Originally Posted by gobbyidiot

I struggled to get a job, worked part-time for years, and if I lose my present job I'll doubtless struggle to get another one. If you haven't been through that process, and you aren't very reflective, then it's quite easy to rush to judgment. It's true that the welfare state is a f'kin joke. But it is also true that the job market is a joke. i) There is an enormous level of nepotism and cronyism. ii) The public sector doesn't really have sound output measures so the criteria for assessing new recruits have f*ck all to do with anything important: the tendency to select people like yourself, who will not rock the boat, can be given full rein. iii) Most private sector organisations don't produce a great return on capital, and the links between the recruitment decisions you make, and your own assessed performance, are weak. iv) Most organisations don't select the person most likely to succeed, they select the person least likely to fail.

Now of course, if you have a job, status and money it is extremely difficult to say, "The process which allowed me to come by this was balls". It's a bit like an elite athlete admitting that they inherited phenomenal ability, and are in fact an underachieving stroker - it ain't going to happen. I was watching Match of the Day last night and one of the studio guests said that the manager of a team couldn't risk introducing a highly paid player who didn't pull their weight because "..the other players are really doing a shift". Fuxache - measure it in terms of power output, degree of lactate tolerated, heartrate, whatever you like, the average footballer does fanny adams. Yet they are on a knife-edge to take the huff if "someone isn't pulling their weight" - ie, doing absolutely f*ck all as opposed to nearly f*ck all.

Every single person I know who has done okay has said something which made me realise they had no self-awareness at all, and attributed their success to some special virtue of effort and determination. A special forces pal sarcastically snapped at me when I was struggling to find work, neatly forgetting a) his years of unemployment and welfare fraud, b) his demonstrably high inherited oxygen consumption, c) his visuo-spatial ability, well attested to before he started, and d) the relative unemployability of his mates who dared to test the outside job market. My geophysicist pal can imagine herself as some Ayn Rand ubermensch, and ignore the oil price boom and her tendency to f*ck her superiors......and so on, and so on, and so on.

It takes a Warren Buffett or a Seb Coe to talk intelligently about talent, effort and luck. Most people have too much invested in the answers to seriously address the questions.

Or put more simply...

"boo hoo, it's not fair, everyone who has got a job got it because of some special kind of voodoo magic or because Daddy worked there. It is in no way a factor of them having worked hard to get a job and then worked harder to be successful at it".

Originally Posted by The_Duke

Originally Posted by gobbyidiot

It takes a Warren Buffett or a Seb Coe to talk intelligently about talent, effort and luck. Most people have too much invested in the answers to seriously address the questions.

Or put more simply...

"boo hoo, it's not fair, everyone who has got a job got it because of some special kind of voodoo magic or because Daddy worked there. It is in no way a factor of them having worked hard to get a job and then worked harder to be successful at it".

I'm assuming that response is designed to be ironic? People can't consider, you give an ill-considered response....Definitely deliberately ironic.....

Originally Posted by gobbyidiot

Originally Posted by The_Duke

Originally Posted by gobbyidiot

It takes a Warren Buffett or a Seb Coe to talk intelligently about talent, effort and luck. Most people have too much invested in the answers to seriously address the questions.

Or put more simply...

"boo hoo, it's not fair, everyone who has got a job got it because of some special kind of voodoo magic or because Daddy worked there. It is in no way a factor of them having worked hard to get a job and then worked harder to be successful at it".

I'm assuming that response is designed to be ironic? People can't consider, you give an ill-considered response....Definitely deliberately ironic.....

No.

I just think your post was full of the self pitying snivelling so common amongst those who always seek to find blame in others for their own shortcomings.

It was very well considered, it just happened not to match your opinions on why some people are more succesful that others. What was that old quote about "People say I am lucky. I find that the harder I work, the luckier I get"?

Originally Posted by The_Duke

Originally Posted by gobbyidiot

Originally Posted by The_Duke

Originally Posted by gobbyidiot

It takes a Warren Buffett or a Seb Coe to talk intelligently about talent, effort and luck. Most people have too much invested in the answers to seriously address the questions.

Or put more simply...

"boo hoo, it's not fair, everyone who has got a job got it because of some special kind of voodoo magic or because Daddy worked there. It is in no way a factor of them having worked hard to get a job and then worked harder to be successful at it".

I'm assuming that response is designed to be ironic? People can't consider, you give an ill-considered response....Definitely deliberately ironic.....

No.

I just think your post was full of the self pitying snivelling so common amongst those who always seek to find blame in others for their own shortcomings.

It was very well considered, it just happened not to match your opinions on why some people are more succesful that others. What was that old quote about "People say I am lucky. I find that the harder I work, the luckier I get"?

We are dangerously close to agreeing if you can take seriously what you yourself have said.

...."it just happened not to match your opinions on why some people are more succesful that others. What was that old quote about "People say I am lucky. I find that the harder I work, the luckier I get?"

