The 'where are they now?' files

[Paul12]

I don't know who that is and I haven't read a book for about 10 years

He has coloured in a few in that time though.

[Le Chef]

TBH - Labour should have reversed the drop in NIC's from the Tories - Even back to 10% which would raise £10-12B and ring fence that just to repay debt which is one of the biggest drags on the public purse - nearly 5%

[Tatterdemalion]

We should be taxing value added, whether that be from capital or work. Taxing wealth is a bit of a red herring as you can only do that once at 100% for instance.

The real ******* in the litter is inheritance. Ban it and within a couple of generations things look a little more equal.

We also have to get over the attitude that 'governments are inefficient and 'I don't want to give my money when I know half of it will be wasted'.

Governments are inefficient, but so is any organisation charged with collecting and spending vast amounts of money - including Tesla and almost all charities.

Many rich people who object to tax prefer to give to charity (like they know what is best for society..) because they want to know which cause it is going to (i.e. not feckless working class people).

Charity is a moral good, but paying taxes is a moral obligation and whether it is wasted or spent on your favourite charity is beyond the point. Paying taxes is about moral & societal cohesion as much as it is about keeping the wheels turning. Everyone needs to be on the wheel.

It really pisses me off when I see millionaire business people say they are leaving the UK because the tax on their profits and wealth are too high.

They forget that paying for the education of the workforce, the welfare system that stops people from revolting, the military, the roads, the legal system, the fresh water system, the electricity complex, local government etc (and I could go on) are all things that allow people to be 'entrepeneurs' in this country long before they think of the taxes on their profits. Try doing the same thing in - I dunno - the DRC - (not that I particularly want to pick on them). I mean, try doing it in Italy, where legally it is almost impossible to sack people, or Germany where the unions are much more powerful or France where the unions are the government, or the US where the basic things listed above are often missing. etc..

[Patricks_Berger]

If you don’t have assets to generate income (not many do) then you’re going to have to rely on skills and hard work. Except the “problem” with globalisation is that you’ve now got to compete with billions of people in China, India, Eastern Europe and elsewhere.

Many of whom - let’s be honest - have been taking the whole “skills and hard work” thing WAY more seriously that lot of people in the UK have been, for quite a long time now.

People in the UK want rich country life styles, infrastructure and public services. But the UK isn’t really a rich country anymore. It’s becoming a middle income country attached to one VERY rich city - London.

It’s unsustainable.

[Kenneth]

I audible, but either way, I haven't heard of her or her book, if that's relevant.

[badpiggy]

I don't know who that is and I haven't read a book for about 10 years

The people are sick of experts

[Kenneth]

I don't know who that is and I haven't read a book for about 10 years

[badpiggy]

There's no such thing as hyper capable people, the concept of a genius is just some weird homoerotic fantasy. There are relatively fine margins between the abilities of human beings and the idea of exponentially more rewards for people towards the top of the range is perverse.

The idea that money is achievement is prevalent but is a symptom of our social order, not the cause of it. Actual human achievements (democracy, literacy, penicillin, going to the moon, etc) we're not the result of singular geniuses motivated by unimaginable wealth. It's hard to justify one human being possessing twice as much of the world's stuff as another, never mind hauding a billion times more. The idea that the construct of property rights is so sacred that we allow some to plunder and millions to starve is utterly perverse. Not only is it moral to tax them to oblivion, it would be morel to tear them limb from limb if needs be. Viva the revolution!

You've just read Helen Lewis's book, I take it

[Kenneth]

There's no such thing as hyper capable people, the concept of a genius is just some weird homoerotic fantasy. There are relatively fine margins between the abilities of human beings and the idea of exponentially more rewards for people towards the top of the range is perverse.

The idea that money is achievement is prevalent but is a symptom of our social order, not the cause of it. Actual human achievements (democracy, literacy, penicillin, going to the moon, etc) we're not the result of singular geniuses motivated by unimaginable wealth. It's hard to justify one human being possessing twice as much of the world's stuff as another, never mind hauding a billion times more. The idea that the construct of property rights is so sacred that we allow some to plunder and millions to starve is utterly perverse. Not only is it moral to tax them to oblivion, it would be morel to tear them limb from limb if needs be. Viva the revolution!

