In message 486806e3@qaanaaq, at 23:04:19 on Sun, 29 Jun 2008, Andy
Hall remarked:
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?

30m economically active taxpayers[1] means it averages £3k per taxpayer.
That correlates reasonably well with the figures I posted yesterday that
USA pays about twice the UK, and they are running at about $13k.

[1] Yes, the other 30m also pay VAT and a few other taxes, but probably
in relatively small amounts.
--
Roland Perry

On 2008-06-30 10:24:42 +0100, Linda Fox said:

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.

Because it's a completely open question that depends on perception and
not anything absolute. For example, I might consider that it's
reasonable. Someone else might think that it's not enough. You might
think that it's too much



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?

Because the people paying determine the level of income.

The recipient of the income (dentist), assuming that this does add up
to £100k might think that this is the right amount to get him the house
and car that he considers to be reasonable. He might not, in which
case he has the choice of attracting more customers or raising prices.
If he raises prices, people may not wish to pay. This is how
running a business works.



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.

In the above, you have demonstrated that you don't really understand
the fundamental principles of supply and demand.




Some people have been suggesting that they think 100k is overpayment.

OK. That's a matter for them,


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"

Superior to what? A caravan on the beach?



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?)



There is no weaseliness in anything that I have said.

You are asking me to make an absolute judgment on something that is a
relative thing. I think that it's reasonable for a dentist to be
making an income of £100k a year, or more if he can achieve it. If
he is, then clearly his customers do as well, or more likely are OK
with paying for the treatment that they are getting. I doubt whether
too many of them are that bothered about whether or not he lives in a
£750k house.

You may have the view that it isn't reasonable for a dentist to make
this kind of money and live in a house of this value. That's your
prerogative. Your available actions are to pay his asking price,
shop elsewhere or negotiate.

It would be very interesting to be a bystander while you try to
negotiate price with him based on your not agreeing with his income and
lifestyle. Somehow, I don't think that you be all that successful.

On 2008-06-30 10:34:57 +0100, Linda Fox said:

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

"None had university education" Oh, ha-ha.

Check their biographies.


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.

Illustrating that qualification is only one precursor for success (as
the individual sees it), but not a mandatory one.



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?)


It is but one factor.


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.

Of course. Which is why I make the point *as the individual sees it*.





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?



Nope. In one of your points you say "Some of us don't measure our
achievement by what we earn" . In the next you say "I'm talking about
+/- earning potential"

Whch discussion would you like to have?

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
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.

Well that used to be true but its veracity is now determined by
circumstances, mainly housing costs (and the size of your family, which
determines your housing need). A single person on £45k, living in a cheap
housing area, will be very comfortable indeed. A family of 4 in an expensive
housing area, will not be particularly comfortable (although they won't be
starving or on the street, which I guess is "comfortable"!).

In this sense, I guess, "comfortable" means being able to run a car that
isn't 10 years old, live in a reasonable house and be able to take your
family on decent holidays and go out occasionally. For some people in some
areas, even £45k will not cover this. I know there are people who cannot
aspire to these things in all areas, who are at the £22k level but
aspiration to a level of comfort is not a crime.

We don't have a control economy - as long as there are sufficient NHS
dentists coming forward, their salary is sufficient. If there aren't enough
they will have to be paid more - the amount itself is irrelevant. The will
to do this is a political issue - for myself I believe in the NHS and am
glad to see them taking patients.

I used to frequent a private dentist (I liked their work and could afford
it). Due to a change in circumstances, I have moved to an NHS dentist. There
are ones now taking new patients in this area, which indicates their salary
is probably about right. So far I think they do a good job and I do resent
any slagging off of NHS dentists as being lower standard. Most of the
differences that cost more in private dentistry are the standard of the
premises, the number of support staff, the age of the equipment and more
cosmetically appealing treatments - not the actual care of teeth and their
longevity (which is basically all you need).


--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)

On 2008-06-30 10:36:19 +0100, Roland Perry said:

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.

Yes, but so what?

Are you suggesting that people shouldn't have incomes in excess of £45k
if their customers are willing to provide that?

On 2008-06-30 10:38:12 +0100, Roland Perry said:

In message 486806e3@qaanaaq, at 23:04:19 on Sun, 29 Jun 2008, Andy
Hall remarked:
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?

30m economically active taxpayers[1] means it averages £3k per
taxpayer. That correlates reasonably well with the figures I posted
yesterday that USA pays about twice the UK, and they are running at
about $13k.

[1] Yes, the other 30m also pay VAT and a few other taxes, but probably
in relatively small amounts.

I wouldn't regard 17.5% of most of what is purchased as relatively small

To make a comparison, one has to look at all taxation, not just the a
la carte version.

Aprops of the original thraad..Ebay have just been fined a huge amount
for allowing the sale of fake goods..by the French courts

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7481241.stm

Vive la France1

On 2008-06-30 13:19:42 +0100, The Natural Philosopher said:

Aprops of the original thraad..Ebay have just been fined a huge amount
for allowing the sale of fake goods..by the French courts

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7481241.stm

Vive la France1

That's excellent news.

Ebay and others like them need to be shown that they can't do business
in Europe with a light footprint and ignoring commercial practice and
legislation.

Hopefully PayPal will be next in line for scrutiny.

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-06-30 13:19:42 +0100, The Natural Philosopher said:

Aprops of the original thraad..Ebay have just been fined a huge amount
for allowing the sale of fake goods..by the French courts

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7481241.stm

Vive la France1

That's excellent news.

Ebay and others like them need to be shown that they can't do business
in Europe with a light footprint and ignoring commercial practice and
legislation.

Hopefully PayPal will be next in line for scrutiny.




Government interference in the free market.

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-06-30 15:13:09 +0100, stuart noble
said:

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-06-30 13:19:42 +0100, The Natural Philosopher said:

Aprops of the original thraad..Ebay have just been fined a huge
amount for allowing the sale of fake goods..by the French courts

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7481241.stm

Vive la France1

That's excellent news.

