Chit Chat
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
17 May 17
04:56
Joined:
Date Joined:
29 Sep 10
Germany - Any higher amount is subject to income tax. Income tax is progressive, starting at 18.9 percent and rising incrementally to 42 percent, or for very high incomes, 45 percent. The top tax rate of 42 percent applies to taxable income above EUR 52,882 (married tax table: EUR 105,763).
If you put up tax we may get a better life style like Denmark, Sweden or Germany.....
If you put up tax we may get a better life style like Denmark, Sweden or Germany.....
Show More
Yes taxing the rich makes more sense than taxing the poor because of the mistakes made by the rich!
If ordinary people had more disposable income rich people could make more profit.
If high earners want to live abroad I say great! London is very full, adios! We shall see if we shall miss them at all. There are plenty of smart intelligent hard working people around to fill the gaps. Lets see how many want to live in Dublin, Paris or Frankfurt.
Firms including KPMG, McKinsey and PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) have made millions of pounds from plans that could lead to the closure or downgrade of NHS hospitals.
Health bosses have spent at least £17.6m on management consultants to draw up the strategies, which earmark cuts to departments and some A&Es..........is this an example of the Brain Drain? Do these Health Bosses who earn six figure salaries not know how to save money in the Hospitals they run? Why are they in charge? Adios!
If ordinary people had more disposable income rich people could make more profit.
If high earners want to live abroad I say great! London is very full, adios! We shall see if we shall miss them at all. There are plenty of smart intelligent hard working people around to fill the gaps. Lets see how many want to live in Dublin, Paris or Frankfurt.
Firms including KPMG, McKinsey and PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) have made millions of pounds from plans that could lead to the closure or downgrade of NHS hospitals.
Health bosses have spent at least £17.6m on management consultants to draw up the strategies, which earmark cuts to departments and some A&Es..........is this an example of the Brain Drain? Do these Health Bosses who earn six figure salaries not know how to save money in the Hospitals they run? Why are they in charge? Adios!
1800 billionaires - three billion each on average.
three billionaires in south africa have more money than lower 50 percent of the country's population?
somebody collar these guys. instead of hitting us up every time we go to the shops for a loaf.
charities? chase the billionaires - there are 1800 of them.
three billionaires in south africa have more money than lower 50 percent of the country's population?
somebody collar these guys. instead of hitting us up every time we go to the shops for a loaf.
charities? chase the billionaires - there are 1800 of them.
May 18, 2017 -- 4:46PM, FatherMaguire wrote:
Taxing the rich a bit more seems like a very sensible way to keep funding NHS, schools etc - it's a miracle the right-wing press have managed to persuade the rank and file this would be a bad thing (when 99% of them would be unaffected)
Summed up nicely.
...because the rank and file are clever enough to realise that if you keep squeezing the top end guys they will leave , (or not even come here in the first place), not expand, or invest, and stop creating jobs, or wealth.
Well let them share their talents with the rest of the World!
Do you think we do not have men and women in this country to replace them?
If the guys at the top are so stupid that they do not realise that squeezing the population to levels where they have nothing to spend is not going to cause a recession and depression we are well rid of them. They are not so smart and nearly brought the Western World as we know it to an end during the financial crisis.
Do you think we do not have men and women in this country to replace them?
If the guys at the top are so stupid that they do not realise that squeezing the population to levels where they have nothing to spend is not going to cause a recession and depression we are well rid of them. They are not so smart and nearly brought the Western World as we know it to an end during the financial crisis.
That's exactly the point ...Nobody will want to step up and replace them because the tax burdens are too high.
The country is already awash with people who won't work a minute over 16 hours a week - Why is that ?
The country is already awash with people who won't work a minute over 16 hours a week - Why is that ?
why is that
because the so called wealth creators,investors wont pay a wage which makes it worthwhile for people to work 40 hrs,it really isnt an argument you only have to compare the wages increases in the boardroom to those on the shop floor since 2008,with firms even paying out dividends from borrowed money ,as for investing in plant,machinery,training,upskilling your having a fooooking laugh they lobby downing street for anever ending flow of either young people off the dole working for benefits or employ migrants on shoite wages and no training
because the so called wealth creators,investors wont pay a wage which makes it worthwhile for people to work 40 hrs,it really isnt an argument you only have to compare the wages increases in the boardroom to those on the shop floor since 2008,with firms even paying out dividends from borrowed money ,as for investing in plant,machinery,training,upskilling your having a fooooking laugh they lobby downing street for anever ending flow of either young people off the dole working for benefits or employ migrants on shoite wages and no training
the difference between real world of work and the fairytale of work in the minds of politicans and the media is mind boggling
May 18, 2017 -- 7:52PM, Johnny The Guesser wrote:
That's exactly the point ...Nobody will want to step up and replace them because the tax burdens are too high.The country is already awash with people who won't work a minute over 16 hours a week - Why is that ?
