Of all the people I know who claim they work more than 12 hours a day and that justifies their six figure salary, they seem to include boozing with "clients" or hours of meetings with other people who also claim they work 12 hours a day. Hardly comparable to those who spend 12 hours a day doing something that is physically productive such as treating patients, stopping criminals or looking after the vulnerable.
In terms of what is fair and what is unfair, it is well documented the harm wealth disparity does to both the economy and society, so I would define high wealth as unfair if it is causing issues, which it clearly is.
Wow on the last paragraph, what makes someone in your view have an 'unfair' share? Think that's a bit harsh and almost communist like.
The two richest people I know both came from nothing, have took huge risks, responsible for giving jobs to probably over 1,000 people at any one time and are extremely generous. One is now retired having sold his last company and worth around £150m, the other maybe worth double that, 50 and still working 16 hours a day 7 days a week.
Why is where they are 'unfair'?
I can't see where I have suggested physically removing all excess wealth and assets from every citizen and placing it in the hands of the state so the Communist accusation is hyperbole at best.
I'm not for one second suggesting that those who are rich now don't deserve to be. There are many who do not deserve to be as rich as they are but by no means all. But there have been many studies into the damaging effects that wealth disparity, rather than income disparity, has on society and these have been widely documented by many high profile experts. Society does not benefit from having people hoarding wealth that they will never be able to meaningfully spend even if they lived several times over.
There is simply not enough room to give a decent account of the problem with the kinds of wealth accumulation we are talking about but there are 3 basic points that give good reason as to why taxing wealth as well as income has become necessary in recent years.
First of all, if you were of working age between 1975 and 2000 you benefited from being in a one-off period of huge advantages that will never be repeated. A combination of the demographics that made up the workforce following the cataclysmic effect that the Second World War had on the population, huge social spending, capital being extremely accessible and financial controls being loosened meant that someone with a good business sense during this time had unprecedented opportunities to accumulate huge amounts of wealth. This was even spurred on by the technology boom in the nineties that again allowed people in the right place at the right time to control the market. Nowadays, it is hundreds of times harder to break into the super-wealthy, simple because of how capitalism in our society works: those with the money are able to continue to accumulate wealth at the expense of generating opportunities for those without money. Those entering the work force nowadays face much higher living costs and the risk of starting a business is much higher because the super wealthy already control the economy. This generation will be much poorer than the previous one and are far more likely to not be able to have a decent retirement or far more likely to not economic hardship such as homelessness, and even less likely to own their own home. Those who are super wealthy today are, in most cases, a product of fortunately being alive and working in the right era.
Second, no one simply makes it on their own from nothing. Society helps in a big way, including education, regulations, safety and stability. These things all contribute to an environment where someone is able to amass hundreds of millions of pounds and it is right that those who have benefited the most from society ought to pay in the most (which they do, but they could afford to pay much, much more and not even notice the difference to their lifestyle).
Third, simply fortune. Not being hit by a drink driver or getting ill young or being born with a disability that affects your ability to learn and work. Someone could have been weeks away from starting a business that would have become a billion pound enterprise but then they are put in a coma. Not everyone gets the opportunity to be a millionaire. In fact not everyone wants to be: nurses are clearly not in it for the money but we have a national scandal where university-educated workers who are doing some of these most selfless and charitable work are living in poverty. We need mofe money to come from somewhere; I don't think that money should come from public sector workers, those on housing benefit or those who have children to feed.
Of course my comment was tongue in cheek but when you use phrases lifted straight from 'The Communist Manifesto' it does present a stationary target!
As supposedly part of the ruling class (or at least a member of the bourgeoisie!), I'm trembling. ;-)
(P.S. btw I don't disagree with a lot of what you now post)
Brilliantly put Fiiish. The bloke working 16 hours obviously loves it, good for him, obviously that's where he gets his kicks rather than the actual accumulation of wealth. My only beef is if he, like many employers, gives himself a salary 20 times larger than someone working equally as hard in his company.
I don't know on him as I have never worked for him or have access to his payroll. The £150m man I did as I worked directly for him and yes his salary would have exceeded 20x that of the lowest paid (see below).
Yes he was the highest earner in the company (varied over the years but between 350 and 450 staff), by around £100k. Some years though he wouldn't have been, if it wasn't a great year (but still OK) he'd tend not to take a dividend but still pay annual bonuses to the staff which meant some would have gone above his salary.
The lowest earner would have been the 3 cleaners at about £16k a year, although with bonus they will have gone a bit above £20k. So yes he would have taken 20x someone working equally as hard as him if you like, I never knew anyone in my 7 years there who worked for him who had any sort of issue at all, many thought he should actually take a larger salary! He was putting pretty much all his wealth at risk (wealth he had built from nothing) which meant we all lived good lives on the back of that. My only risk was if it all went terribly wrong I'd need to look for a new job. Risk reward.
It was by far and away the best company, the best boss and the best environment I have ever worked in and he was one of the nicest and most generous people I have ever come across, I could write a book on his generosity. There are many top actors & actresses in this country who will personally tell you if it wasn't for him they would never have got to where they are thanks purely to his generosity as well as many other areas of society (if you ever go to the old Vic, thank him it's still there).
