On 2008-06-29 16:26:13 +0100, Roland Perry said:

In message 48679f52@qaanaaq, at 15:42:26 on Sun, 29 Jun 2008, Andy
Hall remarked:
Of course not. Put bluntly, private hospitals are not very experienced
at intensive care.
Put bluntly, that depends on where you go and should be part of the
decision making along with the consultant and team.
It depends on your condition, and the procedure.

As well as the sanitary arrangements of the hospital

These all have an effect, but you need to go with the highest risk, and
lack of emergency intensive care in a private hospital is a greater
risk than the ones you listed.

Which is one reason to choose a private hospital with intensive care
facilities.

The message 48679e62@qaanaaq
from Andy Hall contains these words:

It seems that an average public sector dentist earns about £45k, which
is quite a comfortable salary.

By whose standards?

By most peoples.

It's the private sector ones at over £100k that I take issue with.

Why? There is no reason why a dentist shouldn't make a five figure salary.

No reason why they should either. Incomes of over £100,000 are probably
still the preserve of less than 1% of the adult population and over
£45,000 probably less than 10%. My starting figures for those
assumptions are that in 2001/02 the top 10% got £640 per week or better
and of those somewhat less than 3% got over £1000 per week.

Andy seems to inhabit a strange world where low paid public servants are
overpaid wasters while those he can emphathise with deserve to join him
in the private sector with an income in the top 1%. He doesn't seem to
care a toss about the rest of the lower orders.

--
Roger Chapman

In message 48679e62@qaanaaq, Andy Hall writes
The problem is training up loads of practitioners (in any line of
work) on the promise of a lucrative job for life that can only be
supported by overcharging the public.
I don't suppose that that is in the training course and if loads
really are being trained up, one would expect the market dynamics to
reduce the price points. Unless, of course the reality is that the
economic rate is not overcharging the public.
It seems that an average public sector dentist earns about £45k,
which is quite a comfortable salary.

By whose standards?


It's the private sector ones at over £100k that I take issue with.

Why? There is no reason why a dentist shouldn't make a five figure salary.

£10,000 ?

--
geoff

In message 4867710a@qaanaaq, Andy Hall writes
On 2008-06-29 02:16:19 +0100, geoff said:

In message 4866ba65@qaanaaq, Andy Hall writes
YOu are still being very coy and avoiding answering my question
as to how much you are paying for the insurance you are getting
I'm not going to provide that information because it is personal
not in any way that anyone is personally interested so to speak

and in any case irrelevant.
It's absolutely relevant
No, because it varies according to the individual and what they
buy. Taxation varies based on income and hence NHS contribution.

well, my renewal was £1100 plus shrapnel
I can only surmise that you pay an embarrassing amount if you are so
reticent to say

I'm not in the least bit embarrassed by what I pay in health insurance
premiums, they are worth very penny and not as high as you are
imagining - for example not an order of magnitude larger than yours or
anything close to it.


Well, the bottom line that I was hoping to get to was that the
proportion of the NI stamp which goes to dentists is not beyond the
resources of most people

The amount that you pay for private health care at the level you say you
receive is well and truly beyond what most people could afford

but since you won't play the game ...

--
geoff

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 01:16:19 UTC, geoff wrote:

In message 4866ba65@qaanaaq, Andy Hall writes
YOu are still being very coy and avoiding answering my question as
to how much you are paying for the insurance you are getting
I'm not going to provide that information because it is personal
not in any way that anyone is personally interested so to speak

and in any case irrelevant.
It's absolutely relevant

No, because it varies according to the individual and what they buy.
Taxation varies based on income and hence NHS contribution.

well, my renewal was ú1100 plus shrapnel

I can only surmise that you pay an embarrassing amount if you are so
reticent to say

Perhaps he has an embarrassing illness!

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

On 2008-06-29 17:21:08 +0100, Roger said:

The message 48679e62@qaanaaq
from Andy Hall contains these words:

It seems that an average public sector dentist earns about £45k, which
is quite a comfortable salary.

By whose standards?

By most peoples.

To someone on minimum wage, I expect that the national average wage
would seem high.



It's the private sector ones at over £100k that I take issue with.

Why? There is no reason why a dentist shouldn't make a five figure salary.

No reason why they should either.

Like all remuneration, it is based on what the remunerator is willing
to pay. If the asking level were too high, the customers wouldn't pay.

There is no restriction on people becoming dentists or doctors and
hence having access to this market. A would-be has to have the
academic and practical ability, work hard and achieve the exam results.

Perhaps not everybody is able or wants to do that. It doesn't give
them the right to criticise or complain about the income of others.



Incomes of over £100,000 are probably
still the preserve of less than 1% of the adult population and over
£45,000 probably less than 10%. My starting figures for those
assumptions are that in 2001/02 the top 10% got £640 per week or better
and of those somewhat less than 3% got over £1000 per week.

You could well be right. It would be better to encourage more people
to stretch themselves and to achieve higher earning potential provided
that they are actually creating wealth and/or benefit to their
customers.



Andy seems to inhabit a strange world where low paid public servants are
overpaid wasters

It's not a strange world to realise that there are way too many public
servants. What are they all doing? What are they producing? How
are they benefiting the economy and their customers? It's difficult
to see much benefit beyond the armed forces and one or two essential
government organisations.

Those things can easily be measured in the private sector but are
obfuscated in the public sector. If the jobs are superfluous then it
really doesn't matter how little the people are paid. It would be far
better to have a tip out and to pay better salaries to attract people
of ability from the private sector to sort out the mess.

The trouble would be with paying unemployment benefits because most
would not be empoyable in the real world.




while those he can emphathise with deserve to join him
in the private sector with an income in the top 1%. He doesn't seem to
care a toss about the rest of the lower orders.

That's really missing the point. If your statement were true, I
would be proposing that there should be a massive reduction in tax for
me because I don't use services like state education and to a large
extent, state healthcare either. I could even justify it on the basis
that were I to be in the top 1% of earners, I would be paying way over
the national average as well.