I'll step up and replace someone on £1 million a year and happily pay 60% of it in tax.
That would leave me with £400,000, and the person who's buggered off (not that any would) will have been replaced by someone with a conscience, who works hard.
I reckon I'm one of many.
No-one will go anywhere, more's the pity. These people/organisations are not so clever or of that much use to the rest of us.
As for expansion and investment - Most of them are earning what they do because they've replaced well paid workers with low-paid ones over many years, that and a compound interest of earnings over about 50 years (because everyone has to have a PERCENTAGE pay rise each year) has meant that instead of earning 4 or 5 times the lower earners they now earn 50 or more times. There is no defence for the disparity.
If the chairman of ANY big company left (and went where exactly? btw) because he had to pay a bit more tax would his job be SO specialised and valuable he couldn't be replaced.
I mean, ffs, many of these people get rewarded for failure!!!
May 18, 2017 -- 7:52PM, Johnny The Guesser wrote:
That's exactly the point ...Nobody will want to step up and replace them because the tax burdens are too high.The country is already awash with people who won't work a minute over 16 hours a week - Why is that ?
daily mail reader 
The problem is not that those at the top can't be repaired, most of them can. That doesn't matter and what they are paid doesn't matter in this respect.
The problem is that the middle and working classes can be replaced, and easily.
And until that changes nobodies wages are going to get better.
And they will never get better.
What is the solution? well it's nothing to do with how people are taxed, its supply and demand it's pretty simple .
The problem is that the middle and working classes can be replaced, and easily.
And until that changes nobodies wages are going to get better.
And they will never get better.
What is the solution? well it's nothing to do with how people are taxed, its supply and demand it's pretty simple .
You can tax the highest paid at 90% and you won't be a penny better off , and neither will the country.
They can earn that sort of money because they have an endless supply of labour, only when labour is scarce do people become wealthier.
There is nothing that can overcome this fundamental, a good and fair and well run and prosperous country must have a scarcity of labour, not a surplus .
It is a defining characteristic and cannot be otherwise.
They can earn that sort of money because they have an endless supply of labour, only when labour is scarce do people become wealthier.
There is nothing that can overcome this fundamental, a good and fair and well run and prosperous country must have a scarcity of labour, not a surplus .
It is a defining characteristic and cannot be otherwise.
stability of law - if you buy property in the uk, it's yours.
in Spain? not so sure? they have a habit of taking it back.
the uk is the secure place to go. ask Roman Abramovich.
he owns Chelsea as an investment along with friends? also because it
gives him protection. He is now highly visible. Do you knock off someone
with such a big shadow?
They come here to regain respectability.
in Spain? not so sure? they have a habit of taking it back.
the uk is the secure place to go. ask Roman Abramovich.
he owns Chelsea as an investment along with friends? also because it
gives him protection. He is now highly visible. Do you knock off someone
with such a big shadow?
They come here to regain respectability.
Good point Zorro.
MAny of these Dictators, family of Dictators know they are only President for Life. Britain offers them safety and stability and that is worth 60% of anybody's income!. Wealthy people too love London as a safe haven not just for them but more importantly their children.
Johhny Guess who makes a good point about the 16 Hour week and I am fed up of people working 16 hous and getting their housing paid. It is this that is stopping the minimum wage the maximum wage for many. Tax payers need to stop funding a benefit culture and should absolutely shop sudsidising Business by making up wages! A huge proportion of Green's BHS staff were on housing benefit. This has to stop.
MAny of these Dictators, family of Dictators know they are only President for Life. Britain offers them safety and stability and that is worth 60% of anybody's income!. Wealthy people too love London as a safe haven not just for them but more importantly their children.
Johhny Guess who makes a good point about the 16 Hour week and I am fed up of people working 16 hous and getting their housing paid. It is this that is stopping the minimum wage the maximum wage for many. Tax payers need to stop funding a benefit culture and should absolutely shop sudsidising Business by making up wages! A huge proportion of Green's BHS staff were on housing benefit. This has to stop.
Get out there then Study....You sound exactly the type of guy this country needs!
Study...train....invest in yourself...come up with an idea...spot opportunity...business plan..remortgage your house...build a business....work long hours...family pressures...suffer setbacks.....tweak idea....bounce back...finally crack it years later....invest in local economy...create jobs....pay shed loads of VAT and other taxes...put in 100% of the effort ...take 100% of the risk... then get asked to pay 52% of the remaining profits to a sleeping partner.
