City Bonus - Why does the UK media hate it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by revol68

This is exactly correct, and on the other hand if it ****s it leads to economic slow down, less jobs.

But even when it runs smoothly, so what, it creates more jobs, brilliant, whoppe doo, just what we need more jobs, more ways of keeping the accumulative cycle going. Yep lucky us, more work to be done, more call centres, more production of things we don't need. Hey maybe we'll get Mach 20's before we've raped the world of all resources and are living under the sea from global warming.

This is exactly the point, capitalism doesn't create jobs and things on the basis of actual human needs but on the basis of accumulation, on what can turn a profit. Ole Mr Nike doesn't make overpriced trainers cos he loves them, or has a passion for them, he does so in order to accumulate.

There's tonnes of work needing to be done all around the world, yet the simple fact is it's not profitable, no one is hiring for these. You will however find a sudden need to call people up at teatime and try and pimp them another credit card. Hey no worries, got to keep the treadmill running.

---

So your a commie then?

Hey thats fine, history has shown us it to be nothing but a great sucsess with fantastic environmental benefits.

Well except for, hmm every communist country. Russia's legacy of environmental devistation is truely un-matched.

Even China's coal power initative, which is very ineffecient compared to the likes of Didcot-A. How come they are building coal? Why not nuclear? Its a lot easyer to keep clean, with only the little problem of where to stick the waste for the next few centuries (i sugest wales, property is cheap there).

No.

Ironically capitalisim is very good at these hippy issues, organic produce, a lot of **** as most who grow up in the countryside, not benefiting from the increased profit will tell you. But it gives YOU the power, rather more than democracy, because if YOU want to pay the increased cost of not using proper fertilizer, now you can.

Power firms are spending money themselfs on re-newable sources, because, they have this idea up their sleves, charge people an extra £500 a year for electricity that is from renewable sources... great! (i wounder how the power frims got the capital to do that?, even thou there own miss management is making this take a little while, goverment interfereance!)

Now, if its the case that these issues are genuine concern, then its upto the government to decree it, they decide that massive offshore farms are to be built, hmm such thing requires complex trades for all the parts involved.

You get the idea?

Money is not the root of all evil, only those who live for its pursuit are.

I'm a libertarian communist, yes.

Your argument regarding the USSr has however showed me the light, well it would have if it wasn't for the fact libertarian communists were being killed Lenin and Trotsky from 1918, or for the fact that Libertarian communists produced the most vehement critiques of the USSR as early as 1921.

I could offer a better analyis and critique of the Soviet Union and China than a hundred Economist pseudo journalists.

The very idea that China is anything but capitalist is a farce.

You are of course correct that capitalism is very good at catering for niche markets, and such hippy ****e, but it's not very good at delivering substantial changes not at the expense of the vast majority of the population.

Just look how well capitalism has done for New Orleans after Katrina, it's nothing short of a low wage, high property redevelopment boom down there, what with them kindly scrapping the minimun wage so that people could have jobs.

I also find it ironic that apologists for capitalism point to the Soviet Union yet fail to see what an even bigger **** up capitalism has been for the vast majority of the worlds population. I mean granted my irish ass has starved but then i'm not the world. Infact the standard of living in Russia has gotten worse since the collapse of "communism", as have a whole wealth of social problems, even so i'd have no desire to defend the USSR as a lesser evil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by revol68

Now you may call me a waster or dim if you want, but i'm someone who learns because I want to learn, who values knowledge in itself, and who takes a critical interest in history and the society I live in. If your happy with the world as it is, bully for you, but those of us who aren't, everyone whose struggling to make a better world, whether it's cleaners striking for better pay or health insurance or opposing hospital cuts and militarist adventures, well we'll keep fighting, and at the end of the day we might not get what we want but we atleast defined our own desires, we atleast asserted our subjectivity in the world.

---

I have a programming job, where i can say to my boss "have you seen how cool this is... objects in our database server, that are fully fledged .net objects. Just think what i can do with our vol matrix representation, not only the speed imporvement but the data integrety! new db server, 20gig ram, quad socket dual cores, raid" guess what, i got it?

