Annual leave

[scottbeard]

3 minutes ago, GregBowman said:

Like the  civilised country you live in......I don't think any successful person is asking for sympathy or really worries about others views. The wealth the 1st world enjoys came about because of self starters from the Romans onwards - not people just accepting their lot.

Well isn't that just the problem?  "I'm successful and therefore I don't (or don't have to) give a damn about what anyone else thinks"?

See Jack Ma today https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47934513, essentially retiring at age 54 whilst saying that his workforce should be working 12 hours a day, 6 hours a week or be deemed "slackers".

I'm sure that Mr Ma will now get to spend plenty of time with his family  - his workers, not so much.

I have no problem with people who choose to work harder, longer or smarter in order to earn more money.  I absolutely do have a problem with people who are essentially making a profit by treating others as slaves, and then trying to say that they deserve all the profit because they're a "self-starter".

Pure capitalism would in the long run result in a tiny number of insanely wealthy people, coupled with millions of people who are slaves (if they are fit to work) or dead (if they aren't) which is why I'm very happy in a society that's a long way from pure capitalism.

[scottbeard]

13 minutes ago, GregBowman said:

The wealth the 1st world enjoys came about because of self starters from the Romans onwards - not people just accepting their lot.

Also, this logic is just saying "but we have to have armies of slaves, or we'd never have got the those amazing pyramids/roman roads/Victorian cotton mills/Chinese tat factories to fruition".  If something can only be created by millions of people working like slaves to produce it, I'd argue that the world is probably better off without it.

So yes, absolutely self starters drive us forward - but often those who have truly moved society forward aren't business people self-starting profit-making businesses, but rather those with a strong moral compass, or just an interest in science.  Look at Charles Darwin, Emmeline Pankhurst, Alexander Fleming, Martin Luther King, Tim Berners-Lee etc etc 

So whist agree that we must celebrate those who didn't just "accept their lot", I don't agree that this means we should celebrate business founders as the true bedrock heroes of the 1st world.

[Riedquat]

31 minutes ago, GregBowman said:

Like the  civilised country you live in......I don't think any successful person is asking for sympathy or really worries about others views. The wealth the 1st world enjoys came about because of self starters from the Romans onwards - not people just accepting their lot.

Too much of an oversimplification, too black-and-white some-things-that-were-done-justify-others. The country I live in has both got rid of a lot of very nasty problems and made a complete mess of a lot of its good stuff.

The improvements in life came from those interested in working out the problems and solutions. The "successful" were useful for helping spread those but need a close eye keeping on them, let them off the leash too much and you end up with most of the negatives we've got.

Oh and they certainly worry about others' views. There's a huge amount of "look at me!" about them.

[GregBowman]

2 hours ago, scottbeard said:

Well isn't that just the problem?  "I'm successful and therefore I don't (or don't have to) give a damn about what anyone else thinks"?

See Jack Ma today https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47934513, essentially retiring at age 54 whilst saying that his workforce should be working 12 hours a day, 6 hours a week or be deemed "slackers".

I'm sure that Mr Ma will now get to spend plenty of time with his family  - his workers, not so much.

I have no problem with people who choose to work harder, longer or smarter in order to earn more money.  I absolutely do have a problem with people who are essentially making a profit by treating others as slaves, and then trying to say that they deserve all the profit because they're a "self-starter".

Pure capitalism would in the long run result in a tiny number of insanely wealthy people, coupled with millions of people who are slaves (if they are fit to work) or dead (if they aren't) which is why I'm very happy in a society that's a long way from pure capitalism.

So am I but the rewards are now going to the wrong sections ever more to the 1%, social welfare takers (not genuine ones) whilst hard workers have xero hour contracts and no pay rises

Society is a long way from pure capitalism but also a long way from just at both ends of the spectrum

[DarkHorseWaits-NoMore]

On 12/04/2019 at 07:06, PeanutButter said:

Here's a US/UK tax comparison (from before Trump changed the system) https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/may/27/tax-britons-pay-europe-australia-us - quite interesting. 

Quote

United Kingdom

Gross salary £25,000
After tax £20,279
Tax rate 18.9%

Gross salary £40,000
After tax £30,480
Tax rate 24.8%

Gross salary £100,000
After tax £65,780
Tax rate 34.3%

Britain’s tax system is made up of income tax bands at 20%, 40% and 45%, plus national insurance contributions of a further 12%, with low earners benefiting from a tax-free personal allowance at £11,500, which is higher than most other countries.

Pretty shoddy analysis and pointless comparisons, when it fails to acknowledge the obfiscated additional 15% National Insurance paid by employers (so effectively a tax on employees in addition to the ~12% visible NI contribution), many being unaware of their true effective tax rate being closer to ~50% after the £12k threshold, although the NI maths is not a straight forward addition of 12%+15% +income Tax rate.

Not to mention the lower and upper thresholds on NI that disproportionately impacts the lower paid, plus when higher earners can implement tax efficient planning with access to legal tax free avoidance schemes (like stuffing £40k into tax free private pensions etc.) and other legal creative accounting techniques that are not available/viable for the lower paid.

