In the news

In a Guardian article yesterday it stated that the average wage in Camden is £37,000. I thought this seemed rather high and maybe should have been average household income? I bet most Guardian readers would consider £37k below the bread line.

Talking of the Guardian, here's a site which generates random comments for readers to C&P into the comments sections

http://www.tomforth.co.uk/guardiancomments/

i think it was a broad sweep
a poll on some website
people were just asked to tick the box that they thought was a very large salary
it didn't discrimate between the dole scroungers and the bankers worth every penny they were paid

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
i jest

I bet most Guardian readers would consider £37k below the bread line.

certainly below the ciabatta line..is that organic?

In a Guardian article yesterday it stated that the average wage in Camden is £37,000. I thought this seemed rather high and maybe should have been average household income?

Really? If you think about it the borough actually covers some extremely wealthy areas of London alongside the poorer parts (most of which are actually still pretty nice) If you consider Hampstead/Belsize Park and Bloomsbury it doesn't surprise me that the average wage is so seemingly high.

Typical wage seems a "more accurate" measure than average wage.

Remember that 1% of the population is still 600,000 people, there aren't that many footballers being paid massive amounts (maybe a couple of hundred), or in fact that many earning millions in other ways...

It would be interesting to know the amount of tax paid by the top 0.1% earners?

numbers huh !

Meteorite in russia!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7c-0iwBEswE&feature=player_embedded

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/feb/15/meteorite-explosion-shakes-russian

puts on tin foil hat

nice link here-
http://rt.com/news/russia-meteor-meteorite-asteroid-chelyabinsk-291/

Whole bunch more videos here:

http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2013/02/meteorite-crashes-in-russia-panic-spreads/

One hell of a boom!

^amazing.

There was a huge meteorite that hit a bout 4 years back if I recall, discovered by one of those nerds analysing telescope data with only about 24 hours left for it to hit. Was big enough to destroy a a few city blocks or something.

But it ended up landing in the desert so no one noticed. Saw it on a BBC/Channel 4 documentary. Tried to look it up since but forgotten the details. The relevant authorities were cacking themselves and made the decision not to tell anyone even though there was a decent chance it would land in a populated area.

I'm calling conspiracy. This is a military experiment gone wrong.

Are we sure the meteorite isn't just hippy on his way to work?

Arthur Laffer might disagree with you...

Laffer.... The so-called Tax Payers Alliance (an offshoot of the Conservative Party) are always banging on about him. There is some relevance, but look at this bit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve#Tax_rate_at_which_revenue_is_maximized
. The point at which the Laffer Curve comes into play is at about 70%. Considering, and simplifying a lot here, that the top 1% pay about 25% on their income (they might pay 40% on their earned income but they have other earning such as dividends and capital gains on which they pay less tax, and then of course, they have good accountants), we could double the tax they pay, which would mean they would be covering about 50% of the country's tax take, without the Laffer Curve starting to limit the tax base.

I'm not suggesting we do, just saying that the scope is there - that is worth taxing the rich.

^ Yeah, I know, we had moved on. I only just saw TW2's post. I will stop now.

How are you defining rich- salary above UK average wage?

I'm calling conspiracy. This is a military experiment gone wrong.

The chances of anything coming from Mars are a million to one

Looking at the videos it does appear to have 2 definate contrails which could suggest propulsion systems?

A sad anniversary:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/feb/15/iraq-war-10-year-anniversary-poll

How are you defining rich- salary above UK average wage?

it's subjective dammit
define it how you will

I'm not really defining rich. The whole conversation started with someone (sorry, forget who) making the assertion that there are lots of poor people, so it is more profitable to tax them than the rich. It is a not unreasonable assumption. Look how much money McDonalds have made from "taxing" the poor. There are a lot of them. However, it turns out not to be so true. It appears that people in the top 10% are contributing about half the tax take - which clearly means it is worth taxing them.

But, in answer to your question, and considering what salary puts you where:

Top 10% is £50k p.a.
Top 5% is £68.5k p.a.
Top 1% is £156k p.a.

It is subjective of course, but I would apply rich to myself if I was on £150k plus, because it does get you into the 1%.

As dicki says, subjective. If I ever did find myself earning £150k, I would probably cease to call it rich, and say that I was doing OK, someone on twice that, now that would be rich. And of course, "rich" is only partly about income. It is about wealth. Not working? Income zero? Got a million pound house and a £100k p.a. pension? Yeah, you're doing alright.

Looking at the videos it does appear to have 2 definate contrails which could suggest propulsion systems?

Sorry, can't leave that unrebutted. I think the two trails are from the two big pieces after it has split.

Equally Andrew - earning 30k but inherited your parents house in an expensive part of London.

You'd consider yourself rich due to assets.