Jump to content

Recommended Posts

A hypothetical...


A person has the same education that everyone gets, and works hard to save a little cash, and then invests the whole lot (mortgage and pension) in creating an iPad app.


I'm going to use 'she' for brevity.


She has no specialist education in app creation, she was funded by the government to get an arts degree that so many people have.


She paid for her own education in tech development and business competence.


She spies a market opportunity for an App and plows everything she has into creating it. She employs a dozen people at market rates with appropriate benefits and perks (paid for out of profit). Many of them, except the most junior, have shares.


The App is ?1, she sells 3,000,000 copies for a net income of ?2.1m in the first year.


She paid ?1.5m in total in development costs, but every month she flirted with bankruptcy.


All the risk was hers - her employees got paid, whilst she worried about finances and ate baked beans.


Clearly, very soon, she's going to make a few quid. Enter the 'elite' zone.


She took all the risks, sacrificed her future and security, on a project where only 1 in a 100 are successful.


At what point does she become a rich bitch, sucking the nation dry?

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/31335-redistribution-of-wealth/
Share on other sites

But more seriously who is accusing who of sucking what nation dry


If "she" starts to make a profit and pays her tax on said profit where is the problem


She might think that the 99 other people who sacrificed as much as she did but weren't successful shouldn't be condemned to a life of misery and a basic state support is there for them. As long as the winners pay their taxes. After all she is winning

Nah, it's not me.


It was an interesting outcome of one of the spreadsheets of a client.


I only ever get development fees - same as a salary.


BUT within 3 years, their income dwarfs the wealth pattern of an average middle class. They become one of the 1%.


Have they ripped off society?

I can't see how they are ripping off society. Good luck to 'em


But it's when some of them look at their tax bill and not their net income and think its they who are losing out I start to get annoyed


When she was young she would have been aware of the state position on tax and started her risky venture in full knowledge of said contract. She would have paid good money to ensure she got to that level early on i'll bet. So she makes it. Well done, and now the cycle continues

What is she due?


She is due what she expected when she grew up in a society which taxed at 40% or 60% or whatever it is / was


She looked at that and thought "if I have an idea good enough and work hard enough and Get Lucky I will be minted even after all the taxes"


And she gets to where she wants to be. What is she due????


She didn't employ people out of altruism. She needed the labour. She wouldn't have succeeded without it


She isn't due anything


She is where she planned and hoped to be

What a marvellous thought, in times of great stress the ultra rational H indulges every Internet whim led fantasy!!


Talking of which I gather the CTs are already accusing the FBI of this one. Way to prefigure the 'official' narrative by inventing your own before anybody has *any* information at all.

I don't have any bankrolled dreams in this context, I've made cash as a worker, not as an owner to date. I lost money owning stuff.


It's interesting how aggressive your response has been?


I asked a question that we asked together with friends, and they wondered what UK people would say.


The SJ thing is about conformity?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Absolute mugs. That's what they take you for.  
    • Trossachs definitely have one! 
    • A A day-school for girls and a boarding school for boys (even with, by the late '90s, a tiny cadre of girls) are very different places.  Though there are some similarities. I think all schools, for instance, have similar "rules", much as they all nail up notices about "potential" and "achievement" and keeping to the left on the stairs. The private schools go a little further, banging on about "serving the public", as they have since they were set up (either to supply the colonies with District Commissioners, Brigadiers and Missionaries, or the provinces with railway engineers), so they've got the language and rituals down nicely. Which, i suppose, is what visitors and day-pupils expect, and are expected, to see. A boarding school, outside the cloistered hours of lesson-times, once the day-pupils and teaching staff have been sent packing, the gates and chapel safely locked and the brochures put away, becomes a much less ambassadorial place. That's largely because they're filled with several hundred bored, tired, self-supervised adolescents condemned to spend the night together in the flickering, dripping bowels of its ancient buildings, most of which were designed only to impress from the outside, the comfort of their occupants being secondary to the glory of whatever piratical benefactor had, in a last-ditch attempt to sway the judgement of their god, chucked a little of their ill-gotten at the alleged improvement of the better class of urchin. Those adolescents may, to the curious eyes of the outer world, seem privileged but, in that moment, they cannot access any outer world (at least pre-1996 or thereabouts). Their whole existence, for months at a time, takes place in uniformity behind those gates where money, should they have any to hand, cannot purchase better food or warmer clothing. In that peculiar world, there is no difference between the seventh son of a murderous sheikh, the darling child of a ball-bearing magnate, the umpteenth Viscount Smethwick, or the offspring of some hapless Foreign Office drone who's got themselves posted to Minsk. They are egalitarian, in that sense, but that's as far as it goes. In any place where rank and priviilege mean nothing, other measures will evolve, which is why even the best-intentioned of committees will, from time to time, spawn its cliques and launch heated disputes over archaic matters that, in any other context, would have long been forgotten. The same is true of the boarding school which, over the dismal centuries, has developed a certain culture all its own, with a language indended to pass all understanding and attitiudes and practices to match. This is unsurprising as every new intake will, being young and disoriented, eagerly mimic their seniors, and so also learn those words and attitudes and practices which, miserably or otherwise, will more accurately reflect the weight of history than the Guardian's style-guide and, to contemporary eyes and ears, seem outlandish, beastly and deplorably wicked. Which, of course, it all is. But however much we might regret it, and urge headteachers to get up on Sundays and preach about how we should all be tolerant, not kill anyone unnecessarily, and take pity on the oiks, it won't make the blindest bit of difference. William Golding may, according to psychologists, have overstated his case but I doubt that many 20th Century boarders would agree with them. Instead, they might look to Shakespeare, who cheerfully exploits differences of sex and race and belief and ability to arm his bullies, murderers, fraudsters and tyrants and remains celebrated to this day,  Admittedly, this is mostly opinion, borne only of my own regrettable experience and, because I had that experience and heard those words (though, being naive and small-townish, i didn't understand them till much later) and saw and suffered a heap of brutishness*, that might make my opinion both unfair and biased.  If so, then I can only say it's the least that those institutions deserve. Sure, the schools themselves don't willingly foster that culture, which is wholly contrary to everything in the brochures, but there's not much they can do about it without posting staff permanently in corridors and dormitories and washrooms, which would, I'd suggest, create a whole other set of problems, not least financial. So, like any other business, they take care of the money and keep aloof from the rest. That, to my mind, is the problem. They've turned something into a business that really shouldn't be a business. Education is one thing, raising a child is another, and limited-liability corporations, however charitable, tend not to make the best parents. And so, in retrospect, I'm inclined not to blame the students either (though, for years after, I eagerly read the my Old School magazine, my heart doing a little dance at every black-edged announcement of a yachting tragedy, avalanche or coup). They get chucked into this swamp where they have to learn to fend for themselves and so many, naturally, will behave like predators in an attempt to fit in. Not all, certainly. Some will keep their heads down and hope not to be noticed while others, if they have a particular talent, might find that it protects them. But that leaves more than enough to keep the toxic culture alive, and it is no surprise at all that when they emerge they appear damaged to the outside world. For that's exactly what they are. They might, and sometimes do, improve once returned to the normal stream of life if given time and support, and that's good. But the damage lasts, all the same, and isn't a reason to vote for them. * Not, if it helps to disappoint any lawyers, at Dulwich, though there's nothing in the allegations that I didn't instantly recognise, 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...