Huguenot

I really can't believe that IV is trying to suggest that she had kids out of some altruistic desire to create a drone that could wipe my harris when I get old. That is absolutely choice. At least your first argument was honest ;-) KK, you're simply pursuing the argument that we've already rejected. NO-ONE is dictating who should have children. NO-ONE is saying when you should have them. This is NOT a communist country (whatever the feck you mean by that, I suspect you mean totalitarian not communist). Absolutely nuts argument, a straw man, whatever. It's hormones talking, not sense. Do whatever you want, just don't ask everyone else to pay for them. I'll pay for their education, or for their forcible removal if you can't feed them, because that's a social investment. The rest of it is charity, not obligation.

"I hope he suceeds an I wish him well." When accent invades grammar. All you need now is *wags finger in air*. I heard you saying it ;-) Besides, I wasn't 'at the same game'. Other people have merely recognised an underlying truism.... that 'fair society' is often a disingenuous dinner party rationalisation of 'punish the rich'. The very fact that 'bankers' have been mentioned so much in this debate demonstrates that it's really nothing to do with the 'poor' at all. It's about envy. My only argument is that this is an essentially pointless and destructive ambition. There is no opportunity for fair society lobbyists to pursue their ambitions until they focuses their energies on the people they want to help, instead of the people they want to hate.

It's not well said at all KK. What IV said was that she got other people to pay for kids from whom she now reaps the benefits. "I don't have much money even though I'm on about ?33K at the moment because my kids always need something" Yes, your kids. Your kids. I have no doubt that there's a particular chemical transaction that makes you think your kids are the centre of the universe, and that everyone else should pay for them. It's a delusion, it's probably hormonal. I'm sure IV is punching the air in a glorious footballing salute. I'm not surprised. What a successful rip-off. I don't expect any kind of logical response to my point, apart from a load of old blart about how important kids are. So let's steer that off at the pass yes? I agree, they're lovely. Amazing. They reward you forever. Waaahey. I just don't think that I should be paying for yours. You probably do. It's hormones and self-absorption.

I know what you're saying louisiana, and it has great merit! I don't know if you're being a bit too specific though. Location, or relocation of businesses is made on very tight margins, and not a little bit of prejudice. Cash also has a habit of wandering from office to office. XX% of our GDP is from financial products, and I don't think we should be playing fast and loose, or making marginal gambles, on an inherently mobile industry.

Ha ha ha :)) Godwin's in the first post!!!! Ha ha :)) Ha ha ha ha ha *Snorkle* Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Excellent. Excellent.

"And if those kids grow up neglected or in poverty as a result then your Libertarian is making those children take the hit for their parents' decisions" There are many reasons to criticise libertarians, mainly to do with being famously daft, but you couldn't accuse them of 'making' anybody do anything. Likewise Brendan's comment on 'having to wait until you're 30'. No you don't. You can have kids anytime you want. If you have certain social ambitions that require a particular investment then you may choose to wait until you can fund them. Either way, nobody is 'making' anybody do anything. I mean, really, truly, and monumentally, I wish people would piss off with this idea that having kids is a decision of the state. The only thing the 'state' does is respond to other people's desire to fund them for you. You might want a bloody Ferrari, you might think it's your right to have a Ferrrari. You are quite outside the bounds of reasonable behaviour in asking me to pay for that for you. Have as many kids as you want. Crap them out like yesterday's curry if you want. I'll happily fund their education because it's an investment in a social asset. Don't ask me to buy them furry gorillas. Look to your family and your neighbours to fund them, because at some point they'll get pissed off with carrying you and break your legs. You then won't have any more kids.

On recession... "the fact that one of them wants to punch you 20% less is of little comfort." I'm not sure if that says I'm sick in the head, but anyway, the timing was exceptional :))

London's almost a thousand kilometres closer to Beijing than Sydney is.

People can try and sell you any old rubbbish, it's your choice if you buy it. It's this desire to blame other people for our own decisions that destins us to repeat the same mistakes over again.