Not all rich are bad people anymore than poor people are, I've known a few complete to55ers who were rich, and equally to55ers who weren't rich.
@Fiiish some good points, and although like Bob has said communist may have been a bit strong, when posters say that "£150m or £300m is more than their fair share. I'm not saying they shouldn't live comfortably but a tenth of those figures would allow that." is as near to communism as this country will see (hopefully). That statement wasn't about taxing wealth. A state that decides the maximum wealth you should have is a version of communism in my view. Had the £300m man paid 80% tax rather than 45% he'd still have the same as the £150m man which according to some is still 90% too much.
As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for, it's all well and good wanting to redistribute wealth (and to maybe a lesser degree than some I agree with that to an extent, i.e. increasing income tax as one example), but if you stifle those opportunities too much and people won't take the risk in the first place to create that wealth, those jobs and that income to the country won't be there and as a society we would be worse off.
I'm not suggesting a cap on wealth, I'm opposed to wealth disparity and the very real harm is has on society.
I also agree that it needs to be tempered with ensuring that those who want to create wealth are not disincentivised from doing so. However we are nowhere near that level. We are a very rich country where even if taxes were much higher than they are now, people could still be making a comfortable fortune for themselves.
How much does a person need before they become inclined to simply give the overflow away?
In my experience it really depends on the individual and their lifestyle and what you mean by overflow, just look at Michael Jackson!
I know people earning £300k+ a year who live a lifestyle right up to their means and probably beyond and therefore never have any (spare) money, others earning a 1/4 of that who maybe live to 80% of their earnings so have 'overflow'. One of my staff resigned last week, retiring at 53, he earns about 40k per annum but has clearly been 'careful' with money. Most of the said £300k+ er's will be working to 60 and some.
How much does a person need before they become inclined to simply give the overflow away?
Impossible question to answer.
What I will say though is that once I've paid my not inconsiderable taxes (that I am happy to pay, avoid nothing, and would be prepared to pay more if it meant for example we had an NHS fit for the 21st century and could pay the angels within it who administer their miracles what they are worth) then if I decide to spend what's left on big houses or Italian sports cars, or supporting my family in establishing themselves in life, or give a big chunk of it to good causes, or even give it all to the local cats sanctuary - it's got f*ck all to do with anyone else.
How much does a person need before they become inclined to simply give the overflow away?
In my experience it really depends on the individual and their lifestyle and what you mean by overflow, just look at Michael Jackson!
I know people earning £300k+ a year who live a lifestyle right up to their means and probably beyond and therefore never have any (spare) money, others earning a 1/4 of that who maybe live to 80% of their earnings so have 'overflow'. One of my staff resigned last week, retiring at 53, he earns about 40k per annum but has clearly been 'careful' with money. Most of the said £300k+ er's will be working to 60 and some.
@Rob7Lee what have I said about 'defending the wealthy' start another thread, please.
How much does a person need before they become inclined to simply give the overflow away?
In my experience it really depends on the individual and their lifestyle and what you mean by overflow, just look at Michael Jackson!
I know people earning £300k+ a year who live a lifestyle right up to their means and probably beyond and therefore never have any (spare) money, others earning a 1/4 of that who maybe live to 80% of their earnings so have 'overflow'. One of my staff resigned last week, retiring at 53, he earns about 40k per annum but has clearly been 'careful' with money. Most of the said £300k+ er's will be working to 60 and some.
@Rob7Lee what have I said about 'defending the wealthy' start another thread, please.
No defending I was answering Seths post (as was Bob).........
Brilliantly put Fiiish. The bloke working 16 hours obviously loves it, good for him, obviously that's where he gets his kicks rather than the actual accumulation of wealth. My only beef is if he, like many employers, gives himself a salary 20 times larger than someone working equally as hard in his company.
I don't know on him as I have never worked for him or have access to his payroll. The £150m man I did as I worked directly for him and yes his salary would have exceeded 20x that of the lowest paid (see below).
Yes he was the highest earner in the company (varied over the years but between 350 and 450 staff), by around £100k. Some years though he wouldn't have been, if it wasn't a great year (but still OK) he'd tend not to take a dividend but still pay annual bonuses to the staff which meant some would have gone above his salary.
The lowest earner would have been the 3 cleaners at about £16k a year, although with bonus they will have gone a bit above £20k. So yes he would have taken 20x someone working equally as hard as him if you like, I never knew anyone in my 7 years there who worked for him who had any sort of issue at all, many thought he should actually take a larger salary! He was putting pretty much all his wealth at risk (wealth he had built from nothing) which meant we all lived good lives on the back of that. My only risk was if it all went terribly wrong I'd need to look for a new job. Risk reward.
It was by far and away the best company, the best boss and the best environment I have ever worked in and he was one of the nicest and most generous people I have ever come across, I could write a book on his generosity. There are many top actors & actresses in this country who will personally tell you if it wasn't for him they would never have got to where they are thanks purely to his generosity as well as many other areas of society (if you ever go to the old Vic, thank him it's still there).
Not all rich are bad people anymore than poor people are, I've known a few complete to55ers who were rich, and equally to55ers who weren't rich.
