• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

£100,000 per year

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #11
    Originally posted by d000hg View Post
    Nobody in that article claimed to be a socialist from what I skim-read.

    I am not sure where you get the idea that someone who endorses socialism shouldn't be wealthy though in the first place. You set down these axioms and build an argument on a faulty foundation. I assume this is some attack on Corbyn in which case you are further confusing socialism with merely being a bit left wing - or are you making a general point?
    Surely true socialism is that everyone gets the same.

    So these people should give up everything they have until they have the same as the person who has the least.

    Not sure they are so keen on this.

    Think that they feel some animals are more equal than others really.

    Comment


      #12
      Also a "six figure salary" is a pretty wide range.

      £120Kpa is what I would describe as comfortable, not rich - you are paying 60% tax - you probably had to make a lot of sacrifices to get to that point. Your income level is also likely to be erratic - you may not end up being that much better off in the long run than someone earning £50-70Kpa in a much more stable career.

      > £500Kpa is what I would describe as rich - you really have no excuse for not being able to provide for yourself, even factoring everything in.

      The person in the BBC example was earning ~600K

      Comment


        #13
        Originally posted by centurian View Post
        Also a "six figure salary" is a pretty wide range.

        £120Kpa is what I would describe as comfortable, not rich - you are paying 60% tax - you probably had to make a lot of sacrifices to get to that point. Your income level is also likely to be erratic - you may not end up being that much better off in the long run than someone earning £50-70Kpa in a much more stable career.

        > £500Kpa is what I would describe as rich - you really have no excuse for not being able to provide for yourself, even factoring everything in.

        The person in the BBC example was earning ~600K
        Well I have to say even at 10k take home per month, it doesn't go as far as you'd think it does. It doesn't even cover the cost of a business class flight for the family to the US. I think you need closer to 25k per month minimum.
        What happens in General, stays in General.
        You know what they say about assumptions!

        Comment


          #14
          Originally posted by original PM View Post
          Surely true socialism is that everyone gets the same.

          So these people should give up everything they have until they have the same as the person who has the least.
          That's communism.

          True communism doesn't work as China, former USSR and Cuba show.

          Socialism is a varied "church" with people believing slightly different things.
          "You’re just a bad memory who doesn’t know when to go away" JR

          Comment


            #15
            Originally posted by SueEllen View Post
            That's communism.

            True communism doesn't work as China, former USSR and Cuba show.

            Socialism is a varied "church" with people believing slightly different things.
            WSS. If all the seats were First Class and we all had free champagne, then no-one would complain.
            What happens in General, stays in General.
            You know what they say about assumptions!

            Comment


              #16
              Originally posted by MarillionFan View Post
              WSS. If all the seats were First Class and we all had free champagne, then no-one would complain.
              Actually some people would as they would be allergic to champagne, simply not like it or not drink alcohol.

              Which is why some socialist theories are based on "each according to their need" and others are based on "each according to their ability".
              "You’re just a bad memory who doesn’t know when to go away" JR

              Comment


                #17
                Touched £170k last year or there abouts - according to that story I earned more than the PM. Cool. I pay a eye-watering amount on tax however. Does it make me happier? No. Happiness is a choice and nothing to do with money IMO. The lifestyle I'm afforded in this part of the world is amazing though and I'm thankful for that. Being the 'engineer' is far more rewarding than a city banker as in that story.
                "Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience". Mark Twain

                Comment


                  #18
                  Originally posted by original PM View Post
                  Surely true socialism is that everyone gets the same.

                  So these people should give up everything they have until they have the same as the person who has the least.

                  Not sure they are so keen on this.

                  Think that they feel some animals are more equal than others really.
                  Well I think they did that already. The trouble is the high flyers leave the feckless behind within minutes and return to being gods amongst insects/recruitment agents.
                  "Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience". Mark Twain

                  Comment


                    #19
                    Originally posted by SueEllen View Post
                    Actually some people would as they would be allergic to champagne, simply not like it or not drink alcohol.
                    Come the revolution the non champagne swillers will be first against the wall. Huzzah!
                    What happens in General, stays in General.
                    You know what they say about assumptions!

                    Comment


                      #20
                      Originally posted by scooterscot View Post
                      Touched £170k last year or there abouts - according to that story I earned more than the PM. Cool. I pay a eye-watering amount on tax however. Does it make me happier? No. Happiness is a choice and nothing to do with money IMO. The lifestyle I'm afforded in this part of the world is amazing though and I'm thankful for that. Being the 'engineer' is far more rewarding than a city banker as in that story.
                      It's the amount of tax that has to be paid that pisses me off.

                      So let's say you have an income like this

                      2010 - 10k
                      2011 - 10k
                      2012 - 10k
                      2013 - 100k
                      2014 - 110k
                      2015 - 0k

                      Versus someone on

                      2010 - 40k
                      2011 - 40k
                      2012 - 40k
                      2013 - 40k
                      2014 - 40k
                      2015 - 40k

                      Mr steady eady in the second example is better off, having paid a tulip load less tax, even though you earn the same over a period of time

                      Tax should be a flat rate, not hiked if you earn more in one year than another.
                      What happens in General, stays in General.
                      You know what they say about assumptions!

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X