However, you will notice that I have not said that, nor have I proposed
an alteration of the tax regime beyond removal of benefit in kind tax
for health insurance premiums. I have agreed that there should be
a basic level healthcare insurance funded by taxation in which
(obviously) the higher earners will pay more than the lower earners.

Therefore I do not feel that I can be reasonably criticised for not
"caring a toss about the lower orders". If people are making an
effort to support themselves to the maximum of their ability and are or
have given value to their customers, then it is quite right and
civilised for them to receive nett help, aid and assistance from those
more able to do so than themselves.

What is not reasonable is for those who are in the 90% or even 99% of
wage earners to criticise the contribution of the top 10% or 1%.
For the most part, they are creating the work environment for the
others, and/or providing high value services to them in one form or
another.

Much is said about the glass ceiling in relation to minority groups in
business. Successful people will simply say that they didn't
realise that it was there.

To say it a different way, for most of us, the largest limiter of who
we are and what we can achieve is ourselves.

It's rather sad, that there is a curiously British disease that seeks
to put down anybody who is successful (read more than the person
commenting) on the pretext that it's "not quite nice". ********.
It's the good old fashioned "J" word.

On 2008-06-29 18:02:14 +0100, geoff said:

In message 48679e62@qaanaaq, Andy Hall writes
The problem is training up loads of practitioners (in any line of work)
on the promise of a lucrative job for life that can only be supported
by overcharging the public.
I don't suppose that that is in the training course and if loads
really are being trained up, one would expect the market dynamics to
reduce the price points. Unless, of course the reality is that the
economic rate is not overcharging the public.
It seems that an average public sector dentist earns about £45k, which
is quite a comfortable salary.

By whose standards?


It's the private sector ones at over £100k that I take issue with.

Why? There is no reason why a dentist shouldn't make a five figure salary.

£10,000 ?

Brain fart. I was thinking about 10^5 when I wrote it. Brown Black Yellow.

Hmmm.... Quite good that. Prime Minister. His current position.
What he's doing about it.

On 2008-06-29 18:11:05 +0100, geoff said:

Well, the bottom line that I was hoping to get to was that the
proportion of the NI stamp which goes to dentists is not beyond the
resources of most people

The amount that you pay for private health care at the level you say
you receive is well and truly beyond what most people could afford

but since you won't play the game ...

Why didn't you say so?

On 2008-06-29 18:15:32 +0100, "Bob Eager" said:

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 01:16:19 UTC, geoff wrote:

In message 4866ba65@qaanaaq, Andy Hall writes
YOu are still being very coy and avoiding answering my question as
to how much you are paying for the insurance you are getting
I'm not going to provide that information because it is personal
not in any way that anyone is personally interested so to speak

and in any case irrelevant.
It's absolutely relevant

No, because it varies according to the individual and what they buy.
Taxation varies based on income and hence NHS contribution.

well, my renewal was ú1100 plus shrapnel

I can only surmise that you pay an embarrassing amount if you are so
reticent to say

Perhaps he has an embarrassing illness!

Nah. Quite boring really.....

In message 4867c494@qaanaaq, Andy Hall writes
On 2008-06-29 17:21:08 +0100, Roger said:

The message 48679e62@qaanaaq
from Andy Hall contains these words:

It seems that an average public sector dentist earns about £45k,
which
is quite a comfortable salary.

By whose standards?
By most peoples.

To someone on minimum wage, I expect that the national average wage
would seem high.



It's the private sector ones at over £100k that I take issue with.

Why? There is no reason why a dentist shouldn't make a five figure
salary.
No reason why they should either.

Like all remuneration, it is based on what the remunerator is willing
to pay. If the asking level were too high, the customers wouldn't pay.

There is no restriction on people becoming dentists or doctors and
hence having access to this market. A would-be has to have the
academic and practical ability, work hard and achieve the exam results.

Perhaps not everybody is able or wants to do that. It doesn't give
them the right to criticise or complain about the income of others.



Incomes of over £100,000 are probably
still the preserve of less than 1% of the adult population and over
£45,000 probably less than 10%. My starting figures for those
assumptions are that in 2001/02 the top 10% got £640 per week or better
and of those somewhat less than 3% got over £1000 per week.

You could well be right. It would be better to encourage more people
to stretch themselves and to achieve higher earning potential provided
that they are actually creating wealth and/or benefit to their
customers.


I think you are living in cloud cuckoo land with remarks like that

Employers tend to pay what they can get away with paying - it's called
market forces, and a lot of people are already stretched or aren't going
to get a higher salary whatever they do

then there are others who aren't going to push themselves harder

Then there are e.g. shell drivers, nurses, teachers, police etc who
see their wages being eroded and put in for higher wages which ends up
with strikes for more pay which pushes up inflation - which erodes the
dentists' differential so they have even more grounds to say they can't
afford to perform NHS work - wage spirals

not everyone lives to work



It

--
geoff

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-06-29 17:21:08 +0100, Roger said:

The message 48679e62@qaanaaq
from Andy Hall contains these words:

It seems that an average public sector dentist earns about £45k, which
is quite a comfortable salary.

By whose standards?

By most peoples.

To someone on minimum wage, I expect that the national average wage
would seem high.



It's the private sector ones at over £100k that I take issue with.

Why? There is no reason why a dentist shouldn't make a five figure
salary.

No reason why they should either.

Like all remuneration, it is based on what the remunerator is willing to
pay. If the asking level were too high, the customers wouldn't pay.

There is no restriction on people becoming dentists or doctors and hence
having access to this market. A would-be has to have the academic and
practical ability, work hard and achieve the exam results.

Perhaps not everybody is able or wants to do that. It doesn't give
them the right to criticise or complain about the income of others.



Incomes of over £100,000 are probably
still the preserve of less than 1% of the adult population and over
£45,000 probably less than 10%. My starting figures for those
assumptions are that in 2001/02 the top 10% got £640 per week or better
and of those somewhat less than 3% got over £1000 per week.

You could well be right. It would be better to encourage more people
to stretch themselves and to achieve higher earning potential provided
that they are actually creating wealth and/or benefit to their customers.



Andy seems to inhabit a strange world where low paid public servants are
overpaid wasters

It's not a strange world to realise that there are way too many public
servants. What are they all doing? What are they producing? How
are they benefiting the economy and their customers? It's difficult
to see much benefit beyond the armed forces and one or two essential
government organisations.

