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

[John Galt]

Nearly, I am saying that to be a successful businessman in the UK you almost certainly need rich parents, marry into a rich family etc., and yes, most entrepreneurs in the world were rich to start with.

No, not a wind up, but one should face realities and not pillory the poor for lack of get up and go, because many do have it, and as a percentage probably more than the rich, which makes the outcome of the game so sad as unfortunately the system is stacked against them.

I do understand what you are saying Threaded but I think you have a slightly distorted view because of your privileged upbringing. Do you believe that you would have failed if the only factor removed from your life was your parents wealth? Also, where do you draw the line? I would agree that someone whose family has lived in abject poverty for generations is unlikely to become a millionaire (although it's not impossible) but I would say that anyone in the lower classes could, potentially, become a millionaire without having a millionaire background. I think someone else has touched on the point that many people from very wealthy backgrounds fail dismally because they have no incentive to succeed - there is no such thing as a risk for them.

I will agree (otherwise we could go on forever) that there is a greater chance of financial success if you come from a wealthy background. However, coming from a poor background may reduce that chance it does not negate it.

[John Galt]

That - progressive taxation - is normally regarded as fairer than, for example, level taxation. Now, I'm not personally arguing that it is fairer, but I do not see that it is self-evidently unfair.

So yes, for you "what I do object to is having to hand over a much greater percentage of my earnings than others". I understand that you object to it. But do you thnk it is unfair, and if so, why? Because you object to it?

It is unfair because it is not equitable. The only reason for the higher level of tax is to generate income for the revenue. Someone who earns more will pay more with a flat rate tax system - this current system penalises you for being successful. It comes back down to the same basic thing - you cannot make all men equal. If you take away any incentive, financial or otherwise, from self-improvement in whatever form then the inevitable result is that everyone will drop down in line with the lowest common denominator. Aside from all that - if the additional tax was used to improve the lives of everyone rather than just the underprivileged it would be easier to bear - as it is taxation in this country is like charity at gunpoint.

[Fungus]

Nearly, I am saying that to be a successful businessman in the UK you almost certainly need rich parents, marry into a rich family etc., and yes, most entrepreneurs in the world were rich to start with.

No, not a wind up, but one should face realities and not pillory the poor for lack of get up and go, because many do have it, and as a percentage probably more than the rich, which makes the outcome of the game so sad as unfortunately the system is stacked against them.

I'm not sure I accept that though it has some truth.

For example you might expect family run businesses to thrive with time. But in practice family owned businesses that remain family controlled do not do well, once the original founder goes. That is because the sprogs usually have no flair for business. Ones that do well maintain ownership, but bring in ourside control.

I do agree that it is easier to succeed from a wealthy background though not necessarily rich. If when at university, or soon after, you can take risks, take a year out, play around at developing a new idea, without having to worry about where/how you will live/sleep/eat if it goes pear shaped, then you are more likely to do well in business. If on the other hand you are fighting to survive (as I was) then you have little chance.

This is certainly true of Branson, Gates, Wozniak and Jobs, all of whom were from comfy middle class backgrounds. I think Amstrad was from a modest background.

[ASB]

Nearly, I am saying that to be a successful businessman in the UK you almost certainly need rich parents, marry into a rich family etc., and yes, most entrepreneurs in the world were rich to start with.

No, not a wind up, but one should face realities and not pillory the poor for lack of get up and go, because many do have it, and as a percentage probably more than the rich, which makes the outcome of the game so sad as unfortunately the system is stacked against them.

In that context what is your definition of rich? Certainly where there is substantial capital to fall back on it makes a huge difference to the risk factors.

Even the reasonably affluent will often be in a position where they are sinking absolutely everything they own - and more - into quite modest projects. Should it go tits up then they are totally screwed. It is absoluterly all or nothing, this often screws up the risk/reward ratios beyond sense.

[threaded]

Well working on that premise then the only succesful businessmen in this country would be the product of rich parents? Do you honestly believe that the only entrepeneurs in the world were rich to start with? I am seriously beginning to wonder if this is a wind up Threaded

Nearly, I am saying that to be a successful businessman in the UK you almost certainly need rich parents, marry into a rich family etc., and yes, most entrepreneurs in the world were rich to start with.

No, not a wind up, but one should face realities and not pillory the poor for lack of get up and go, because many do have it, and as a percentage probably more than the rich, which makes the outcome of the game so sad as unfortunately the system is stacked against them.

[zathras]

That - progressive taxation - is normally regarded as fairer than, for example, level taxation. Now, I'm not personally arguing that it is fairer, but I do not see that it is self-evidently unfair.

So yes, for you "what I do object to is having to hand over a much greater percentage of my earnings than others". I understand that you object to it. But do you thnk it is unfair, and if so, why? Because you object to it?

Of course. Because as well as handing over more to the taxman, they hand over a greater proportion. In a flat tax system they would still hand over more money.

[The Lone Gunman]

I disagree. Taxes are not payment for services, so there is not such a thing as "fairness" being the same "price" for everone. Taxes are a contribution rather than an exchange of payment.

No to Sainsbury's, because it is simply a payment for purchase.

