So, who votes for a government that improves the lives of Bankers, and ensures the excessive profits of energy companies, but needs all the "levelling up" money to pay for the holes in Brexit?

I would like to see the IT threshold raised to £750,00 - £1,000,000. Many houses in the South East and other areas are at least this.

You don’t have to be rich to leave an estate which attracts IHT.

The latest campaign by the Tory supporting Telegraph is to abolish inheritance tax.

It's not just about the rich getting richer but the children of the rich never having to pay even a nominal tax, for the good fortune, and it might be a vast fortune, they inherit through no effort on their own part.

The first sentence is a bit sweeping Glorianny. With wealth comes time and the ability to learn, think and talk to other thinkers. Some may have had a better motive, and some would not be quite that sort of Christian.

Having said that, some of the thinking you described has carried on into our future. That should, in my opinion, concern us. If people believe it is reasonable to be increasingly rich while others become increasingly poor and don't see the line between those two, I do wonder about the coming years.

The Victorian philanthropists were of course as much (or even more) concerned about their life after death as any philanthropic enterprise. They were told "It was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for the rich man to enter heaven" so they had to do something.
And of course the poor were divided into the deserving and undeserving, which meant it was OK if some people starved, they were obviously being punished for misdeeds.

I commented that there are philanthropists today and that the much-lauded Victorian philanthropists had their hypocritical side. There was no need for you to follow that up with a goady question, which I won’t dignify with a reply.

The Victorian philanthropists were also sending boys up their chimneys to sweep them and employing servants such as my great grandmother to get up before dawn to light their fires.

So, does that make the behaviour of those chasing riches today, who deliberately govern in a way to keep poor people poor, okay, GSM?

Do you believe all people are equal or do you actually believe some have more intrinsic worth?

Well, one of those philanthropic men, in the mid 80s, funded the building of the new maternity hospital where my son was born - in memory of his mother who died in childbirth. Another, James Dyson, has funded some major projects recently. And that’s just two plucked out of the air.

The Victorian philanthropists were also sending boys up their chimneys to sweep them and employing servants such as my great grandmother to get up before dawn to light their fires.

Dickens

Whitewavemark2

Yes were indoctrinated about it as children “the rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate.” It is a left over from medieval times. Then as industry took over the Tories sold themselves as being good with the economy??, which propaganda has stood them in good stead, - not sure how they are going to explain away the past decade though as the voter gradually wakes up to the disaster awaiting the country.

Yes were indoctrinated about it as children “the rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate.

I was tempted to use that phrase, too!

Knowing 'one's place' in the hierarchy gives a certain sense of security I guess for some. It absolves you of having to think too deeply about the political life of your country and your place in it, maybe?

I've met people in my life who've struggled for more or less the whole of theirs yet still subscribe to the rich becoming even richer whilst the poor remain poor, or become even more impoverished. "It's the way of the world" they say, or words to that effect. And if you challenge that notion you're looked upon as some kind of Marxist / Communist / troublemaker. I once quoted Ghandi's, "there's enough for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed" to an elderly lady and she was horrified that I could even "think like that"!

The problem with greed is that it is very rarely satisfied. Few reach the point where they say, 'I have enough I don't need any more'. Money is also power - a luxury yacht, an addition to the property portfolio is a symbol of that power.

When and if the wealth gap becomes too great, when too many are genuinely suffering because of their inability to afford the basics of human life - regardless of how hard they work - then I believe there will be a revolt... even here in the long-suffering UK.

To a large extent, I don't mind people becoming very rich - if they pay their taxes. But they don't all do that do they - there is a whole class of accountants all well-versed in tax avoidance... not 'evasion' - it's all perfectly legal, ready and willing to help such individuals to benefit from a society and infrastructure that has enabled their wealth but to which they have no intention of contributing to.

Where are those philanthropic rich men from the 19th century who used to pay for a new wing of the local hospital, or a public space for leisure, or even a library or educational establishment? Few and far between now and notable because of that fact. The greedy are becoming more greedy...

Such a good post.

Dickens well said. I couldn't have put it better.

Diane is NOT working in the bank, just a taxpayer is what I meant.

MaizieD Diane is just a lovely name, fiction for female working in the bank. My other choice is 'Joseph Baggo Scones' for male workers.

