Victoria Beckhams personal wealth has no bearing on the loss making business.
Why not? I have read thatthey have had to put personal wealth into it for years as it is not doing well Described by some as a 'failing vanity project'. I used VB as an example but there are others including Branson and the odious Philip Green who are adding to the burden of the tax payer as the cost of it all has to be paid back when some of these business ovners have vast wealth they could use rather than burdening those who are not so well off
With Branson only owning 20% of some of his companies & the rest investors , pension schemes etc should they all pay too & have a reduction in people’s pension instead of furlough
Branson and his ilk can easily afford to cover staff wages,but are more than happy not to.When this is all over and the man in the street gets his high tax bill to cover the money,Branson and his mates will still be living in luxury not giving a toss.
But have YOU considered covering the wages of someone who is less well off than you - or is that someone else's problem? It's all relative really.
If he is a taxpayer he IS contributing to covering the wages of people less well off, and possibly better off, than him too.
Government money comes from taxpayers and borrowings the interest on which is financed by the aforementioned taxpayers.
Legally Branson and his ilk have done nothing wrong, as companies are separate legal entities from individuals, but morally is another debate, particularly when, as they do, faux socialists of his ilk try to tell 'ordinary people' how to live their lives when they do not live their own lives in the same way.
First mantra of socialism: Do as I say not as I do.
I am a pensioner so not a lot left after normal living expenses,still pay my bit of tax which will no doubt increase to cover Victoria Beckhams failed vanity project.
Really sorry about boring everyone shitless about this,but like a lot of us,very little else to do at the moment,anyway just read that Branson is pleading poverty,no money in the bank.What a load of bollocks.
Really sorry about boring everyone shitless about this,but like a lot of us,very little else to do at the moment,anyway just read that Branson is pleading poverty,no money in the bank.What a load of bollocks.
I didn’t read it as pleading poverty at all,he’s willing to mortgage his house for a company he doesn’t fully own & there are not many company owners willing to do that.
......."If you’re one of those lucky people who’re in that position where you get that extreme wealth, you’ve just got to make sure that wealth goes back to society in some form or another–whether it’s creating more jobs or tackling the problems of the world. That money must not languish in a bank account and be unproductive.10........"
Victoria Beckhams personal wealth has no bearing on the loss making business.
She was on TV last night gushing about how she appreciated the NHS all the while knowing she was asking tax payers which include the many front line workers who keep us safe,to subsidise her wage bill when she could quite easily dip into her own deep pockets and pay them herself.Especially when she has just paid 100000k for her sons birthday party,and spent £20m on a new apartment.Perhaps sell a few hand bags even.Her business,according to reports has always lost money,not surprised,who wants to pay £120 for a tin of hand cream,unless you are of pipe cleaner proportions and have £2k to spend on a dress,you will not be shopping there.This lady was the weak link in a very successful girl band,and got lucky marrying David,her present wealth is dependant on David propping up her business.There are many small firms that are going skint over this,they are the ones deserving of our help.
Certainly agree that wealthy people should be putting their hand in their pocket.
designing a scheme that assesses whether there is any alternate source of funds that could be used, a means tested scheme if you like, Is unfortunately totally unfeasible. The current scheme is nearly breaking HMRC with nearly every non-essential service being binned to provide hands to get furlough working and to prevent fraudulent use of the scheme.
The only thing we can do is try and remember who has used and abused the scheme when making choices on goods and commenting in the future.
......."If you’re one of those lucky people who’re in that position where you get that extreme wealth, you’ve just got to make sure that wealth goes back to society in some form or another–whether it’s creating more jobs or tackling the problems of the world. That money must not languish in a bank account and be unproductive.10........"
Great find len that’s exactly what he’s saying in the article in question just because he has around 5billion net worth ,that’s not sat in a bank account ready to draw on ,its being productive through investment & creating jobs , it really isn’t in his current account.
Really sorry about boring everyone shitless about this,but like a lot of us,very little else to do at the moment,anyway just read that Branson is pleading poverty,no money in the bank.What a load of bollocks.
Maybe what you read was bollocks.
well I read he was after borrowing £500m,would rather see the many small businesses that are genuinely in trouble have first stab at any money going round,although as usual our friendly high street banks are not over enthusiastic.
Victoria Beckhams personal wealth has no bearing on the loss making business.
Why not? I have read thatthey have had to put personal wealth into it for years as it is not doing well Described by some as a 'failing vanity project'. I used VB as an example but there are others including Branson and the odious Philip Green who are adding to the burden of the tax payer as the cost of it all has to be paid back when some of these business ovners have vast wealth they could use rather than burdening those who are not so well off
With Branson only owning 20% of some of his companies & the rest investors , pension schemes etc should they all pay too & have a reduction in people’s pension instead of furlough
Branson and his ilk can easily afford to cover staff wages,but are more than happy not to.When this is all over and the man in the street gets his high tax bill to cover the money,Branson and his mates will still be living in luxury not giving a toss.
But have YOU considered covering the wages of someone who is less well off than you - or is that someone else's problem? It's all relative really.
Sort of. Yes it is all relative and as I said originally, I don't know where the dividing line is but somewhere above multi-millionaire so included billionaires
Victoria Beckhams personal wealth has no bearing on the loss making business.
