We want to share an important update with our Betfair Community users.
Over the coming months, the Betfair Community platform will be winding down. The final active day for the platform will be December 21st. From December 22nd, users will no longer be able to access the platform.
Your discussions, insights, engagement, and, most importantly, feedback have helped shape the platform and guided innovation. Your feedback continues to be important to us, and we will continue to listen via our dedicated feedback channels, as well as through product testing and innovations.
To share your feedback and experience, visit: https://support.betfair.com/app/home
|
By:
I think he's a millionaire also.
|
|
By:
Would we miss him, could Britain miss him, can he be replaced ?
I don't know. |
|
By:
Put down your pint - Get your kit on and tell Big Sam you'll lead the line this afternoon for a paltry 10K .
|
|
By:
I wouldn't get out of bed for that, can make more than that in one match.
|
|
By:
you don't believe me johnny do you ? that's ok I forgive you :)
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
Thinks aren't fair STUDY. Most people in the world don't have a washing machine. Johnny never mentioned deserving, but he did mention that by and large (with a few nepotism exceptions) those in very well paid jobs, or the self made, achieved their salaries with a huge amount of dedication and graft, and in some cases taking big risks. That's my experience. You can easily argue that everything in life is down to luck, purely down to your genetic make up, where and to whom you are born, and the events that form part of your life.
If you are concerned about the size of public debt, then the last government you want is a government that spends and spends. That's the reality, when you bury what looks like the huge chip on your shoulder. I'm all for greater equality, if it can be achieved without making the vast majority of people poorer. That's why I voted remain. But I'm a realist. We want people with money and/or brains and/or expertise in this country. If someone inherits £100m, I want them living and spending that cash in the UK personally. It might be "unfair" but life isn't fair. If someone is highly intelligent and liable to invent something, or highly driven and a workaholic, I want them living in the UK, providing jobs and initiating trade, that end up paying for health, pensions and all sorts. People need rewards to be motivated. That's what catapulted the UK to the forefront of the developed world 150 to 250 years ago. Doing it for the state is a recipe for doing feck all. |
|
By:
Our GINI Index (which measures equality) and Corruption Index ratings indicate that we are amongst the fairest countries in the world.
|
|
By:
Clydebank understands.
I do indeed try to avoid subjective words like "deserving" and "fair" or, as far as possible, give opinions or value judgements. That gets the debate nowhere. If SF continues in just posting "rich - bad and undeserving" and " poor - salt of the earth" then we can't move forward. You need to concentrate on macro-economic matters that affect the economic success of the whole country. Remember taxation doesn't create wealth, all it does it redistribute it. I will try once more. For the purpose of our debate , there are only two sorts of people :- - A net contributor (NC) - this guy pays into the Government coffers all of his various and numerous taxes over his lifetime. From this pot the government will pay him back some in direct state benefits , he may get free schooling, free healthcare etc etc. He also more than covers all of his share of all other public services - defence /policing/ government - everything the state provides. Over his lifetime he has paid more into the system more than the state has paid looking after him. - A net taker (NT)- this guy will pay his taxes in exactly the same way over his lifetime (albeit at lower levels). However, after deducting the costs of his share of public services over his lifetime the Government has spent more on him than he has paid in. Effectively the Government gathers together the contributions from the NCs and spends it on the NTs. That's it, or not quite it. (You can argue all you like about where to draw the line and who fits in which box and why but it doesn't change the facts.) At the end of every year there is not enough money to meet the costs of all of our public services. The NTs have had more spent on them than the NCs have paid in. The Government has to borrow to meet the shortfall. This annual deficit is currently running at £60-90bn a year (and has been as high as £150bn a year). This borrowing has ALL been spent on the NTs as by definition the NCs cover their costs. The accumulated annual UK borrowings is currently £1500,000,000,000 - £1.5 trillion. The takers have had ALL the contributors money spent on them as well as this £1.5 trillion , and you want them to "Clear off abroad - we don't need you! ". Speaking personally now - I want the NCs staying in the UK and I want to attract more to come here from abroad as well. Threatening them with increased tax rates is not the way to go. |
|
By:
I repeat, as I have before. To both of you.