Those things can easily be measured in the private sector but are
obfuscated in the public sector. If the jobs are superfluous then it
really doesn't matter how little the people are paid. It would be far
better to have a tip out and to pay better salaries to attract people of
ability from the private sector to sort out the mess.

The trouble would be with paying unemployment benefits because most
would not be empoyable in the real world.




while those he can emphathise with deserve to join him
in the private sector with an income in the top 1%. He doesn't seem to
care a toss about the rest of the lower orders.

That's really missing the point. If your statement were true, I
would be proposing that there should be a massive reduction in tax for
me because I don't use services like state education and to a large
extent, state healthcare either. I could even justify it on the basis
that were I to be in the top 1% of earners, I would be paying way over
the national average as well.

However, you will notice that I have not said that, nor have I proposed
an alteration of the tax regime beyond removal of benefit in kind tax
for health insurance premiums. I have agreed that there should be
a basic level healthcare insurance funded by taxation in which
(obviously) the higher earners will pay more than the lower earners.

Therefore I do not feel that I can be reasonably criticised for not
"caring a toss about the lower orders". If people are making an
effort to support themselves to the maximum of their ability and are or
have given value to their customers, then it is quite right and
civilised for them to receive nett help, aid and assistance from those
more able to do so than themselves.

What is not reasonable is for those who are in the 90% or even 99% of
wage earners to criticise the contribution of the top 10% or 1%.
For the most part, they are creating the work environment for the
others, and/or providing high value services to them in one form or
another.

Much is said about the glass ceiling in relation to minority groups in
business. Successful people will simply say that they didn't
realise that it was there.

To say it a different way, for most of us, the largest limiter of who we
are and what we can achieve is ourselves.

It's rather sad, that there is a curiously British disease that seeks to
put down anybody who is successful (read more than the person
commenting) on the pretext that it's "not quite nice". ********.
It's the good old fashioned "J" word.



I expect the Northern Rock boss was extremely successful by your standards.

On 2008-06-29 18:41:16 +0100, geoff said:

In message 4867c494@qaanaaq, Andy Hall writes
It would be better to encourage more people to stretch themselves and
to achieve higher earning potential provided that they are actually
creating wealth and/or benefit to their customers.


I think you are living in cloud cuckoo land with remarks like that

I disagree. If that were the case, there would be no new businesses
(there are) and no new opportunities. I prefer to think of glasses
being half full.



Employers tend to pay what they can get away with paying - it's called
market forces

I agree.


, and a lot of people are already stretched or aren't going to get a
higher salary whatever they do

I disagree. There are always options. Ultimately, they are limited
by the individual and what they are willing to do and to risk.




then there are others who aren't going to push themselves harder

All I can say to that is that achievement requires effort and commitment.



Then there are e.g. shell drivers, nurses, teachers, police etc who
see their wages being eroded and put in for higher wages which ends up
with strikes for more pay which pushes up inflation - which erodes the
dentists' differential so they have even more grounds to say they can't
afford to perform NHS work - wage spirals

Market correction.


not everyone lives to work



True, actually of most people. Equally, some people want 35 hour weeks
while others are willing to do rather more if needed to achieve their
objectives.

On 2008-06-29 18:47:20 +0100, stuart noble said:

I expect the Northern Rock boss was extremely successful by your standards.

No, because he didn't operate a sustainable business.

The message 4867c494@qaanaaq
from Andy Hall contains these words:

It seems that an average public sector dentist earns about £45k, which
is quite a comfortable salary.

By whose standards?

By most peoples.

To someone on minimum wage, I expect that the national average wage
would seem high.

So it would but that isn't most people. Even to those on the median wage
the average (mean) wage would be something to aspire to.

It's the private sector ones at over £100k that I take issue with.

Why? There is no reason why a dentist shouldn't make a five
figure salary.

No reason why they should either.

Like all remuneration, it is based on what the remunerator is willing
to pay. If the asking level were too high, the customers wouldn't pay.

If you would only return to the real world you would find that the bulk
of the population can't afford the fees your sort of dentist charges. If
the NHS didn't provide a subsidised service the number of practicing
dentists would reduce substantially.

There is no restriction on people becoming dentists or doctors and
hence having access to this market. A would-be has to have the
academic and practical ability, work hard and achieve the exam results.

Perhaps not everybody is able or wants to do that. It doesn't give
them the right to criticise or complain about the income of others.

Since when has dentistry been such an arduous discipline that the only
entrants are the cream of the cream? And I trust that you will remember
your words just above when you complain yet again about the income of
public servants.

Incomes of over £100,000 are probably
still the preserve of less than 1% of the adult population and over
£45,000 probably less than 10%. My starting figures for those
assumptions are that in 2001/02 the top 10% got £640 per week or better
and of those somewhat less than 3% got over £1000 per week.

You could well be right. It would be better to encourage more people
to stretch themselves and to achieve higher earning potential provided
that they are actually creating wealth and/or benefit to their
customers.

If everyone stretches themselves the competition just gets fiercer and
the pecking order and remuneration stays the same. Wealth is largely an
illusion, at least in terms of money.

Andy seems to inhabit a strange world where low paid public servants are
overpaid wasters

It's not a strange world to realise that there are way too many public
servants. What are they all doing? What are they producing? How
are they benefiting the economy and their customers? It's difficult
to see much benefit beyond the armed forces and one or two essential
government organisations.

Don't be coy. Which particular national or local government departments
did you have in mind either as essential to your well being or destined
for obliteration?

Those things can easily be measured in the private sector but are
obfuscated in the public sector. If the jobs are superfluous then it
really doesn't matter how little the people are paid. It would be far
better to have a tip out and to pay better salaries to attract people
of ability from the private sector to sort out the mess.

There is not an unlimited pool of talent either inside public service or
outside. Where the private sector scores is that they don't have to
stick so rigidly to all those silly rules and regulations governments of
all persuasions so enjoy handing down.

The trouble would be with paying unemployment benefits because most
would not be empoyable in the real world.