You're not looking closely at what I say, and you aren't even looking closely at what you say. In some jobs that would get you fired :D Effort is a massive factor in success, probably the biggest single factor. But for you to object to what I said - as opposed to what reading with a broad brushstroke might lead you to think I said - effort would have to be the only (or nearly the only0 factor. Moreover, for you to limit your claims to the success of "some people" just seems bizarre. If "some" triumph through sheer hard work that wouldn't be much of a defence of "the system".

The philosopher Hobbes said that sympathy was seeing something happen to someone else and believing it could happen to you. Cruelty was seeing something happen to someone else and thinking it couldn't happen to you.

I was at a meeting a little while ago and a high-powered dickhead was talking about how his organisation could use the input from these great authorities - I was one of the great authorities. I interrupted - "The idea that people like me have the right to turn everything upside down is laughable. I am a well-qualified example of these "experts", and I know that I don't (in your sense) know. I know more than others and far less than would be required to have the authority you would grant me".

His little brain nearly exploded. "Does not compute. I'm giving this man high kudos which he rejects. Arooogah, aroogah, all hands on deck

Understand..........................I succeed, and know how little it means, and admit it. Hard to deal with, ain't it? By diminishing my achievements I rubbish lesser achievements. Very hurtful. But very true, and very necessary.

i) 90% of people on Incapacity Benefit are taking the p*ss.

ii) The job market is balls.

These statements are not mutually exclusive, unless you think Fred Goodwin did a good job of managing RBS, or Hornby HBOS.

I read what you wrote, and it was self pitying drivel. I fail to see how you can assume that I have not looked closely at what I have written, let alone how anyone could read with a "broad brushstroke", but then I try to deal with reality rather than mixed metaphors.


Have you ever considered that it might be your attitude that kept you in part time work for so long, and may make it harder for you to find employment again if you unfortunately lose your current job? Scoring cheap intellectual points from those around you at work may make you feel all self important on the internet, but is cold comfort as you wander round Lidls trying to make ends meet in the bargain bucket aisles.

Good to see the usual apt between the "mine is mine" group and the "rely on one another" group. Not going to get drawn into all that rubbish about "It is the fault of x that y has no money etc." crap.

However, the original figures quoted in the BBC story are interesting in that they are there to show you that you are a moron. The problem with all of these figures is that they have to be taken in the context they are offered. You have to keep in mind the other indicators and references that support them.

I would therefore suggest that a more balanced (I wouldn't say better) thread title would be "Top 1% of earners pay 24% of Income Tax, ignoring all other taxes that is quite high but the bottom 10% of earners pay 47% of their income as tax to the government, where as the top 1% (previously mentioned) only pay 33% of their income to the government as taxes (looking at individuals only and ignoring Corporation taxes)". It just doesn't flow as well.

The only think that you can get from this article is that it is hard to make snap judgements based on one figure. Unless you are truly hard-wired and without the ability to use common sense.

Originally Posted by heard_it_all_before

Originally Posted by Argee2007

Personally if i was earning a million a year i don't think i'd be too downhearted at losing half of it in tax and so on, that's still £500,000 coming in each year and i'd have a suitable lifestyle with that cash that would be better than 99.9% of the UK.

Apart from maybe a few investment bankers or hedge fund managers who create wealth from other people's money, the vast majority of those in our country that have created wealth have done so from their own hard work, dedication and great personal risk. So for you to say”carte blanche” that you would gladly hand over half of your annual wealth to a bunch of hapless fcukwits just so that they can fund the cushty lifestyles of the Idle Masses is probably the weakest excuse for Socialism that's been on here in a very long time.

With a blinkered and gullible attitude like that, having to hand over £500k of your hard earned money is obviously never going to be a situation for you to ever have to worry about my friend.

Sorry for coming in a bit late on this subject of moving for tax reasons.

As someone who has emmigrated, I won't be moving back for tax reasons. Its not the same thing I grant you, I moved for an opportunity and have found that I like not living in the UK. As I understand it, some 400,000 Brit passport holders emmigrate each year, and around 150,000 move back (I think 2006 figures).

What the new 50% tax, the new bonus tax on bankers means is that the 150,000 that might move back after:

their 3 year secondment to Hong Kong,
their 10 years running a bar in Malaga or
their 6 month contract in Geneva

is that they won't bloody well move back. they'll enjoy paying their 12% in HK, the sunny weather in Malaga, the 28% in Geneva with its proximity to ski resorts and sailing on the lake in 35c summers. And if one of these lucky/clever expats has an idea, he'll want to implement it where he lives, not back in blighty. So it'll be 100 Wops, Swissies or Chinks that gets hired, not 100 youf off the streets of Woking..

That there is a threat, I think forgets that there is a natural turn-over, and if the UK isn't competetive then it won't be consdiered in the churn... Yanks that run Google won't want to move here, Clever Germans won't want to design cars here, Italian opera stars won't want to come here... dare I say it, even South American football stars will start looking seriously at the Bundesliga instead!

Originally Posted by Bazzinho1977

Good to see the usual apt between the "mine is mine" group and the "rely on one another" group. Not going to get drawn into all that rubbish about "It is the fault of x that y has no money etc." crap.

However, the original figures quoted in the BBC story are interesting in that they are there to show you that you are a moron. The problem with all of these figures is that they have to be taken in the context they are offered. You have to keep in mind the other indicators and references that support them.