[frank the tank]

I'm definitely in the tax the **** out of the mega wealthy camp but part of me does worry that it's both disincentivising for the hyper capable and ambitious and/or that they'll always find ways around it. I also think that a lot of this is emotional based on the justifiable disgust people feel at many prominent billionaires who are publicly known. Names are obvious. ****pigs who spend 400m on yachts etc. Like, where the **** are the Musk Cancer research centres? Where is the Jim Radcliffe spinal injury foundation? I'm just picking two of the more obvious cunts there. If they were a bit more altruistic and less egonamaniiacal and obviously dishonest, then I might FEEL differently but probably not think differently.

Agree in principle but imo there shouldn't be Musk cancer research centers and the like......there should just be cancer research centers.....funded in part by taxes collected from the likes of Musk.

The argument that the rich will **** off to somewhere else is what international co-operation is for. But that has gone tits up in a big way......which enables the super wealthy to keep on trucking. Follow the money

[Norbs]

I don't think Bob would be rich enough to be affected by a wealth tax.

Everyone is taxed on interest on savings already, it's closing loopholes that will mean the wealthy are taxed on increases in their wealth.

At what point is Bob wealthier than he should be? If he's saved hard and has income from his savings then that's a **** situation

[badpiggy]

I'm definitely in the tax the **** out of the mega wealthy camp but part of me does worry that it's both disincentivising for the hyper capable and ambitious and/or that they'll always find ways around it. I also think that a lot of this is emotional based on the justifiable disgust people feel at many prominent billionaires who are publicly known. Names are obvious. ****pigs who spend 400m on yachts etc. Like, where the **** are the Musk Cancer research centres? Where is the Jim Radcliffe spinal injury foundation? I'm just picking two of the more obvious cunts there. If they were a bit more altruistic and less egonamaniiacal and obviously dishonest, then I might FEEL differently but probably not think differently.

[frank the tank]

I agree with the "tax wealth not work" point.

The disparity is getting wider and wider. Zoom out over 50 years and it is getting so ****ing wide. And if it continues then society is ****ed. There is so much wealth generated. The outcome of the disparity is lower and lower living standards in so many ways. Biggest examples are home ownership and the public health system. The outcome of the home ownership issue in about 40 years time will be a large percentage of the population subject to market rents and basically ready to be further screwed over. But tell the idiots that it is foreigners that is causing the fall in living standards and they won't be angry at the real cause.

The Fred and Bob argument above isn't really the example of "tax wealth". Bob actually inherited a lot of wealth and assets because he was the beneficiary of a trust so was subject to no inheritance tax. All of the rental income went back into that trust in a really tax efficient way. Bob then paid himself dividends as opposed to a salary.....so he was subject to less tax and national insurance. And that is just scratching on it.

Bit of a divergence from the point of footballers wages. Sky tv has been good in a big way because the product of football has become much better. So the money generated by football has got bigger and bigger. What is the societal impact over time though? Well the result is that the average working class fan is priced out of attending a game. And they will need multiple subscriptions at +100 quid a month to just watch their team (legally). It started with just the premier league that was on sky tv. Then the lower leagues eventually went onto it as well. But that is ok....the average fan can still watch European football on terrestrial tv....and of course international football will always be available. Nope **** you.....make em pay. Also, ram it down their ****in throats until they choke on it. Nations league. A load of ****e but it will generate some money. World club cup.....****in bring it on. The result over time will be less and less people being able to afford to consume football. The masters of it will then generate more and more to make up the shortfall in consumers and the overall quality will decrease. As someone mentioned above, it doesn't trickle down. Policy is the only thing that can fix this.....of policy dictated that the players "only" earned a maximum of 100k per week, do you think that the product would be that adversely impacted?? I'm not sure it would be to be honest. And the money left over would (could) result in making it more accessible to more people....

[frank the tank]

I don't think Bob would be rich enough to be affected by a wealth tax.

[Catrin]

Bob saved so he could retire early as he had a family history of dieing young and the state don't recognise that. Bob spent his savings through his 60s while Fred saved nothing and stopped spending any money

I don't think Bob would be rich enough to be affected by a wealth tax.