Why not. There is laziness and incompetence aplenty in the private
sector, quite possibly more than there is in the public sector.

while those he can empathise with deserve to join him
in the private sector with an income in the top 1%. He doesn't seem to
care a toss about the rest of the lower orders.

That's really missing the point. If your statement were true, I
would be proposing that there should be a massive reduction in tax for
me because I don't use services like state education and to a large
extent, state healthcare either.

Seems to me that is precisely what you have been whinging on about all
along. I don't suppose you could have been at all affluent back in the
late 70s when basic rate was at a peak of 33% and higher rates went up
to 83%, or 98% with the addition of investment income surcharge. You
would surely have died of a heart attack, private insurance not
withstanding.

I could even justify it on the basis
that were I to be in the top 1% of earners, I would be paying way over
the national average as well.

You may still end up paying a smaller proportion of your income in tax
than do those on modest incomes. If you are genuinely self employed you
most probably will.

However, you will notice that I have not said that, nor have I proposed
an alteration of the tax regime beyond removal of benefit in kind tax
for health insurance premiums. I have agreed that there should be
a basic level healthcare insurance funded by taxation in which
(obviously) the higher earners will pay more than the lower earners.

I thought you were advocating education vouchers as well.

Both measures would have but one result, that those on low incomes foot
more of the bill and given ******* Brown's penchant for rewarding 'hard
working families' that means in effect the childless on low incomes.

Therefore I do not feel that I can be reasonably criticised for not
"caring a toss about the lower orders". If people are making an
effort to support themselves to the maximum of their ability and are or
have given value to their customers, then it is quite right and
civilised for them to receive nett help, aid and assistance from those
more able to do so than themselves.

Which sentiments are totally at odds with the usual scorn you reserve
for public servants so I assume you are excluding them from any "nett
help, aid and assistance".
What is not reasonable is for those who are in the 90% or even 99% of
wage earners to criticise the contribution of the top 10% or 1%.
For the most part, they are creating the work environment for the
others, and/or providing high value services to them in one form or
another.

Much is said about the glass ceiling in relation to minority groups in
business. Successful people will simply say that they didn't
realise that it was there.

Prejudice comes in many forms as your irrational hatred of the public
sector demonstrates but we have developed a very curious public
definition of equality in this country. Employees should be judged on
their value to their employer, not on their sex or colour. Not employing
the most cost effective candidate doesn't really make sense except in
the PC world.

To say it a different way, for most of us, the largest limiter of who
we are and what we can achieve is ourselves.

Tut, Tut. You must know that it is now received wisdom that all children
are born equal and it is only deprivation that causes some to end up as
thick as two short planks. :-)

It's rather sad, that there is a curiously British disease that seeks
to put down anybody who is successful (read more than the person
commenting) on the pretext that it's "not quite nice". ********.
It's the good old fashioned "J" word.

Depends what the success is built on. Is the average part time lobby
fodder MP really worth what we pay him? Since there are a super
abundance of well qualified candidates (lying toerags with the gift of
the gab and an eye for the main chance) should we not have MPs income
fixed by market forces rather than self interest?

--
Roger Chapman

On 2008-06-29 20:58:16 +0100, Roger said:

The message 4867c494@qaanaaq
from Andy Hall contains these words:

To someone on minimum wage, I expect that the national average wage
would seem high.

So it would but that isn't most people. Even to those on the median wage
the average (mean) wage would be something to aspire to.

OK, fine, but do people really spend their time looking at this? Do
they understand the difference between median and mean.




If you would only return to the real world you would find that the bulk
of the population can't afford the fees your sort of dentist charges. If
the NHS didn't provide a subsidised service the number of practicing
dentists would reduce substantially.

Sigh. This misses the point completely. If there were not the
unreasonable tax take to fund the NHS plus the fees (even so) to go to
an NHS dentist - still in the hundreds for many procedures, the
equation would be remarkably different .

If the NHS were removed from the equation and taxes reduced
accordingly, more money would be left to individuals to purchase their
own dental care

For some reason, people have an emotional attachment to this NHS scam.
The reality is that proper treatment is available privately for very
little difference in cost once the incompetent public sector is
excluded from the equation.



Since when has dentistry been such an arduous discipline that the only
entrants are the cream of the cream? And I trust that you will remember
your words just above when you complain yet again about the income of
public servants.

It doesn't matter. The market determines the price. People are
willing to pay for private dentistry. That results in the income
level. Comparing with something else is a nonsense.

This takes us down the road of the 1970s with the idiot unions bitching
and moaning because their differentials relative to another totally
unrelated industry were being squeezed. It's utter crap and the
result has been the demise of all of it because the market won't
tolerate it.




Incomes of over £100,000 are probably
still the preserve of less than 1% of the adult population and over
£45,000 probably less than 10%. My starting figures for those
assumptions are that in 2001/02 the top 10% got £640 per week or better
and of those somewhat less than 3% got over £1000 per week.

You could well be right. It would be better to encourage more people
to stretch themselves and to achieve higher earning potential provided
that they are actually creating wealth and/or benefit to their
customers.

If everyone stretches themselves the competition just gets fiercer and
the pecking order and remuneration stays the same. Wealth is largely an
illusion, at least in terms of money.

So people shouldn't stretch themselves? That's a very sad indictment.




Don't be coy. Which particular national or local government departments
did you have in mind either as essential to your well being or destined
for obliteration?

The list is very limited indeed. So far, I have written down the
armed forces, secret services and certain aspects of agriculture.
It gets difficult to go beyond there in terms of people who actually
produce something of benefit in the public sector.





Those things can easily be measured in the private sector but are
obfuscated in the public sector. If the jobs are superfluous then it
really doesn't matter how little the people are paid. It would be far
better to have a tip out and to pay better salaries to attract people
of ability from the private sector to sort out the mess.

There is not an unlimited pool of talent either inside public service or
outside. Where the private sector scores is that they don't have to
stick so rigidly to all those silly rules and regulations governments of
all persuasions so enjoy handing down.

Exactly, which is why the public sector attracts the jobsworths and
others unable to think for themselves.




The trouble would be with paying unemployment benefits because most
would not be empoyable in the real world.