@Fiiish some good points, and although like Bob has said communist may have been a bit strong, when posters say that "£150m or £300m is more than their fair share. I'm not saying they shouldn't live comfortably but a tenth of those figures would allow that." is as near to communism as this country will see (hopefully). That statement wasn't about taxing wealth. A state that decides the maximum wealth you should have is a version of communism in my view. Had the £300m man paid 80% tax rather than 45% he'd still have the same as the £150m man which according to some is still 90% too much.
As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for, it's all well and good wanting to redistribute wealth (and to maybe a lesser degree than some I agree with that to an extent, i.e. increasing income tax as one example), but if you stifle those opportunities too much and people won't take the risk in the first place to create that wealth, those jobs and that income to the country won't be there and as a society we would be worse off.
I was referring to the other bloke mainly. And I did say works equally as hard. I would not expect the tea lady working 9 to 5 to get anywhere near the same.
"but if you stifle those opportunities too much and people won't take the risk in the first place to create that wealth,". I disagree - your man worth 300m and still working himself to death would not go and be a tram driver if he thought he could "only" earn 150m, he'd still do exactly what he does now. I really do not see any entrepreneur simply not bothering to start a business because when he earned over £150,000 a year he would pay 60% tax (and don't forget - he would still pay the same tax up to 150k), and deciding to work in an insurance office instead...
R7L I wonder how much your mates benefited from North Sea oil income which Thatcher gave as tax cuts to rich (unlike Norway who invested for the future), cuts to Corp Tax and Income tax every time they were elected and if in the film industry, from the generous tax breaks still being exploited by the rich. Because being worth £150m and £300m respectively they obviously needed this extra help rather than the JAMs who May is so intent on helping by cutting benefits to working families, imposing 7 year wage freezes, and sacking public sector workers.
The £300m man already works in an insurance office! (Amongst other things).
Personally and just my view, at the point I start working more for the state than myself is the point the risk would out weigh the reward in a lot of circumstances.
The final straw for the £150m man was when insurance premium tax was greater than what the company would or could possibly make.
Would it have stopped him starting up, maybe not, but it would have made him 'cash in' even earlier, in fact he did it twice, so I'd guess when he sold his first company for about £35m he probably wouldn't have risked it all to do it again if the risk far outweighed the reward.
R7L I wonder how much your mates benefited from North Sea oil income which Thatcher gave as tax cuts to rich (unlike Norway who invested for the future), cuts to Corp Tax and Income tax every time they were elected and if in the film industry, from the generous tax breaks still being exploited by the rich. Because being worth £150m and £300m respectively they obviously needed this extra help rather than the JAMs who May is so intent on helping by cutting benefits to working families, imposing 7 year wage freezes, and sacking public sector workers.
I wouldn't call them mates, one was my employer the other a business aquaintenance.
But of course it stands to reason they would have benefited from any tax cuts and lost to any increases.
On Corp tax specifically as I highlighted 'they' above the £150m man probably didn't benefit or very little initially, the main beneficiaries would have been the additional staff he employed being able to invest in and grow The company. Of course ultimately as the shareholder he would have benefitted potentially when he sold up, but then so did hmrc who although at a lower rate than 20 years ago that lower rate was on a larger number.
Brilliantly put Fiiish. The bloke working 16 hours obviously loves it, good for him, obviously that's where he gets his kicks rather than the actual accumulation of wealth. My only beef is if he, like many employers, gives himself a salary 20 times larger than someone working equally as hard in his company.
I don't know on him as I have never worked for him or have access to his payroll. The £150m man I did as I worked directly for him and yes his salary would have exceeded 20x that of the lowest paid (see below).
Yes he was the highest earner in the company (varied over the years but between 350 and 450 staff), by around £100k. Some years though he wouldn't have been, if it wasn't a great year (but still OK) he'd tend not to take a dividend but still pay annual bonuses to the staff which meant some would have gone above his salary.
The lowest earner would have been the 3 cleaners at about £16k a year, although with bonus they will have gone a bit above £20k. So yes he would have taken 20x someone working equally as hard as him if you like, I never knew anyone in my 7 years there who worked for him who had any sort of issue at all, many thought he should actually take a larger salary! He was putting pretty much all his wealth at risk (wealth he had built from nothing) which meant we all lived good lives on the back of that. My only risk was if it all went terribly wrong I'd need to look for a new job. Risk reward.
It was by far and away the best company, the best boss and the best environment I have ever worked in and he was one of the nicest and most generous people I have ever come across, I could write a book on his generosity. There are many top actors & actresses in this country who will personally tell you if it wasn't for him they would never have got to where they are thanks purely to his generosity as well as many other areas of society (if you ever go to the old Vic, thank him it's still there).
Not all rich are bad people anymore than poor people are, I've known a few complete to55ers who were rich, and equally to55ers who weren't rich.
@Fiiish some good points, and although like Bob has said communist may have been a bit strong, when posters say that "£150m or £300m is more than their fair share. I'm not saying they shouldn't live comfortably but a tenth of those figures would allow that." is as near to communism as this country will see (hopefully). That statement wasn't about taxing wealth. A state that decides the maximum wealth you should have is a version of communism in my view. Had the £300m man paid 80% tax rather than 45% he'd still have the same as the £150m man which according to some is still 90% too much.