Nothing to it really.

Whitewavemark2

Yes were indoctrinated about it as children “the rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate.” It is a left over from medieval times. Then as industry took over the Tories sold themselves as being good with the economy??, which propaganda has stood them in good stead, - not sure how they are going to explain away the past decade though as the voter gradually wakes up to the disaster awaiting the country.

We do seem to have two different conversations going on though.
One is about dislike of Conservative policies and the other is about investment bankers and should their bonuses be capped.
Much as I would like to see Sir Keir Starmer heading the next government I know that life as it is now will go on much the same.
Some policies will be changed and perhaps some things will be nationalised, but overall there will still be wealthy/ very rich indeed people as there have always been.
As long as wages continue to go up for workers in general and people continue to have aspirations, and I think people do, in that respect we are becoming more like the US then that is what matters.
As to the cap on bankers bonuses, it may not happen if the bankers themselves do not wish it.Why would they not? Because they have become used to higher salaries which are constant, and not reliant on their bonuses.
There are now checks and balances on very high risk behaviour that were not in place before.So, if there are no caps it should not be a problem.
The Bank Of England never did agree with putting a cap on the bonuses, and the EU may well reverse their decision in the near future.
The whole question of who is more valued in society, the care worker, the nurse, the policeman, the cleaners or the bankers, politicians and business owners is one that is much discussed.
The truth is that they are all needed.

I fail to see where Diane, the taxpayer who works elsewhere, fits into this scenario.

Not sure where Diane comes from, but never mind.

I'm not against making profit, but profit is determined by
the costs of making it. One of the costs is the remuneration paid to the workers who generate that profit, be they bankers or widget makers. If the remuneration increases so as to make the organisation unprofitable (and, I realise that the profit margins of organisations will vary greatly depending on what the organisation thinks the market will bear) then they will increase their prices to maintain their profit margins. Unless GSM can tell me that banks will not increase their charges in order to accommodate the increased cost of uncapped bonuses, then, in the case of a commercial loan we can see a clear path down to the consumer of that company's product as at each stage prices are raised to cover increased costs and maintain profit margins. Which tells me that Diane, the consumer at the bottom of the chain, is affected.

GSM said at the start of this exchange that investment banks work to attract investment in the UK. Why would any business or individual want to invest in this country if they didn't envisage generating profits here. And where would the anticipated profit come from? There can only be one source, surely, and that is the consumer to whom they wish to sell their products. So, we come back to reasons for the investment, which can either be the prospect of using a low paid workforce to produce goods or services to sell abroad (which, with Brexit completely messing up our foreign trade doesn't look very likely at the moment) or they hope to make profits buy selling to the domestic population. The 'taxpayer' loses in both cases. They are either poorly paid, or they are charged higher prices to accommodate the costs of investing.

The world of hedge funds etc. is a different one which seems to me to exist just to use money to make money for the benefit of a few people who already have money. Money which doesn't 'trickle down' to benefit the nation as a whole.

I'm shutting up now...

Stillstanding

But all this depends on an increasing population. For the bankers and the rich to get richer the economy needs more wretches at the bottom to struggle. The riches come from the struggle which produces energy. Heat rises. It does not trickle down.

An interesting and a more frequently raised point in the economic journals.

Are we at the point where we change from a market-orientated economy. If so, what are the options we could move to. I would guess the fact that we are destroying the chance of living on this planet would influence whatever we do but I wonder what else would?

Germanshepherdsmum

Perhaps I should have said that profits are not necessarily earned by the exploitation of anyone else.

I have given only an example of a very simple commercial loan transaction. Investment banks, where the big bonuses are handed out, enter into very complex transactions with all manner of commercial entities including other banks. As do hedge funds. If you’re looking for a serf at the end of the money trail you’ll be sadly disappointed, much as I know you’d love to prove that the taxpayer is somehow funding bankers’ bonuses.

Banks are businesses. To stay in business I assume they have to make a profit. To hire the best talent to make said profit I assume they offer bonuses for work well accomplished. No?

I fail to see where Diane, the taxpayer who works elsewhere, fits into this scenario.

It’s not a smokescreen, halfpint. Some of these transactions are incredibly complex beasts, not for the sake of complexity I assure you.

I agree Norah. Generally, loan repayments would be taken from pre-tax profits.