Why not. There is laziness and incompetence aplenty in the private
sector, quite possibly more than there is in the public sector.

The figures don't suggest that.




while those he can empathise with deserve to join him
in the private sector with an income in the top 1%. He doesn't seem to
care a toss about the rest of the lower orders.

That's really missing the point. If your statement were true, I
would be proposing that there should be a massive reduction in tax for
me because I don't use services like state education and to a large
extent, state healthcare either.

Seems to me that is precisely what you have been whinging on about all
along. I don't suppose you could have been at all affluent back in the
late 70s when basic rate was at a peak of 33% and higher rates went up
to 83%, or 98% with the addition of investment income surcharge. You
would surely have died of a heart attack, private insurance not
withstanding.

That makes no sense. In fact the stealth taxes more than make up
for the apparent changes in income tax.




I could even justify it on the basis
that were I to be in the top 1% of earners, I would be paying way over
the national average as well.

You may still end up paying a smaller proportion of your income in tax
than do those on modest incomes. If you are genuinely self employed you
most probably will.

That would be very surprising. The amounts matter as well as the proportions.





However, you will notice that I have not said that, nor have I proposed
an alteration of the tax regime beyond removal of benefit in kind tax
for health insurance premiums. I have agreed that there should be
a basic level healthcare insurance funded by taxation in which
(obviously) the higher earners will pay more than the lower earners.

I thought you were advocating education vouchers as well.

I am.


Both measures would have but one result, that those on low incomes foot
more of the bill and given ******* Brown's penchant for rewarding 'hard
working families' that means in effect the childless on low incomes.

Of course it doesn't. Payment on the way in remains on the same basis
as today - amount based on earnings.

Vouchers given to everybody irrespective of means. That alone amounts
to massive redistribution of wealth.

Those individuals who wish to supplement the vouchers can do so, those
who don't wish to or can't still get what they do today. All that
changes is putting the customer in the driving seat, not the government.




Therefore I do not feel that I can be reasonably criticised for not
"caring a toss about the lower orders". If people are making an
effort to support themselves to the maximum of their ability and are or
have given value to their customers, then it is quite right and
civilised for them to receive nett help, aid and assistance from those
more able to do so than themselves.

Which sentiments are totally at odds with the usual scorn you reserve
for public servants so I assume you are excluding them from any "nett
help, aid and assistance".

I did say "if they are making an effort to support themselves"

Sorry but it's a hard world. I haven't yet heard a justification for
most of the public sector.



What is not reasonable is for those who are in the 90% or even 99% of
wage earners to criticise the contribution of the top 10% or 1%.
For the most part, they are creating the work environment for the
others, and/or providing high value services to them in one form or
another.

Much is said about the glass ceiling in relation to minority groups in
business. Successful people will simply say that they didn't
realise that it was there.

Prejudice comes in many forms as your irrational hatred of the public
sector demonstrates but we have developed a very curious public
definition of equality in this country.

Employees should be judged on
their value to their employer, not on their sex or colour. Not employing
the most cost effective candidate doesn't really make sense except in
the PC world.

I completely agree. I don't have a hatred of the public sector. For
example, I think that there is value in having armed forces and
security services. Beyond that, the justification thins out rapidly.
You're right. People should be judged on their value to their
employer. Most of the civil service would be be hard pressed to
justify themselves to me (or you), their employer.

Think about the huge benefit to the economy if all of the hangers on
were gainfully employed. The trouble is that I suspect that most are
not capable of dealing with the world of hard knocks.



To say it a different way, for most of us, the largest limiter of who
we are and what we can achieve is ourselves.

Tut, Tut. You must know that it is now received wisdom that all children
are born equal and it is only deprivation that causes some to end up as
thick as two short planks. :-)

... and some are more equal than others.



It's rather sad, that there is a curiously British disease that seeks
to put down anybody who is successful (read more than the person
commenting) on the pretext that it's "not quite nice". ********.
It's the good old fashioned "J" word.

Depends what the success is built on. Is the average part time lobby
fodder MP really worth what we pay him?

Nope.

Since there are a super
abundance of well qualified candidates (lying toerags with the gift of
the gab and an eye for the main chance) should we not have MPs income
fixed by market forces rather than self interest?

Yep.

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 17:21:08 +0100 Roger wrote :
No reason why they should either. Incomes of over £100,000 are
probably still the preserve of less than 1% of the adult population

My understanding was the average private sector dentist trousers £100K,
but in fairness this is really from three sources: i. what he/she actually
earns for work done; ii. the profit element from a business employing in
the case of my dentist about ten people; and iii. return on capital tied
up in the business

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

In message 4867fc9d@qaanaaq, Andy Hall writes
If you would only return to the real world you would find that the
bulk
of the population can't afford the fees your sort of dentist charges. If
the NHS didn't provide a subsidised service the number of practicing
dentists would reduce substantially.

Sigh. This misses the point completely. If there were not the
unreasonable tax take to fund the NHS plus the fees (even so) to go to
an NHS dentist - still in the hundreds for many procedures, the
equation would be remarkably different .

If the NHS were removed from the equation and taxes reduced
accordingly, more money would be left to individuals to purchase their
own dental care

So how much does each person pay purely to fund the NHS

Say, married, paying normal tax, on £30,000/year


--
geoff

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 10:10:33 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

No, I'm simply asking a question. So far there hasn't been a
rational explanation as to why dentists should run at a loss, only that
it's supposed not to be acceptable for them to have a reasonable house
and car.

Do you need to earn 100K to have a "reasonable" house and car, then?

Linda ff

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 19:43:43 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2008-06-29 18:41:16 +0100, geoff said:

, and a lot of people are already stretched or aren't going to get a
higher salary whatever they do

I disagree. There are always options. Ultimately, they are limited
by the individual and what they are willing to do and to risk.

I really can't believe you typed that with a straight face. What has
"willing" to do with it when you are of only average intelligence or
below (it's not a crime, y'know) and have no qualifications and almost
no chance of gaining any that will significantly increase your earning
power (becasue of the first factor)? Or do you think such people are
the exception rather than the rule?