Edited April 15, 2019 by DarkHorseWaits-NoMore
typo's and details

[scottbeard]

7 hours ago, DarkHorseWaits-NoMore said:

Not to mention the lower and upper thresholds on NI that disproportionately impacts the lower paid

But National Insurance was never supposed to be a tax, it was supposed to be an Insurance premium.  You pay your NI and then, if you lose your job you get a fixed £ amount, and when you get to State Pension Age you get a fixed £ amount.

If you look at NI in isolation as a tax, without looking at the benefits, then yes - it's a regressive tax.

But if you look at it as a nationalised insurance scheme it does make sense, because rich and poor get exactly the same benefits, but those earning below the upper threshold pay a lower £ amount "insurance premium" for that benefit than those earning above the threshold.

It's arguably fairer than both rich and poor having to pay the same £ amount for a TV Licence, Passport or Council Tax.

As an alternative, we could restructure our income tax and NI system to be more progressive if we wanted to - but I don't think NI as it stands is "disproportionate".

[Frugal Git]

On 10/04/2019 at 13:57, Pebbles said:

We get unlimited holidays but have to take 25 plus bank holidays. In reality most people end up taking between 30 and 35 plus bank holidays and the office is very productive. More so than the 25 day offices i have worked in.

Where I work is unlimited too, but I pro rate what I think people would take (as I'm part time, 3 days per week) - which means i take

(25 'normal' + 8 bank hols (which I ignore and work 3 days in that week anyway)) / 5 * 3

So I've been working on the presumption everyone was more stingy with themselves.

Might have to look a bit more closely at what everyone really does!

 

 

Edited April 16, 2019 by Frugal Git

[winkie]

On 14/04/2019 at 22:07, longgone said:

I have met a few seriously rich 100m plus and they never switch off that is their raison d'être however they are not happy people. The money is more a hindrance than a benefit. One of them got stabbed to death by their own son who could not keep up to father's work ethic. 

Only so much krap you can buy a Bentley is a vw in posh clothing 

.....also to cut off from their work they use addictive substances to relax, they think they have better skills and talents than others and nobody quite lives up to their standards.......not getting it that what they have or do is something others would not aspire to, they feel sorry for them and their attachments.

[Council estate capitalist]

3 hours ago, scottbeard said:

But National Insurance was never supposed to be a tax, it was supposed to be an Insurance premium.  You pay your NI and then, if you lose your job you get a fixed £ amount, and when you get to State Pension Age you get a fixed £ amount.

 

A lot of people still see it as an insurance/pension scheme. Like there's a pot of money set aside and waiting to pay out a pension.  But like the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow it is illusory. 

It's become an interesting type of insurance, where you get the benefits whether or not you have paid in.

Unemployed? Haven't paid in? No problem.  You can still claim.

Pension age? Haven't worked enough, No problem, We have pension credit for that

[scottbeard]

4 minutes ago, Council estate capitalist said:

A lot of people still see it as an insurance/pension scheme. Like there's a pot of money set aside and waiting to pay out a pension.  But like the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow it is illusory. 

It's become an interesting type of insurance, where you get the benefits whether or not you have paid in.

Unemployed? Haven't paid in? No problem.  You can still claim.

Pension age? Haven't worked enough, No problem, We have pension credit for that

The link has been watered down, for sure.

It's still there for unemployment benefits: you get income-based JSA if unemployed come what may, but only get contributions-based JSA if you've paid the NI. 

Pension credit - well yes, I guess you don't need to have paid NI any more.

Personally I think I'd be in favour of abolishing NI and wrapping it into general taxation, but I wanted to make the point to the poster above that it isn't "disproportionate" in how it impacts those on lower incomes.  Yes, they pay a higher percentage of their income in NI, but they pay a lower £ amount for benefits that are the same, or often better given means-testing, than the rich.

[Council estate capitalist]

4 hours ago, scottbeard said:

The link has been watered down, for sure.

 It's still there for unemployment benefits: you get income-based JSA if unemployed come what may, but only get contributions-based JSA if you've paid the NI. 

 Pension credit - well yes, I guess you don't need to have paid NI any more.

 Personally I think I'd be in favour of abolishing NI and wrapping it into general taxation, but I wanted to make the point to the poster above that it isn't "disproportionate" in how it impacts those on lower incomes.  Yes, they pay a higher percentage of their income in NI, but they pay a lower £ amount for benefits that are the same, or often better given means-testing, than the rich.

Agreed, it isn't disproportionate as a tax, Especially as many low earners who get caught by NI will essentially get the money back through benefits like tax credits/UC.

I'm a big fan of abolishing taxes/rolling them up into another tax.  Especially what I can "nickle and dime" taxes. I.E Council tax, TV licence, which are not progressive in nature & I can imagine quite a lot of money is wasted trying to collect them.

 

[longgone]

9 hours ago, winkie said:

.....also to cut off from their work they use addictive substances to relax, they think they have better skills and talents than others and nobody quite lives up to their standards.......not getting it that what they have or do is something others would not aspire to, they feel sorry for them and their attachments.

attachments are just that, attachments not necessities.  can`t take it with you. i guess they are useful to boast to those who aspire to those things. 

i bought a cheap used expensive new car before and i failed to see where the 60k price tag was achieved when new.  cheapo plastic underneath the expensive looking outer skin. ?