As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for, it's all well and good wanting to redistribute wealth (and to maybe a lesser degree than some I agree with that to an extent, i.e. increasing income tax as one example), but if you stifle those opportunities too much and people won't take the risk in the first place to create that wealth, those jobs and that income to the country won't be there and as a society we would be worse off.
People won't try to be multi millionaires if they can't be multi, multi millionaires. Is that what you are trying to say? Accusing people who want the distribution of wealth to be a bit fairer as being communist is ridiculous. It is right people shouldn't earn the same, and it is perfectly reasonable for people to earn a lot and to encourage risk taking. I like many others strive to maximise my earnings and owning my business I am a risk taker. But we have to be mindful that we can't ignore the poorest in society and I find it disturbing that people who work very hard are living in poverty and are having to use food banks. If we can get that right I (I mean alleviate poverty) the disparity of wealth would be far less important. It is that that makes the earnings of some wrong - more than the earnings themselves.
If you had £10 million, would you be 30 times happier if you had £300m. It becomes just numbers beyond a certain point.
No, I was saying it's a risk v reward balance, would my old boss have invested his £35m and some (he financed/borrowed a further £15m) if he felt the risk out weighed the reward, no probably not. He'd have just sat happy with his £35m not set up a company, not employed 450 staff and not paid a lot into HMRC.
You stated they had more than their fair share, citing 10% of what they had would be ample or words to that effect. So again on your basis he wouldn't have started the second company as he already had more than his fair share.
If I had £10m I'd have sailed off into the sunset years ago! But people who are as successful as £150m/300m in my experience are a different breed, they more often than not have a very lavish lifestyle that has increased as their wealth has. I doubt the £150m man will have huge sums left when he goes, by his own admission he's spending upwards of £5m a year of his capital as well as what he earns on it!
No one is suggesting we ignore those most needy, far from it. As you'll remember I was for a tax increase even though I felt labour had gone too far and at too low a starting level.
It's not the entrepreneur millionaire I'm concerned about. They take risks and live and die by what their business achieves. They create wealth. What irks me is the stinking rich that inherit wealth generation after generation. They are worthless parasites living off lard work of there ancestors and the people their ancestors exploited. LInheritance of wealth on the scale we have in this country is obscene.
It's not the entrepreneur millionaire I'm concerned about. They take risks and live and die by what their business achieves. They create wealth. What irks me is the stinking rich that inherit wealth generation after generation. They are worthless parasites living off lard work of there ancestors and the people their ancestors exploited. LInheritance of wealth on the scale we have in this country is obscene.
Would people work strive to create as much wealth, if they couldn't pass it on though?
No, I was saying it's a risk v reward balance, would my old boss have invested his £35m and some (he financed/borrowed a further £15m) if he felt the risk out weighed the reward, no probably not. He'd have just sat happy with his £35m not set up a company, not employed 450 staff and not paid a lot into HMRC.
You stated they had more than their fair share, citing 10% of what they had would be ample or words to that effect. So again on your basis he wouldn't have started the second company as he already had more than his fair share.
If I had £10m I'd have sailed off into the sunset years ago! But people who are as successful as £150m/300m in my experience are a different breed, they more often than not have a very lavish lifestyle that has increased as their wealth has. I doubt the £150m man will have huge sums left when he goes, by his own admission he's spending upwards of £5m a year of his capital as well as what he earns on it!
No one is suggesting we ignore those most needy, far from it. As you'll remember I was for a tax increase even though I felt labour had gone too far and at too low a starting level.
Yes, but I don't believe you really care about them. Sorry. Otherwise you would try to do something rather than vote for a party that couldn't care less about them. And defend a politician who actually thinks food banks are a good thing!
Seriously, is the 27m including those who also pay 40% and 45%? As we know those earning over about £125k wouldn't benefit at all, 100k - 125k proportionately. Many on here believe the lower earners would just spend it so raising some VAT and boosting the economy. I wouldn't necessarily move where the 40% (or 45%) band comes in at. If they froze those that is effectively a tax increase for those in those bands, no idea how much that would raise/save as predominantly depends on peoples pay increase at that level.
Anyway, i'm reliably told that Austerity is all a big con, we just need to borrow and invest it and put money in peoples pockets, no one mentioned balancing the books....?
All jokes aside, it's an easy way to help ALL lower earners, I'm sure an actuary somewhere in a department can work something out to balance it, 50p at £250k, make the 45p band 46p or the 40p 41p, freeze the bands starting point, cut child allowance at a lower level than £60k for the higher earner, i'm sure there are loads of other options.
Income tax is only 27% of the total tax revenue, and completely distorts the total picture when focused on as it is designed to be progressive. That is less than is raised by indirect taxes, 29% :
there is good reason to think that poorer people would spend more money as they pay a higher proportion of their income on tax, both direct and indirect:
Agreed, wasn't about raising tax but reducing it (for the lower earners) by raising the point it is paid and purely to put 'money in pockets' to them. I referenced increasing tax for the higher earners when challenged how to pay for it as a way to do so but am sure there is 101 other ways.