I think what I'm trying to say DJKQ, is that I find you overly preoccupied with attacking those at the top of the pyramid instead of trying to find solutions at the bottom. That last post of yours was a case in point - you mention social mobility, but expend all your energy on the perceived injustice of dergulation that "gave bankers a licence to print money" It's like you want to punish 'them'. A lack of social mobility doesn't always denote a lack of opportunity, but may be highlighting a blue collar cultural impasse. It's a culture that is often tribal, inert, rubbishes education and qualification, discourages mobility and lacks aspiration. Typified by my cleaner at Uni, who commented "I'm not sending my bloody daughter to University, if cleaning was good enough for me, it's good enough for her. She should stay here in Coventry where her family are." It's typical of that culture that it blames other people for their own shortcomings, and would prefer to drag other people down rather than dragging themselves up.

I'm sorry DJKQ but I think your conviction that there is a conspiracy of rich people keeping all the money for themselves is hopelessly class war. The housing boom took place because we created it, and nobody was wise enough to anticipate the likely outcome. Not very bright, but there was no room of purple faced satans deliberately trying to screw the country. I suspect that your conspiracy theory convictions underpin a desire to see wholesale redistribution of wealth and an end to meritocracy. It's very Socialist Worker. I've made myself moderately wealthy from a teaching household. I had no money, started at the bottom and worked my way to the top. All of my colleagues in the same situation did the same thing. The majority of those super-wealthy traders are working class barrow boys who started with nothing. Many of those who didn't make it as high as they may have wished have been unwilling to make the sacrifices necessary to achieve it - they might have wanted to start a family, or wouldn't move town or work late nights. That's just life - it's a competition. A fair society requires a good education, equality of opportunity and an incentive to progress. Making bankers scapegoats won't deliver on any of those objectives. If people don't get the opportunity that's one thing - if they don't take an opportunity that's another. BTW. I bought my house from a non-working family who acquired it from the council at discount price under 'right-to-buy'. They made an absolute packet, and went off to Bedford to live in a... you guessed it... council house. They are now richer than me, with lower outgoings. They didn't need money to make money.

Piersy I agree that those banks that are supported by taxpayer money should be responsible to the tax payer. It was and remains a tragedy that the government couldn't leverage these shareholdings to legislate particular bonus issues. What I'm protesting is that bankers are being singled out for what everybody does - act in their own interests. We have lax regulations because our government made the calculated gamble that the potential benefit outweighed the potential risk. A gamble that in hindsight proved to be incorrect. Either way, the conversation is about a 'fair' society - but what it appears is that we're not after a fair society, so much as punishing the wealthy. I think it's a poor strategy, and in the end we'll only be punishing ourselves.

If public sector pay increases weren't in anyone's manifesto that's because it loses votes. People at the top threshold are already paying 51% of their income into the public purse. That's a huge amount. To increase public sector salaries you either have to increase tax, or shift spending from other areas. Both of those are vote losers. There isn't a conspiracy because one simply isn't needed. It's odd to 'accuse' banks of self-interest, but only because it's a given. We all practise self-interest: banks, nurses, teachers, Tube unions. I can understand that it's infuriating seeing these chaps make megabucks, but that's the price of freedom. I've taken a huge risk on selling my house and launching my own business, and I'm entitled to reap those profits. If I've been so successful my profits are astronomical then I'm entitled to a Ferrari. For people to suggest I shouldn't be allowed access to the profits of my own hard work is outrageous. If it applies to me, then it also applies to bankers.

DJKQ - that's a perfect example of what I was referring to earlier. It's like we're out to 'get' bankers. Bankers didn't cause the crisis, everyday people did. It was precipitated by the excessive numbers of people that were borrowing money they couldn't afford to repay. This isn't the banks fault, this is greedy people. The thing we (not the banks) should have done is legislate so that banks couldn't become too big to fail, and increased the minimum levels of cash reserves. We probably should have stopped share trading in the financial sector People are entitled to pay themselves whatever they want so long as they're making the profits to cover it.