Oh ..and get continually told you have just been lucky and still aren't paying your "fair share".
Study...train....invest in yourself...come up with an idea...spot opportunity...business plan..remortgage your house...build a business....work long hours...family pressures...suffer setbacks.....tweak idea....bounce back...finally crack it years later....invest in local economy...create jobs....pay shed loads of VAT and other taxes...put in 100% of the effort ...take 100% of the risk... then get asked to pay 52% of the remaining profits to a sleeping partner.
Oh ..and get continually told you have just been lucky and still aren't paying your "fair share".
They come to London because they have relative safety, compared to the sh!teholes they come from. And Britain does not look too carefully at where the money comes from, and it is has the appearance of a being lawful , and Britains links to tax havens.
You have to ask why are so many of the worlds financial disasters mainly based in London , including a large proportion of the American banking disasters such as Leighman which almost bankrupted the economy.
It is because Britain has the appearance of being legal, but is easy to manipulate and ideal for corrupt practises.
This is why the money comes to London, but make no mistake it doesn't bring wealth to Londoners.
You have to ask why are so many of the worlds financial disasters mainly based in London , including a large proportion of the American banking disasters such as Leighman which almost bankrupted the economy.
It is because Britain has the appearance of being legal, but is easy to manipulate and ideal for corrupt practises.
This is why the money comes to London, but make no mistake it doesn't bring wealth to Londoners.
The vast majority of people being paid huge salaries can be replaced, they wouldn't be missed.
And they shouldn't be receiving such salaries. However that will solve nothing for the everyday person.
There is only one way to help the middle and working classes become more prosperous and also help the countries economy and that is to stop immigration.
And they shouldn't be receiving such salaries. However that will solve nothing for the everyday person.
There is only one way to help the middle and working classes become more prosperous and also help the countries economy and that is to stop immigration.
In truth it doesn't matter very much what we do now, it's too late. Every European country is in decline and no longer can stop this decline. At the same time as Britain is becoming less incentive and creative it is massively increasing its population, this has the same outcome as always.
What you have to remember is that Britain was the birthplace of the industrial revolution. The impart of this was so great, compare it to Silicon Valley and the computer revolution and multiply by a hundred, or a thousand , it was so vast we are still living off it today .
But that was then and this is now. And unfortunatedly times up.
But that was then and this is now. And unfortunatedly times up.
May 19, 2017 -- 6:36AM, Johnny The Guesser wrote:
Get out there then Study....You sound exactly the type of guy this country needs!Study...train....invest in yourself...come up with an idea...spot opportunity...business plan..remortgage your house...build a business....work long hours...family pressures...suffer setbacks.....tweak idea....bounce back...finally crack it years later....invest in local economy...create jobs....pay shed loads of VAT and other taxes...put in 100% of the effort ...take 100% of the risk... then get asked to pay 52% of the remaining profits to a sleeping partner.Oh ..and get continually told you have just been lucky and still aren't paying your "fair share".
You have no idea mate.
I have worked and continue to work as hard as anyone. There is little assistance for those not already wealthy.
Banks do NOT help small businesses, successive governments do not help.
I have done all the things you suggest more than once, for everything! as have 100's of 1000's of others.
It is NOT how people get rich.
A massive majority of the richest people did NOT do the things you listed.
They went to the right schools, had rich parents, knew the right people.
It is naïve in the extreme to suggest that the wealthy have all somehow done something to deserve to earn a hundred times more than; a everybody else, and b, they need.
What's needed is to stop talking in percentages and start talking in numbers.
If you earn a million a year and are left with £400,000 then, WHATEVER your background, you are immensely better off than someone who earns £30,000 a year who's left with £20,000 and who, for all you know, works harder than the bigger earner.
Why is this difficult to comprehend?
100% spot on STUDY. The feudal system in it's modern garb is alive and thriving. 
TY.
What I find strangest is that people defend it, because if they don't they somehow feel like they're being a traitor to the cause.
Years of political indoctrination.
What I find strangest is that people defend it, because if they don't they somehow feel like they're being a traitor to the cause.
Years of political indoctrination.
Without the net contributors there is nothing beyond what people can do for themselves.
Everybody can't be a taker.
Why, therefore, is there so much resentment to the people who pay so much more into the system than they ever get back ?
"Clear off abroad, we don't need you !" - It would be funny , but some really believe it.
Everybody can't be a taker.
