Gordo's insidius reach (oh, did I spell that right?:)

[threaded]

but progressed by going to night school

Is that possible any longer? This is what I mean by social movement is becoming more and more difficult. Is it possible to get an ONC/D HNC/D by only attending college at night? Nearly everything like that has been shut down. There is still the Open University, but that's about it.

[meridian]

Is that possible any longer? This is what I mean by social movement is becoming more and more difficult. Is it possible to get an ONC/D HNC/D by only attending college at night? Nearly everything like that has been shut down. There is still the Open University, but that's about it.

Anything's still possible, it's just up to those that want it more to get off their arses and put the effort in.

A mate of mine wanted to work in the building trade, there's no apprenticeships about but he still threw in his job, found a tulipty contract spending three months nailing skirting boards to school walls, another two months doing nothing but hanging doors, eventually wormed his way into decent contracts.

Some people have a 'can do' attitude, some people don't.

[ASB]

That argument just does not hold, look for example at the Ugandan Asians. Ignore for a moment those that managed to spirit substantial assets out of the country, they obviously remained rich, and only consider those that didn't, i.e. here we have a population group where the die were thrown again. There is no correlation between those that were rich in Uganda and those that became rich in the UK.

Friends of mine came here from Uganda via Ceylon. They've done OK as it happens. There was a certain amount of cherry picking went on from nations prepared to accept them.

However, you are in principle quite right. Sombody once said that 80% of the assets are owned by 20% of the people. If they were all split up equally then in one generation 80% of the assets would still be owned by 20% of the people. It would just be a different 20%.

[John Galt]

At the risk of stating the bleedin' obvious, low skilled workers can work long hours for low pay because they are easily replaced if they get stroppy. That's why call centres are such poor work environments. If you don't like it, you're out.

In the case of skilled workers such as engineers, experience counts for a lot, and you are more valued by the employer. It is in their interest to keep you happy.

I guess there's nothing stopping the poor from gaining more skills, though it is hard if they have a family to look after, and impossible if they are thick, which some are. My father came from a dirt poor background (ancestors being brickyard labourers, knife grinders and agricultural labourers) but progressed by going to night school.

Your last paragraph says it all - unless someone is truly unable to learn because of medical disorder, everyone has the choice to better themselves or to accept their lot in life.

[threaded]

Your last paragraph says it all - unless someone is truly unable to learn because of medical disorder, everyone has the choice to better themselves or to accept their lot in life.

That could be argued, but I am not saying that people don't have a choice. Yet, what I am saying is that there are barriers, many of them artificial, and that these artifical barriers are mostly in the form of taxation and the way it is implemented and administered.

The creation of more and more tax rules does not stop rich people from avoiding paying tax, even though on a superficial level it might appear to. What it does do however is to make the hurdle that one must leap to become successful that much higher.

[John Galt]

That could be argued, but I am not saying that people don't have a choice. Yet, what I am saying is that there are barriers, many of them artificial, and that these artifical barriers are mostly in the form of taxation and the way it is implemented and administered.

The creation of more and more tax rules does not stop rich people from avoiding paying tax, even though on a superficial level it might appear to. What it does do however is to make the hurdle that one must leap to become successful that much higher.

But that is a hurdle for everyone that is trying to get on in life - the rich are already there. I would also argue the fact the the rich manage to avoid tax - probably to everything possible to reduce the bill but they are taxed unfairly in the first place so why not?

[expat]

But that is a hurdle for everyone that is trying to get on in life - the rich are already there. I would also argue the fact the the rich manage to avoid tax - probably to everything possible to reduce the bill but they are taxed unfairly in the first place so why not?

"they are taxed unfairly in the first place": is this just a given, or do you mean something specific by "unfairly"?

I'd hate to think "unfair" = "different from what I would like to see".

[threaded]

That is my point, if you are already rich being successful is easy as you do not have the barriers created by the taxation system to worry about. To go back to my example: two guys trying to set up a record import business. A rich one that has a large pile of cash to fall back on and one that doesn't.

They could decide to take a risk in not paying the VAT and hit the market with a cheaper more profitable product. Now the Customs comes a calling.

The rich one, because of his pile of cash, can buy his way out of trouble and carry on in business.

It is arguable the poor one could even take the same risk, as he will be removed from the game as soon as the Customs comes round and looks at his books. The poor one could decide not to take that risk, but now his product is more expensive.

[expat]

That is my point, if you are already rich being successful is easy as you do not have the barriers created by the taxation system to worry about. To go back to my example: two guys trying to set up a record import business. A rich one that has a large pile of cash to fall back on and one that doesn't.

They could decide to take a risk in not paying the VAT and hit the market with a cheaper more profitable product. Now the Customs comes a calling.

The rich one, because of his pile of cash, can buy his way out of trouble and carry on in business.

It is arguable the poor one could even take the same risk, as he will be removed from the game as soon as the Customs comes round and looks at his books. The poor one could decide not to take that risk, but now his product is more expensive.

Threaded is making a sound point here (long-time users of the forum may realise that jumping to agree with him is not always my style). Nobody else is even paying attention to it, by the looks of it; even when he put it in words of one syllable (or 2): if you have more cash to start with, you can take more risks on the way to "rolling a six", the less rich will be wiped out earlier.

(I hadn't thought of innovation in business as a case of The Gambler's Ruin, but it makes sense!).

[threaded]

"they are taxed unfairly in the first place": is this just a given, or do you mean something specific by "unfairly"?

I'd hate to think "unfair" = "different from what I would like to see".

I think the rich are taxed unfairly as it is an artificial barrier to other people becoming rich.

I would go further to suggest the taxation system is set up in such a way as to punish people who try to raise up the social order.