I don't doubt the lower earners would spend it or the majority of it.
One of the ways the Government have recently found to raise money is by taxing pensions. Not just by reducing how much you can pay in & thus receive tax relief (for years it was limited to the amount you earned, then a max of £225k, now its £40k pa) but the often unknown (stealth) tax of the "excess tax charge". This new tax, dreamed up by the Coalition & carried on with fervour by the Tories, taxed the excess "increase" to your pension pot and mainly seen with final salary pensions. It does only affect the higher earners, but can catch anyone with a decent pay rise or bonus (c £5k). Its brother is the Lifetime Allowance charge - which has also seen massive increases in the tax take due to the reduced allowance during Austerity. Finally then there is their little sister, the Annual Allowance that reduces the tax relief down to just the first £10k on earnings over £150k. Yes - it may only affect those on big salaries ) the vas majority on here will be totally unaffected, but this is one area in which the Government will be using to raise tax as A) no one knows how it works, its easier to adjust something thats been adjusted before rather than implementing a new tax and C, it only affects high earners so a winner with lots of (other) voters,
Tell me about it, it's why I don't really pay into my own pension anymore.
A lot of people get caught now by the lifetime allowance. Anyone on a 60% final salary scheme and earning over circa £83k will get hit with the charge. That's the vast majority of head teachers particular in London and the SE..
Buy Gold Sovereigns for your retirement, CGT free, legal tender of £1 so just before I die I'll buy something off my daughters for 1k, pay with 1,000 sovereigns and therefore they get 1,000 sovereigns worth around £250k in their gold weight currently - simples.
Nice try. But legal tender has a very narrow definition. edu.bankofengland.co.uk/knowledgebank/what-is-legal-tender/ So, you can pay for anything with anything that the other party is prepared to accept, whether that's Banknotes, Cadbury's Creme Eggs or Matchsticks. I reckon, the taxman (should they ever catch up with your daughters of course, which is doubtful) would just consider that you'd paid over the top and that you'd done so deliberately to avoid death tax and hit your offspring with a large bill.
It's not the entrepreneur millionaire I'm concerned about. They take risks and live and die by what their business achieves. They create wealth. What irks me is the stinking rich that inherit wealth generation after generation. They are worthless parasites living off lard work of there ancestors and the people their ancestors exploited. LInheritance of wealth on the scale we have in this country is obscene.
Would people work strive to create as much wealth, if they couldn't pass it on though?
That's a reasonable point @Stu_of_Kunming but there was a thread about Saxon kings some time ago and I added a quote from the Duke of Westminster. He was asked what advice he would give to help somebody become rich and his response was "Have a relative who was a close personal friend of William the Conqueror".
And however people come about their wealth progressive taxation should be applied, should it not?
It's not the entrepreneur millionaire I'm concerned about. They take risks and live and die by what their business achieves. They create wealth. What irks me is the stinking rich that inherit wealth generation after generation. They are worthless parasites living off lard work of there ancestors and the people their ancestors exploited. LInheritance of wealth on the scale we have in this country is obscene.
Would people work strive to create as much wealth, if they couldn't pass it on though?
That's a reasonable point @Stu_of_Kunming but there was a thread about Saxon kings some time ago and I added a quote from the Duke of Westminster. He was asked what advice he would give to help somebody become rich and his response was "Have a relative who was a close personal friend of William the Conqueror".
And however people come about their wealth progressive taxation should be applied, should it not?
Hence why a wealth tax should replace the inheritance tax. It will mean people will still strive to leave something to their kids but their kids could not simply live off their parents' money because the wealth would be chipped away. IHT has had no noticeable effect on sharing wealth across generations and all that has happened is more and more of the country's wealth is being concentrated into a smaller and smaller number of people, most of whom only have it by privilege of being born to the right name.
It's not the entrepreneur millionaire I'm concerned about. They take risks and live and die by what their business achieves. They create wealth. What irks me is the stinking rich that inherit wealth generation after generation. They are worthless parasites living off lard work of there ancestors and the people their ancestors exploited. LInheritance of wealth on the scale we have in this country is obscene.
Would people work strive to create as much wealth, if they couldn't pass it on though?
That's a reasonable point @Stu_of_Kunming but there was a thread about Saxon kings some time ago and I added a quote from the Duke of Westminster. He was asked what advice he would give to help somebody become rich and his response was "Have a relative who was a close personal friend of William the Conqueror".
And however people come about their wealth progressive taxation should be applied, should it not?
Hence why a wealth tax should replace the inheritance tax. It will mean people will still strive to leave something to their kids but their kids could not simply live off their parents' money because the wealth would be chipped away. IHT has had no noticeable effect on sharing wealth across generations and all that has happened is more and more of the country's wealth is being concentrated into a smaller and smaller number of people, most of whom only have it by privilege of being born to the right name.
Which is why of all the systems mentioned on this thread, a wealth tax is the one I agree with the most, with extra charges for those who own empty properties.