Why, therefore, is there so much resentment to the people who pay so much more into the system than they ever get back ?
"Clear off abroad, we don't need you !" - It would be funny , but some really believe it.
I always laugh when people who rarely have much money and have to shop at all the cheapest
shops to afford a couple of pints tell you proudly "We are the fifth richest country in the World!"
shops to afford a couple of pints tell you proudly "We are the fifth richest country in the World!"
compared to what?? Somalia? I reckon it ain't bad. I see lots of happy folk in my local wetherspoons!!!! ho ho!!
Johnny The Guesser.
Without the net contributors - Who aren't going anywhere btw.
Other net contributors will replace them.
Do you truly, really, honestly believe that those who earn the most all deserve it?
Do you think that because people earn sometimes 100's times more than average they need so much more to live on?
If they didn't earn such ridiculous money they wouldn't need to "contribute" so much because the difference between them and the lowest earners would be less.
It isn't about resentment. It's about stemming some greed.
Without the net contributors - Who aren't going anywhere btw.
Other net contributors will replace them.
Do you truly, really, honestly believe that those who earn the most all deserve it?
Do you think that because people earn sometimes 100's times more than average they need so much more to live on?
If they didn't earn such ridiculous money they wouldn't need to "contribute" so much because the difference between them and the lowest earners would be less.
It isn't about resentment. It's about stemming some greed.
We are ALL net contributors, btw.
Just that some of have more left to survive on after contributing, than others.
Just that some of have more left to survive on after contributing, than others.
you will always have a percentage of self serving ***** preying on the poor. It's just that the rich have the better opportunities to do this .
almost everyone has the potential to be a greedy barsteward .
almost everyone has the potential to be a greedy barsteward .
"We are ALL net contributors, btw." - Is just plainly incorrect. If this was true there wouldn't be a problem.
You seem to believe that all you need is luck and that anybody can be, for example,the CEO of a multi national public company.
These guys will have put in years of (successful) graft to get into those positions. Yes, some will fail , as in all walks of life, but others will succeed, creating wealth, paying taxes, and jobs for 000s of people, adding value to their business and society of many times what they are earn.
If they fail to add value the shareholders vote and move them on.
The companies need to pay top dollar to get the top guys - If you don't they go elsewhere. That is basic economics.
Similarly if UK Plc taxes them too much they look elsewhere and you end up with 2nd and 3rd choice guys in the top jobs.
How many times in your life have you turned down promotion and a pay rise Study ? ("Aaah.. I see. You deserved yours ! " )
You seem to believe that all you need is luck and that anybody can be, for example,the CEO of a multi national public company.
These guys will have put in years of (successful) graft to get into those positions. Yes, some will fail , as in all walks of life, but others will succeed, creating wealth, paying taxes, and jobs for 000s of people, adding value to their business and society of many times what they are earn.
If they fail to add value the shareholders vote and move them on.
The companies need to pay top dollar to get the top guys - If you don't they go elsewhere. That is basic economics.
Similarly if UK Plc taxes them too much they look elsewhere and you end up with 2nd and 3rd choice guys in the top jobs.
How many times in your life have you turned down promotion and a pay rise Study ? ("Aaah.. I see. You deserved yours ! " )
can johnny the guesser name someone at the top of their profession in Britain over the last 30? years who has been paid a large amount of money for doing an exceptional job, and what it was.
there have been studies of millionaires to try and see what are their characreristics, are they more clever, more risk taking, have more courage, optimism, and so on and if you look at the autobiographies of CEOs you might get the same impression..that these are great talents.
But then we are forgetting about those who fail, because they don`t write their memoirs. but those failures will be full of people who shared the same traits, courage, risk taking, intelligence, optimism etc
But what seperates the two will be for the most part a single factor: luck, plain luck.
and in some professions, such as the investment bankers in London who can at a certain time become very wealthy, and do so not because of any skill, in fact those with the least skill and insight may make the most private fortune, because they don't see or understand the risks and then of course it ends in tears, perhaps not for them because they have made a few million, before they are sacked and have to leave the office with their cardboard box.
and then of course it starts again, and we have new experts that deserve to be paid millions.
because they are a great talent,
beware these great talents, because they will say to you give me your money, why? because I am a great talent and deserving of it.
there have been studies of millionaires to try and see what are their characreristics, are they more clever, more risk taking, have more courage, optimism, and so on and if you look at the autobiographies of CEOs you might get the same impression..that these are great talents.