Ebay and others like them need to be shown that they can't do
business in Europe with a light footprint and ignoring commercial
practice and legislation.

Hopefully PayPal will be next in line for scrutiny.




Government interference in the free market.

Yes, but this is Ebay. Like Microsoft, they deserve to be interfered
with.



Selective aren't we?

On 2008-06-30 15:13:09 +0100, stuart noble said:

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-06-30 13:19:42 +0100, The Natural Philosopher said:

Aprops of the original thraad..Ebay have just been fined a huge amount
for allowing the sale of fake goods..by the French courts

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7481241.stm

Vive la France1

That's excellent news.

Ebay and others like them need to be shown that they can't do business
in Europe with a light footprint and ignoring commercial practice and
legislation.

Hopefully PayPal will be next in line for scrutiny.




Government interference in the free market.

Yes, but this is Ebay. Like Microsoft, they deserve to be interfered with.

On 2008-06-30 15:40:41 +0100, stuart noble said:

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-06-30 15:13:09 +0100, stuart noble said:

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-06-30 13:19:42 +0100, The Natural Philosopher said:

Aprops of the original thraad..Ebay have just been fined a huge amount
for allowing the sale of fake goods..by the French courts

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7481241.stm

Vive la France1

That's excellent news.

Ebay and others like them need to be shown that they can't do business
in Europe with a light footprint and ignoring commercial practice and
legislation.

Hopefully PayPal will be next in line for scrutiny.




Government interference in the free market.

Yes, but this is Ebay. Like Microsoft, they deserve to be interfered with.



Selective aren't we?

With these guys, I afford myself that luxury.

"stuart noble" wrote in message
...
Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-06-30 15:13:09 +0100, stuart noble
said:

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-06-30 13:19:42 +0100, The Natural Philosopher said:

Aprops of the original thraad..Ebay have just been fined a huge amount
for allowing the sale of fake goods..by the French courts

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7481241.stm

Vive la France1

That's excellent news.

Ebay and others like them need to be shown that they can't do business
in Europe with a light footprint and ignoring commercial practice and
legislation.

Hopefully PayPal will be next in line for scrutiny.




Government interference in the free market.

Yes, but this is Ebay. Like Microsoft, they deserve to be interfered
with.



Selective aren't we?

The free market is wonderful until it isn't. Free-marketeers conveniently
overlook this fact as it spoils their world view.


--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)

Bob Mannix wrote:
"stuart noble" wrote in message
...
Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-06-30 15:13:09 +0100, stuart noble
said:

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-06-30 13:19:42 +0100, The Natural Philosopher said:

Aprops of the original thraad..Ebay have just been fined a huge amount
for allowing the sale of fake goods..by the French courts

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7481241.stm

Vive la France1
That's excellent news.

Ebay and others like them need to be shown that they can't do business
in Europe with a light footprint and ignoring commercial practice and
legislation.

Hopefully PayPal will be next in line for scrutiny.



Government interference in the free market.
Yes, but this is Ebay. Like Microsoft, they deserve to be interfered
with.


Selective aren't we?

The free market is wonderful until it isn't. Free-marketeers conveniently
overlook this fact as it spoils their world view.



If someone wants to buy a Gucci handbag for a fiver, I don't think
anything's going to stop them. Trying to protect copyright in a global
market seems to me a futile exercise.

On 2008-06-30 16:33:38 +0100, stuart noble said:

If someone wants to buy a Gucci handbag for a fiver, I don't think
anything's going to stop them.

Except in the Ebay case, there are two issues - counterfeit goods and
sales channels for legitimate goods.


Trying to protect copyright in a global market seems to me a futile exercise.

This is a deep pockets exercise.

By targeting Ebay, LVMH has been able to put quite a dent in an
obviously easy sales channel that it doesn't want to have for its
legitimate goods as well as one for illegal copies.

Of course, this won't stop grey marketing of branded designer products,
but it will provide some recompense to the vendor and owner of the
brands and go some way to convincing the legitimate sales channel that
the manufacturer is willing to protect the brand and hence their
margins.

The essence of brands like these is not what it costs to make them but
the exclusivity and original design. If Gucci bags are busted down
to a fiver as opposed to the headline price of several hundred, then
both of those are lost and the brand eventually withers and dies.
Then there's no point in having a Gucci bag because it might just as
well be a Hooflungdung bag.

Trading is a two way thing. The buyer wants to buy, but the seller
may choose not to sell to them. Certainly it is normal business
practice to have a sales channel model and important to control how it
operates. I think that it's a red herring for Ebay to say that they
are acting in the interest of the consumer. They are not if they are
ignoring the impact of price erosion on LVMH's brands. That is not in
the interest of the consumer in the medium to long term.

If I were the judge in the case, I would have come to the same decision
and would dismiss Ebay's appeal as well. Come to think of it, I would
probably have sent them to the guillotine as well.

Andy Hall wrote:

You are asking me to make an absolute judgment on something that is a
relative thing. I think that it's reasonable for a dentist to be
making an income of £100k a year, or more if he can achieve it. If he
is, then clearly his customers do as well, or more likely are OK with
paying for the treatment that they are getting. I doubt whether too
many of them are that bothered about whether or not he lives in a £750k
house.

Might also be worth noting that the dentists who are going to make the
best incomes will be the entrepreneurial ones who are risking their
capital with their own (or multiple) practices, with premiss, up to date
equipment, and with larger numbers of staff and associates working for
or with them. The business owner dentists rather than the employee ones
if you like.



--
Cheers,

John.

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

In message , John Rumm
writes
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'm saying in effect that e.g. Gates would probably have ended up being
an average lawyer if he hadn't been in the right place at the right
time

You need all of the above to get to the top


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?

It's not an option for a lot of people

OK, lets say a small shopkeeper, a grocer, in the shadow of a newly
built tesco. You can only better yourself if you understand how to
change and what to change into. If you've been doing the same thing for
30 years, it's not so easy, it can be all you know




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.