It's not the entrepreneur millionaire I'm concerned about. They take risks and live and die by what their business achieves. They create wealth. What irks me is the stinking rich that inherit wealth generation after generation. They are worthless parasites living off lard work of there ancestors and the people their ancestors exploited. LInheritance of wealth on the scale we have in this country is obscene.
Would people work strive to create as much wealth, if they couldn't pass it on though?
That's a reasonable point @Stu_of_Kunming but there was a thread about Saxon kings some time ago and I added a quote from the Duke of Westminster. He was asked what advice he would give to help somebody become rich and his response was "Have a relative who was a close personal friend of William the Conqueror".
And however people come about their wealth progressive taxation should be applied, should it not?
Hence why a wealth tax should replace the inheritance tax. It will mean people will still strive to leave something to their kids but their kids could not simply live off their parents' money because the wealth would be chipped away. IHT has had no noticeable effect on sharing wealth across generations and all that has happened is more and more of the country's wealth is being concentrated into a smaller and smaller number of people, most of whom only have it by privilege of being born to the right name.
Which is why of all the systems mentioned on this thread, a wealth tax is the one I agree with the most, with extra charges for those who own empty properties.
I'd go one step further and look at housing markets like in Europe where rents are much lower and affordable. Too many properties in this country are used as investment vehicles and it is fuelling a crisis in property prices, availability, occupancy and homelessness.
It's not the entrepreneur millionaire I'm concerned about. They take risks and live and die by what their business achieves. They create wealth. What irks me is the stinking rich that inherit wealth generation after generation. They are worthless parasites living off lard work of there ancestors and the people their ancestors exploited. LInheritance of wealth on the scale we have in this country is obscene.
Would people work strive to create as much wealth, if they couldn't pass it on though?
That's a reasonable point @Stu_of_Kunming but there was a thread about Saxon kings some time ago and I added a quote from the Duke of Westminster. He was asked what advice he would give to help somebody become rich and his response was "Have a relative who was a close personal friend of William the Conqueror".
And however people come about their wealth progressive taxation should be applied, should it not?
Hence why a wealth tax should replace the inheritance tax. It will mean people will still strive to leave something to their kids but their kids could not simply live off their parents' money because the wealth would be chipped away. IHT has had no noticeable effect on sharing wealth across generations and all that has happened is more and more of the country's wealth is being concentrated into a smaller and smaller number of people, most of whom only have it by privilege of being born to the right name.
Which is why of all the systems mentioned on this thread, a wealth tax is the one I agree with the most, with extra charges for those who own empty properties.
I'd go one step further and look at housing markets like in Europe where rents are much lower and affordable. Too many properties in this country are used as investment vehicles and it is fuelling a crisis in property prices, availability, occupancy and homelessness.
This is where we will disagree, it's up to people to decide what they wish to own/rent/sell and it's p to the government to ensure we have enough housing for the population, if I want to buy 10 or 100 houses to rent out, that is, imo, my business.
The problem is government after government doing fuck all about the housing shortage because a ridiculously high housing market suits them.
It's not the entrepreneur millionaire I'm concerned about. They take risks and live and die by what their business achieves. They create wealth. What irks me is the stinking rich that inherit wealth generation after generation. They are worthless parasites living off lard work of there ancestors and the people their ancestors exploited. LInheritance of wealth on the scale we have in this country is obscene.
Would people work strive to create as much wealth, if they couldn't pass it on though?
That's a reasonable point @Stu_of_Kunming but there was a thread about Saxon kings some time ago and I added a quote from the Duke of Westminster. He was asked what advice he would give to help somebody become rich and his response was "Have a relative who was a close personal friend of William the Conqueror".
And however people come about their wealth progressive taxation should be applied, should it not?
Hence why a wealth tax should replace the inheritance tax. It will mean people will still strive to leave something to their kids but their kids could not simply live off their parents' money because the wealth would be chipped away. IHT has had no noticeable effect on sharing wealth across generations and all that has happened is more and more of the country's wealth is being concentrated into a smaller and smaller number of people, most of whom only have it by privilege of being born to the right name.
Which is why of all the systems mentioned on this thread, a wealth tax is the one I agree with the most, with extra charges for those who own empty properties.
I'd go one step further and look at housing markets like in Europe where rents are much lower and affordable. Too many properties in this country are used as investment vehicles and it is fuelling a crisis in property prices, availability, occupancy and homelessness.
This is where we will disagree, it's up to people to decide what they wish to own/rent/sell and it's p to the government to ensure we have enough housing for the population, if I want to buy 10 or 100 houses to rent out, that is, imo, my business.
The problem is government after government doing fuck all about the housing shortage because a ridiculously high housing market suits them.
The problem is land is a public utility and is largely in the hands of people who were born with it, rather than those who need it. Housing is like water or the environment or infrastructure, they are a necessity to the happiness and wellbeing of society and ordinary people cannot be trusted with it, the weekly threads we see here about rogue landlords prove that. There are simply too many people who need affordable housing and too many people exploiting that need for financial gain.
No, I was saying it's a risk v reward balance, would my old boss have invested his £35m and some (he financed/borrowed a further £15m) if he felt the risk out weighed the reward, no probably not. He'd have just sat happy with his £35m not set up a company, not employed 450 staff and not paid a lot into HMRC.
