do you really need? Some discussion about progressive taxation. Lots of discussion on whether Toynbee is a hypocrite. (apparently she is on 150k pa)
Digressions on whether we lve in a meritocratic society or not and whether high earners work harder than the low paid. Finally, there has been some debate about jon satisfaction and pooorer paid jobs sometimes being more rewarding. Did I miss anything?

I think that's a fair summary, Suey2. Though I am sure someone will disagree with me as it's been that sort of thread. But hey - better to take any view (however repugnant!) than no view at all!

V good precis, Suey. But you missed some rather amusing suggestions from Xenia eg if you pay £50,000 in tax you should be exempted from paying any more whatever your income and you should get a prize from Gordon Brown, and that if you are poor, you should just be glad that you don't live in Zimbabwe, go to church a bit more and be happy with your lot...

Suey - Excellent summing up. For me, the highlight of the thread was Xenia's eschewing luxury quote.

Yes Iorek, that's my view. Once you've paid your £50k in tax PA you have done tremendously well for the public coffers so why pay any more. Let people keep 100% of anything over that.

But the main divide was between those of us who think claiming your tax credits, sinple person allowance, tax relief on pensions and other tax avoidance is fine and those who think anything done to avoid tax is bad but perhaps only when someone is "rich" but if they're poor then it's somehow okay to claim your tax allowances.

Dittany - Would you prefer to return to the old system where people inherited and passed on their wealth and standing?

yes xenia, I forgot that point. To be honest, I left out the more controversial of your comments, too, as I tried to sum up the middle 95% of the curve!
Dittany, do you think we don't need the movers and shakers? Do you think that any icentive is unjustifiable? I can see young's point but I believe it applies to very few- maybe those bankers who have ridden the crest of the boom and made lots of money for their employers when a trained monkey could have done so?

I agree with the guardian quote - do believe morality and right is on the side of this system - where you can eat what you kill in effect through your own efforts (or the luck of the genes you were born with) and yes that does seem fairer than a system where you inherit what you have although in a sense they are similar as I inherited by genes as randomly and luckily as I might instead have inherited a fortune.

interesting piece, indeed. So what is the best system, dittany? One where there are opportunities for success to those who have the ability, drive and good fortune to have a decent education? One where there is no incentive to climb the career ladder or put everything on the line to set up your own business? One where we try to improve the prospects of people via better education, including selecion with grammar shools and encouragement to aspire to Oxbridge?
That is what I would like.
What would you like? The approach of the current government which tries to make everyone the same? A communist state where everyone earns the same? Please tell, I am really interested

I think you are missing the point. It is not that nepotism is better or worse than the perceived meritocracy we have now. It is that people (perhaps only some people) who have achieved high status or wealth no longer appear to feel any social obligation to others who have not been so fortunate. It's an attitude issue, not necessarily a systems issue.

In what way does the current government try to make everyone the same, suey?

smallwhitecat - total digression but I love "pupilmistress"!