Yes, but you are assuming that people in general are sufficiently
motivated and have good enough ideas AND have the confidence to change
and enter an uncertain world

clearly this is not the case, as can be seen - whether they want private
dental treatment or not



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


--
geoff

In message 48687e9a@qaanaaq, Andy Hall writes
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.

What is possible and what people are willing to do just to get a new set
of dentures are two different things




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.

Err ...

hello, knock, knock anyone home

do you see a nation of driven people?

I don't

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.

dream on


--
geoff

"Linda Fox" wrote in message
...

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

That's plenty I'd say.

(Provided, of course, that you don't also have any children who aspire to go
to university. And that you don't get ill. And that you have private wealth
to provide for you in your own age. And so on, given the demise of the
welfare state.)

--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:56:55 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2008-06-30 10:34:57 +0100, Linda Fox said:

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

"None had university education" Oh, ha-ha.

Check their biographies.

No, the ha-ha wasn't referring to that. You've separated the rest of
the paragraph, making it look as though it was. It was referring to
the fact that you should think that's the big divide. One of the
cleverest people in my circle of friends chose not to go to
university. net because she couldn't get in, but because she decided
that wasn't the way she wanted to go.

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.

Illustrating that qualification is only one precursor for success (as
the individual sees it), but not a mandatory one.

And that meant? Did anyone understand his point?

I was talking about the parents of the children in my school, just in
case you were speed-reading. The ones I'm thinking of probably
wouldn't meet your criteria of success by any stretch of the
imagination. Neither does that mean they're layabouts and scroungers
(necessarily...)

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

It is but one factor.

It's a bloody huge factor, Andy. How many people of indisputably less
than average intelligence can you name who have made a complete
success of their careers? (And how do you expect them otherwise to be
able to pay for having their teeth well looked after, which is where
this bit started?)

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.

Of course. Which is why I make the point *as the individual sees it*.

Thus rendering the entire proposition fatuous and pointless. I'm sure
not-his-real-name Robert's father is a very good bin-man, and Robert
is very proud of him, particularly when the class learnt to sing My
Old Man's a Dustman, but with a limited education and probably lower
than average IQ, how do you expect him _ever_ to aspire to the
lifestyle of Alan Sugar et al?

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?

Nope. In one of your points you say "Some of us don't measure our
achievement by what we earn" . In the next you say "I'm talking about
+/- earning potential"


Whch discussion would you like to have?

Preferably a discussion with someone who has the courtesy to read
properly. The two ideals are not incompatible. I got an Oxbridge
degree and further training at the Royal Acedemy of Music. Since then
I've made a lot of decisions about my life which were not necessarily
the best for an affluent future, but (in some cases, not all) best for
the lifestyle I wanted. That does not necessarily mean I didn't have
the earning _potential_, just that I chose not to sacrifice other
things in order to fulfil that one aspect of my lifestyle. I've
probably had much greater earning potential, right up until very
recently, than I've chosen to realise because it would have limited
other choices I wanted to make. Nevertheless I'm still motivated by
achievement. I just don't equate that with money.

Now do you get it?

Linda ff

On 2008-06-30 19:45:30 +0100, geoff said:

In message 48687e9a@qaanaaq, Andy Hall writes
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.

What is possible and what people are willing to do just to get a new
set of dentures are two different things

Quite true. But then there are several implications of that:

- Limit expectations for self in line with willingness to do

- Don't criticise others who are willing to do and achieve more

- Certainly don't attempt to prevent said others from achieving their potential



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.

Err ...

hello, knock, knock anyone home

do you see a nation of driven people?

I don't

Sadly not. Along with that will have to go an acceptance of their lot.



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.

dream on

It's possible. Whether people choose to make an effort at personal
development, in whatever form that takes outside of daily work is for
them

On 2008-06-30 19:45:54 +0100, "Tim Ward" said:

"Linda Fox" wrote in message
...

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

That's plenty I'd say.

Based on what criteria?



(Provided, of course, that you don't also have any children who aspire to go
to university. And that you don't get ill. And that you have private wealth
to provide for you in your own age. And so on, given the demise of the
welfare state.)

On 2008-06-30 20:01:33 +0100, Linda Fox said:

No, the ha-ha wasn't referring to that. You've separated the rest of
the paragraph, making it look as though it was. It was referring to
the fact that you should think that's the big divide. One of the
cleverest people in my circle of friends chose not to go to
university. net because she couldn't get in, but because she decided
that wasn't the way she wanted to go.

That's perfectly fine and I completely respect somebody taking that path.

BUT..... and it's a big but...... If that results in their making
earnings of £20k a year, I will have a hard time taking seriously any
whinging from them about someone (e.g. a dentist) who takes a different
path and makes £100k.





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.

Illustrating that qualification is only one precursor for success (as
the individual sees it), but not a mandatory one.

And that meant? Did anyone understand his point?

It's completely clear.

- Success is defined differently for each individual.

- They can choose to define success for themselves or let others do it
for them (aka peer pressure).

- Qualifications may therefore be relevant to success, or they may not.


I was talking about the parents of the children in my school, just in
case you were speed-reading. The ones I'm thinking of probably
wouldn't meet your criteria of success by any stretch of the
imagination. Neither does that mean they're layabouts and scroungers
(necessarily...)

I don't have criteria for success for others. They can decide what
those are for themselves and about themselves.




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

It is but one factor.

It's a bloody huge factor, Andy. How many people of indisputably less
than average intelligence can you name who have made a complete
success of their careers?

It depends on what they consider success to be. Is it income or is
it something else?


(And how do you expect them otherwise to be
able to pay for having their teeth well looked after, which is where
this bit started?)

Where do you think that the money comes from? Could it be from the
tax contributions of those who are being criticised for "making too
much money"?




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.

Of course. Which is why I make the point *as the individual sees it*.

Thus rendering the entire proposition fatuous and pointless. I'm sure
not-his-real-name Robert's father is a very good bin-man, and Robert
is very proud of him, particularly when the class learnt to sing My
Old Man's a Dustman, but with a limited education and probably lower
than average IQ, how do you expect him _ever_ to aspire to the
lifestyle of Alan Sugar et al?

