Claire from Sunderland makes a valid point in her mobile phone text which was published in yesterday's Metro.
"So the credit crunch has claimed its latest victim. It is hoped a tax increase for the wealthy will help us out of it but I object to Lina McDaid's comment (Metro, Thu) that those earning £150,000 a year should pay more 'because they can afford it'. Why should someone who's worked hard to earn a top salary be forced to subsidise those who maybe haven't worked so hard? I admire those who've done well and think they should be allowed to enjoy the benefits of their labour."
OK, Claire. Say you're "earning" £160,000. An extra 5% on that £10,000 equates to £500 per year. That's £1.37 per day, 0.3% of your gross annual salary.
Say you're "earning" £180,000. That's an extra £4.11 per day, 0.8% of your gross annual salary.
No, it's not fair. It seems the harder one works, the more one gets paid and the more one subsidises those who have earned less money because they haven't worked hard and possibly now are unemployed because of their sheer laziness.
Just imagine what a £160,000 per year executive could have done with that extra £1.37 per day! Imagine how much more they could have enjoyed themselves! An extra tuna and sweetcorn sandwich, maybe!
No wonder Boris Johnson is worried about those "creative" business people who could be driven out of the country because of Darling's persecution.
Rapid transit
1 day ago
Geoff, Geoff, please don't take on so. Try not to read this publications, you know that the content upsets you.
ReplyDeleteHave a nice cup of peppermint tea and a chocolate hob nob, and calm down.
That text is about 3 texts so that would already have eaten up a good percentage of her salary.
ReplyDeleteLook on the bright side though Geoff, Wife in the North may be forced to leave the Country.
How can anyone get so cross with someone called 'Darling'?
ReplyDeleteOh Claire. I thought we'd had this out in the wine bar.
ReplyDeleteVicus - I've read The Guardian today and it seems that things will even be worse for those on a mere £100,000 per year because of those stealth national insurance increases. In 2011-12 they'll be 11p a day worse off! Admittedly those on £150,000 will be £7.89 a day worse off, so Claire is in fact under-egging her pudding.
ReplyDeleteMurph - Did she end each text with "tbc"? If Wife In The North's Aga isn't mended soon she's going to have to take a break in warmer climes.
Kaz - His strict mother used to say "Alastair Darling, put the rubbish out." His loving wife says "Alastair, darling, put the rubbish out?"
Boz - Are you inferring Claire's an 80s style Thatcherite twat? That's one big mobile phone she's texting on.
I bet you can't find one blogger that disagrees with you, except of course that lady from up north, but then she's hardly likely to come and comment on here.
ReplyDeleteToo little too late, I say!
George Harrison was so upset about the extra £1.37 a day, he wrote a song about it. It's called "My Sweet Lord." It's about how he'll no longer be able to buy pick 'n' mix in Woolies (also known as the Sweet Lord - fact - now that they're going bust.
ReplyDeleteTom - It's the thinking that less than £150,000 per year can't be an obscenely high salary that gets me. Under £100,000 and you won't be worse off.
ReplyDeleteBob - Ah, ah, Mr. Brown.
Oh dear, I'm going to need my online currency converter to figure this out in Canadian dollars.
ReplyDelete11p is about 21 cents.
ReplyDeleteGood post this. I'm still amazed that Claire managed to text a whole paragraph - perhaps she's a high earner as a lady of leisure? If I had that kind of professional status I'd be too knackered to lift a finger.
ReplyDeleteAh, so hard work is in direct proportion to your salary, eh? In that case, why are nurses so poor? And why is Paris Hilton rolling in it? Hmm? Eh?
ReplyDeleteFuckwits.
Istvanski - The Independent will soon be sharing office space with the Metro/Daily Mail. The telephone engineers could have a bit of fun.
ReplyDeleteAnnie - Every employee must have experienced at least some of the higher paid in their organisation doing bugger all and at least some of the lower paid working their arses off. Oh, but I'm sure the rich worked their arses off to get where they are. Bollocks, did they!
How does one 'earn' £160k per year exactly?
ReplyDeleteI am a highly intelligent individual who is not afraid of hard work, yet no one has ever offered that sort of money to me.
I think there is a difference between someone getting paid £160k and actually 'earning' £160k per year. And most certainly those on that sort of salary should subsidise those who have no chance of winning such, despite their best efforts, not least as there are simply not enough £160k jobs to go round if all the key workers and others who sustain this country decided they weren't going to get out of bed for anything less than £160k a year.
All the bankers who recently sold us down the river certainly didn't merit their obscene wage packets for all the favours they did us.
Claire from Sunderland clearly hates capitalism and doesn't understand the free market, despite mentioning benefits of labours.
ReplyDeleteWould she suggest that someone on a salary of £100,000 does ten times the work of someone on £10,000? Because that's clearly bollocks.
Laura - I'm all for 100% tax on anybody earning over £50,000. That's nearly five times the minimum wage, anyway.
ReplyDeleteBilly - Yes, it is bollocks. It's more likely they do a tenth of the work.