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

[fool]

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.

I think a lot of us take things for granted too. I grew up poor, being Scottish I was lucky enough to be given free Uni, and happen to be good enough with computers that I can switch niche and follow the money. I very much didn’t know when studying that I could become earn as much as I’m earning, and thus whilst my talent and efforts have borne fruit, I was also lucky in picking a big enough pond to swim in in the first place.

[Chuck]

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

So does that mean I am a low-achiever?

No, I'd say that makes you a winner. If you can be happy with what you have, and not break yourself trying to get more, then what a fabulous position to be in.

[SueEllen]

Oh yes. I remember when I was claiming JSA - one of the questions they ask you is how far will you travel for work, I replied 1.5/2 hours max.

The guy told me - some people will kick off big time if they get asked to attend an interview in the next town or its more than 15 mins bus ride away. They think its unreasonable to expect that.

You are a high earner so expect to travel far.

There was some research done a few years ago that basically stated the higher your qualifications are the longer you travel to work.

[Unwitting Catalyst]

being privileged != being talented

Is this the same Alan Duncan who went to private school payed for by the tax payer through the Continuity of Education Allowance scheme? The same man who "helped" an elderly neighbour buy a house under the right to buy scheme that was sold back to Duncan 3 years later? No doubt he payed the full market price for it....

Mr Duncan, what you have privilege and a massively overdeveloped sense of entitlement. Don't try to pass it of as anything else

[vetran]

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?

I was trying to explain "Moral" is not really the right word. Beneficial to society as a whole is probably better.

I think logic and the needs of the many is the correct way to decide what is morally right.

[vetran]

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?

At £50k you are in the top 10-20% of wage slaves . You are comfortably off most people are surviving on less than half of that.

You are very far from a low achiever as 80% of people are below you in earning terms. Being in the top 1% is possible but I suspect few on this site manage it despite their arrogance.

Some people on this site forget how much we earn compared to a care assistant and whilst we are wiping bums metaphorically we don't get our hands that dirty.

I'm glad I earn a reasonable amount as my kids don't go hungry and I don't worry about how we are going to pay for things. This is a real privilege in these times, i remember poorer times and I'm glad i don't suffer those any more.

[SpontaneousOrder]

I was trying to explain "Moral" is not really the right word. Beneficial to society as a whole is probably better.

I think logic and the needs of the many is the correct way to decide what is morally right.

Gotcha.

I think that logic (if you mean with regards to consistency, universality, and freedom from inherent contradiction), and the needs of the many, are generally incompatible as far as morality is concerned (i.e. the only possible morality such will be one where there can be no such thing a a positive moral obligation). But that's another discussion.

[DimPrawn]

At £50k you are in the top 10-20% of wage slaves . You are comfortably off most people are surviving on less than half of that.

You are very far from a low achiever as 80% of people are below you in earning terms. Being in the top 1% is possible but I suspect few on this site manage it despite their arrogance.

Some people on this site forget how much we earn compared to a care assistant and whilst we are wiping bums metaphorically we don't get our hands that dirty.

I'm glad I earn a reasonable amount as my kids don't go hungry and I don't worry about how we are going to pay for things. This is a real privilege in these times, i remember poorer times and I'm glad i don't suffer those any more.

Bum wiping is not a highly skilled career, demanding professional qualifications or a strong technical degree.

Maybe your permie role is comparable to a bum wiper in terms of level?

[sasguru]

Maybe your permie role is comparable to a bum wiper in terms of level?

A bum wiper is probably more intelligent and does a significantly more useful job than vetran.

[Danglekt]

since when has your bank balance become the only means by which your life is judged?

What a sad world.

Also - on the actual point being raised, it is much much much easier to make money when you have money. It is very difficult to get the breaks without it - possible, but very hard.

being born by luck into a family with a few million nest egg doesn't make you a high achiever.