Linda ff

On 2008-06-29 22:36:42 +0100, geoff said:

In message 4867fc9d@qaanaaq, Andy Hall writes
If you would only return to the real world you would find that the bulk
of the population can't afford the fees your sort of dentist charges. If
the NHS didn't provide a subsidised service the number of practicing
dentists would reduce substantially.

Sigh. This misses the point completely. If there were not the
unreasonable tax take to fund the NHS plus the fees (even so) to go to
an NHS dentist - still in the hundreds for many procedures, the
equation would be remarkably different .

If the NHS were removed from the equation and taxes reduced
accordingly, more money would be left to individuals to purchase their
own dental care

So how much does each person pay purely to fund the NHS

Say, married, paying normal tax, on £30,000/year

Therein lies the problem.....

There is no easy way to determine that. We know that the NHS
spends £90bn per annum. We could calculate the tax in total for the
£30k man. Connect the two? Where are the government numbers for
that?

On 2008-06-29 22:49:06 +0100, Linda Fox said:

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 10:10:33 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

No, I'm simply asking a question. So far there hasn't been a
rational explanation as to why dentists should run at a loss, only that
it's supposed not to be acceptable for them to have a reasonable house
and car.

Do you need to earn 100K to have a "reasonable" house and car, then?

Linda ff

You tell me.

There are two determinants of what is reasonable in this situation.

- The person in receipt of the earnings

- The people paying them


What is the moaning about? If you don't want to pay the dentist his
asking price then you have two options - negotiate or failing that
don't buy.

Would you negotiate with the dentist on the basis that you don't think
he should be making 100k per year or would you be discussing the price?

If you say to him that you think that a reasonable house can be bought
on a salary of £45k and that you will therefore offer him half of of
his asking price, he might consider it rather odd.

Do you go into Tescos and tell them that you'll pay them half the
asking price for bananas because you think that Terry Leahy's pad in
Hertfordshire is a bit too much.? He would probably consider that
100k is rather light for what he would consider to be a reasonable
house and car. OTOH, he does run a fairly successful business and
returns shareholder value..... To pension fund and ISA investors.

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 22:20:29 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:


It doesn't matter. The market determines the price. People are
willing to pay for private dentistry. That results in the income
level. Comparing with something else is a nonsense.

Andy -

AFAICR, _every_ one of your postings refers to money. Is your life so
sad that it's driven purely by it?

Whilst I do agree with you on many aspects, I think that life does
involve a lot more, such as real people in Anytown, Anywhere...

--
Frank Erskine

On 2008-06-29 22:52:41 +0100, Linda Fox said:

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 19:43:43 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2008-06-29 18:41:16 +0100, geoff said:

, and a lot of people are already stretched or aren't going to get a
higher salary whatever they do

I disagree. There are always options. Ultimately, they are limited
by the individual and what they are willing to do and to risk.

I really can't believe you typed that with a straight face.

You probably can't


What has
"willing" to do with it when you are of only average intelligence or
below (it's not a crime, y'know) and have no qualifications and almost
no chance of gaining any that will significantly increase your earning
power (becasue of the first factor)? Or do you think such people are
the exception rather than the rule?



There are always options. Qualifications are but one factor and are
not a necessary prerequisite for success. Take a look at the
biographies of Ingvar Kamprad, Alan Sugar, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates,
the Albrechts. None had a university education apart from Gates who
didn't complete his.

It's likely that all of these people are of above average intelligence.
There are people of high IQ who have not or did not make a lot of
money.


I don't accept the premise that because someone is of average or below
average intelligence that they should resign themselves to a life of
drudgery. That might suit the failed socialist world of a few
decades ago, but there is no excuse for it now.

On 2008-06-29 23:39:29 +0100, Frank Erskine
said:

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 22:20:29 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:


It doesn't matter. The market determines the price. People are
willing to pay for private dentistry. That results in the income
level. Comparing with something else is a nonsense.

Andy -

AFAICR, _every_ one of your postings refers to money. Is your life so
sad that it's driven purely by it?

Absolutely not. It is a convenient form of exchange and comparison only.

One could discuss things on the basis of what in total needs to be done
to achieve X. That can be an interesting discussion but it can
also become very broad. How does one make assessments and comparisons?


Whilst I do agree with you on many aspects, I think that life does
involve a lot more, such as real people in Anytown, Anywhere...

I agree.

In message 48680fff@qaanaaq, Andy Hall writes
On 2008-06-29 22:52:41 +0100, Linda Fox said:

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 19:43:43 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2008-06-29 18:41:16 +0100, geoff said:

, and a lot of people are already stretched or aren't going to get

higher salary whatever they do
I disagree. There are always options. Ultimately, they are
limited
by the individual and what they are willing to do and to risk.
I really can't believe you typed that with a straight face.

You probably can't


What has
"willing" to do with it when you are of only average intelligence or
below (it's not a crime, y'know) and have no qualifications and almost
no chance of gaining any that will significantly increase your earning
power (becasue of the first factor)? Or do you think such people are
the exception rather than the rule?



There are always options. Qualifications are but one factor and are
not a necessary prerequisite for success. Take a look at the
biographies of Ingvar Kamprad, Alan Sugar, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates,
the Albrechts. None had a university education apart from Gates who
didn't complete his.

they also

a) were in the right place at the right time
b) got the breaks
c) had drive
d) went for it

You seem to underestimate the importance of all of the above falling
into place


It's likely that all of these people are of above average intelligence.
There are people of high IQ who have not or did not make a lot of
money.

see above


I don't accept the premise that because someone is of average or below
average intelligence that they should resign themselves to a life of
drudgery. That might suit the failed socialist world of a few
decades ago, but there is no excuse for it now.

you seem to think that everyone is primarily driven by work

If you are working on a production line, bettering yourself at work
really isn't an option, is it






--
geoff

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 23:50:51 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2008-06-29 23:39:29 +0100, Frank Erskine
said:

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 22:20:29 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:


It doesn't matter. The market determines the price. People are
willing to pay for private dentistry. That results in the income
level. Comparing with something else is a nonsense.

Andy -

AFAICR, _every_ one of your postings refers to money. Is your life so
sad that it's driven purely by it?

