Tory MP says non-wealthy are "low-achievers"

[SpontaneousOrder]

Well I would definitely suspect any mechanism such as EBTs where there sole purpose is to avoid tax apart from Government created ones such as ISAs.

I would also suspect any that intentionally moved money away from reality such as expensive coffee or licensing.

However as you probably know morality is a personal thing Some religions allow and even encourage men to sleep with many women (as wives) some see that as a mortal sin.

I would suggest that where a tax avoidance scheme is not available to the majority and has no overall UK society benefit then it needs attention.

Thanks. I'm getting some mixed messages from that though.

If morality is a personal thing as you suggest, then apart from there being no distinction between personal preference and morality - rendering morality a redundant concept - I can just as simply say that it is immoral for one to pay any tax at all, and there is no standard by which you could argue that I'm wrong.

After that, though, you reassuringly start to bring in some kind of universality into the mix. So perhaps a moral principle can be considered valid if it applies to everyone as a whole?

[Halo Jones]

A big issue is that there is no true definition of wealth: it is a matter of perception.

EG: as a permie I earn c£50k, now for most of you (allegedly) that’s a poor wage.
For my peers that’s a bit above the Norm
For my family that’s a fortune.

As things are: I can pay my bills, live in a nice part of town, have treats & generally not have to worry about daily costs.
I have decided that I don’t want to go any higher up the food chain & to stay as I am.

I consider myself to be neither wealthy nor poor & I am generally happy with life.

So does that mean I am a low-achiever?

[DimPrawn]

A big issue is that there is no true definition of wealth: it is a matter of perception.

EG: as a permie I earn c£50k, now for most of you (allegedly) that’s a poor wage.
For my peers that’s a bit above the Norm
For my family that’s a fortune.

As things are: I can pay my bills, live in a nice part of town, have treats & generally not have to worry about daily costs.
I have decided that I don’t want to go any higher up the food chain & to stay as I am.

I consider myself to be neither wealthy nor poor & I am generally happy with life.

So does that mean I am a low-achiever?

The deciding factor is:

How many seats does your private jet have?

That is a good indication from my experience.

[fool]

Setting aside the divorced stuff, yes that's how it is.
But then you have to ask what sort of laziness causes someone not to buy houses(s) when they were cheap.
When I started working in the 90s, I drove a crap car for years (when I had a car at all), lived in a flat without much furniture, didn't take a holiday - that's because every single penny I earned went on property.
Some people I know earned as much or more as me but lived the high life. Fook them, I say.

The problem with that is when you had a cheap car and were investing in property in the 90s, I was at school. Great for you. Not so much for my generation and lower.

Now to be fair, I managed to struggle my onto the market too, but I'm on a bloody 1% income. What's the everyman supposed to do?

[BrilloPad]

The deciding factor is:

How many seats does your private jet have?

That is a good indication from my experience.

Yours doesn't have many as they are made of gold?

[unemployed]

The problem with that is when you had a cheap car and were investing in property in the 90s, I was at school. Great for you. Not so much for my generation and lower.

Now to be fair, I managed to struggle my onto the market too, but I'm on a bloody 1% income. What's the everyman supposed to do?

leave our tuliphole island i guess .

that`s what our masters want , or take on massive debt and keep working till you die , but make sure you die before you are entitled to a pension.

[BrilloPad]

leave our tuliphole island i guess .

that`s what our masters want , or take on massive debt and keep working till you die , but make sure you die before you are entitled to a pension.

The debt will appear large. But given 25 years will go. You just have to work your nads off for 25 years to live in a one-bed shoebox.

Don't even think about having children.....

[unemployed]

The debt will appear large. But given 25 years will go. You just have to work your nads off for 25 years to live in a one-bed shoebox.

Don't even think about having children.....

that is the reality

[DimPrawn]

Yours doesn't have many as they are made of gold?

Not just the seats.

[SpontaneousOrder]

A big issue is that there is no true definition of wealth: it is a matter of perception.

EG: as a permie I earn c£50k, now for most of you (allegedly) that’s a poor wage.
For my peers that’s a bit above the Norm
For my family that’s a fortune.

As things are: I can pay my bills, live in a nice part of town, have treats & generally not have to worry about daily costs.
I have decided that I don’t want to go any higher up the food chain & to stay as I am.

I consider myself to be neither wealthy nor poor & I am generally happy with life.

So does that mean I am a low-achiever?

He didn't actually say or suggest that non-wealthy are low achievers. Rather he suggested that low achievers will necessarily not be wealthy, and tend to resent the wealth of high achievers.

I.e. wealth comes from achievement, but achievement doesn't necessarily create proportional wealth.

It sounded to me more as though he was having a dig at the professional politicians who have never done anything in the real world.