The important thing is aspiration and driving towards it.

I think of it like jamjars. Give somebody a 500g jamjar and ask
them to fill it and the best that they will ever come back with is 500g
of jam in it. Give them a 1kg jamjar and ask them to fill it and
they might not come back with 1kg but they might well come back with
more than 500g.

Above all never assume. Never assume that because someone has a
limited IQ that they can never make anything of themselves and
especially don't let them form that impression. That's the biggest
disservice that can be done to them.




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?

Nope. In one of your points you say "Some of us don't measure our
achievement by what we earn" . In the next you say "I'm talking about
+/- earning potential"


Whch discussion would you like to have?

Preferably a discussion with someone who has the courtesy to read
properly. The two ideals are not incompatible. I got an Oxbridge
degree and further training at the Royal Acedemy of Music.

OK.


Since then
I've made a lot of decisions about my life which were not necessarily
the best for an affluent future, but (in some cases, not all) best for
the lifestyle I wanted.

So it's a personal choice. Nothing wrong with that.


That does not necessarily mean I didn't have
the earning _potential_, just that I chose not to sacrifice other
things in order to fulfil that one aspect of my lifestyle. I've
probably had much greater earning potential, right up until very
recently, than I've chosen to realise because it would have limited
other choices I wanted to make. Nevertheless I'm still motivated by
achievement. I just don't equate that with money.

Now do you get it?

I never didn't get it.

In terms of your own definition of success and achievement for
yourself, you may consider yourself successful or you may be sensitive
to the judgment of others as well and that becomes a driver to want to
achieve more, or you may be satisfied with your lot.

However, in making those choices, you are not in a position to
criticise those who have made money through their own choices, and have
perhaps sacrificed other things that you have chosen; any more than
they are to criticise you for your personal choices.

geoff wrote:

I'm saying in effect that e.g. Gates would probably have ended up being
an average lawyer if he hadn't been in the right place at the right time

If it were as simple as that then no one would have heard of microsoft,
and Gary Kildall and Digital (Intergalactic) Research Inc would be
ruling the roost. He was inline before gates and allen, and actually had
the industry standard OS to sell to IBM.

You need all of the above to get to the top

To the top perhaps, but you can go a significant distance further than
"average" with the right ambition and determination.

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?

It's not an option for a lot of people

OK, lets say a small shopkeeper, a grocer, in the shadow of a newly
built tesco. You can only better yourself if you understand how to
change and what to change into. If you've been doing the same thing for
30 years, it's not so easy, it can be all you know

I agree... never suggested it was easy - if it was, lots of people would
do it.

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.

Yes, but you are assuming that people in general are sufficiently
motivated and have good enough ideas AND have the confidence to change
and enter an uncertain world

No, I am assuming they haven't. Hence why 95% will probably be dead or
broke by the time they reach (or not) retirement age.

clearly this is not the case, as can be seen - whether they want private
dental treatment or not

Agreed. However the fact that many people with no special talents can
succeed in these circumstances proves that it can be done.



--
Cheers,

John.

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

The message 4867fc9d@qaanaaq
from Andy Hall contains these words:

Apologies for the delay but I have been away from home (looking at a
backhoe digger if you must know).

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.

It is a pretty fair bet that the majority don't appreciate the
difference which may be why those on below average incomes become so
embittered about their lot particularly when they see groups with
industrial muscle but limited talents (such as the Shell tanker drivers
you mentioned earlier) getting a better income than a good many
graduates.

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 .

No it is you who are missing the point. For better of for worse NHS
dentistry is a subsidised service that would be out of reach of the much
of the population if the subsidy was withdrawn even if they got a little
bit of largesse from the chancellor as he further lightens the tax load
on the rich.

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.

Now that Andy is complete and utter bull****. If the cost of private
dentistry really was very little different to the cost of NHS treatment
many more of us would take advantage of it.

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.

*Some* people are prepared to pay for private dentistry, the majority
are not. What you are advocating would lead to a sizeable proportion of
the population visiting dentists only as a last resort and then only for
extractions. And a mass emigration of dentists as the market for their
wares shrunk.

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.

There are two sides to any coin and the other side of that is an
incompetent and complacent management many of whom were leading lights
in the private sector.

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.

People in subordinate jobs tend to get stretched (or at least stressed)
these days by bosses who wouldn't dream of handing out such treatment
themselves.

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.

You are still being coy but if you think that MAFF or its successor
DEFRA are worth admiration you have a very strange as well as a very
jaundiced view of public service.

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.

For most of us career choices are made at too young an age to appreciate
fine distinctions and are often determined by what jobs are actually
available for the qualifications on offer.

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.

Which figures would they be then?

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.

Stealth taxes hurt those on small incomes far more than those on large
incomes. The reason the rich are paying more tax now than in the past is
because they are now declaring much larger incomes which must be down in
part at least to a reversal of the quaint notion that taxation should be
progressive. Back in 1975/76 if your income had been £33500 (a very
comfortable one for those days) two thirds would have disappeared in
income tax alone. These days however many millions you declare the
proportion lost to income tax can not reach 40%. Meanwhile down at the
lower end of the income distribution council tax (for those who pay it)
will have more than doubled in real terms and for some of us it is a
bigger burden than income tax. And for those that indulge the greater
part of the price of alcohol, cigarettes and petrol is tax. The rich may
well spend a great deal more on booze than is necessary but the duty
doesn't go up even if the VAT does.


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.

Yes, the rich should be paying a higher proportion of their income in
tax, not a lower one.

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.

No it doesn't. In the final analysis it doesn't matter at all whether
the service you get is funded directly through taxation or via vouchers
that can only be used to buy a particular service.

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.

No it doesn't. The state still has to run the schools for those who
cannot or will not afford to pay the extra to go private and it will no
longer have the money hived off to subsidise the private education of
the rich. Ergo someone has to make up the shortfall in state school
funding that you want to weasel your way out off. The same argument
applies to private medicine.

