[tomtom]

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/aug/28/closed-shop-deepy-elitist-britain

Britain is "deeply elitist" because people educated at public school and Oxbridge have in effect created a "closed shop at the top", according to a government report published on Thursday.

[a dense loner]

Tbh I'd want someone with that education at the top, rather Boris than white Dee

[tomtom]

Tbh I'd want someone with that education at the top, rather Boris than white Dee

That's partly the problem - a self re-enforcing perception. public school & Oxbridge doesn't mean you've had a better education... But people think it does...

[andy popp]

Or even that 'White Dee' had had the opportunity of access to the same education

[a dense loner]

I'm not interested in the oppurtunities she's had or that Boris has been gifted everything, to get to both their positions in life they've had to tackle various obstacles and I would rather go with someone from his position rather than hers

[Johnny Brown]

public school & Oxbridge doesn't mean you've had a better education... But people think it does...

Than what? The majority of the time it simply will. Whether you are bright enough to get in to a 'top' private school, or are nice-but-dim and go to the ones that cater for that, might not necessarily mean 'better' teachers (though fewer poor teachers), but the reality is you're going to get better staff-pupil ratios, teaching more closely tailored to the individual, less disrupting elements, more extra-curricular stuff, etc etc. Oxbridge is highly selective with the whole world to choose from nowadays, if British private schools didn't deliver they wouldn't be so over-represented.

Unless you mean you don't consider such an education 'better' in which case a pointless discussion...

[Sloper]

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/aug/28/closed-shop-deepy-elitist-britain

Britain is "deeply elitist" because people educated at public school and Oxbridge have in effect created a "closed shop at the top", according to a government report published on Thursday.

The irony of this being published in the Guardian is quite delicious

[tomtom]

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/aug/28/closed-shop-deepy-elitist-britain

Britain is "deeply elitist" because people educated at public school and Oxbridge have in effect created a "closed shop at the top", according to a government report published on Thursday.

The irony of this being published in the Guardian is quite delicious

Indeed - as a large % of the Guardian staff are from Oxbridge. There must have been much hand wringing... Though the report is big news - making a splash across all the media.. Not sure if 'Judges Chronicle' has it running though

[Sloper]

public school & Oxbridge doesn't mean you've had a better education... But people think it does...

Than what? The majority of the time it simply will. Whether you are bright enough to get in to a 'top' private school, or are nice-but-dim and go to the ones that cater for that, might not necessarily mean 'better' teachers (though fewer poor teachers), but the reality is you're going to get better staff-pupil ratios, teaching more closely tailored to the individual, less disrupting elements, more extra-curricular stuff, etc etc. Oxbridge is highly selective with the whole world to choose from nowadays, if British private schools didn't deliver they wouldn't be so over-represented.

Unless you mean you don't consider such an education 'better' in which case a pointless discussion...

Indeed, there's also a question of the quality of teachers (and their knowledge) and the quality of the facilities.

The number of physics teachers in the non selective state sector with an undergraduate degree in physics is, in statistical terms, non existent.  I imagine the same is true for Chemistry, Maths and Biology.  I would suggest that you cannot effectively teach physics etc to A level without an undergraduate degree.  Therefore the absence of properly qualified teachers in the majority of non selective state schools in effect removes the options for the pupils to read for a degree in medicine etc.

Then let's look at the facilities, does the school have a bespoke chemistry lab with fume cupboards, lab assistants & etc.  Almost all public and selective state schools will, far far fewer non selective state schools will.

Only a fool would say that a teacher with an undergraduate physics degree and a full equipped lab (with support) isn't providing a higher quality education (in physics) than a teacher without a physics degree who is operating without a lab and appropriate support.

The same will be true with languages, music, sports & etc

There is a massive issue over ingrained privilege in our society but for those that are most concerned about it there also seems to be an absolute rejection of some of what are demonstrably the most effective means of reducing barriers to inequality and opening up the bastions of privilege.

[Sloper]

It's not just where they went to university, it's their schooling (not that a child has any real say in where they went to school, hence why dispariaging references to Cameron being an OE are so moronic) it's their family connections and so on.

While I don't receive the Judges Chronicle, there have been articles reporting initiatives to widen access at the Bar for a number of years in 'Counsel', although sadly we're now in the position for that many, access to the bar is open, just as is access to the Ritz.