In other words...; I will try once more.... Johnny never mentioned deserving, but he did mention that by and large (with a few nepotism exceptions) those in very well paid jobs, or the self made, achieved their salaries with a huge amount of dedication and graft, and in some cases taking big risks Is rubbish. These are the ones who by the very definition of what you wrote DESERVE their wealth. (Hence my use of the word deserving). IT ISN'T TRUE. VERY FEW VERY WEALTHY PEOPLE GOT THEIR WEALTH THIS WAY. Nothing to do with "salt of the earth" nothing to do Micro OR Macro economics. As for being contributors, EVERYONE who earns money, spends money, or pays ANY sort of tax is a contributor. If those who are likely to spend the money have it to spend then it will circulate - which is GOOD FOR EVERYONE The issue with your NC's having the money is that they don't need to spend it, so it stays in their bank accounts and doesn't circulate. The redistribution of wealth is ENTIRELY what this is about. Forget about percentages ONE QUESTION (again - as you always fail to answer any). If someone earns a million a year and keeps 400,000 of it, why is this such an awful thing? MOST people (if it's alright with you to consider MOST people for a moment) earn less than £30,000 a year and get to keep £20,000 of it. I have no chip on my shoulder, I just refuse to believe the crap written in the Daily Mail and Telegraph. I speak from experiences gleaned of many years of meeting many people. Including many very very rich people, NONE of whom had the sort of background you 2 keep harping on about. Finally, fwiw. I have VERY much taken risks - putting up everything - with all that it entails. I have employed people, I have worked 7 days a week for years, Everything I've earned has been for government, often unfairly, mostly at the expense of small companies over the protection of large. I am not alone. |
|
By:
If someone earns a million a year and keeps 400,000 of it, why is this such an awful thing?
- Because he will have more incentive to hop on a plane and relocate somewhere with lower tax rates. The country then receives nothing. - Because he have less incentive to expand /invest/ create jobs to push his earnings up to £2m a year. - Guys like him will be put off coming here in the first place. - He will be more inclined to tax plan aggressively. |
|
By:
Would you rather the UK have a handful of millionaires paying 60% tax or thousands paying 40% tax ?
|
|
By:
If someone earns a million a year and keeps 400,000 of it, why is this such an awful thing?
I'd call it greedy myself, but for practical purposes that's irrelevant. What happens is he either leaves to another country or reduces his output. |
|
By:
Plus why would anyone who could earn that amount be interested in working here?
|
|
By:
and your fwiw :-
I don't doubt you have done all that you say. So do many many others. Unfortunately, most do not reach the heady heights of "rich" but some will. Why do you resent those people so much ? |
|
By:
i think it is a mistake to think that it is people who create wealth,
it is the country and the society that creates wealth. for every one type of person a society will have a thousand more, sometimes a country is in the right place at the right time. the society must be very finely balanced between freedoms, and its laws and its religion and its culture and its views on things like marriage etc these are the most important things and it is a very fine balancing act between them all. |
|
By:
now a very wealthy man may say i am not going to stay in England, it looks nicer and i can make more money elsewhere
But that is fine, as long as he remembers that it was Britain he made his money initially. and he might be wise to ask himself would he have made it elsewhere. |
|
By:
You see, not all countries are the same, this is Britain and Britain is not like other countries.
who could deny that? |
|
By:
Johnny never mentioned deserving, but he did mention that by and large (with a few nepotism exceptions) those in very well paid jobs, or the self made, achieved their salaries with a huge amount of dedication and graft, and in some cases taking big risks
Is rubbish. Seeing as you think that is rubbish, how do you think they made it? |
|
By:
well lets put it this way, how do you think the very wealthy people in Saudi Arabia made their money?
|
|
By:
or perhaps some of those wealthy Russians in London, how did that happen?