You are falling into the economics fallacy, where everything is considered simply as a purchase, with the buyer attempting to minimise the price. This is a serious point, and a very serious flaw in both logic and character often shown by people on this board.

I never said that believe that, you just asked for an argumnet that shows the system to be unfair.
I do see it as unfair, but mostly that is an acceptable compromise.
Who says that taxes shouldnt be regarded as a provision of service? It depends on your political leanings. The further left you go the more service is provide to the less well off at the cost of the better off. The further right you go you see less services and reduced cost.
Why shouldnt tax be the same price for everyone?

How can it be fair that the better off you become, the more you pay into a system that is less and less beneficial to you?

[expat]

Of course its unfair, it is just that it is an acceptable and socialy conscious [spelling] method of Government raising revenue.

You are asking someone to pay more for the same service than soemone else, in fact as the benefit systems tends to support the poor, then the rich are paying for the services provided to the poor.
Do you think it would be fair for sainsburys to charge you more for your groceries than an unemployed person?

It all depends on your view point.

I disagree. Taxes are not payment for services, so there is not such a thing as "fairness" being the same "price" for everone. Taxes are a contribution rather than an exchange of payment.

No to Sainsbury's, because it is simply a payment for purchase.

You are falling into the economics fallacy, where everything is considered simply as a purchase, with the buyer attempting to minimise the price. This is a serious point, and a very serious flaw in both logic and character often shown by people on this board.

[expat]

Well working on that premise then the only succesful businessmen in this country would be the product of rich parents? Do you honestly believe that the only entrepeneurs in the world were rich to start with? I am seriously beginning to wonder if this is a wind up Threaded

Oh really! Are you actually reading what he says? He speaks all the time of "chance". So why are you responding in absolutes, with "then the only succesful businessmen in this country would be..." and "Do you honestly believe that the only entrepeneurs... ". Mr Threaded is not saying "only", he is saying "better chance".

[The Lone Gunman]

That - progressive taxation - is normally regarded as fairer than, for example, level taxation. Now, I'm not personally arguning that it is fairer, but I do not see that it is self-evidently unfair.

So yes, for you "what I do object to is having to hand over a much greater percentage of my earnings than others". I understand that you object to it. But do you thnk it is unfair, and if so, why? Because you object to it?

Of course its unfair, it is just that it is an acceptable and socialy conscious [spelling] method of Government raising revenue.

You are asking someone to pay more for the same service than soemone else, in fact as the benefit systems tends to support the poor, then the rich are paying for the services provided to the poor.
Do you think it would be fair for sainsburys to charge you more for your groceries than an unemployed person?

It all depends on your view point.

[expat]

Why should someone who has worked hard to make a success of their lives be penalised for the success by handing over 40% of their earnings to the Government? I have no objection at all to paying tax what I no object to is having to hand over a much greater percentage of my earnings than others

That - progressive taxation - is normally regarded as fairer than, for example, level taxation. Now, I'm not personally arguing that it is fairer, but I do not see that it is self-evidently unfair.

So yes, for you "what I do object to is having to hand over a much greater percentage of my earnings than others". I understand that you object to it. But do you thnk it is unfair, and if so, why? Because you object to it?

[John Galt]

No, I disagree, what prevents the poor becoming successful is that they are not rich, and that is all there is to it. All this talk of hard work, early rising, fighting your limitations etc. is just hogwash to numb the masses who don't make it. Yes you'll get a few more toys, if you work hard, but it won't make you successful. It is all down to chance, pure and simple, the more chances you get, the more likely you will be successful.

Well working on that premise then the only succesful businessmen in this country would be the product of rich parents? Do you honestly believe that the only entrepeneurs in the world were rich to start with? I am seriously beginning to wonder if this is a wind up Threaded

[Dundeegeorge]

As a general rule I would agree

No, I disagree, what prevents the poor becoming successful is that they are not rich, and that is all there is to it. All this talk of hard work, early rising, fighting your limitations etc. is just hogwash to numb the masses who don't make it. Yes you'll get a few more toys, if you work hard, but it won't make you successful. It is all down to chance, pure and simple, the more chances you get, the more likely you will be successful.

I don't know that Alan Sugar would, or Richard Branson, or any of the many many self-made millionaires that this country still produces. Err, that produce themselves in spite of the country, I should say.

[threaded]

No, I disagree, what prevents the poor becoming successful is that they are not rich, and that is all there is to it. All this talk of hard work, early rising, fighting your limitations etc. is just hogwash to numb the masses who don't make it. Yes you'll get a few more toys, if you work hard, but it won't make you successful. It is all down to chance, pure and simple, the more chances you get, the more likely you will be successful.

[John Galt]

No, money does not affect that, but it is not the point I am trying to get across, it is a law, in this case as in many others a tax law, that prevents the poor person becoming successful. The existence of tax prevents the two being in a truly competitive position, and acts as a barrier to entry for the poor.

I agree that someone from a wealthy background will have certain advantages over someone from a poorer background but I cannot agree that there are laws, tax or otherwise, that prevent the poor person becoming successful. It is definitely not a barrier of entry either - usually the only barrier to someone succeeding are their own mental restrictions, limitations and preconceptions