Germanshepherdsmum

I really don’t understand your problem with this ‘question’ Maizie. If a commercial enterprise borrows money from a bank and repays the loan from its profits, those profits have not necessarily been earned at the expense of anyone else. The enterprise may pay its employees well. If it overcharges for the goods or services it sells, competition will see it off. Profit seems to be a dirty word, something that can only be obtained by exploiting others.

I would have thought loans were paid as an expense of doing business, prior to profits. No?

However, I also thought profits weren't 'bad' as businesses are in to make profits. Shareholders own to reap part of the profits, how could that be a negative?

It would seem that the banking/finance/investment world are good at putting up a smokescreen whereby their world becomes incomprehensible to those not directly in it

Profits are earned at the exploitation of the worker if they are poorly paid and/or have poor working conditions.

It happens all the time. That is why the state must intervene, but Truss is going in the completely opposite direction.

Perhaps I should have said that profits are not necessarily earned by the exploitation of anyone else.

I have given only an example of a very simple commercial loan transaction. Investment banks, where the big bonuses are handed out, enter into very complex transactions with all manner of commercial entities including other banks. As do hedge funds. If you’re looking for a serf at the end of the money trail you’ll be sadly disappointed, much as I know you’d love to prove that the taxpayer is somehow funding bankers’ bonuses.

Germanshepherdsmum

I really don’t understand your problem with this ‘question’ Maizie. If a commercial enterprise borrows money from a bank and repays the loan from its profits, those profits have not necessarily been earned at the expense of anyone else. The enterprise may pay its employees well. If it overcharges for the goods or services it sells, competition will see it off. Profit seems to be a dirty word, something that can only be obtained by exploiting others.

What do you mean by 'profits have not necessarily been earned at the expense of anyone else'. The whole point of a commercial enterprise is to transfer money from other people's (or organisation's) pockets to your own.

I'm trying to find an answer to who is at the start of the money transfer chain. Then perhaps we can look at whether or not 'the taxpayer' is affected by bankers' bonuses.

Whitewavemark2

Yes were indoctrinated about it as children “the rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate.” It is a left over from medieval times. Then as industry took over the Tories sold themselves as being good with the economy??, which propaganda has stood them in good stead, - not sure how they are going to explain away the past decade though as the voter gradually wakes up to the disaster awaiting the country.

Yes were indoctrinated about it as children “the rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate.

I was tempted to use that phrase, too!

Knowing 'one's place' in the hierarchy gives a certain sense of security I guess for some. It absolves you of having to think too deeply about the political life of your country and your place in it, maybe?

I've met people in my life who've struggled for more or less the whole of theirs yet still subscribe to the rich becoming even richer whilst the poor remain poor, or become even more impoverished. "It's the way of the world" they say, or words to that effect. And if you challenge that notion you're looked upon as some kind of Marxist / Communist / troublemaker. I once quoted Ghandi's, "there's enough for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed" to an elderly lady and she was horrified that I could even "think like that"!

The problem with greed is that it is very rarely satisfied. Few reach the point where they say, 'I have enough I don't need any more'. Money is also power - a luxury yacht, an addition to the property portfolio is a symbol of that power.

When and if the wealth gap becomes too great, when too many are genuinely suffering because of their inability to afford the basics of human life - regardless of how hard they work - then I believe there will be a revolt... even here in the long-suffering UK.

To a large extent, I don't mind people becoming very rich - if they pay their taxes. But they don't all do that do they - there is a whole class of accountants all well-versed in tax avoidance... not 'evasion' - it's all perfectly legal, ready and willing to help such individuals to benefit from a society and infrastructure that has enabled their wealth but to which they have no intention of contributing to.

Where are those philanthropic rich men from the 19th century who used to pay for a new wing of the local hospital, or a public space for leisure, or even a library or educational establishment? Few and far between now and notable because of that fact. The greedy are becoming more greedy...

I really don’t understand your problem with this ‘question’ Maizie. If a commercial enterprise borrows money from a bank and repays the loan from its profits, those profits have not necessarily been earned at the expense of anyone else. The enterprise may pay its employees well. If it overcharges for the goods or services it sells, competition will see it off. Profit seems to be a dirty word, something that can only be obtained by exploiting others.