But then we are forgetting about those who fail, because they don`t write their memoirs. but those failures will be full of people who shared the same traits, courage, risk taking, intelligence, optimism etc
But what seperates the two will be for the most part a single factor: luck, plain luck.
and in some professions, such as the investment bankers in London who can at a certain time become very wealthy, and do so not because of any skill, in fact those with the least skill and insight may make the most private fortune, because they don't see or understand the risks and then of course it ends in tears, perhaps not for them because they have made a few million, before they are sacked and have to leave the office with their cardboard box.
and then of course it starts again, and we have new experts that deserve to be paid millions.
because they are a great talent,
beware these great talents, because they will say to you give me your money, why? because I am a great talent and deserving of it.
How many, do you think, of the super rich do you think are people who've put in years of graft to get there?
A percentage ball-park guess figure will do.
We ARE all net contributors btw, is correct, btw.
Income tax accounts for 30% of tax revenue, we ALL pay VAT, tax on smoking, drinking, insurance, utilities and so on.
Rich or poor. The only difference is that the rich have more spare to pay for it with.
The companies need to pay top dollar to get the top guys - If you don't they go elsewhere. That is basic economics
No it's not, it's basic BS.
You are writing in some sort of belief that all the highest earners are well deserving CEO's who've scraped their way up from the bottom with no help from anyone and who are the best at what they do.
As a betting person I would wager large amounts that there are less than a dozen such people in the country (but to you, that just makes me some sort of jealous).
Do you think that shareholders actually take an interest in the nuts and bolts of company workings?
This is also extremely doubtful.
As I said a few times now.... 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.
For once I agree with lfc.
Lastly, as I also said, you have no idea....
I have worked and continue to work as hard as anyone, mostly for myself. Having met many very wealthy people, I can confidently state that in the main they are no better or more deserving than me (or possibly you). Indeed many of them are self indulged coke-headed plicks.
Are you very wealthy, johnny?
A percentage ball-park guess figure will do.
We ARE all net contributors btw, is correct, btw.
Income tax accounts for 30% of tax revenue, we ALL pay VAT, tax on smoking, drinking, insurance, utilities and so on.
Rich or poor. The only difference is that the rich have more spare to pay for it with.
The companies need to pay top dollar to get the top guys - If you don't they go elsewhere. That is basic economics
No it's not, it's basic BS.
You are writing in some sort of belief that all the highest earners are well deserving CEO's who've scraped their way up from the bottom with no help from anyone and who are the best at what they do.
As a betting person I would wager large amounts that there are less than a dozen such people in the country (but to you, that just makes me some sort of jealous).
Do you think that shareholders actually take an interest in the nuts and bolts of company workings?
This is also extremely doubtful.
As I said a few times now.... 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.
For once I agree with lfc.
Lastly, as I also said, you have no idea....
I have worked and continue to work as hard as anyone, mostly for myself. Having met many very wealthy people, I can confidently state that in the main they are no better or more deserving than me (or possibly you). Indeed many of them are self indulged coke-headed plicks.
Are you very wealthy, johnny?
I agree with the basic premis of what Johnny is saying. You've got to be competitive and also motivational. Otherwise you are fooked. Now we are out of the EU, we've got to be more competitive. People who work in top jobs in finance and IT work ridiculously hard. They deserve the money they get imo. Their hard graft pays for the benefits of many. They came out bottom in a happiness survey recently to back this up. Beauticians and gardeners came top. Easy jobs and low pay.
It's all about finding the right level of taxation to be competitive and motivational, but also inclusive and equitable. Not withstanding that the current Labour shadow cabinet is arguably the most intellectually incompetent in political history, their political ideology is a long term train to the poor house.
It's all about finding the right level of taxation to be competitive and motivational, but also inclusive and equitable. Not withstanding that the current Labour shadow cabinet is arguably the most intellectually incompetent in political history, their political ideology is a long term train to the poor house.
you see study is making the mistake of thinking that beauticians and gardeners are happier because they are doing an easier job, but are they ? and even if the job is easier , which it may not be,is that why they are happy ?
I don't know.
I don't know.
I wonder who set up and paid for this happiness survey.
The old saying "I'd rather be poor and happy than rich an miserable!"
rearing its ugly head again..... Like these are the only options.
The true issue, is the difference between highest and lowest earnings. It's simply too big and has come about from many years of percentage wage rises.
The old saying "I'd rather be poor and happy than rich an miserable!"
rearing its ugly head again..... Like these are the only options.
The true issue, is the difference between highest and lowest earnings. It's simply too big and has come about from many years of percentage wage rises.
Personally, I'd much rather be a gardener than work in finance or IT.
If you work in a job such as finance and investment banking it is the opposite of hard work, because the rewards are scaleable.