|
|
By:
i think it is a mistake to think that it is people who create wealth,
it is the country and the society that creates wealth. for every one type of person a society will have a thousand more, sometimes a country is in the right place at the right time. the society must be very finely balanced between freedoms, and its laws and its religion and its culture and its views on things like marriage etc these are the most important things and it is a very fine balancing act between them all. There's a lot of truth in that. It's the society and culture that helps create the people who create wealth. It's not a chicken and egg situation, its 90% chicken and 10% egg. Hence why Britain ruled the planet 200 years ago. Oil and Gas have transformed some countries, purely down to luck. If the likes of Ronaldo or Messi were born 200 years ago they'd likely be peasants, 100 yeas ago they'd be amateurs, 50 years ago they'd be averagely paid. But there aren't a thousand more Messis. There's only one. I think it's gross the amount they get paid. But they will go where the money and glamour is. |
|
By:
now in England we used to be able to name some famous scientists and industrialists and inventers and writers and musicians.
can we name some now? |
|
By:
but we have people in Britain getting paid vast sums of money, i`m not sure what for.
|
|
By:
Messi is a good example, now Messi is playing football in Spain, and has become a legend, why?
because of Spain, its football culture, its history, its people who love football...everything that is Spain created Messi, and Messi helped to continue that creation. But it was Spain and the Spanish people who were important, not so much Messi |
|
By:
I don't resent them at all, I resent their need to have more money than they could possibly spend.
These people who are so frightened of paying more tax wouldn't just "hop on a plane". Why would they? where would they go? Whatever you think, they really aren't THAT wonderful. Other people will invest - create jobs - expand, if they're not there. Incidentally this applies to corporations as well as individuals. We used to have British industry, wealth creation, manufacturing, services and ownership. Now so much work is "created by 'inward investment'", which generally means profit and money leaving the country. EVERYONE has a value. My issue is that the value of some (and they're NOT all wealth creators) - eg, bankers, top sports people, actors, top judiciary, landowners (however they got it), people in charge of charities, friends of people in VERY high paid positions using nepotism, and SO many others - is considered to be so many times greater than others. I value the people who do the jobs the rest of us wouldn't consider (the dirty jobs, the physical ones we're not up to, the ones who serve people) as much and often more than the, in my experience, undeserving sorts who just happen to have the facility to acquire the most money. I don't doubt there are some who are generally wealth creating, self-made, hard-working and genuinely good wealthy people. I just don't think there are very many of them at all. Think about all the rich people you know, Clydebank, seriously. Do you honestly think they fit your bill? 2 things need to be made clear, btw. I'm not talking about £80 or £100 grand a year. I'm talking annual 7 figure earners, or those approaching it. and Big companies are even worse. THEIR tax avoidance schemes mean they can squeeze smaller opposition out of business, which means less tax is paid than would be if there were more companies supplying goods and services, yet their CEO's and directors (VERY rarely self-made or in their 1st job) can reap the rewards, loads of people are on the scrapheap - or forced to be on benefits, wages for the workforces are as low as possible and the country's revenue is reduced. If Ronaldo or Messi didn't earn 30 million a year, and Barcelona, Man C etc weren't worth 1 billion and limits were set, would football stop? Would people stop supporting their local team? No. It would continue, only the money might be spread round a little more and it might be cheaper to go to matches. |
|
By:
Now Spain created great players and great teams in the past, will they do so in the future? that depends on Spain
|
|
By:
My experience in working environments is that the highest paid earners worked significantly harder and have far more stress than the lower paid ones STUDY.
I don't know any super rich people personally, I know a few quite rich people. I don't choose to mix in their circles generally. Some have inherited their money and would've been struggling without it. Some have earned it themselves. One has married into it (small sample but she is an utter bitch) Some I don't like, but all the people that earned it did so by working very hard. I've spent most of my working life gambling though. For the record they would relocate and reduce their output. I think it's deluded to think otherwise myself |
|
By:
There are good and bad people across all sections of society.
