Off Topic The QPR Not 606 Rolling Election Poll

Nice work Tony!

 

Just watching the bbc 10 o'clock news and they have Hugh Edwards presenting from Edinburgh just because the snp launched their manifesto. ...why? They have Scotland correspondents so why waste money sending the news reader on a jolly?

 

Because Huw and the BBC news team don't have tongues long enough to lick Nicola Sturgeon's ar@e from London?

 

You asked about why some people may make assumptions about the way the 'rich'/you have made your pile and a possible reason was staring me in the face, some of them are exploitative bastards, but probably not too relevant. The programme upset me Ubes, and I wanted to share it.

I'm guessing most people think that rich starts somewhere well above what they have. It's all relative. The average wage is something like £26,500 p.a. Would earning 3 times that, say £80k, make you rich? Yes, to someone on the average. But not to Joey Barton, who gets close to that in a week. The government (indeed all the parties) seem to think rich starts at £150k p.a. What do you think?

I know I think that it's pretty undignified moaning about tax if you are pulling in £150k a year, no symapthy from this quarter. If you (that's a generic you, not an Uber you) don't like it head off to a lower tax regime. 17% top rate in Hong Kong. And it tends to be a certain section of the 'rich' who are particularly avaricious, paranoid about protecting and increasing their wealth, sometimes by the avoidance/evasion route. Bad news for them is research shows doubling the income of someone on £150k results in only a very short term boost to their 'happiness', whereas adding £10k to the average wage makes a real, positive difference to quality of life. Also notable that in the US, a society much more aligned to charitable giving than us, those on lower incomes tend to give a higher % of their income away than the better off.

 

That is a BBC habit which drives me mad. There were hundreds running around Paris after the terrorist attcks, loads in Japan after the tsunami (just when people are looking around the devastation thinking I know what I need - a British journalist). Multiply the BBC contingent with all the other news organisations from all over the palce and they must be getting in the way and using up scarce resources, just to report the same thing in a few different languages. And sending a Welsh news anchor to read off an autocue in Scotland is nuts.

 

BBC - Bloody Bunch of Communists. But seriously, they often have one of their reporters interviewing another of their reporters, both on location, the other side of the world. If they 'competed' in the real world they wouldn't last five minutes. No doubt they'll rejoice when they see Miliband and Sturgeon on the steps of No10...

 

Thatcher made Britain the laughing stock of the world. What was great in Britain during the 2nd World War has been eroded by the UK's continual non- constructive griping in the background of Europe, rather than ever providing a leading role in Europe Britain was expected to.

Thatcher 's balmy also grossly criminal action over the Falkland islands made the word Great in front of Britain some sort if sick joke. It should have been removed.

 

"Criminal action over the Falklands"?

I think you're rather re-writing history there.
Who invaded sovereign British territory?

What Argentina didn't expect, as admitted by their Ambassador at the time, was for Maggie to get every boat that would float and travel for three weeks to go and put things right.

I suspect you'd rather call the Falklands Malvinas Oslo.

 

I would not classify myself as rich by any stretch of the imagination, but I know this is how I'm perceived by some acquaintances and family members. What those is lower earnings brackets don't care to examine is the effort that goes into climbing a career ladder. There is a significant difference between those with a job and those pursuing a career. My wife, whose late father was a washing machine repair man, constantly moans about the late evening conference calls, the spreadsheets being cranked around the pool in Menorca, the emails being answered throughout the Saturday film, the stepping outside at social functions to take business calls, the staying up until 2am to get something done so that it doesn't encroach too much on her plans etc. She describes me to her friends as a workaholic as though that was some sort of derogatory criticism and rarely considers that without me embracing all this we wouldn't have the house we live in, the meals we eat out regularly, the cars we drive, the holidays in the sun we (she!) enjoys so much.

Now, of course, I partly do all this through choice, as do many others that I don't doubt share similar experiences. I suspect you're one of them. I might easily say knickers to this way of life and go work in a storeroom somewhere, for example. There's nothing wrong with working in a storeroom, of course, but one might have to accept the lower pay in return for less encroachment into personal life.

