Forum menu
No - what I am saying is very simple and your quotes proved it. £100 000 pa makes you one of the richest few ~% in our country. thats all.
but the salary in Liverpool that affords you the same standard of living doesn't...
No - what I am saying is very simple and your quotes proved it. £100 000 pa makes you one of the richest few ~% in our country. thats all.
but the salary in Liverpool that affords you the same standard of living doesn't..
No because you are comparing the country not regions
Folks it looks like the TJAgain cyber bot is having a logic failure - please can someone do a CTRL-ALT-DEL to restore the normal logical service? 😀
No logic failure here. the figures Turnerguy quoted prove my point
True but the miniature violin quartet has stopped playing for those who are feeling poor on good money. The level of detatchment from what is going on at times is startling
True but the miniature violin quartet has stopped playing for those who are feeling poor on good money. The level of detatchment from what is going on at times is startling
Agreed. I've observed that rich people look up rather than down when they're comparing their circumstances.
Is there anything more stw than a bunch of IT guys complaining that a 100k salary just doesn't make you rich enough ? 🙂
So what are your plans - rent for the rest of your life and then rely on welfare for your rent in retirement ?
A lot of people have no choice to do otherwise. Not helped by the richest taking more than their fair share from the pot.
Instead of obsessing over the tax you pay think about how much money you take in comparison to others.
I know a few people on that kind of money down in that there London. Would I class any of them as struggling? No. Whiny cockbags? Yeah, lots of them.
And their choice to live there.
Something TurnerGuy seems determined to ignore.
The level of detachment from what is going on at times is startling
well quite. some folk on here seem to be wildly out of touch with how a very large part of their countrymen and women live.
Struggling myself to hit that £100k barrier. Been trying for years and nowhere near it. But next year, is when I'll make it big and that's why I'll be voting Tory. I'm a striver. An aspirer.
Missed all this. Probably a good thing. Quite frankly anyone earning anywhere near 100k and claiming they’re struggling needs to have a look at their life choices. A 100k income by any definition puts you in the top bracket. If that’s you, then well done and stop whingeing.
My cousin and her fella are the highest earners I know.
He is 29 and already a partner in a cyber espionage company, has a salary of 160k and last year had a bonus of 250k. Despite this they bemoan the cost of their mortgage on their 1.5m house and the cost of financing their Audi A8 and Range Rover.
Some people are so removed from the reality of the majority it makes me sad for humanity.
It true that London living is expensive, but no one is forced to buy the biggest house and drive the flashiest car.
I choose not to earn more than I need, specifically so that I've got more time for doing the things I enjoy and to avoid working just to pay the taxman. Despite that I can still afford a van, a nice bike and the ridiculous rents, but compared to some of my neighbours I am not rich. However, I'm sure relative to the lady working for minimum wage behind the till I am loaded.
And while I agree with tj in principle, his use of "richest" rather than "highest earner" loses him the internet points he do desperately craves.
It's a stupid debate, because it's arguing over what 'rich' means when it's a totally subjective term.
People in (parts of) London on £100k don't feel rich because they are surrounded by mega rich people and £5m flats and the rest of it. They look at what is around them, see they have no chance of ever affording it, and feel poor. Conversely, those in a Valleys town on £100k can buy some of the best houses in town and they feel rich. It's all about perception.
I read once an article about a remote Himalayan village, the writer had been there and found everyone happy and content, no beggars. Then they put in a big road, and then suddenly all the kids were begging from the new travellers. Because they'd started seeing what other people had, and realised they were poor. They went from rich to poor without any change in their actual income.
And while I agree with tj in principle, his use of "richest" rather than "highest earner" loses him the internet points he do desperately craves.
Succinctly and eloquently wrapped up there alpin. Now let's get back to politics.
People in (parts of) London on £100k don't feel rich because they are surrounded by mega rich people and £5m flats and the rest of it.
That comes back to my point about only looking up when assessing wealth. Even in expensive parts of London, they still allow ordinary people in: it's not a gated community of the uber rich.
It's a stupid debate, because it's arguing over what 'rich' means when it's a totally subjective term.
It's really about accumulated wealth vs net income, but... yes..
If you look at how 'rich' anyone in the UK is in global terms the poorest people here are fabulously wealthy. Same in historical terms. The poorest are far wealthier than ever before.