It is not for us as individuals to decide who is "worth" their income and who isn't - the free market does that i.e. we all decide as a group. If i write a book and it's a best seller I make £millions - Whether you think it's rubbish is totally irrelevant. Footballers earn "silly" money because 60,000 turn up every week to watch them live, and millions more pay to watch on TV. It's just basic economics. The head of a charity/banker earns a £1m a year because the trustees of the charity/bank shareholders believe he will bring say £2m of value each year to the charity/bank. If they could find somebody to do the same job for £250K they would snap him up. Take a UK actor - he might earn £20m for a film because the filmmakers believe he will put £40m on the box office take. If we didn't choose to shell out our hard earned to watch the film he would not get anything like his £20m. Now tax him at 40% he might just remain living in the UK and pay his £8m into the pot. Ask him to pay £12m and he is much more likely to "hop on a plane" and leave the rest of us having to find his £8m from somewhere else or borrowing it. |
|
By:
The question you should be focusing on Study is not - "Why are some people earning so much ?
A far better question is "Why are so many people earning so little ?" |
|
By:
well that's a fairly easy question to answer, freedom of movement from poor countries to rich.
|
|
By:
Then again writing books which become a best seller, how does that happen?
is it because if the writer, or the country, or the language . Could it be the English language itself and the country that produces the best seller rather than the individual Perhaps the very language itself produces the best seller , its possible . Can you name many great songs for example that are not in English |
|
By:
Is it the country that produces the writer, and the book.
and is it the English language itself Is it a coincidence that Ireland produced great writers, when it started to use the English language? I don't know. |
|
By:
If course Ireland was part of Britain when it was producing these great writers do that may have helped also .
I am certain we would never have heard of Oscar Wilde, if he hadn't been part of Great Britain and Ireland |
|
By:
So the country produces the writer, it is not the writer that produces the country.
|
|
By:
I don't think we need look too closely why big corporations offer their colleagues big salaries
salaries |
|
By:
I don't know any super rich people personally, I know a few quite rich people. I don't choose to mix in their circles generally
They probably made that decision for you. |
|
By:
I did a business studies degree. I specialised in finance because I was best in that area, and wanted a good grade. When I left the last place I wanted to work was in banking, because it would have been a brutal slog. I wanted a cushy number, working 9-5 and to be able to go home and enjoy the evenings and weekends. I found it working directly for qualified attorneys. They slogged their guts outs, earned a lot of money, and I grabbed a slice of their hard graft.
|
|
By:
Not that I agree with most of what you wrote, Johnny, frankly I don't.
The main difference being that I think there are far fewer genuine hard working, from the bottom up, irreplaceable millionaires than you do. But what you are talking about is sheer greed. "£1 million not enough, I'm off" It isn't a free market at all, it's a manipulated market. Using football as an example. It's not as simple as you say. Sky pay the most, they own the football rights. Then BT, Then Premier sports. The public has to pay more to watch (leaving less money for them to spend on other things). The cost per ticket is increased. Mass advertising and corporate tickets, etc, means the money in football is nearly all diverted to the major clubs. In the meantime most clubs are sold to foreign investors. Who mostly don't care about the clubs they own (I know more than most as a Leyton Orient fan). The thing that both of you have just touched on is the difference between highest and lowest paid. Which is ENTIRELY my point. The difference is too great. For years and years we've given %age pay rises. Quite often the dividends and bonuses and highest earners getting more %age than the lowest. If in 1967 you were on £20,000 a year as a company director and got a 5% rise you'd be on £21,000 a year As a worker on £2,000 a year your rise gets you a gross salary of £2,100 In 1968 another 5% makes 22,050 and 2,205 It's basic arithmetic at 5% a year over 50 years By 2017 the Jobs pay: Director £229,348 Worker £22,935 Or in other words, the rises were £209,348 and £20,348 Just forget percentages and consider actual amounts. The Directors Now have £189,000 more actual gross pay than their lesser paid colleagues even taking extra tax into account and money paid in NI and PAYE (and not clever accountancy schemes available to the very wealthy) Leaving them about £120,000 more to spend on food and other things everyone needs. EVERY YEAR. And these are not even the most wealthy. |
|
By:
Incidentally the "Trickle down" theory has been totally disproved.
Not a surprise really. It was always a con. For all the reasons I detailed throughout this thread. But it was taught in Business studies and accountancy as fact. Loads of other workers slog their guts out Clydebank, with never a hope of getting megabucks. They deserve more or at least to get more for their wedge. The opposite of those who don't. |