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"

But that is just your paranoia taking over. Public servants 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.

That is because you are a smug self satisfied snob who is totally out of
touch with the vast majority of your fellow citizens. :-)

Pick a jobsworth and I will endeavour to justify his existance, even a
traffic warden.

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.

They probably get enough hard knocks for dealing with the likes of you.

Snip.

--
Roger Chapman

In message 48692f72@qaanaaq, Andy Hall writes

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.

dream on

It's possible. Whether people choose to make an effort at personal
development, in whatever form that takes outside of daily work is for
them

What, when they could be missing coronation street or neighbours ?


--
geoff

On 2008-06-30 21:50:14 +0100, Roger said:

The message 4867fc9d@qaanaaq
from Andy Hall contains these words:

Apologies for the delay but I have been away from home (looking at a
backhoe digger if you must know).

Did you buy it? Is it good?




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.

It is a pretty fair bet that the majority don't appreciate the
difference which may be why those on below average incomes become so
embittered about their lot particularly when they see groups with
industrial muscle but limited talents (such as the Shell tanker drivers
you mentioned earlier) getting a better income than a good many
graduates.

Which for right or wrong and perhaps the wrong reasons, illustrates
that education and qualification do not result automatically in more
income.




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 .

No it is you who are missing the point. For better of for worse NHS
dentistry is a subsidised service that would be out of reach of the much
of the population if the subsidy was withdrawn even if they got a little
bit of largesse from the chancellor as he further lightens the tax load
on the rich.

That goes full circle. The correct solution would be for the
government to get out of the delivery business and to provide treatment
vouchers instead. These could be spent at face value and
supplemented by the individual if he wishes to do so.





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.

Now that Andy is complete and utter bull****. If the cost of private
dentistry really was very little different to the cost of NHS treatment
many more of us would take advantage of it.

If all factors, including the tax aspects are taken into account, the
cost, related to gross earnings would not be as different as people
imagine




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.

*Some* people are prepared to pay for private dentistry, the majority
are not.

That's their choice and they can prioritise their outgoings as they feel fit.

It is possible to get basic dental insurance for around £11 per month
and comprehensive cover for around £18; children at about half this.
Approximately the cost of a few drinks or packs of cigarettes.

If the tax take were reduced to compensate, the net cost to the
individual would be zero.



What you are advocating would lead to a sizeable proportion of
the population visiting dentists only as a last resort and then only for
extractions. And a mass emigration of dentists as the market for their
wares shrunk.

This has not proved to be the case. Since the contract for NHS
dentists changed, 500,000 people have switched to private care.




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.

People in subordinate jobs tend to get stretched (or at least stressed)
these days by bosses who wouldn't dream of handing out such treatment
themselves.

There is always a choice.





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.

You are still being coy but if you think that MAFF or its successor
DEFRA are worth admiration you have a very strange as well as a very
jaundiced view of public service.

By the time I got to agriculture, I was really having to scratch to
think of what to include. After this, I have difficulty seeing where
there is value in anything employing people 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.

For most of us career choices are made at too young an age to appreciate
fine distinctions and are often determined by what jobs are actually
available for the qualifications on offer.

That's unnecessary limiting, mainly by what people are given to believe
that they can achieve. It is an appealing notion in multiple layer
public sector environments where everything is structured.




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.

Which figures would they be then?

Take any of the stock indices over the medium to long term.



Stealth taxes hurt those on small incomes far more than those on large
incomes.

Which makes it all the more surprising that it's such a practiced art
of the present government.


The reason the rich are paying more tax now than in the past is
because they are now declaring much larger incomes which must be down in
part at least to a reversal of the quaint notion that taxation should be
progressive.

This misses the point that the total tax take from the top decile of
wage earners is quite small even if it were doubled. These would be
referred to as spite or jealousy taxes.



Back in 1975/76 if your income had been £33500 (a very
comfortable one for those days) two thirds would have disappeared in
income tax alone. These days however many millions you declare the
proportion lost to income tax can not reach 40%.

National Insurance is Income tax by a different name.



Yes, the rich should be paying a higher proportion of their income in
tax, not a lower one.

Why?

What is the basis for that? It doesn't make a significant difference
to Exchequer receivables so is essentially pointless. Could it be
that there is some other motivation? An emotional one for instance?


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

No it doesn't. In the final analysis it doesn't matter at all whether
the service you get is funded directly through taxation or via vouchers
that can only be used to buy a particular service.

It makes an enormous difference. I can spend a voucher at a place of
my choosing and augment if I see fit. I can't do either with a direct
funding arrangement. I don't need or want the government making my
healthcare choices, thanks.





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.

No it doesn't. The state still has to run the schools for those who
cannot or will not afford to pay the extra to go private and it will no
longer have the money hived off to subsidise the private education of
the rich. Ergo someone has to make up the shortfall in state school
funding that you want to weasel your way out off. The same argument
applies to private medicine.

There is a huge difference between cannot and will not. I have no
problem with subsidy for the cannots. I have a big problem with
subsidy for the will nots.




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"

But that is just your paranoia taking over. Public servants are making
an effort to support themselves.

Really? How? What are they actually producing?



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

That is because you are a smug self satisfied snob who is totally out of
touch with the vast majority of your fellow citizens. :-)

They are out of touch with me :-) Actually, if asked the question,
most people would like to have more self determination. They assume
that it isn't possible because they are told plenty of times that this
is the case.


Pick a jobsworth and I will endeavour to justify his existance, even a
traffic warden.

As a public sector employee?

Let's put all of these people on the open market and see how good they
are at getting people to pay for what they do.


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.

They probably get enough hard knocks for dealing with the likes of you.



It's my speciality. They need to be stretched.

On 2008-06-30 22:26:29 +0100, geoff said:

In message 48692f72@qaanaaq, Andy Hall writes

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.

dream on

It's possible. Whether people choose to make an effort at personal
development, in whatever form that takes outside of daily work is for
them

What, when they could be missing coronation street or neighbours ?

So there we have it.

The idiot's lantern wins again..... or the Divil's Window if you prefor.