People in (parts of) London on £100k don't feel rich because they are surrounded by mega rich people and £5m flats and the rest of it. They look at what is around them, see they have no chance of ever affording it, and feel poor. Conversely, those in a Valleys town on £100k can buy some of the best houses in town and they feel rich. It's all about perception
Double standards Mol.
We all live in the same country.
Now let's get back to politics.
This is politics Mol.
Real politics, not the Westminster show.
It's about how people behave toward others and the kind of society they want to see.
FFS - what I said was someone earning 100k in London could be no better off than someone earning 40k in Liverpool - and looking at housing costs this could easily be true, or close to true. Maybe 50k in Liverpool is closer.
But the 100k earner in London is classed by TJ as rich, whereas a 50k earner in Liverpool is not, when there is little difference in how much money they have left over after the bills have gone out, and little difference in standard of living as well.
Is there anything more stw than a bunch of IT guys complaining that a 100k salary just doesn't make you rich enough ?
You are making stuff up again, like usual. Where are the complaints ?
This is politics Mol.
Real politics, not the Westminster show.
It's about how people behave toward others and the kind of society they want to see.
No. This argument is about semantics. We all agree that society is too unequal, that's not what's being debated. We seem to be bickering about the definition of the word 'rich'. Which is stupid. There are loads of other ways to make the point about societal inequality using numerical stats.
Double standards Mol.
We all live in the same country.
That's exactly my point. People feel rich or poor depending on what's around them, even if they still have the same amount of money.
Old figures but :
Differentials between London and UK ratesThe single biggest element in the extra cost of living in the capital is housing. In January 2014, Land Registry figures showed average house prices across the whole of England and Wales were £168,536, but in London the average was £409,881 (143% higher than the England/Wales rate). This house price gap has been growing ever larger, with London experiencing 10.9% growth over the last year, compared to 4.2% across England and Wales.
The same picture is apparent in the private rental sector, with the
the England rental rate runnings at £665 a month in January 2014, compared to £1,516 a month in London (128% higher than the England
rate). The differential in local authority rented property is less exaggerated but still significant, with a average rent across England
running at £79 a week in 2012/13, compared to £99 in London (25
% higher than the England average).
People feel rich or poor depending on what's around them, even if they still have the same amount of money.
It's not 'feel'. I can buy land for 3K an acre near me. How much is it in London?
Isn't mols a rich IT guy anyway - I thought he consulted so therefore 'richer' than me...
This argument is about semantics. We all agree that society is too unequal, that's not what's being debated. We seem to be bickering about the definition of the word 'rich'. Which is stupid.
+1
However, there is political point here, in that someone earning £100k is not the problem, despite what Corbyn may claim. It's the Apples, Ubers, Facebooks (and their owners) that are the problem, for avoiding tax, hording cash, and avoiding regulation, hence, reducing costs and using it to put others out of business.
It's the Apples, Ubers, Facebooks (and their owners) that are the problem, for avoiding tax
Easily solved. Get rid of corporation tax. It's just a stealth tax anyway.
in that someone earning £100k is not the problem, despite what Corbyn may claim
When has Corbyn claimed someone earning 100k is a problem? I think he's more bothered about the FTSE CEOs earning 20m and the likes of facebook paying only 1M in corporation tax.
Get rid of corporation tax
So companies shouldn't pay towards the legal and intellectual property framework which allows them to operate and the markets they have access to?
it's really all about preception and priorities.
a friend of mine was recently complaining about her neighbours having 5 holidays a year. her neighbours have no kids and an old Mercedes van that they take away for 2-3 weeks t a time.
i countered her* and said that they probably spent less on holidays than her new car cost. she came back and said that the car wasn't new, it weas second hand; they couldn't afford a new car. their not-new car[i] cost them[/i] 34,000€...
my friend has just moved in to her new 800,000€ house.
her fella** earns over 120k. she earns ~70k part time. that is almost seven times what i chose to earn.
i think my life is possibly richer than theirs. they would probably disagree as they have children and everyone knows that's what makes your life richer.
wealth is so unevenly distributed throughout society. why should the guy cleaning the hospital get paid so much less than the divvy blonde with the long eyelashes sitting at the reception desk of some multi-national? who adds more value to society?
