"Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me."

volver

But who decides what is the appropriate tax?

The Government of the Country where the money is earned along with the Government/financial regulations of the Country where the money is saved/invested.

But who decides what is the appropriate tax?

MaizieD if by redistribution you mean The State commandeering peoples money, which in most circumstances they have paid the appropriate tax on just because they choose to save it for another day/project, I am vehemently against this.

GrannyGravy13

^I too wonder when the ordination peoples reverence for the wealthy will crash^

DaisyAnne I am not aware that ordinary people actually revere the rich.

I do understand admiration for self made wealth like that of Sir Alan Sugar.

Try re-reading this thread, GG13. The cries of horror at the thought of a bit of redistribution (including your cries) are enlightening.

The super rich suck wealth out of the system and then let it lie idle. I'm not sure what is so difficult to accept about this truth. The defence of the super rich by those who never will be super rich and could benefit from a more equitable distribution of resources is incomprehensible.

Not quite sure what is admirable about someone who has loads of money.

They often display some very disagreeable qualities.

Doodledog

DaisyAnne

Pammie1 Mon 18-Apr-22 14:02:40

... and the solution is ... No one should be getting in-work benefits. It is the companies that benefit. If they have problems paying a proper living wage they should apply for benefits in the form of grants or loans from the Government. They would have to open their books of course and a Business Coach would help them reduce inflated salaries, expenses, dividends, etc.

Those who would then warrant a loan will get one backed by the government. Those who, as start-ups or run for social purposes (the only shop for miles, recycling, tool libraries, providing food clubs, etc.), could apply for grants.

I'm not sure who's speaking here, but I agree with whoever it is.

I have long thought it disgraceful that companies like MacDonalds should be able to employ people on zero hours contracts, knowing that they will get top-up benefits, yet make millions of pounds in profit. That is, effectively, taking money from taxpayers, many of whom are poor themselves, to give to the rich - classic Robin Hood style.

I read somewhere (sorry to be vague) that most contributors to food banks are from less well-off people, so again, it is the poor making themselves poorer to feed those who work for the rich.

I also get sick of hearing how a rise in the minimum wage would be 'unaffordable' for owners of small businesses (and ditto maternity leave, holiday pay etc), when those business owners can afford all sorts of things that would be beyond the dreams of their employees. If someone can't afford to allow their employees a decent way of life, they shouldn't be in business. Again, properly-scrutinised loans or grants for start-ups would be useful, to ensure that people who have long-haul holidays, pay high school fees and drive expensive cars can't tell their employees that they can't afford to pay them more than the bare minimum.

??? a thousand times.

ordination should be ordinary ?

I too wonder when the ordination peoples reverence for the wealthy will crash

DaisyAnne I am not aware that ordinary people actually revere the rich.

I do understand admiration for self made wealth like that of Sir Alan Sugar.

DaisyAnne

Pammie1 Mon 18-Apr-22 14:02:40

... and the solution is ... No one should be getting in-work benefits. It is the companies that benefit. If they have problems paying a proper living wage they should apply for benefits in the form of grants or loans from the Government. They would have to open their books of course and a Business Coach would help them reduce inflated salaries, expenses, dividends, etc.

Those who would then warrant a loan will get one backed by the government. Those who, as start-ups or run for social purposes (the only shop for miles, recycling, tool libraries, providing food clubs, etc.), could apply for grants.

I'm not sure who's speaking here, but I agree with whoever it is.

I have long thought it disgraceful that companies like MacDonalds should be able to employ people on zero hours contracts, knowing that they will get top-up benefits, yet make millions of pounds in profit. That is, effectively, taking money from taxpayers, many of whom are poor themselves, to give to the rich - classic Robin Hood style.

I read somewhere (sorry to be vague) that most contributors to food banks are from less well-off people, so again, it is the poor making themselves poorer to feed those who work for the rich.

I also get sick of hearing how a rise in the minimum wage would be 'unaffordable' for owners of small businesses (and ditto maternity leave, holiday pay etc), when those business owners can afford all sorts of things that would be beyond the dreams of their employees. If someone can't afford to allow their employees a decent way of life, they shouldn't be in business. Again, properly-scrutinised loans or grants for start-ups would be useful, to ensure that people who have long-haul holidays, pay high school fees and drive expensive cars can't tell their employees that they can't afford to pay them more than the bare minimum.