Now if ur not a coding geek, that might not excite you, but damn i love the objects i have in my sql 2005 server! None of my other programmer graudate friends who work outside the agile developement found in the city can do that sort of thing. I like how much advancement of technology i get to do.

(granted its not all sunshine, lollypops and new DB paradigms, but you get the point!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheAnimus

I have a programming job, where i can say to my boss "have you seen how cool this is... objects in our database server, that are fully fledged .net objects. Just think what i can do with our vol matrix representation, not only the speed imporvement but the data integrety! new db server, 20gig ram, quad socket dual cores, raid" guess what, i got it?

Now if ur not a coding geek, that might not excite you, but damn i love the objects i have in my sql 2005 server! None of my other programmer graudate friends who work outside the agile developement found in the city can do that sort of thing. I like how much advancement of technology i get to do.

(granted its not all sunshine, lollypops and new DB paradigms, but you get the point!)

---

Thats amazing mate, truely, I just showed that to my mate and she's soo wet she nearly slid off her seat.

Seriously though, you enjoy your job, i'm happy for you, all i'm asking is that you recognise that not everyone does or can, and as such you shouldn't universalise your experiance to others and make assumptions about them being lazy, unmotivated and all those other Daily Mail buzzwords used to $hit on people who are already shat on enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by badass

Errr dont mean to burst your bubble, but you're probably in the top 1%
The vast majority of the people in this country are.
Would you happily give away 3/4 of your wages to redistribute the wealth fairly?

---

Don't think I'm in the top 1% (it takes roughly $500K worth of assets for that). In fact to be in the top 10% you need $61K which rules me out also. :p

If we had cost of living at the world average as well, sure I'd give away most of my salary, since I wouldn't need it. It's not quite that simple in the real world though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by revol68

Seriously though, you enjoy your job, i'm happy for you, all i'm asking is that you recognise that not everyone does or can, and as such you shouldn't universalise your experiance to others and make assumptions about them being lazy, unmotivated and all those other Daily Mail buzzwords used to $hit on people who are already shat on enough.

---

I'm not saying their lazy per say. Just that those moaning about city bonus levels, should spend less time moaning, and more time working, they'd have more money.

I'm hardly walking down the street saying "f*uck you pleb" i started a thread asking why the MEDIA has such a hatred of the city bonus, clearly stating due to my vocation, whilst sharing the building, some of the parties, i'm completely removed from a 6 figure salary, let alone bonus. I'm having it rubbed in my face you might say, but yet i don't feal jelous, they work damn hard for it, and deserve such compensation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheAnimus

Why is it more private people go there, because private school is a better educational training, else people wouldn't not moaning about it.

---

Going to a private school doesn't necessarily mean that
you get a better rounded education it does however appear to give you an enhanced chance to pass tests to get into university.
Students from state schools with the same entry A level grades as private students are more likely to end up with better degrees.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coco

Going to a private school doesn't necessarily mean that
you get a better rounded education it does however appear to give you an enhanced chance to pass tests to get into university.
Students from state schools with the same entry A level grades as private students are more likely to end up with better degrees.

---

I'd never come accross that statistic, but it dosen't suprise me.

A lot of really motivated people i know all tend to of had some adversity, either make or break kinda thing!

I would still say that one is "trained" better by private education just because of the results A/GCSE difference (rather than private schools turning away stupid pupils).

Many reasons for peoples degree result have little to do with intelectual cabability, mine for instance was because i did no work in the second year as i was discovering some fun life things, then got some 80% in my 3rd year.... damn wish i had got 1.0% more in my second year now, would of had a 1st :( What i\'m getting at, is that was nothing to do with my educaitonal background, that was me been stupid.

I think its fair to say if you\'ve been better grounded in education you will find it easyer to pick things up, but you might not have the oh so important self disaplin, where as if you\'ve been through quality new labour schools, which don\'t give a **** if your above a C, then you\'ve had too learn how to learn already.

But thanks for putting more weight to my point, anyone can make a hudge splash in life, just as long as they happen to be born in the right country, and work damn hard. You dont need private school, or wealthy parents my boss was also a drop out of secondary school, he has 6 o levels, mabye thats why he hired me :P.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Butcher

Don't think I'm in the top 1% (it takes roughly $500K worth of assets for that). In fact to be in the top 10% you need $61K which rules me out also. :p

If we had cost of living at the world average as well, sure I'd give away most of my salary, since I wouldn't need it. It's not quite that simple in the real world though.