A gardener has to work hard to make money because his job is not scaleable, he can only work in one garden at a time
And it takes time and very hard work to make any amount of money.
The investment banker on the other hand, if he knows what he is doing and is skilled, and he may not be, can have a lot of time off and invest 1000 pounds instead of 10 .
It takes exactly the same amount of effort , if he knows what he is doing
A gardener has to work hard to make money because his job is not scaleable, he can only work in one garden at a time
And it takes time and very hard work to make any amount of money.
The investment banker on the other hand, if he knows what he is doing and is skilled, and he may not be, can have a lot of time off and invest 1000 pounds instead of 10 .
It takes exactly the same amount of effort , if he knows what he is doing
And then we have the managers of these financial institutions, they pretend to be rigirous and far sighted
and they have to have meetings to formulate a 5 year plan
and thes involved expensive dinners and private jets, but this is work and has to be done
a 5 year plan, of course what they forget that they had become successful from the bottom up, and their success was due to a phone call from a customer asking about some possible investment
They became successful by accident, and they had to go to meetings and sometimes opera performances and they became very sleep deprived because of hard work, and they had vision forgetting about the lucky phone call,
But then an event occurred and things crashed, it was the Russian financial default and the with American debt mountain
and it had such an effect that none of those great managers, with great talent were employed 5 year later
and they have to have meetings to formulate a 5 year plan
and thes involved expensive dinners and private jets, but this is work and has to be done
a 5 year plan, of course what they forget that they had become successful from the bottom up, and their success was due to a phone call from a customer asking about some possible investment
They became successful by accident, and they had to go to meetings and sometimes opera performances and they became very sleep deprived because of hard work, and they had vision forgetting about the lucky phone call,
But then an event occurred and things crashed, it was the Russian financial default and the with American debt mountain
and it had such an effect that none of those great managers, with great talent were employed 5 year later
Do you guys try and enter computer games at Level 27 ?
You have to start at Level 1 and work up...You can't just beam into life's game at Level 27 - You would get shot to bits in seconds.
Of course plenty fail , stop progressing , or choose themselves to bail out, at various stages and for a whole variety of reasons , ( and yes "luck" does play a part along the way - How big a part is the subject of much debate and many books) - but those few that are left many years later are the survivors , the most talented, the visionary, most dedicated etc. They didn't get there by luck alone.
You guys are asking the wrong question.
Don't ask "Why are the rich paid so much?" but ask "Why are the poor paid so little ?
Concentrate on that and we might find stuff we can agree on.
Don't make it a race to the bottom.
You have to start at Level 1 and work up...You can't just beam into life's game at Level 27 - You would get shot to bits in seconds.
Of course plenty fail , stop progressing , or choose themselves to bail out, at various stages and for a whole variety of reasons , ( and yes "luck" does play a part along the way - How big a part is the subject of much debate and many books) - but those few that are left many years later are the survivors , the most talented, the visionary, most dedicated etc. They didn't get there by luck alone.
You guys are asking the wrong question.
Don't ask "Why are the rich paid so much?" but ask "Why are the poor paid so little ?
Concentrate on that and we might find stuff we can agree on.
Don't make it a race to the bottom.
no you are asking the wrong questions. The question is does a country need people who are good at computer games ,
if they do need them how fast or how good do they need to be, how many do they need and can they be replaced by 100 others or 1000 or more without anyone noticing the difference
That's what you should be asking.
now we need a computer industry , you know people like Bill Gates and Steve Wazniak who can build an industry and not just play games. Is Britain producing such people and do we value them instead, you know the ones who actually invent something instead of playing games.
if they do need them how fast or how good do they need to be, how many do they need and can they be replaced by 100 others or 1000 or more without anyone noticing the difference
That's what you should be asking.
now we need a computer industry , you know people like Bill Gates and Steve Wazniak who can build an industry and not just play games. Is Britain producing such people and do we value them instead, you know the ones who actually invent something instead of playing games.
A net contributor is a person who pays more into the system than he takes out.
Yes, as you point out, everybody pays in something in various forms of taxation , but you do then need to deduct the costs of the benefits they receive and their share of the huge costs of all our public services.
The net contributors pay in and the rest have it spent on them. That is the way it works.
We are all doomed without them. We can't all be takers.
At the end of the year we spend £60-90 billion more than we take in (depending on which set of figures you want to use). We have also run up debts of trillions doing this for many many years.
Everything paid in by the net contributors - spent . Add the colossal debt mountain - ALL spent on the takers.
I know you won't like it , but I'm afraid that is the way it is.