It's the Apples, Ubers, Facebooks (and their owners) that are the problem, for avoiding tax, hording cash, and avoiding regulation, hence, reducing costs and using it to put others out of business.
i agree... just completed a big job for Google which is currently taking place in Munich. last month it was Facebook in Brussels. the amount of money splurged on these self-aggrandising events and at the same time the amount of penny pinching is sick. a little bit of me dies each time i'm involved.
*not a euphemism
** an active member of some German equivalent of "old school boy" club with fascist tendencies...
some people are so removed from the realities of life....
[img] 
?resize=1020%2C931[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
That's exactly my point. People feel rich or poor depending on what's around them, even if they still have the same amount of money.
Feelings don't pay bills.
All very interesting, but nothing to do with facts.
Yes, exactly!
Get rid of corporation taxSo companies shouldn't pay towards the legal and intellectual property framework which allows them to operate and the markets they have access to?
i have to pay corporation tax if my profits are over 24,500€. it is punitive. if i go over that threshold by 500€ i'm paying 750€ more in tax than if i had earnt 24,499€. i don't need any intellectual property framework. the likes of BMW do, yet strangley they have some cushy set up in which they don't have to pay their fair share of corporation tax.
nice.
I'll just point out again I did not use "rich" I said "richest couple of % of the population"
The first is a value judgement / relative measure. the second is a fact.
Alpine, really appreciating your contributions here but one thing:
the amount of money splurged on these self-aggrandising events and at the same time the amount of penny pinching is sick.
Their waste of money is your income. So is it really a waste if it goes from their pocket into the wider economy? Genuine economics question not an attack.
Of course, the obvious answer is that they should be paying you to erect a hospital not built an event stand, but could they?
A Google subsidised hospital would a better as for the company than a trade show though, wouldn't it?
But don't these events pay for themselves out of the marketing budget? And their aim is marketing and publicity.
Their waste of money is your income. So is it really a waste if it goes from their pocket into the wider economy? Genuine economics question not an attack.
I fully understand the irony of my predicament...
If they were an upfront company playing by the rules I have to adhere to them maybe I wouldn't feel so jaded.
PMQ's coming up. Given the weeks' monumentally incompetent events, do we think Jeremy will actually mention the rolling Brexit cluster**** at all this time around? Or stick to the usual 'there be dragons' approach to the subject, and bang on about anything else but, instead?
He doesn't want to mention it too much as he doesn't want much scrutiny of his actual position, which would be pretty much exactly the same.
If he were in we would still be exiting and we would still have the problems of the NI border, EU citizen rights, and trade deals, because we wouldn't even be staying in the EEA.
Do people really think he would have better ideas - he would just be rolling over to EU demands even more and we would be getting the Greek treatment.
i don't need any intellectual property framework
You need a legal system to prevent your clients not paying you and protect you in the case of dispute, you need access to the market which is regulated and invested in by the state, you need the skills and education of employees of yourself and your suppliers, you need the research conducted by universities and the industrial and technological base that the state invests in, you need the infrastructure that enables a modern industrial society to function. Need I go on or should we do a whole 'what have the romans ever done for us' debate?
Need I go on or should we do a whole 'what have the romans ever done for us' debate?
the debate please...
You need a legal system to prevent your clients not paying you and protect you in the case of dispute, you need access to the market which is regulated and invested in by the state, you need the skills and education of employees of yourself and your suppliers, you need the research conducted by universities and the industrial and technological base that the state invests in, you need the infrastructure that enables a modern industrial society to function. Need I go on or should we do a whole 'what have the romans ever done for us' debate?
OK, we/I need all of those things to a varying degree. But I'd argue that big business needs it more than little old me, a one man band, yet they seem to be able to opt out of such trivialities like tax.
the debate please...
Well I've offered my view. Ball is in your court I think?
But I'd argue that big business needs it more than little old me, a one man band, yet they seem to be able to opt out of such trivialities like tax.
I don't disagree. This isn't about whether corporation tax is necessary (it is, clearly), but whether it's implementation is fair. In your case I'd say not, and clearly big business shouldn't be able to dodge it through expensive and spurious legal and accounting practices.
Do people really think he would have better ideas
He would be handling it differently/more reasonably (along with Kier, Hilary etc,.)
He would be handling it differently/more reasonably (along with Kier, Hilary etc,.)
rolling over then.
PM within a year? I wouldn't bet against it.