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:42:45 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:


That goes full circle. The correct solution would be for the
government to get out of the delivery business and to provide treatment
vouchers instead. These could be spent at face value and
supplemented by the individual if he wishes to do so.

A bit like this:-

http://tinyurl.com/5ps2wx

This is a respected NHS hospital which does a lot of cataract surgery.
The consultant Mr Allen would like patients to be able to opt for
bifocal (or possibly varifocal) implant lenses. The NHS "computer says
no", even though there would be a cost saving inasmuch as they would
save on the cost of standard spherical implants.

Allowing patients to 'top up' whilst they are receiving their cataract
surgery would lessen their need for repeated incisions in their
eyeballs.

Presumably the NHS sees the idea as a criticism of their basic lenses.


I should add that this eye infirmary is regarded as a regional centre
of excellence. My mum (93) fairly recently had cataracts removed from
both eyes and received very good treatment.

--
Frank Erskine

On 2008-06-30 23:48:35 +0100, Frank Erskine
said:

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:42:45 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:


That goes full circle. The correct solution would be for the
government to get out of the delivery business and to provide treatment
vouchers instead. These could be spent at face value and
supplemented by the individual if he wishes to do so.

A bit like this:-

http://tinyurl.com/5ps2wx

This is a respected NHS hospital which does a lot of cataract surgery.
The consultant Mr Allen would like patients to be able to opt for
bifocal (or possibly varifocal) implant lenses. The NHS "computer says
no", even though there would be a cost saving inasmuch as they would
save on the cost of standard spherical implants.

Allowing patients to 'top up' whilst they are receiving their cataract
surgery would lessen their need for repeated incisions in their
eyeballs.

Presumably the NHS sees the idea as a criticism of their basic lenses.


I should add that this eye infirmary is regarded as a regional centre
of excellence. My mum (93) fairly recently had cataracts removed from
both eyes and received very good treatment.



This is a simple example, but does illustrate the degree to which NHS
administrators are in need of surgery to correct the problem shown
below.

http://tinyurl.com/2orwxv

The message 48695355@qaanaaq
from Andy Hall contains these words:

Apologies for the delay but I have been away from home (looking at a
backhoe digger if you must know).

Did you buy it? Is it good?

I didn't buy it although I yet might, or at least bid (it is on e-bay
atm). It is (at last) the size I can live with but it is on turf tyres
and I am still waiting to find out what it will cost to convert to
agricultural which would be essential for me. There is now also another
similar machine on auction but that is over 200 miles away which makes
even going to see it more of a problem, let alone getting it home. (I
haven't driven more than 250 miles in a day (my trip yesterday) since
the early 90s).

snip

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

It is a pretty fair bet that the majority don't appreciate the
difference which may be why those on below average incomes become so
embittered about their lot particularly when they see groups with
industrial muscle but limited talents (such as the Shell tanker drivers
you mentioned earlier) getting a better income than a good many
graduates.

Which for right or wrong and perhaps the wrong reasons, illustrates
that education and qualification do not result automatically in more
income.

There is nothing automatic about life (bar death and taxes) but
intelligence (rather than over rated qualifications) must be a given for
success in any occupation that doesn't depend largely on another talent
such as football skill or artistic merit.

snip

No it is you who are missing the point. For better of for worse NHS
dentistry is a subsidised service that would be out of reach of the much
of the population if the subsidy was withdrawn even if they got a little
bit of largesse from the chancellor as he further lightens the tax load
on the rich.

That goes full circle. The correct solution would be for the
government to get out of the delivery business and to provide treatment
vouchers instead. These could be spent at face value and
supplemented by the individual if he wishes to do so.

The correct solution for you but not for those who have to pay more tax
to subsidise you in opting out of the national system.

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.

Now that Andy is complete and utter bull****. If the cost of private
dentistry really was very little different to the cost of NHS treatment
many more of us would take advantage of it.

If all factors, including the tax aspects are taken into account, the
cost, related to gross earnings would not be as different as people
imagine


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.

*Some* people are prepared to pay for private dentistry, the majority
are not.

That's their choice and they can prioritise their outgoings as they
feel fit.

Oh yes, this month we are going to economise by doing without food so we
can visit the dentist. :-)

It is possible to get basic dental insurance for around £11 per month
and comprehensive cover for around £18; children at about half this.
Approximately the cost of a few drinks or packs of cigarettes.

If the tax take were reduced to compensate, the net cost to the
individual would be zero.

" According to a consumer survey, the average price of UK private dental
care treatment has fallen from £391 to £327 since 2005."

Now to someone like you that is just small change but to someone on a
low income it is their total tax bill. (Income circa £8000).

What you are advocating would lead to a sizeable proportion of
the population visiting dentists only as a last resort and then only for
extractions. And a mass emigration of dentists as the market for their
wares shrunk.

This has not proved to be the case. Since the contract for NHS
dentists changed, 500,000 people have switched to private care.

Little more than one percent of the adult population, hardly
significant. Apparently only 10% of dentists are wholly private.

snip

People in subordinate jobs tend to get stretched (or at least stressed)
these days by bosses who wouldn't dream of handing out such treatment
themselves.

There is always a choice.

Realistically only for the bosses.

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.

You are still being coy but if you think that MAFF or its successor
DEFRA are worth admiration you have a very strange as well as a very
jaundiced view of public service.

By the time I got to agriculture, I was really having to scratch to
think of what to include. After this, I have difficulty seeing where
there is value in anything employing people in the public sector.

In a perfect world it shouldn't make any difference whether a service is
provided by the state or by a public company except that in one case any
profit reverts to the state and in the other the profit ends up in a
private pocket. That currently any advantage is squandered by a
cumbersome bureaucracy and constant political interference is no reason
for an irrational hatred of the public sector. The real villains of the
piece are the politicians who are responsible for the mess in the first
place.

snip

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

For most of us career choices are made at too young an age to appreciate
fine distinctions and are often determined by what jobs are actually
available for the qualifications on offer.