Nurses and teachers are paid by you. You set their salary when you go to the ballot box. If financiers are getting bonuses for losing money, then that's an issue for the shareholders, not you. You can only vote with your feet by not buying their product. If the shareholders are taxpayers - for example because of a bailout - then it's right and proper that we should be setting bonus levels. The consideration of the Exchequer, rightly or wrongly, was that the bailout would be repaid faster if they were to resume business as usual. However, most people are more interested in the money than the ethics of the supplier, or they'd all be with the Co-op.

Twirly, I'm not sure that you can lump together people that 'we' pay from the public purse like nurses and teachers, and those that generate wealth independently like 'advertising execs and some of those in finance'. Salaries for teachers and nurses is simply a case of political will - both in total taxation and the proportion spent on education or health. The fact is that we vote for politicians who cut taxes and underpay public servants. We can't talk about how unfair the government is, it's our decision. Advertising execs and financiers are paid as a reward for delivering goods or services, invariably that's linked to the effectiveness of their contribution. They are not paid by us. Ad execs are paid by clients to sell their product. Better execs sell more product and attract higher rewards. This is not an issue in which the tax payer should be interfering. Quite simply it has nothing to do with them. If a child is going hungry because of irresponsible parents that isn't going to be solved by throwing more public money at the parents, that's just an incentive to be more irresponsible.

I'm struggling to understand why we have a Child Benefit system anyway. Same as the married couple's allowance, what's the justification for that? I'm aware that poorer sections of society need income support, I'm just doubtful that it should be linked to having children or being married. I just don't see why we should be paying other people to have kids.

I can't help but get the feeling that the basic angle here is that 'equality' is to be achieved by making successful people poorer. This proposal seems to be mixed in with a general mistrust of 'business', and a feeling that we need some revenge for a credit crunch brought about by our own greed and self-indulgence. I don't think this is even remotely reasonable, and alienating some of our most successful wealth generators doesn't strike me as a wise move for UK Plc. There could be a case for legislating that all employees should be shareholders, but this is a disincentive (but not necessarily terminal) for investors, for whom their dividend payment is a just return for the investment they made in the first place, alongside the risk. Disincentivise investors and you've got a big problem with your company. The challenge with equality in the UK needs to be addressed through education and opportunity, not through manacling our waelth generators. Much of the problem is cultural, not governmental. We rubbish and mistrust success and we undermine the education system by removing incentives to work hard. This desire to cut salaries is a reflection of this attitude - and very much part of the problem.

So what are you suggesting SMG, upping the minimum wage? Legislating a maximum wage? It strikes me that a maximum wage is unenforceable, and regardless it should be up to shareholders to 'correctly' incentivise senior management to maximise return on their investment. What about shareholders anyway? Lots of lawyers are partners in their firm, and their substantial salaries are derived on a profit share.

Sure, but how do you achieve that through legislation?

No, no, Nashoi. I'm proud that I've maybe pretended (have I?) a great thinker through my own trivial machinations. I've never read them, and don't know who they are, they are worthy of respect :) My views are peeled back through the venerable thinkers of our time on this site, probably less graced by access to the printing press than some. MM (because of our disagreements), Quids, DCarnell, Brenda, RosieH, Moos (albeit through distrust), Piers (more influential than he realises), Sean (because we fight our mututal conviction), Keef, Louisiana, DJQK, Ladymuck, HAL9000 to name but a few have a massive impact upon my opinions. Even Silverfox corresponds with enormous influence. There are too many to mention. But Schumacher? Big also-ran. Who again?

Ah yes, found it. Your point is diversionary, I'll ask you again, what is a 'third world market'?

It's not beyond me to have used the word 'cretins' tarot, and I'm willing to be taken to task. But I can't find the reference. Can you clarify?

Sure tarot, I've never used the term except in questioning yours. I'll ask you again, what is a 'third world market'?

Lol! I think charity shop means they give the proceeds to their nominated charity, not that they give it to you!