---

I suggest you think some more before answering. How can the vast majority of people in this country be in the top 1% of this country's earnings. Or do you actually believe that the top 1% of earners in the world have that much?
The average wage is around £500 according to http://www.globalrichlist.com/
That means that for your utpoia you would only have £500 per year to make things fair.
So not 75% of your wages - more like 95-99% of your wages

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by badass

I suggest you think some more before answering. How can the vast majority of people in this country be in the top 1% of this country's earnings. Or do you actually believe that the top 1% of earners in the world have that much?
The average wage is around £500 according to http://www.globalrichlist.com/
That means that for your utpoia you would only have £500 per year to make things fair.
So not 75% of your wages - more like 95-99% of your wages

---

except in the real world there are varying costs of living. I mean I could go to Argentina and live like a king for a 3 months on thousand quid. Or I could go to Japan and be a pauper.

That's richest by earnings, not wealth. A poor measure, since if I earned 1 million pounds but owed 2 million I'd not be rich, quite the opposite.

My figures were from: http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2006/1...balwealth.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Butcher

That's richest by earnings, not wealth. A poor measure, since if I earned 1 million pounds but owed 2 million I'd not be rich, quite the opposite.

---

I completely disagree with that!
Take for example someone that has a 120% loan on their house, but earns £XYZ
I think earnings are a good way to compare. The reason I dont use assest is simple - a young person on big bucks will have vastly less assets than an older person on the same money since the older person will probably have more assets as they have more time to accumulate them.
You also cant tax assets - only earnings.

If you redistributed your wealth so you earnt the global average, but also had the global average cost of living, you would definately not be able to buy/do as much as you can now. The cost of living would be many, many times higher as a percentage of your wage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by badass

I like this idea of yours though - everyone does what they want and gets enough to get by for it. I'd have 2 jobs, part time porn star and part time racing driver.

---

Taking it a bit far aren't you? Of course you have to be realistic, if you want to acheive your goals you have to work very hard, and not everyone can be a race-driver/pornstar combo without being very good at both (insert small penis/large motor joke here). But you should be able to work very hard at any job without having to end up without enough money to even get by - no matter what career choice you make.

The system we have here in england (my point was more about the country we live in not global sharing of wealth which would be stupid for all sorts of reasons) means more and more that you have to be in one of the higher paying jobs to have any kind of security for you not ending up in a crappy situation in retirement, or for your children to have any chance of succeeding as well.

What I would like to see is that someone who decides that they are going to be a cleaner and aren't ambitious - yet are still dedicated and hard working - doesn't have to work 2 8-hour shifts a day for their entire life just to make sure their child goes to a decent school, and can maybe afford an education, and then at the end of the day retire without any money, not enough pension or state support to afford heating, and die at 65 from pneumonia.

Someone who works hard all their life for the community in any position should have some basic rights and level of living standards, and in this country I see them being degraded.

Instead today you have to be money focused in your career if you want to retire comfortably at the age of 60. Especially if you have kids.

What I see in this and other societies around the world is two tiered poor/rich where poor background = fewer opportunities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rack

Taking it a bit far aren't you? Of course you have to be realistic, if you want to acheive your goals you have to work very hard, and not everyone can be a race-driver/pornstar combo without being very good at both (insert small penis/large motor joke here). But you should be able to work very hard at any job without having to end up without enough money to even get by - no matter what career choice you make.
The system we have here in england (my point was more about the country we live in not global sharing of wealth which would be stupid for all sorts of reasons) means more and more that you have to be in one of the higher paying jobs to have any kind of security for you not ending up in a crappy situation in retirement, or for your children to have any chance of succeeding as well.

---

Thats what the minimum wage is for.
It is currently £5.35 per hour. 48 Hours and thats over £250 per week. We have an extensive comprehensive school system that although variable does mean that provided they are in the right catchment area, anyone can get into a decent school. On top of that there is income support and council houses. You can also claim more money if you have kids.
Of course you can make all kinds of claims about this not working and people not knowing what they are entitled to, but how exactily will taxing those that get paid more help?
The next question I ask is why should there be more sharing of wealth in this country so that those that are not so lucky/dont want to do a higher paid job and not across the world?
Why should someone be entitled to more of those richer than them's money simply because of the country they are in?