You stated they had more than their fair share, citing 10% of what they had would be ample or words to that effect. So again on your basis he wouldn't have started the second company as he already had more than his fair share.
If I had £10m I'd have sailed off into the sunset years ago! But people who are as successful as £150m/300m in my experience are a different breed, they more often than not have a very lavish lifestyle that has increased as their wealth has. I doubt the £150m man will have huge sums left when he goes, by his own admission he's spending upwards of £5m a year of his capital as well as what he earns on it!
No one is suggesting we ignore those most needy, far from it. As you'll remember I was for a tax increase even though I felt labour had gone too far and at too low a starting level.
Yes, but I don't believe you really care about them. Sorry. Otherwise you would try to do something rather than vote for a party that couldn't care less about them. And defend a politician who actually thinks food banks are a good thing!
I haven't defended Wally if thats what you are referring to, read the posts 'I DO NOT AGREE WITH HIM" on his views about gay marriage, food banks or probably most things, my first post after the link to his food bank comments was 'the bloke really is a Wally', For whatever reason it clearly suits you to believe that I did agree with him, even when I say I don't agree or do agree with something you simply say you don't believe me . Hilarious.
If you think the only way to help people is to not vote conservative then more fool you, which is what this all boils down to, you are so blinkered you cannot see past your own view or own voting preference and want the political system to right all the wrongs you think there are. Always plenty of ways to help people less fortunate than ourselves, let me know if you need any pointers
It's not the entrepreneur millionaire I'm concerned about. They take risks and live and die by what their business achieves. They create wealth. What irks me is the stinking rich that inherit wealth generation after generation. They are worthless parasites living off lard work of there ancestors and the people their ancestors exploited. LInheritance of wealth on the scale we have in this country is obscene.
Would people work strive to create as much wealth, if they couldn't pass it on though?
That's a reasonable point @Stu_of_Kunming but there was a thread about Saxon kings some time ago and I added a quote from the Duke of Westminster. He was asked what advice he would give to help somebody become rich and his response was "Have a relative who was a close personal friend of William the Conqueror".
And however people come about their wealth progressive taxation should be applied, should it not?
Hence why a wealth tax should replace the inheritance tax. It will mean people will still strive to leave something to their kids but their kids could not simply live off their parents' money because the wealth would be chipped away. IHT has had no noticeable effect on sharing wealth across generations and all that has happened is more and more of the country's wealth is being concentrated into a smaller and smaller number of people, most of whom only have it by privilege of being born to the right name.
Depending on the terms of it I'd probably go along with that. My main worry would be there are a generation of people who are asset rich (predominantly due to house prices) but are cash or income poor. So although they may be sitting on a £2m house they may only have a small pension and little cash in the bank.
It's not the entrepreneur millionaire I'm concerned about. They take risks and live and die by what their business achieves. They create wealth. What irks me is the stinking rich that inherit wealth generation after generation. They are worthless parasites living off lard work of there ancestors and the people their ancestors exploited. LInheritance of wealth on the scale we have in this country is obscene.
Would people work strive to create as much wealth, if they couldn't pass it on though?
That's a reasonable point @Stu_of_Kunming but there was a thread about Saxon kings some time ago and I added a quote from the Duke of Westminster. He was asked what advice he would give to help somebody become rich and his response was "Have a relative who was a close personal friend of William the Conqueror".
And however people come about their wealth progressive taxation should be applied, should it not?
Hence why a wealth tax should replace the inheritance tax. It will mean people will still strive to leave something to their kids but their kids could not simply live off their parents' money because the wealth would be chipped away. IHT has had no noticeable effect on sharing wealth across generations and all that has happened is more and more of the country's wealth is being concentrated into a smaller and smaller number of people, most of whom only have it by privilege of being born to the right name.
Which is why of all the systems mentioned on this thread, a wealth tax is the one I agree with the most, with extra charges for those who own empty properties.
I'd go one step further and look at housing markets like in Europe where rents are much lower and affordable. Too many properties in this country are used as investment vehicles and it is fuelling a crisis in property prices, availability, occupancy and homelessness.
Sucessive governments have used the housing market to cover up failures in economic policy, we are too invested as an economy for anything to be done about it. Our current government is following a policy of raising rents in this country:
Comments
In terms of what is fair and what is unfair, it is well documented the harm wealth disparity does to both the economy and society, so I would define high wealth as unfair if it is causing issues, which it clearly is.
As supposedly part of the ruling class (or at least a member of the bourgeoisie!), I'm trembling. ;-)
(P.S. btw I don't disagree with a lot of what you now post)
Yes he was the highest earner in the company (varied over the years but between 350 and 450 staff), by around £100k. Some years though he wouldn't have been, if it wasn't a great year (but still OK) he'd tend not to take a dividend but still pay annual bonuses to the staff which meant some would have gone above his salary.
The lowest earner would have been the 3 cleaners at about £16k a year, although with bonus they will have gone a bit above £20k. So yes he would have taken 20x someone working equally as hard as him if you like, I never knew anyone in my 7 years there who worked for him who had any sort of issue at all, many thought he should actually take a larger salary! He was putting pretty much all his wealth at risk (wealth he had built from nothing) which meant we all lived good lives on the back of that. My only risk was if it all went terribly wrong I'd need to look for a new job. Risk reward.