Yes, as you point out, everybody pays in something in various forms of taxation , but you do then need to deduct the costs of the benefits they receive and their share of the huge costs of all our public services.
The net contributors pay in and the rest have it spent on them. That is the way it works.
We are all doomed without them. We can't all be takers.
At the end of the year we spend £60-90 billion more than we take in (depending on which set of figures you want to use). We have also run up debts of trillions doing this for many many years.
Everything paid in by the net contributors - spent . Add the colossal debt mountain - ALL spent on the takers.
I know you won't like it , but I'm afraid that is the way it is.
yes but the point is the amount of money a person gets paid , it is value for money not from his point of view , but the countries point of view.. that is what is important and it is only if great value if that person cannot be replaced
1971 - You just don't see it - The "100 or 1000 others" had a shot and for whatever reason fell away. The guys that are left are the remains of this group. This evolution is going on all the time.
A guy invents something great - makes his millions and then you'd slag him off on here !!
A guy invents something great - makes his millions and then you'd slag him off on here !!
now can you name me a politician, a doctor, an engineer, a scientist, a tech expert, a writer, a musician an actor, a banker, an investment and trading manager who cannot be replaced
In England, I don't know.
In England, I don't know.
Not at all johnny, I have the very greatest admiration for people like Gates and Wozniak
But the problem is most countries can't produce them , some never produce them, Britain used to produce them
Where are they now and we can pay them as much as they wish.
But the problem is most countries can't produce them , some never produce them, Britain used to produce them
Where are they now and we can pay them as much as they wish.
Now you don't seem to understand, I may not be able to replace a doctor, it is a skilled and difficult job
But thousands of other people can
Then we have the many semi skilled jobs such as being a politician or an investor in s London bank and anyone could do that job, and do .. you have only to look at the results..and they are being paid huge salaries for failure
But thousands of other people can
Then we have the many semi skilled jobs such as being a politician or an investor in s London bank and anyone could do that job, and do .. you have only to look at the results..and they are being paid huge salaries for failure
in simple terms the divide is easy to discuss in area,s like
people mostly on expenses accounts spending a couple of grand on a lettuce leaf in a top nosherie paying 99.9% of the workers involved bringing it to your table minimum wage
in the multi billion pound premier leg where players are getting 300 grand a week 99.9% of the workers bringing the atch to you on minimum wage
nurseries,child minders charging 2 arms and 3 legs to provide child care and the people doing the actual caring on minimum wage,
theres 1000 of other industries with the same wage structure ,wheres the trickle down effect in these industries,air hostess,airport workers another one
people mostly on expenses accounts spending a couple of grand on a lettuce leaf in a top nosherie paying 99.9% of the workers involved bringing it to your table minimum wage
in the multi billion pound premier leg where players are getting 300 grand a week 99.9% of the workers bringing the atch to you on minimum wage
nurseries,child minders charging 2 arms and 3 legs to provide child care and the people doing the actual caring on minimum wage,
theres 1000 of other industries with the same wage structure ,wheres the trickle down effect in these industries,air hostess,airport workers another one
OK 1971 - Why aren't you a "politician or a bank investor" ? - Start tomorrow.
But of course ist time poster these are very talented individuals who couldn't be replaced ?
I don't know
Let's take an extreme example of how luck plays a bigger part than you can imagine
There were two footballing brothers , one call bobby and one called Jackie
Bobbiy was a talented player who reached the very highest part of the game
But then he had a brother who who almost no natural ability to play football, who also reached the very highest part of the game, played in World Cup finals and the domestic cup finals and became a household name and then went on to manage at club an international level with some level of success and at the same time making a small fortune
Without having any ability to play the game..he was lucky to be bobbys brother and that was enough
That us just a simple example , he had no talent but it mattered not, he was lucky
I don't know
Let's take an extreme example of how luck plays a bigger part than you can imagine
There were two footballing brothers , one call bobby and one called Jackie
Bobbiy was a talented player who reached the very highest part of the game
But then he had a brother who who almost no natural ability to play football, who also reached the very highest part of the game, played in World Cup finals and the domestic cup finals and became a household name and then went on to manage at club an international level with some level of success and at the same time making a small fortune
Without having any ability to play the game..he was lucky to be bobbys brother and that was enough
That us just a simple example , he had no talent but it mattered not, he was lucky
It's immaterial , it is not about my career, you have no idea of that and anyway poverty doesn't bother me.
You havent named a politician that couldn't be replaced have you johnny ?
We all get to choose our guys on 8th June - Where are you standing ?
or a footballer, or a technology expert , or an investment banker,
If very simple name these great talents
If very simple name these great talents
Would we miss him, could Britain miss him, can he be replaced ?