A post on another thread made me think about why ordinary people revere the wealthy and put them in power over them. [*MaizieD*Mon 25-Apr-22 08:26:03]

I found the comment on the French GE Voting thread about "ordinary people" and how they revere the rich, insightful. "Ordinary people" are not the poor but those who feel comfortably off. Ordinary people are those for whom a change of circumstance, personal, world or government-driven, could tip them into "poor". Such people do not have the cushions of the rich to protect them from dramatic changes.

There was a piece on R4 Today this morning about rape convictions. The report described how slowly the courts process the few that go to trial. Many would, quite reasonably think, this was to do with Covid; it isn't. Pre-covid our government had taken larges sums out of running the courts. Judges sat less frequently, resulting in employing fewer judges.

"Ordinary people", caught up in the web of a court case, cannot throw money at it to make it move forward. As well as assuming they will always be as comfortable as they are I think ordinary people also believe their attitude to life will stop bad things happening to them; such things only happen to those that deserve it.

I too wonder when the "ordinary people's" reverance for the wealthy will crash.

Pammie1 Mon 18-Apr-22 14:02:40

... and the solution is ... No one should be getting in-work benefits. It is the companies that benefit. If they have problems paying a proper living wage they should apply for benefits in the form of grants or loans from the Government. They would have to open their books of course and a Business Coach would help them reduce inflated salaries, expenses, dividends, etc.

Those who would then warrant a loan will get one backed by the government. Those who, as start-ups or run for social purposes (the only shop for miles, recycling, tool libraries, providing food clubs, etc.), could apply for grants.

DaisyAnne

We are back on Mein Kampf, aren't we? It's all about setting up groups people can hate. However, I can't work out if the group that contains John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn come under "Communists - the enemies of the British people" or "Socialists - the enemies of the British people"

Only the very, very rich are safe. When it comes to making the people poorer the Tories will only leave the ruling class with any real wealth. They have shown us they believe they are superior beings, after all. I think we must have some excessively rich posters on here.

This

We are back on Mein Kampf, aren't we? It's all about setting up groups people can hate. However, I can't work out if the group that contains John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn come under "Communists - the enemies of the British people" or "Socialists - the enemies of the British people"

Only the very, very rich are safe. When it comes to making the people poorer the Tories will only leave the ruling class with any real wealth. They have shown us they believe they are superior beings, after all. I think we must have some excessively rich posters on here.

Germanshepherdsmum

Well there’s a sweeping generalisation if ever I saw one Pammiel.

Why is it a sweeping generalisation ? When companies get into trouble well paid executives and fat cat shareholders don’t generally rush to help by cutting their excessive salaries or handing back bonuses. Inevitably there are workforce redundancies. It’s always the ones at the bottom who are sacrificed, while those at the top are cushioned by their wealth. How many times have we seen ‘golden parachutes’ handed out to get rid of executives who have done a terrible job ? Never happens at the bottom does it ?

P&O have shot themselves in the foot as a result of the unconscionable decision to sack long serving staff and replace them with cheap labour. Ferries are being impounded in ports because the workforce are clearly not trained properly and there are dangerous practices as a result. So they’ve made a bad situation much worse, but instead of being thrown out, the executive who made the decision will probably leave quietly by the back door with a nice payout written into his contract from the start. We need to stop rewarding people for failure.

It is just not true that higher taxes drive all the millionaires to emigrate to tax havens. The Patriotic Millionaires are an American group campaigning for higher taxes.

"The Patriotic Millionaires share a profound concern about the destabilizing level of economic and political inequality in America, the root cause of our current social unrest. We seek to reform our country’s political economy so that it naturally generates greater economic and political equality, the preconditions for a stable, prosperous nation. We center our work on three “First Principles”: Equal Political Representation, a Livable Minimum Wage and a Fair Tax system.