It was by far and away the best company, the best boss and the best environment I have ever worked in and he was one of the nicest and most generous people I have ever come across, I could write a book on his generosity. There are many top actors & actresses in this country who will personally tell you if it wasn't for him they would never have got to where they are thanks purely to his generosity as well as many other areas of society (if you ever go to the old Vic, thank him it's still there).
Not all rich are bad people anymore than poor people are, I've known a few complete to55ers who were rich, and equally to55ers who weren't rich.
@Fiiish some good points, and although like Bob has said communist may have been a bit strong, when posters say that "£150m or £300m is more than their fair share. I'm not saying they shouldn't live comfortably but a tenth of those figures would allow that." is as near to communism as this country will see (hopefully). That statement wasn't about taxing wealth. A state that decides the maximum wealth you should have is a version of communism in my view. Had the £300m man paid 80% tax rather than 45% he'd still have the same as the £150m man which according to some is still 90% too much.
As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for, it's all well and good wanting to redistribute wealth (and to maybe a lesser degree than some I agree with that to an extent, i.e. increasing income tax as one example), but if you stifle those opportunities too much and people won't take the risk in the first place to create that wealth, those jobs and that income to the country won't be there and as a society we would be worse off.
I also agree that it needs to be tempered with ensuring that those who want to create wealth are not disincentivised from doing so. However we are nowhere near that level. We are a very rich country where even if taxes were much higher than they are now, people could still be making a comfortable fortune for themselves.
I know people earning £300k+ a year who live a lifestyle right up to their means and probably beyond and therefore never have any (spare) money, others earning a 1/4 of that who maybe live to 80% of their earnings so have 'overflow'. One of my staff resigned last week, retiring at 53, he earns about 40k per annum but has clearly been 'careful' with money. Most of the said £300k+ er's will be working to 60 and some.
What I will say though is that once I've paid my not inconsiderable taxes (that I am happy to pay, avoid nothing, and would be prepared to pay more if it meant for example we had an NHS fit for the 21st century and could pay the angels within it who administer their miracles what they are worth) then if I decide to spend what's left on big houses or Italian sports cars, or supporting my family in establishing themselves in life, or give a big chunk of it to good causes, or even give it all to the local cats sanctuary - it's got f*ck all to do with anyone else.
"but if you stifle those opportunities too much and people won't take the risk in the first place to create that wealth,". I disagree - your man worth 300m and still working himself to death would not go and be a tram driver if he thought he could "only" earn 150m, he'd still do exactly what he does now. I really do not see any entrepreneur simply not bothering to start a business because when he earned over £150,000 a year he would pay 60% tax (and don't forget - he would still pay the same tax up to 150k), and deciding to work in an insurance office instead...
let's live dangerously........
The £300m man already works in an insurance office! (Amongst other things).
Personally and just my view, at the point I start working more for the state than myself is the point the risk would out weigh the reward in a lot of circumstances.
The final straw for the £150m man was when insurance premium tax was greater than what the company would or could possibly make.
Would it have stopped him starting up, maybe not, but it would have made him 'cash in' even earlier, in fact he did it twice, so I'd guess when he sold his first company for about £35m he probably wouldn't have risked it all to do it again if the risk far outweighed the reward.
But of course it stands to reason they would have benefited from any tax cuts and lost to any increases.
On Corp tax specifically as I highlighted 'they' above the £150m man probably didn't benefit or very little initially, the main beneficiaries would have been the additional staff he employed being able to invest in and grow The company. Of course ultimately as the shareholder he would have benefitted potentially when he sold up, but then so did hmrc who although at a lower rate than 20 years ago that lower rate was on a larger number.
If you had £10 million, would you be 30 times happier if you had £300m. It becomes just numbers beyond a certain point.
You stated they had more than their fair share, citing 10% of what they had would be ample or words to that effect. So again on your basis he wouldn't have started the second company as he already had more than his fair share.
If I had £10m I'd have sailed off into the sunset years ago! But people who are as successful as £150m/300m in my experience are a different breed, they more often than not have a very lavish lifestyle that has increased as their wealth has. I doubt the £150m man will have huge sums left when he goes, by his own admission he's spending upwards of £5m a year of his capital as well as what he earns on it!
No one is suggesting we ignore those most needy, far from it. As you'll remember I was for a tax increase even though I felt labour had gone too far and at too low a starting level.
And however people come about their wealth progressive taxation should be applied, should it not?
The problem is government after government doing fuck all about the housing shortage because a ridiculously high housing market suits them.
If you think the only way to help people is to not vote conservative then more fool you, which is what this all boils down to, you are so blinkered you cannot see past your own view or own voting preference and want the political system to right all the wrongs you think there are. Always plenty of ways to help people less fortunate than ourselves, let me know if you need any pointers
independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/social-housing-government-funded-properties-rent-falls-97-per-cent-study-homes-communities-agency-a7799116.html
I think it was Osbourne that remarked "building council houses only creates Labour voters".