I don't know.
I don't know.
Put down your pint - Get your kit on and tell Big Sam you'll lead the line this afternoon for a paltry 10K .
I wouldn't get out of bed for that, can make more than that in one match.
you don't believe me johnny do you ? that's ok I forgive you :)
May 21, 2017 -- 12:39PM, Johnny The Guesser wrote:
A net contributor is a person who pays more into the system than he takes out.Yes, as you point out, everybody pays in something in various forms of taxation , but you do then need to deduct the costs of the benefits they receive and their share of the huge costs of all our public services.The net contributors pay in and the rest have it spent on them. That is the way it works.We are all doomed without them. We can't all be takers.At the end of the year we spend £60-90 billion more than we take in (depending on which set of figures you want to use). We have also run up debts of trillions doing this for many many years.Everything paid in by the net contributors - spent . Add the colossal debt mountain - ALL spent on the takers.I know you won't like it , but I'm afraid that is the way it is.
Completely disagree.
The debt mountain is almost entirely spent on the ones you like to call the makers.
The ones who don't need the money but keep it anyway, but don't want the main part of the population to have any - The ones who think wages an evil and not fair pay for productivity, the ones who pay minimum wage where and whenever possible.
Mostly though, they're the ones who don't spend it. Therefore money is removed from circulation and sits in the big bank accounts.
Which is why the rest od us have run up the trillions of £s of debts.
It all depends really on how you look at it.
It seems as though you think:
There are those lovely, beneficial kind rich people, who have worked ever so hard to get their wealth and it's because we haven't been good enough or tried hard enough that we're not rich too. These great folk, by dint of their well-earned success are supporting all the rest of us with their massive payments to the state, which in its turn pays to support all those low-life scroungers who live on benefits. Everyone not in this group of lovely, beneficial, kind, wealthy people is a "taker".
Perhaps we should doff our caps to them as the flash by in their Ferraris and Bentleys. Perhaps we should be ever so grateful they've deigned to stay in the UK and helped us all so much. Should we be grateful they let us empty bins or look after their houses and kids for the crumbs they are nice enough to throw - just so long as it doesn't too much of a percentage of their income.....
Is that right?
If it is, you're wrong. Very wrong.
I will contend, that in my experience, the richest are not the most deserving, not by a long chalk.
Also by a long chalk, they are NOT self-made.
Take for example the newest editor of the Evening Standard (and consultant for black rock - and son of a £300million fortune - who it just so happens went to Eton, oh and who had NO qualifications whatsoever to do any of these jobs), would you say he's deserving?
I can't help noticing, btw, that you haven't answered ANY of the questions I've asked you.
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.
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.
Our GINI Index (which measures equality) and Corruption Index ratings indicate that we are amongst the fairest countries in the world.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
- 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.
Would you rather the UK have a handful of millionaires paying 60% tax or thousands paying 40% tax ?
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.
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.
Plus why would anyone who could earn that amount be interested in working here?
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 ?
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
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.
You see, not all countries are the same, this is Britain and Britain is not like other countries.
who could deny that?
who could deny that?
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?
Is rubbish.
Seeing as you think that is rubbish, how do you think they made it?
well lets put it this way, how do you think the very wealthy people in Saudi Arabia made their money?
or perhaps some of those wealthy Russians in London, how did that happen?
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.
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.
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?
can we name some now?
but we have people in Britain getting paid vast sums of money, i`m not sure what for.
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
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
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.
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.
Now Spain created great players and great teams in the past, will they do so in the future? that depends on Spain
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.
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.
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
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
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 ?"
A far better question is "Why are so many people earning so little ?"
well that's a fairly easy question to answer, freedom of movement from poor countries to rich.
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
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
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.
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.
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
I am certain we would never have heard of Oscar Wilde,
if he hadn't been part of Great Britain and Ireland
So the country produces the writer, it is not the writer that produces the country.
I don't think we need look too closely why big corporations offer their colleagues big salaries
salaries
salaries
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.
They probably made that decision for you.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[url]http://community.betfair.com/thechaser/go/gallery/item/148270801?pref_t...
Sky pay so much because the media hype it up and the public are willing to pay for it, in full knowledge of the salaries of the players. People like watching the best players in the world. They enjoy the spectacle and for many it is the highlight of their lives, The advertising creates jobs and revenue, many footballers blow their salaries, creating jobs in the process. The PL is one big advert for the country as a whole, helping tourism directly and indirectly. The merchandise is sold world wide. For all the obscene wages, I suspect the UK gets a net benefit from it myself.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539