Quote:

---

What I would like to see is that someone who decides that they are going to be a cleaner and aren't ambitious - yet are still dedicated and hard working - doesn't have to work 2 8-hour shifts a day for their entire life just to make sure their child goes to a decent school, and can maybe afford an education, and then at the end of the day retire without any money, not enough pension or state support to afford heating, and die at 65 from pneumonia.

---

Since I've dealt with the moot education point, I'll leave that.
The pension point can be resolved by simply increasing the state pension. The state pension should be enough for a small house and its bills, care required and a very small amount of luxury. Nothing more. I dont see why those that plan for retirement should subsidise anything more.

Quote:

---

Someone who works hard all their life for the community in any position should have some basic rights and level of living standards, and in this country I see them being degraded.

---

I suggest you check the stats over the past 50 years. The living standards of the poorest in this country has been increasing steadily over that time.

Quote:

---

Instead today you have to be money focused in your career if you want to retire comfortably at the age of 60. Especially if you have kids.

---

Money focussed as opposed to what?
Anyone that both works hard and works a little bit smart can retire comfortably.

Quote:

---

What I see in this and other societies around the world is two tiered poor/rich where poor background = fewer opportunities.

---

SO WHAT?
How can society operate any other way? How can you make sure that those with richer backgrounds dont get more opportunities?
Banish inheritance completely?
But wait a minute, whilst the parents are alive they can pay for "better" schooling. They can do all sorts of things to improve their kids opportunities.
I suppose if you have all children moved from their parents at birth and permanently seperated, then sent to state schools you can avoid that. Somehow I dont think you'd like that.
I suppose you could suggest the "ever successfull at improving living standards" communism as an alternative. Except those with more influence due to the jobs given to them by the state can use tehir influence to help their kids so even that wont do it.

Quote:

---

Thats what the minimum wage is for.
It is currently £5.35 per hour. 48 Hours and thats over £250 per week.

---

So thats less than £800 a month after tax. Would that even pay the bills in london? I doubt it. Even in Zone 4 with a very low morgtage my 1bed is over £500 a month, renting it would be £650.

Quote:

---

provided they are in the right catchment area.

---

You said it.

Quote:

---

how exactily will taxing those that get paid more help?

---

Improving public schooling.

Quote:

---

The next question I ask is why should there be more sharing of wealth in this country so that those that are not so lucky/dont want to do a higher paid job and not across the world?

---

because the pay/effort increases out of proportion once you start working with money, and the actual improvment you get from higher salary are not good compared to having a better society/public services. Example is having a good public health service vs private. In countries with a very good public health service it is typically cheaper for everyone than private in countries with poor public health system.

To generally improve the living standards of the country you live in so that when someone serves you dinner they aren't thinking how they'll pay for their own food. Generally improving the living standards in a country can only be good - lowering poverty lowers crime rate, etc. I don't want to see this country with true slums (I'v seen lots of council housing, they are NOT slums yet).

Quote:

---

The pension point can be resolved by simply increasing the state pension. The state pension should be enough for a small house and its bills, care required and a very small amount of luxury. Nothing more.

---

Good point.

Quote:

---

Money focussed as opposed to what?

---

is that a joke? If not I suppose it says it all...

Retirement and pensions is a intresting idea.

I'm used to living comfortably, i couldn't easily choose to go back to not having plenty money in my wallet. Its just not how i want to live, i like to work hard, and play hard. As such even thou i'm 21, i've also got a pension plan, because damnit, i want a decident lifestyle when i retire. I'm also planning to buy a flat this year, which hopefully will also mean a 30minuite deduction from my commute. I intend to rent the flat by the time i'm old, and don't want to live in somewhere like central london as another income source.

Now, what i'm saying is that money is very tempting to squander, regardless of if your on 8k or 80k. You will find things. I'm choosing to save, and plan for my future, i don't care how little people claim to be on, its possible, before my 'restructuring' i was on average saving about £10 a month, and until i excel'd all my expenses, couldn't figure how i could save money!