Like most other jobs what I do is not a job for life. In fact, it's very much a deck of cards liable to come crashing down any time soon, in which case I am going to really struggle to find something of equivalent reward. This is a major driver of the hours and effort that I put into it. The stress is always there. Changing regulatory and HMRC environments mean that every potential gain is offset by at least one punitive measure that threatens to take it away again. Only recently I successfully fought an HMRC tax inquiry that threatened to take £1 million in cash from my firm. The inquiry was put into the hands of a carrot crunching, semi-retired inspector in the rural West Country, about as far removed from my industry and an understanding of the mechanics of my industry as you may get. The result was that it took 2 years and around £60k of my firm's cash (on advisors) in a war of attrition with the man, before he finally admitted he was out of his depth and closed the inquiry. None of this was necessary in the first place, yet HMRC has been given targets to go after every Man Jack, raising stupid and, in many cases, deliberately aggressive inquiries in order to claw in monies the Revenue has now right to take. Many firms have not been as lucky as mine and it has cost them dear. We won't see our £60k again, which could've gone on staff salaries or bonuses, but had we lost the £1 million it would have ruined us.

On the outside there are people, as Col says probably driven by Class War (which is another way of saying irrational envy, I believe) thinking that I'm well off and fine n' dandy, and therefore it's only right that I pay disproportionately higher taxes. I can afford it after all, right? Well, I ****ing hate that attitude, particularly when it's largely driven by ignorance and comes from the "I want something for nothing" brigade. These people claim to have a vastly superior appetite for social conscience than me, which they want to sate by spending my money.

In general I have a big problem with taxation, particularly higher tax bands, which are nothing more than a mechanism for taking disproportionately more from those that are envied. I have always been of the opinion that I can spend my money better than any government.

 

Wow.

 

did she get your parents second house

 

and the irony is Cristina Kirchner leads her government like Margaret Thatcher did in her later years. Disgraceful comment about the Falklands Oslo.[/

 

wasn't Britain(uk) not allowed entry into the club to start with

 

I'm not an agony aunt mate, can't help with your wife. You seem rather unhappy with your lot and angry. I am in a similar economic boat but obviously have a different attitude to it (basically I can't believe I haven't been found out yet). I do intensely dislike the politics of envy and scorn of the 'rich' just as much as I dislike the characteristation of the 'poor' as feckless 'something for nothing' wasters. These caricatures, stereotypes and over generalisations just contribute to the shallow, circular politics we have.

I have benefitted greatly from the impact of progressive taxation - largely through (in my day) a high quality education and the NHS. I think that there are people out there who will always need help, either through unfortunate circumstances or simply lack of personal ability (i.e some people are thick and untalented, a result of the genetic and environmental lottery - there is nothing they can do about it), and I personally prefer to live in a society which doesn't leave them to starve or turn feral. The trick, as always, is getting the balance of support right so as not to disincentivise self help, just as the trick with tax is not to discourage wealth creation. There is clearly a discussion to be had about whether the balance is right, but I'm afraid I think Adam Smith was wrong wealth does not automatically trickle down making everyone richer, or at least not enough. So I support progressive taxation.

What I hate, and have gone on about ad nauseum, is poor quality services in return for the tax I pay. My kids have been (largely) educated privately and most of my family's non emergency health care is private. That is simply because of the quality/ease of access of the 'free' alternatives. Has the happy side effect of more of my tax donation going to others as well, so I can feel smug about that.

 

I rather suppose that I am.

 

Ever thought of taking up a role as a shock jock, Oslo!

 

There is so much wrong with that post I don't know where to begin.

"My wife....constantly moans about....the spreadsheets being cranked around the pool in Menorca"

Oh the horror!

Jesus Christ Ubes

 

Have you ever tried getting a tan by the pool covered in spreadsheets?

 

I have seem some rubbish on here but that is up there.

 

Oslo, did you emigrate or were you deported?