I would therefore suggest that a more balanced (I wouldn't say better) thread title would be "Top 1% of earners pay 24% of Income Tax, ignoring all other taxes that is quite high but the bottom 10% of earners pay 47% of their income as tax to the government, where as the top 1% (previously mentioned) only pay 33% of their income to the government as taxes (looking at individuals only and ignoring Corporation taxes)". It just doesn't flow as well.

The only think that you can get from this article is that it is hard to make snap judgements based on one figure. Unless you are truly hard-wired and without the ability to use common sense.

What "snap judgement" was that then? That the top 1% of earners pay a quarter of the income tax bill and that that information goes against much of the conventional media wisdom that somehow the super rich are not paying their way?

As with all of us Bazzinho1977 you bring your own interpretation to the table, I was merely extracting a piece of data from the article to discuss a fact that had been a real surprise to me.

I'm presuming that in being the original poster I was the moron that you were referring to in your post? :D

Originally Posted by FARMBOY

Originally Posted by Bazzinho1977

Good to see the usual apt between the "mine is mine" group and the "rely on one another" group. Not going to get drawn into all that rubbish about "It is the fault of x that y has no money etc." crap.

However, the original figures quoted in the BBC story are interesting in that they are there to show you that you are a moron. The problem with all of these figures is that they have to be taken in the context they are offered. You have to keep in mind the other indicators and references that support them.

I would therefore suggest that a more balanced (I wouldn't say better) thread title would be "Top 1% of earners pay 24% of Income Tax, ignoring all other taxes that is quite high but the bottom 10% of earners pay 47% of their income as tax to the government, where as the top 1% (previously mentioned) only pay 33% of their income to the government as taxes (looking at individuals only and ignoring Corporation taxes)". It just doesn't flow as well.

The only think that you can get from this article is that it is hard to make snap judgements based on one figure. Unless you are truly hard-wired and without the ability to use common sense.

What "snap judgement" was that then? That the top 1% of earners pay a quarter of the income tax bill and that that information goes against much of the conventional media wisdom that somehow the super rich are not paying their way?

As with all of us Bazzinho1977 you bring your own interpretation to the table, I was merely extracting a piece of data from the article to discuss a fact that had been a real surprise to me.

I'm presuming that in being the original poster I was the moron that you were referring to in your post? :D

No, no, not at all. There are plenty of morons on here - so please don't take it personally.

The point is that the fact you quoted DOES NOT up-turn the socialist view. Quite clearly, after just a couple of moments thinking. The overall income tax bill is a tiny proportion of what we spend. Therefore suggesting they fund 25% of tax revenue is either a) an outright lie or b) just factually incorrect.

I was not attempting to bring my interpretation to the figures. I was just pointing out the irony that the article was taking the mickey out of people who would use just that one figure to make a point and then, well, look, I don't have to draw you a diagram, do I?

Originally Posted by Bazzinho1977

Originally Posted by FARMBOY

Originally Posted by Bazzinho1977

Good to see the usual apt between the "mine is mine" group and the "rely on one another" group. Not going to get drawn into all that rubbish about "It is the fault of x that y has no money etc." crap.

However, the original figures quoted in the BBC story are interesting in that they are there to show you that you are a moron. The problem with all of these figures is that they have to be taken in the context they are offered. You have to keep in mind the other indicators and references that support them.

I would therefore suggest that a more balanced (I wouldn't say better) thread title would be "Top 1% of earners pay 24% of Income Tax, ignoring all other taxes that is quite high but the bottom 10% of earners pay 47% of their income as tax to the government, where as the top 1% (previously mentioned) only pay 33% of their income to the government as taxes (looking at individuals only and ignoring Corporation taxes)". It just doesn't flow as well.

The only think that you can get from this article is that it is hard to make snap judgements based on one figure. Unless you are truly hard-wired and without the ability to use common sense.

What "snap judgement" was that then? That the top 1% of earners pay a quarter of the income tax bill and that that information goes against much of the conventional media wisdom that somehow the super rich are not paying their way?

As with all of us Bazzinho1977 you bring your own interpretation to the table, I was merely extracting a piece of data from the article to discuss a fact that had been a real surprise to me.

I'm presuming that in being the original poster I was the moron that you were referring to in your post? :D

No, no, not at all. There are plenty of morons on here - so please don't take it personally.

The point is that the fact you quoted DOES NOT up-turn the socialist view. Quite clearly, after just a couple of moments thinking. The overall income tax bill is a tiny proportion of what we spend. Therefore suggesting they fund 25% of tax revenue is either a) an outright lie or b) just factually incorrect.

I was not attempting to bring my interpretation to the figures. I was just pointing out the irony that the article was taking the mickey out of people who would use just that one figure to make a point and then, well, look, I don't have to draw you a diagram, do I?

So the top 1% of taxpayers do not fund a quarter of the tax bill then?

I couldn't care less about the bias of the article I was only interested in the statistical diagram it contained indicating proportion of tax paid. If you have another one that refutes it please post.

Do you count yourself as one of the many morons who post? :D Or are you above that?