Absolutely not.

It would seem absolutely so...

It is a convenient form of exchange and comparison only.

Comparing what with what?

--
Frank Erskine

Linda Fox wrote:

I disagree. There are always options. Ultimately, they are limited
by the individual and what they are willing to do and to risk.

I really can't believe you typed that with a straight face. What has
"willing" to do with it when you are of only average intelligence or
below (it's not a crime, y'know) and have no qualifications and almost
no chance of gaining any that will significantly increase your earning
power (becasue of the first factor)? Or do you think such people are
the exception rather than the rule?

If you are prepared to step outside the cosy world of traditional
employment, then average intelligence and lack of qualifications do not
have to hold you back. That is not to say that they may not limit your
options in a particular career, however it is your choice to continue to
pursue it in most cases.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Andy Hall wrote:

So how much does each person pay purely to fund the NHS

Say, married, paying normal tax, on £30,000/year

Therein lies the problem.....

There is no easy way to determine that. We know that the NHS spends
£90bn per annum. We could calculate the tax in total for the £30k
man. Connect the two? Where are the government numbers for that?

Even if available it still does not give you the total answer because of
all the extra point of delivery payments you need to make for your "free
at the point of deliver" NHS treatment...


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

geoff wrote:

There are always options. Qualifications are but one factor and are
not a necessary prerequisite for success. Take a look at the
biographies of Ingvar Kamprad, Alan Sugar, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates,
the Albrechts. None had a university education apart from Gates who
didn't complete his.

they also

a) were in the right place at the right time

As were a multitude of others...

b) got the breaks

That is partly true, but it is also about being prepared and ready to
take action when the breaks come along.

c) had drive
d) went for it

Undoubtedly.

You seem to underestimate the importance of all of the above falling
into place

two of them are totally under you control, and the others can be greatly
influenced by your actions.

It's likely that all of these people are of above average
intelligence. There are people of high IQ who have not or did not make
a lot of money.

see above

Well if one is not prepared to do (say) C and D should they really be
complaining that people who are reap the rewards?

I don't accept the premise that because someone is of average or below
average intelligence that they should resign themselves to a life of
drudgery. That might suit the failed socialist world of a few
decades ago, but there is no excuse for it now.

you seem to think that everyone is primarily driven by work

If you are working on a production line, bettering yourself at work
really isn't an option, is it

No, but who says you have to work on a production line?

Some will argue they are "trapped" in their job because they can't
afford to give up the production line work to try something else. The
reality is that is not going to stop someone determined enough from say
starting their own business part time and organising a transition as
success/income allows.

However C and D from your lists are pre-requisites certainly.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Andy Hall wrote:

I know that security by obfuscation isn't a good principle, but I'm not
sure what the nanny state can do with knowing my blood group and lipid
profile.

Cock up the data storage and mix your records with someone else's
perhaps? (that could jack up your health insurance costs!)


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

geoff wrote:

Well, the bottom line that I was hoping to get to was that the
proportion of the NI stamp which goes to dentists is not beyond the
resources of most people

What has NI got to do with it these days? The NHS is funded out of
general taxation, and NI is treated as such in most respects. Any
concept of targeting NI contributions at either healthcare or pension
provision vanished years ago.

The amount that you pay for private health care at the level you say you
receive is well and truly beyond what most people could afford

Unless the money the government currently spend on running and
micromanaging the NHS were spent on providing health insurance for all
perhaps?


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 2008-06-30 00:01:17 +0100, geoff said:

they also

a) were in the right place at the right time
b) got the breaks
c) had drive
d) went for it

You seem to underestimate the importance of all of the above falling into place

Not really. I wasn't suggesting that everybody can become a
billionaire, only that it is possible to make a change relative to
where one is now. All of these people began with (c) (and (d);
with (a) and (b) coming later. This was especially true of Kamprad
and Sugar.




It's likely that all of these people are of above average intelligence.
There are people of high IQ who have not or did not make a lot of money.

see above


I don't accept the premise that because someone is of average or below
average intelligence that they should resign themselves to a life of
drudgery. That might suit the failed socialist world of a few
decades ago, but there is no excuse for it now.

you seem to think that everyone is primarily driven by work

No I don't. A better way to think of it is the degree to which
people are driven in *all* that they do; be it in their work or in
everything else. It is really that that makes the difference and the
two shouldn't be confused.



If you are working on a production line, bettering yourself at work
really isn't an option, is it

At work, probably not. Outside of work, certainly.

On 2008-06-30 05:31:08 +0100, John Rumm said:

Andy Hall wrote:

So how much does each person pay purely to fund the NHS

Say, married, paying normal tax, on £30,000/year

Therein lies the problem.....

There is no easy way to determine that. We know that the NHS
spends £90bn per annum. We could calculate the tax in total for the
£30k man. Connect the two? Where are the government numbers for
that?

Even if available it still does not give you the total answer because
of all the extra point of delivery payments you need to make for your
"free at the point of deliver" NHS treatment...

I know. As far as I have been able to determine, after looking for
the figures for quite some time, it isn't possible to make the
calculations using government figures. One can do crude
determinations like calculating the tax takes for various people or
dividing the 90Bn by the number of the population.

If it were possible to do that, then one could work out the impact of
the additional charges, keeping in mind that these are out of net
income and therefore for most people are subject to tax and two NI hits.

On 2008-06-30 00:39:39 +0100, Frank Erskine
said:

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 23:50:51 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2008-06-29 23:39:29 +0100, Frank Erskine
said:

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 22:20:29 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:


It doesn't matter. The market determines the price. People are
willing to pay for private dentistry. That results in the income
level. Comparing with something else is a nonsense.

Andy -

AFAICR, _every_ one of your postings refers to money. Is your life so
sad that it's driven purely by it?

Absolutely not.

It would seem absolutely so...

Impressions can be misleading


It is a convenient form of exchange and comparison only.

Comparing what with what?

The discussion has been about healthcare and how it operates. A
cursory glance through the NICE web site (the professional areas, not
the patient one) or a large prportion of clinical papers resulting
from research in the NHS environment will show that it is very largely
about money and how to spread it around. Of course, this isn't
widely advertised. The marketing machine would seek to have us all
convinced that it's all wonderful and getting better and even that we
should be grateful for what we get.