[tomtom]

public school & Oxbridge doesn't mean you've had a better education... But people think it does...

Than what? The majority of the time it simply will. Whether you are bright enough to get in to a 'top' private school, or are nice-but-dim and go to the ones that cater for that, might not necessarily mean 'better' teachers (though fewer poor teachers), but the reality is you're going to get better staff-pupil ratios, teaching more closely tailored to the individual, less disrupting elements, more extra-curricular stuff, etc etc. Oxbridge is highly selective with the whole world to choose from nowadays, if British private schools didn't deliver they wouldn't be so over-represented.

Unless you mean you don't consider such an education 'better' in which case a pointless discussion...

I think it would be more instructive if you asked the question 'of what'.....


I found the report eye opening and thoroughly depressing. I listened to 30 min of radio debate and had to switch off as it made me feel so sad.... Similar disparities between population and representation in gender would lead to calls for positive discrimination.....

[Jaspersharpe]

dispariaging references to Cameron being an OE

I can't work that out because neither of the letters are C.

[Sloper]

public school & Oxbridge doesn't mean you've had a better education... But people think it does...

Than what? The majority of the time it simply will. Whether you are bright enough to get in to a 'top' private school, or are nice-but-dim and go to the ones that cater for that, might not necessarily mean 'better' teachers (though fewer poor teachers), but the reality is you're going to get better staff-pupil ratios, teaching more closely tailored to the individual, less disrupting elements, more extra-curricular stuff, etc etc. Oxbridge is highly selective with the whole world to choose from nowadays, if British private schools didn't deliver they wouldn't be so over-represented.

Unless you mean you don't consider such an education 'better' in which case a pointless discussion...

I think it would be more instructive if you asked the question 'of what'.....


I found the report eye opening and thoroughly depressing. I listened to 30 min of radio debate and had to switch off as it made me feel so sad.... Similar disparities between population and representation in gender would lead to calls for positive discrimination.....

Why should it be 'eye opening' from my reading of the report it is a very long and detailed exposition of the bleeding obvious, as to whether it is depressing or not, my overwhelming emotion was resigned acknowledgement and despair at the indifference / antipathy of proposed "solutions" by those who profess to be concerned about inequality.

[Sloper]

In terms of power in many ways the only power the royal family retain is the power to motivate the Daily Mail & etc readers to succumb to mass hysteria, flag waiving and the purchase of tatty souvenirs.

[petejh]

There is a massive issue over ingrained privilege in our society but for those that are most concerned about it there also seems to be an absolute rejection of some of what are demonstrably the most effective means of reducing barriers to inequality and opening up the bastions of privilege.

I agree with that. I've banged on about it before a couple of times on here and I will again - the most elegant solution that I've come across for reducing ingrained privilege is the tax reform idea put forward by this guy: https://www.youtube.com/user/14thSun/about

(edit) Unfortunately he's pulled the video, but it was genius. It described a very high (it was around 80%) inheritance tax but also combined it with an extremely low taxation rate for wealthy innovators during their own lifetimes so as to encourage innovation but discourage/prevent increasing wealth inequality.

I imagine a lot of people who've accumulated large amounts of wealth would be horrified by the idea.

[Sloper]

The higher the rate of taxation, the greater the incentive to avoid and evade the tax.

Most people also regard IHT, if below a certain threshold for thes estate and/or beyond a certain rate as iniquitous.

For example, let's say we have an IHT threshold of £500k and beyond that tax is 40%, so for an estate of £600k the government will take £80k leaving a net estate of £560k, the result being that it's not worth seeking to avoid / evade IHT as the marginal gain is limited when the costs of avoidance / evasion (+_risk) are considered.

Now if we imagine IHT has a threshold of £200k and a rate of 80%, an estate of £600k would pay £320K IHT leaving a net estate of £280k i.e. £80k above the threshold.  Suddenly avoidance / evasion becomes not only sensible but eminently practical meaning that instead of HMG getting £40k IHT it would get £0.

Given the value of a reasonable house in may parts of the country many more (I'd suggest most) estates if not now then in the near future will now fall liable for IHT this is going to 'bite' for more and more families: and before you say 'you can't move a house' you're right, but you can move ownership off shore and with a very simple trust structure avoid IHT if it becomes a penal rate.