That's unnecessary limiting, mainly by what people are given to believe
that they can achieve. It is an appealing notion in multiple layer
public sector environments where everything is structured.

Large public companies are structured as well. It is probably a basic
rule that the larger the organisation the more structured it has to
become in order to function at all.

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.

Which figures would they be then?

Take any of the stock indices over the medium to long term.

And do what with them? They don't so much as measure real inefficiencies
in the private sector let alone have any relevance to the public sector.

Stealth taxes hurt those on small incomes far more than those on large
incomes.

Which makes it all the more surprising that it's such a practiced art
of the present government.

Why would you think that? New Labour are Tory in all but name and a less
benevolent brand of Tory than the pre Thatcher 'one nation' sort.
Taxation policy has been driven by the twin evils of, on the one hand
keeping the big party funders on board, and on the other hand of buying
the votes of the middle income voters who really determine which party
is in power.


The reason the rich are paying more tax now than in the past is
because they are now declaring much larger incomes which must be down in
part at least to a reversal of the quaint notion that taxation should be
progressive.

This misses the point that the total tax take from the top decile of
wage earners is quite small even if it were doubled. These would be
referred to as spite or jealousy taxes.

Is it? Is it equitable that those on low incomes and living in poverty
are taxed into more extreme poverty so that the rich can enjoy an even
more affluent life style. Until ******* Browns 10% step too far the
single persons tax allowance hadn't varied much in real terms since at
least the mid 70s while real incomes have risen significantly and may
well have doubled over that period for all I know. All the income tax
changes since the days of Healey have favoured the rich over the poor.
Even Darlings sop to the 10% objectors has turned into an extra reward
for the swing voters while not restoring all the income lost to those
who suffered most.



Back in 1975/76 if your income had been £33500 (a very
comfortable one for those days) two thirds would have disappeared in
income tax alone. These days however many millions you declare the
proportion lost to income tax can not reach 40%.

National Insurance is Income tax by a different name.

You might think that but as I don't have to pay it I don't. :-)

Yes, the rich should be paying a higher proportion of their income in
tax, not a lower one.

Why?

Equity. (That's the moral one, not your portfolio of stocks and shares).
Possibly the reason you would give to justify anyone poorer than
yourself but without children contributing to the cost of your
children's heathcare and education and your wifes child allowance.

What is the basis for that? It doesn't make a significant difference
to Exchequer receivables so is essentially pointless. Could it be
that there is some other motivation? An emotional one for instance?

If you and your ilk want to suck a few thousand pounds out of the system
each year to subsidise private health care or education it has to come
from somewhere and if it doesn't come from those who can well afford it
then it will come from those who can't.


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

No it doesn't. In the final analysis it doesn't matter at all whether
the service you get is funded directly through taxation or via vouchers
that can only be used to buy a particular service.

It makes an enormous difference. I can spend a voucher at a place of
my choosing and augment if I see fit. I can't do either with a direct
funding arrangement. I don't need or want the government making my
healthcare choices, thanks.

It might make an enormous difference to you but it is just an added
burden to those less fortunate than yourself.

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.

No it doesn't. The state still has to run the schools for those who
cannot or will not afford to pay the extra to go private and it will no
longer have the money hived off to subsidise the private education of
the rich. Ergo someone has to make up the shortfall in state school
funding that you want to weasel your way out off. The same argument
applies to private medicine.

There is a huge difference between cannot and will not. I have no
problem with subsidy for the cannots. I have a big problem with
subsidy for the will nots.

Why? The can nots are by and large the freeloaders of the shirking
class. The will nots are those with limited resources who may have a
different set of priorities to you.

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"

But that is just your paranoia taking over. Public servants are making
an effort to support themselves.

Really? How? What are they actually producing?

They are in gainful employment. To claim otherwise really is paranoia.
They provide an allegedly useful service, whatever they do.

You find the army essential but I am sure that the police are also
essential to protect your great wealth from the criminal classes . Then
there is the border police to keep out the undesirable aliens. All this
costs money and money has to be extracted from the unwilling so by
extension Revenue and Customs are needed as well. You don't need the NHS
or education but that does leave the majority of the population up ****
creek without a paddle.

Local government is harder to justify particularly as much of the
funding comes from central government but without it mundane things like
street maintenance might go by the board in areas where householders see
no reason why they should foot the bill for the advantage principally of
others.

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

That is because you are a smug self satisfied snob who is totally out of
touch with the vast majority of your fellow citizens. :-)

They are out of touch with me :-) Actually, if asked the question,
most people would like to have more self determination. They assume
that it isn't possible because they are told plenty of times that this
is the case.

Which reminds me of that old joke (pre war Punch in origin IIRC) of the
proud mum watching her soldier son on parade and proclaiming they all
were out of step bar him.

Pick a jobsworth and I will endeavour to justify his existence, even a
traffic warden.

As a public sector employee?

Let's put all of these people on the open market and see how good they
are at getting people to pay for what they do.

People move in and out of public service jobs all the time. Neither side
of the fence has a captive workforce. What determines the quality of
staff in the long run is the comparative pay. Various sections are
deemed important from time to time - Thatcher found police support
essential - but when the crisis passes the squeeze on pay is back on.

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.

They probably get enough hard knocks for dealing with the likes of you.

It's my speciality. They need to be stretched.

You mean you want special treatment on account of your exalted status.
ISTR you bragging that you were regularly dined by your bank manager. I
am not particular poor myself (in terms of wealth, not income) but my
bank manager (I presume I do have one) wouldn't be available to discuss
my investments even if I could find out who he was.

--
Roger Chapman

"Linda Fox" wrote in message
...


... I'm still motivated by
achievement. I just don't equate that with money.

Well said. That's how we've chosen to live our lives too and we're very
happy.

Mary

On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 09:29:41 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"Linda Fox" wrote in message
.. .


... I'm still motivated by
achievement. I just don't equate that with money.

Well said. That's how we've chosen to live our lives too and we're very
happy.