One approach to this is to allow personal responsibility to be
abrogated to the government, pay taxes and be fatalistic about it.
This is what the majority of people actually do. I touched on
education and the story is essentially the same there.

I happen to think that these issues are way too important to the
individual to entrust the government with them.

I can find information about clinical practice and outcome from a
variety of places. Some of the information is digital (did the patient
die or not) while some is analogue (was there an improvement to
symptoms and quality of life). I can find infection rates and so on.

The finances are inevitably part of this equation. They are not a be
all and end all, simply a means of measurement and exchange.

I don't see them in a greater or less way. I could describe a
scenario in terms of what do I have to do in order to achieve X; but
this becomes unnecessarily complicated.

On 2008-06-30 05:42:56 +0100, John Rumm said:

Andy Hall wrote:

I know that security by obfuscation isn't a good principle, but I'm not
sure what the nanny state can do with knowing my blood group and lipid
profile.

Cock up the data storage and mix your records with someone else's
perhaps? (that could jack up your health insurance costs!)

I watch for that one like a hawk, which is why I obtain and keep copies
of everything.

"Linda Fox" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 10:10:33 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

No, I'm simply asking a question. So far there hasn't been a
rational explanation as to why dentists should run at a loss, only that
it's supposed not to be acceptable for them to have a reasonable house
and car.

Do you need to earn 100K to have a "reasonable" house and car, then?

Linda ff

What is a 'reasonable' house and car?

Most dentists I know live over the shop and don't need a car. That doesn't
mean they don't WANT one but that's a different matter.

Mary

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 23:27:59 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2008-06-29 22:49:06 +0100, Linda Fox said:

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 10:10:33 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

No, I'm simply asking a question. So far there hasn't been a
rational explanation as to why dentists should run at a loss, only that
it's supposed not to be acceptable for them to have a reasonable house
and car.

Do you need to earn 100K to have a "reasonable" house and car, then?

You tell me.

, No, I asked you. Why can't you just answer the question.

There are two determinants of what is reasonable in this situation.

- The person in receipt of the earnings

- The people paying them

What on EARTH does "the people paying them" have to do with whether or
not a "reasonable house and car" requires £100K?

What is the moaning about? If you don't want to pay the dentist his
asking price then you have two options - negotiate or failing that
don't buy.

Irrelevant to my question

Would you negotiate with the dentist on the basis that you don't think
he should be making 100k per year or would you be discussing the price?

Irrelevant to my question

If you say to him that you think that a reasonable house can be bought
on a salary of £45k and that you will therefore offer him half of of
his asking price, he might consider it rather odd.

Irrelevant to my question

Do you go into Tescos and tell them that you'll pay them half the
asking price for bananas because you think that Terry Leahy's pad in
Hertfordshire is a bit too much.? He would probably consider that
100k is rather light for what he would consider to be a reasonable
house and car. OTOH, he does run a fairly successful business and
returns shareholder value..... To pension fund and ISA investors.

Again, irrelevant.

Some people have been suggesting that they think 100k is overpayment.
You said they were resenting the fact that a dentist should aspire to
a reasonable house and car. From your answers I would infer that you
meant "only that it's supposed not to be acceptable for them to have a
SUPERIOR house and car"

Now, if that's what you really meant, then say it and then we can all
move the goal posts. Stop being so weaselly (sp?)

Linda ff

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 05:16:02 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

If you are prepared to step outside the cosy world of traditional
employment, then average intelligence and lack of qualifications do not
have to hold you back.

Right. That's solved that. Now, what proportion of the population is
_below_ average?

It tends to go hand in hand with lack of nous about how to get on
despite your drawbacks. Not always but generally. What qualitites do
you think a person with below average ability might - OK, is still
likely to - possess which will get them ahead of the mass in terms of
lifestyle success? Don't be hypothetical, I'd really like to know of
some good role models that I'd be able to recommend to some of the
parents whose children I teach, and who are struggling to make ends
meet.

Linda ff

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 23:43:11 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2008-06-29 22:52:41 +0100, Linda Fox said:

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 19:43:43 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

I disagree. There are always options. Ultimately, they are limited
by the individual and what they are willing to do and to risk.

I really can't believe you typed that with a straight face.

You probably can't

That's right. That's what I said.


What has
"willing" to do with it when you are of only average intelligence or
below (it's not a crime, y'know) and have no qualifications and almost
no chance of gaining any that will significantly increase your earning
power (becasue of the first factor)? Or do you think such people are
the exception rather than the rule?

There are always options. Qualifications are but one factor and are
not a necessary prerequisite for success. Take a look at the
biographies of Ingvar Kamprad, Alan Sugar, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates,
the Albrechts. None had a university education apart from Gates who
didn't complete his.

"None had university education" Oh, ha-ha. I'm mentally going through
a row of children in our current year 4 and trying to remember how
many of them have ever told me what their parents do. University
education doesn't come anywhere near it. In quite a few cases very
little in the way of secondary school qualification at all.

It's likely that all of these people are of above average intelligence.

I'd think the chances of any of those not being _well_ above are
pretty slim.

What do you think is the "likelihood" of their having been so
successful had they been below average? (Isn't half the population?)

There are people of high IQ who have not or did not make a lot of
money.

For a large number for different reasons. Some of us haven't aspired
to it. Some of us don't measure our achievement by what we earn.

I don't accept the premise that because someone is of average or below
average intelligence that they should resign themselves to a life of
drudgery.

I'm not talking about +/- drudgery, I'm talking about +/- earning
potential. Do you seriously think they're the same?

Linda ff

In message 4867aa7e@qaanaaq, at 16:30:06 on Sun, 29 Jun 2008, Andy
Hall remarked:
It seems that an average public sector dentist earns about £45k,
which is quite a comfortable salary.
By whose standards?
Average income approx £22K.

So you think that everybody should be measured against "average income"
in terms of what is comfortable or reasonable?

Twice average income in any developed economy should be "comfortable" by
any local standards.
--
Roland Perry