Thursday, March 13, 2008
Brain storm instead of wind storm
Came upon me while tucking into the luncheon steak and kidney. That is to say, 12 parts steak, 6 parts ox kidney, 3 parts onion and 3 parts elderly mushrooms. Smidgeon of lard and a gudgeon of water. Served with mashed potato and white cabbage (crinkly cabbage having mysteriously vanished earlier in the week). Towards the end of this lot, mind turned, prompted by the DT coverage of the budget, towards poverty traps.
Definition: minimum income (MI) is the minimum amount anyone is allowed to take home.
Definition: taxable income (TI) is the level above which the take home pay is less than the gross pay. The subject has moved from spongeor to contributor.
Definition: f(x) is the net pay for gross pay x, x assumed to be non negative.
Rule: we must have more so there must be an incentive to earn more. Put another way, f(x) must increase with x. Or put yet another way, df(x)/dx must be positive.
Rule: be nice to the poor. Put another way, f(x) must be greater than MI.
Rule: screw most people. Put another way, f(x) must be less than x for x greater than TI.
Rule: screw the rich big-time. Put another way, the rate of contribution should increase with x. Or put yet another way, d2f(x)/dx2 must ne negative.
There are plenty of good solutions when TI is greater than MI. For example f(x)=MI+ x*(TI-MI)/MI is almost a solution, and with a bit of adjustment will meet the last rule. But it all falls apart when MI is greater than TI. Must see how all this plays into the DT analysis of the poverty trap.
Which brings me onto stricken lawyers, not I think for the first time. The DT tells us of a lady lawyer who was, in her first job, earning around £150,000 a year. Something to do with property development. She had two other jobs and two disabled children. She falls out with her employer, plays the sex discrimination card and is said to be in line for in excess of £10m. First thought, people who want to play hard-ball and earn lots of wedge, should stick to the rules. Sex discrimination and other rules of that sort are applicable to soft-ball not hard-ball. The three estates: hard ballers, soft ballers and spongeors (see above). We should all remember which estate we are in and play the game accordingly. Second thought, I guess she wound up with too much on her plate, became a bit of a pain and her employers became a bit of a pain back. Tears all round. Third thought. All down to greed. Some people just want too much. Puzzle: if she is a lawyer, why did she have to sell £3m worth of house to fight the case. Why couldn't such a hot-shot lawyer represent herself before some low-grade sex-discrimination tribunal? Hardly the High Court of Appeal.
Invented a fine new sauce yesterday. The nearest thing to junk food that has been in our kitchen for some time. Fry some chopped bacon and onion in butter. Stir in some flour. Cook for a bit. Stir in some milk (full skim to reduce the guilt). After a while stir in some cheese. Serve on top of brussells sprouts. Very good, if a little heavy for a lunch time snack. The sprouts in question were very large, maybe 3cm in diameter. Firm things - and altogether very unlike the ones that I managed last year. One day I will find out how they do it.
Definition: minimum income (MI) is the minimum amount anyone is allowed to take home.
Definition: taxable income (TI) is the level above which the take home pay is less than the gross pay. The subject has moved from spongeor to contributor.
Definition: f(x) is the net pay for gross pay x, x assumed to be non negative.
Rule: we must have more so there must be an incentive to earn more. Put another way, f(x) must increase with x. Or put yet another way, df(x)/dx must be positive.
Rule: be nice to the poor. Put another way, f(x) must be greater than MI.
Rule: screw most people. Put another way, f(x) must be less than x for x greater than TI.
Rule: screw the rich big-time. Put another way, the rate of contribution should increase with x. Or put yet another way, d2f(x)/dx2 must ne negative.
There are plenty of good solutions when TI is greater than MI. For example f(x)=MI+ x*(TI-MI)/MI is almost a solution, and with a bit of adjustment will meet the last rule. But it all falls apart when MI is greater than TI. Must see how all this plays into the DT analysis of the poverty trap.
Which brings me onto stricken lawyers, not I think for the first time. The DT tells us of a lady lawyer who was, in her first job, earning around £150,000 a year. Something to do with property development. She had two other jobs and two disabled children. She falls out with her employer, plays the sex discrimination card and is said to be in line for in excess of £10m. First thought, people who want to play hard-ball and earn lots of wedge, should stick to the rules. Sex discrimination and other rules of that sort are applicable to soft-ball not hard-ball. The three estates: hard ballers, soft ballers and spongeors (see above). We should all remember which estate we are in and play the game accordingly. Second thought, I guess she wound up with too much on her plate, became a bit of a pain and her employers became a bit of a pain back. Tears all round. Third thought. All down to greed. Some people just want too much. Puzzle: if she is a lawyer, why did she have to sell £3m worth of house to fight the case. Why couldn't such a hot-shot lawyer represent herself before some low-grade sex-discrimination tribunal? Hardly the High Court of Appeal.
Invented a fine new sauce yesterday. The nearest thing to junk food that has been in our kitchen for some time. Fry some chopped bacon and onion in butter. Stir in some flour. Cook for a bit. Stir in some milk (full skim to reduce the guilt). After a while stir in some cheese. Serve on top of brussells sprouts. Very good, if a little heavy for a lunch time snack. The sprouts in question were very large, maybe 3cm in diameter. Firm things - and altogether very unlike the ones that I managed last year. One day I will find out how they do it.
# posted by Jim @ 6:52 AM 