The group first came together in 2010 to demand an end to the Bush tax cuts for millionaires, instantly sparking the public’s attention. Overnight, the group became a media sensation, and we’ve built on that momentum ever since. Over the last decade, the group has generated hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of media attention, appearing on outlets from the New York Times to MSNBC to NPR; from the cover of the New Yorker to USA Today. The Patriotic Millionaires’ reach is so vast that our work has been featured in over 75 countries in the last year alone, in major outlets such as BBC, Deutsche Welle, and CBC. "

patrioticmillionaires.org/about/

I don't think that a 'top' football club is a very good example of the utility of the super rich. It seems to me that football clubs have painted themselves into a corner with competing for highly paid players and getting themselves into a position where they need super rich sugar daddies to keep them afloat. They certainly aren't viable businesses. Without their sugar daddies they might be run on more realistic lines.

I think that Pammiel is right. The ratio of CEO pay to that of the 'workers' has grown excessively over time. ( Not that CEOs are necessarily members of the 'super rich')

Executive pay has grown from 60 times that of the average worker to almost 180 times since the 1990s, according to a report.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/28286264

I said 'what if they all upped sticks'. I didn't say all of them would.

Germanshepherdsmum

Well there’s a sweeping generalisation if ever I saw one Pammiel.

Like the one about all the rich people leaving if we increase their tax?

Well there’s a sweeping generalisation if ever I saw one Pammiel.

What I was saying upthread Pammiel.

Germanshepherdsmum

I can’t see any party wanting to govern publishing a manifesto which included an intention to, if you like, ‘ban inheritance’. But I remember John McDonnell speaking in a very similar vein about inheritance and it was pretty obvious where we would ultimately be heading if he and Corbyn were in power. And I’m mindful that he hasn’t gone away. Talk of preventing people from amassing vast fortunes isn’t dissimilar. Do we really want to see people who pay a lot of tax here, and are responsible for the creation of a great many jobs, relocate to another country which doesn’t punish them for having money?

They may create jobs here but if they paid a proper living wage there would be no need for the income support element of Universal Credit. You only have to look at the CEO of P&O - paid half a million a year before bonuses. Rather than sacrifice anything himself to save the company he sacks a loyal workforce so he can flout UK law by paying new employees a pittance. He and many like him have absolutely no moral compass.

I think you'll find Chelsea football club is a lot worse off. I have no idea of Abramovich's tax status so can't comment on him, but there are many wealthy people who pay a great deal of tax in the UK and employ a lot of people. That generates money for the UK economy doesn't it? What if they all upped sticks and cleared off to Monaco tomorrow like Lewis Hamilton did, so as not to pay UK tax?

Germanshepherdsmum

I can’t see any party wanting to govern publishing a manifesto which included an intention to, if you like, ‘ban inheritance’. But I remember John McDonnell speaking in a very similar vein about inheritance and it was pretty obvious where we would ultimately be heading if he and Corbyn were in power. And I’m mindful that he hasn’t gone away. Talk of preventing people from amassing vast fortunes isn’t dissimilar. Do we really want to see people who pay a lot of tax here, and are responsible for the creation of a great many jobs, relocate to another country which doesn’t punish them for having money?

Yes, because they're not generating money for the UK economy. They're leeching wealth out of the economy.

As an example, are you seriously claiming that the UK will be worse off because Abramovich is now not welcome in the UK?

Germanshepherdsmum

I can’t see any party wanting to govern publishing a manifesto which included an intention to, if you like, ‘ban inheritance’. But I remember John McDonnell speaking in a very similar vein about inheritance and it was pretty obvious where we would ultimately be heading if he and Corbyn were in power. And I’m mindful that he hasn’t gone away. Talk of preventing people from amassing vast fortunes isn’t dissimilar. Do we really want to see people who pay a lot of tax here, and are responsible for the creation of a great many jobs, relocate to another country which doesn’t punish them for having money?

One thing I remember very clearly from my politics lectures at uni. was the lecturer saying that parties can find it hard to implement the simplistic things they promote in their manifestos. There are often difficulties and barriers that they haven't thought about.

I wouldn't give too much credence to 'radical' proposals. Politics, is, after all, the art of the possible.

But demonising opposition proposals does go down well with tribal voters...

Yes, well said Pammie1.