The very rich have effective tac planning and structures, the people who get caught in the IHT trap are generally the people like 'our' parents who worked hard, on relatively modest incomes, bought a house and saved for the future: lining them up to be arse fucked is as electable as Jimmy Saville running for the Communists.

[Oldmanmatt]

The higher the rate of taxation, the greater the incentive to avoid and evade the tax.

Most people also regard IHT, if below a certain threshold for thes estate and/or beyond a certain rate as iniquitous.

For example, let's say we have an IHT threshold of £500k and beyond that tax is 40%, so for an estate of £600k the government will take £80k leaving a net estate of £560k, the result being that it's not worth seeking to avoid / evade IHT as the marginal gain is limited when the costs of avoidance / evasion (+_risk) are considered.

Now if we imagine IHT has a threshold of £200k and a rate of 80%, an estate of £600k would pay £320K IHT leaving a net estate of £280k i.e. £80k above the threshold.  Suddenly avoidance / evasion becomes not only sensible but eminently practical meaning that instead of HMG getting £40k IHT it would get £0.

Given the value of a reasonable house in may parts of the country many more (I'd suggest most) estates if not now then in the near future will now fall liable for IHT this is going to 'bite' for more and more families: and before you say 'you can't move a house' you're right, but you can move ownership off shore and with a very simple trust structure avoid IHT if it becomes a penal rate.

The very rich have effective tac planning and structures, the people who get caught in the IHT trap are generally the people like 'our' parents who worked hard, on relatively modest incomes, bought a house and saved for the future: lining them up to be arse fucked is as electable as Jimmy Saville running for the Communists.

Open a limited company in...

Delaware
Gibraltar
Cayman
Burmuda

Et al...

Register it as a foreign entity/whole owner of a limited company in one of the other jurisdictions; make the chain as long as you want and even revisit the same jurisdictions a few times.
Costs a matter of a few hundred in each state.
Sell assets to last company in the chain.

Easy for a state to pinpoint ownership, they are not that stupid; but obtaining official evidence of directorships and ownerships from a disparate and disinclined group of foreign governments?

This system has been operating for decades, most commonly to avoid liability within the shipping owning industry, hence the "Flags of convenience". To my shame, I have arranged these things for shipowners before. It is common and accepted practice.

There are many reasons why I don't practice my profession anymore.

You can only wash so much off in the shower.

[Sloper]

Not a tax lawyer, never been a tax lawyer, but as you say it's not exactly hard; the sort of 'tax then till the pips squeak' proposals are generally advanced by people who don't have a clue how tax can be avoided, don't understand the democratic consequences of proposals such as they ones they espouse, and can't foresee the blindingly obvious untoward outcomes of their policies.

So apart form the fact that they won't work, have huge detrimental outcomes and cause real and lasting damage, massive income tax, IHT, corp tax and 'land tax' are all tickety boo.

Have you tried Swarfega?

[Oldmanmatt]

Actually, what I should have said, is that without a Global taxation treaty/scheme; or laws similar to the US (Where citizenship is dependant on declaring Global assets and all are taxable under US law) Sloper is correct that such Taxes would simply drive wealth overseas.
And I can't see that happening soon.
The UK has some of the laxest Expat taxation in the world. Basically, you are only taxable on income generated in the UK. As long as you don't spend too much time in the country and for some categories the limit may be as much as 180 days!
So, as a Seaman, I could work offshore for 180 days, take a couple of weeks holiday somewhere outside the EU (to be safe) and then spend upto 180 days here, without being liable for tax.

[Sloper]

Indeed, and the last serious protagonists of the global government were a Mr Hitler & Stalin.

It's worse than you suggest for 'windows 3.1' and non doms, you have your assets overseas and you borrow £100,00 per month in the UK against those assets, your off shore account then settles those debts resulting in exactly £0 tax liability, and that's a vanilla scheme, although closed about 6 months ago if my drinking pals are correct.

[petejh]

In your rush to show how worldly you are you missed out 50% of the idea though. The idea was to satisfy both main camps: the 'tax the rich' camp and the 'encourage innovative entrepreneurial capitalism' camp.