Mind you, that's not to say that if the magic million did
(fortuitously) come my way I'd reject it! )

cheers, Mary
Linda ff

In message 4868b0d3@qaanaaq, at 11:09:23 on Mon, 30 Jun 2008, Andy
Hall remarked:
Twice average income in any developed economy should be
"comfortable" by any local standards.

Yes, but so what?

Are you suggesting that people shouldn't have incomes in excess of £45k
if their customers are willing to provide that?

I'm not sure people are as "willing" as you say. There's plenty of
dentistry work that isn't undertaken because people can't afford it.
--
Roland Perry

In message 4868b1c1@qaanaaq, at 11:13:20 on Mon, 30 Jun 2008, Andy
Hall remarked:
30m economically active taxpayers[1] means it averages £3k per
taxpayer. That correlates reasonably well with the figures I posted
yesterday that USA pays about twice the UK, and they are running at
about $13k.
[1] Yes, the other 30m also pay VAT and a few other taxes, but
probably in relatively small amounts.

I wouldn't regard 17.5% of most of what is purchased as relatively
small

Children and the retired and unemployed aren't spending very much on
goods rated at 17.5%
--
Roland Perry

In message 48695355@qaanaaq, at 22:42:45 on Mon, 30 Jun 2008, Andy
Hall remarked:
Since the contract for NHS dentists changed, 500,000 people have
switched to private care.

1% of the population. Quite a shift.
--
Roland Perry

In message 4867add1@qaanaaq, at 16:44:17 on Sun, 29 Jun 2008, Andy
Hall remarked:

The NHS dentist has to cut corners in comparison to a private one in
order not to make a loss.
I still don't accept that you really think an NHS dentist has to do
that [take no salary] to stay in business. He can get a 40K+ working
as an *employee* in the NHS, without the risk associated with running
a surgery on a commercial basis.

Oh boy.

Why on earth would anybody choose to take a £40k salary in the NHS if
they can make more money on a commercial basis and give patients better
care as well?

I was countering your suggestion that dentists providing care within the
NHS could only do it by "making a loss" - ie taking no salary and
funding the surgery's overheads from their savings. But as you seem to
be in "la la I can't hear you" mode. I'll probably give up soon.

Is the NHS funding the surgery, paying the rent and the staff salaries?

Yes, these are dentists on salaries, working with the NHS.

--
Roland Perry

In message 4867ae19@qaanaaq, at 16:45:29 on Sun, 29 Jun 2008, Andy
Hall remarked:
There are plenty of potentially embarrassing medical conditions
that people don't want the whole world knowing about.
I don't suppose that the whole world would.
It happens sometimes. John Prescott, as a recent example.
A lot of people would be unhappy if just a few colleagues and
friends knew a secret like that.

Which particular secret of his many?

Bulemia.
--
Roland Perry

"Linda Fox" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 09:29:41 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"Linda Fox" wrote in message
. ..


... I'm still motivated by
achievement. I just don't equate that with money.

Well said. That's how we've chosen to live our lives too and we're very
happy.

Mind you, that's not to say that if the magic million did
(fortuitously) come my way I'd reject it! )

Well, recently we've been deprived of a few thousand pounds but for various
reasons I'm not prepared to spend time, effort, conscience and emotion
pursuing it. As for the magic million, I've no idea what we'd spend it on!
Seriously, we have everything we need and don't want anything we don't need.
We couldn't be happier or live better than we are/do.

Life is very precious, even more so when you've had brushes with the Grim
Reaper, we make every minute count.

I suppose we'd give the million to a charity - but it's never going to
happen so we keep annual and other donations going. The pension, we find, is
liberal. Heck, we're even going on a cruise at the end of this month - our
first proper holiday!

Mary

In message 4867a93f@qaanaaq, at 16:24:47 on Sun, 29 Jun 2008, Andy
Hall remarked:


http://www.cms.hhs.gov/TheChartSerie...k_2007_pdf.pdf
Page 9 is scary (22% of GDP in USA by 2016 - about $13k per head)

Probably the same for othr western economies if measured on the same basis.

No, look at the chart.

Page 20 shows 12 million employees (can the NHS, or the Indian
Railways beat that?)

That's the number employed in the health sector. Nobody said that
having employees in the health sector is a bad idea as such, just
having them under one umbrella.

Wriggle, squirm.

Page 68, only 5% is dentistry.

In 1980. Very recent data.

Oops. Previous page, 2004 data, 5.2%

Page 111, an average family insurance premium is $11k a year (2005).

£5000 for a family. I'd say that that's pretty good. Keep in mind
that employers often pay this and that it isn't fined as it is here as
a taxable benefit. It's important to compare apples with apples.

You also have to bear in mind that there will be an "excess" of probably
$1000 per person per year; and even when you've spent past that, they
only pay 80% of the claims [in their tied clinics, typically 60% if you
go outside their 'network']. You can get different policies with
different excesses, but the extra premiums for lower excess are at an
almost 1:1 rate, so in fact the only sensible bet to make is that you
won't need much care and so you go for a high excess and lower premium.

Plus Co-pays (basically a "prescription charge"); typically $20 to visit
the GP, $20 per prescription, $50 to visit a hospital.

So in fact the "cost" to someone with an average family of four claim of
$11k (OK, that assumes the insurance company s making zero profit) is:

Deductibles: $4000 ($1,000 per head excess)
Coinsurance: £2200 (20% of $11k)
Co-pays: $ 400 (ten lots of GP visit + 1 prescription)

So it's actually costing more like $17,600 a year. So much for
"insurance"!!

Yes, some employers pay some of the costs. But it varies a lot.
Typically it's those lower paid government employees you love so much
that get the better benefits!

page 121, 18% of the population is uninsured, including 11% of
children.

It doesn't say whether this includes illegal immigrants.

Page 128, 35% of uninsured non-elderly adults did not seek care when
they needed it, or did not fulfil prescriptions.

Same issue as above

Your figure for illegal immigrants was 4%, so I'm not sure it
invalidates my proposition, even if all of them are both uninsured *and*
counted in the stats.
--
Roland Perry