Income tax would be reduced to extremely low levels, around 10%. That would make any country with such a tax culture an attractive place to be an entrepreneur, as long as you're alive at least.

With the inheritance tax part, in theory it'd take a (UK) billionaire's offspring 2 generations to 'only' receive £400000 through inheritance:

£10000000. Die. Lose 80%. Offsping receives 20%:
£2000000. Die. Lose 80%. Offspring receives 20%:
£400000. Etc.

However, it wouldn't work like that because anyone with an ounce of intelligence who received 2 million pounds inheritance would invest it in low risk funds and bonds and receive around 7-12% growth per year. So it would still take quite a few generations of privileged offspring skewing the affordability of top-quality education, housing, and everything else they touch, to erode that £billion down to sub-one million.

As you point out the option exists to try to hide assets. And schemes exist to enforce asset disclosure. There's the option to devise whatever policies governments see fit in order to enforce their polices, it's just a matter of political will, and that's clearly lacking. Do we get the government we deserve? I'd say we do. But if you were serious about wanting to change ingrained inequality, ideas like this are the most elegantly simple way to do it. Whether it's electable or not wasn't the discussion, I'd guess you'll never change powerful vested interests through democracy alone - in many cases the most powerful people didn't get their wealth or power purely through democratic means in the first place.

[Oldmanmatt]

In your rush to show how worldly you are you missed out 50% of the idea though. The idea was to satisfy both main camps: the 'tax the rich' camp and the 'encourage innovative entrepreneurial capitalism' camp.

Income tax would be reduced to extremely low levels, around 10%. That would make any country with such a tax culture an attractive place to be an entrepreneur, as long as you're alive at least.

With the inheritance tax part, in theory it'd take a (UK) billionaire's offspring 2 generations to 'only' receive £400000 through inheritance:

£10000000. Die. Lose 80%. Offsping receives 20%:
£2000000. Die. Lose 80%. Offspring receives 20%:
£400000. Etc.

However, it wouldn't work like that because anyone with an ounce of intelligence who received 2 million pounds inheritance would invest it in low risk funds and bonds and receive around 7-12% growth per year. So it would still take quite a few generations of privileged offspring skewing the affordability of top-quality education, housing, and everything else they touch, to erode that £billion down to sub-one million.

As you point out the option exists to try to hide assets. And schemes exist to enforce asset disclosure. There's the option to devise whatever policies governments see fit in order to enforce their polices, it's just a matter of political will, and that's clearly lacking. Do we get the government we deserve? I'd say we do. But if you were serious about wanting to change ingrained inequality, ideas like this are the most elegantly simple way to do it. Whether it's electable or not wasn't the discussion, I'd guess you'll never change powerful vested interests through democracy alone - in many cases the most powerful people didn't get their wealth or power purely through democratic means in the first place.

I don't dispute the method at all.
Nor would I protest it's implimentation.

My point was, it's too easy under the status quo and the current system is MORE beneficial to the powers that be; therefore unlikely to change.

If the Commons is dominated by the same group, who most benefit from the current system; then short of a democratic earthquake, nothing will change. Regardless of the merits of an alternate system.
And, see Dense's comment above, for a clear and concise explanation of why that won't change soon.

Too many of the electorate don't care or are more likely to vote for Big Brother/Britain's got Talent/a.n.other piece of shit.
Too many middle class, thinking, voters are way too impressed by Oxbidge education and scared of the "unwashed", to ever rock the boat.

[andy popp]

In 2000 directors of FTSE 100 companies earned 47 times the average earned by their employees. Today it is 120 times.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29587707

[Oldmanmatt]

In 2000 directors of FTSE 100 companies earned 47 times the average earned by their employees. Today it is 120 times.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29587707

And continuing to rise.

Did no-one learn anything in 1789?

1917?

That Versace handbag won't help much when the Proles storm the Palace...

[Sloper]

This deisparity is completely missing the point and substantially irrelevant. 

As to what was learnt from the events 1789 and 1917 was that secure property rights and the rule of law are wholly necessary pre conditions for a just, stable, tolerant and decent society.

The proles may be revolting but they generally can't even be bothered to vote so the risk of defenestraion of the elite by force can be considered a pretty remote prospect.