Why not? I have read thatthey have had to put personal wealth into it for years as it is not doing well Described by some as a 'failing vanity project'. I used VB as an example but there are others including Branson and the odious Philip Green who are adding to the burden of the tax payer as the cost of it all has to be paid back when some of these business ovners have vast wealth they could use rather than burdening those who are not so well off
With Branson only owning 20% of some of his companies & the rest investors , pension schemes etc should they all pay too & have a reduction in people’s pension instead of furlough
Branson and his ilk can easily afford to cover staff wages,but are more than happy not to.When this is all over and the man in the street gets his high tax bill to cover the money,Branson and his mates will still be living in luxury not giving a toss.
But have YOU considered covering the wages of someone who is less well off than you - or is that someone else's problem? It's all relative really.
If he is a taxpayer he IS contributing to covering the wages of people less well off, and possibly better off, than him too.
Government money comes from taxpayers and borrowings the interest on which is financed by the aforementioned taxpayers.
Legally Branson and his ilk have done nothing wrong, as companies are separate legal entities from individuals, but morally is another debate, particularly when, as they do, faux socialists of his ilk try to tell 'ordinary people' how to live their lives when they do not live their own lives in the same way.
First mantra of socialism: Do as I say not as I do.
I agree morally is different. I don't think Branson is a UK tax payer
I am a pensioner so not a lot left after normal living expenses,still pay my bit of tax which will no doubt increase to cover Victoria Beckhams failed vanity project
This. I think some brands will fare better than ohters after all this due to this sort of thing
Victoria Beckhams personal wealth has no bearing on the loss making business.
Why not? I have read thatthey have had to put personal wealth into it for years as it is not doing well Described by some as a 'failing vanity project'. I used VB as an example but there are others including Branson and the odious Philip Green who are adding to the burden of the tax payer as the cost of it all has to be paid back when some of these business ovners have vast wealth they could use rather than burdening those who are not so well off
With Branson only owning 20% of some of his companies & the rest investors , pension schemes etc should they all pay too & have a reduction in people’s pension instead of furlough
Branson and his ilk can easily afford to cover staff wages,but are more than happy not to.When this is all over and the man in the street gets his high tax bill to cover the money,Branson and his mates will still be living in luxury not giving a toss.
But have YOU considered covering the wages of someone who is less well off than you - or is that someone else's problem? It's all relative really.
If he is a taxpayer he IS contributing to covering the wages of people less well off, and possibly better off, than him too.
Government money comes from taxpayers and borrowings the interest on which is financed by the aforementioned taxpayers.
Legally Branson and his ilk have done nothing wrong, as companies are separate legal entities from individuals, but morally is another debate, particularly when, as they do, faux socialists of his ilk try to tell 'ordinary people' how to live their lives when they do not live their own lives in the same way.
First mantra of socialism: Do as I say not as I do.
I agree morally is different. I don't think Branson is a UK tax payer
The government can't pick and choose which companies it pays the relief to based on whether the owners of that business are rich/likeable. Personal wealth doesn't mean billions in the bank sitting waiting to be spent.
The government can't pick and choose which companies it pays the relief to based on whether the owners of that business are rich/likeable. Personal wealth doesn't mean billions in the bank sitting waiting to be spent.
I think there needs to be some qualification so that multi-millionaires don't pass the cost on to the taxpayer. Not based on likability obviously
The government can't pick and choose which companies it pays the relief to based on whether the owners of that business are rich/likeable. Personal wealth doesn't mean billions in the bank sitting waiting to be spent.
I think there needs to be some qualification so that multi-millionaires don't pass the cost on to the taxpayer. Not based on likability obviously
There are some exceptions!
I know a company that has not furloughed a single member of staff, has guaranteed full pay until September, has made available facilities for testing NHS and other front line staff using its own staff as volunteers to manage the infrastucture, and has donated £10 million to the local NHS Trust. Oh, and the owner pays hundreds of millions of tax a year in the UK.
All of that not to garner good PR (impossible anyway) but because in the words of the owner (and very dear friend of mine) thinks it is the right thing to do.
The government can't pick and choose which companies it pays the relief to based on whether the owners of that business are rich/likeable. Personal wealth doesn't mean billions in the bank sitting waiting to be spent.
I think there needs to be some qualification so that multi-millionaires don't pass the cost on to the taxpayer. Not based on likability obviously
But if a company has 500 workers full-time on £1500 a month that is £750,000 per month. So if someone is extremely rich with 10mil in the bank, we should then say they cannot access that scheme and it has to come out of their pocket. 4 months and 30% of their bank balance has gone on staff. That's not fair at all.
The government can't pick and choose which companies it pays the relief to based on whether the owners of that business are rich/likeable. Personal wealth doesn't mean billions in the bank sitting waiting to be spent.
I think there needs to be some qualification so that multi-millionaires don't pass the cost on to the taxpayer. Not based on likability obviously
There are some exceptions!
I know a company that has not furloughed a single member of staff, has guaranteed full pay until September, has made available facilities for testing NHS and other front line staff using its own staff as volunteers to manage the infrastucture, and has donated £10 million to the local NHS Trust. Oh, and the owner pays hundreds of millions of tax a year in the UK.
All of that not to garner good PR (impossible anyway) but because in the words of the owner (and very dear friend of mine) thinks it is the right thing to do.
The government can't pick and choose which companies it pays the relief to based on whether the owners of that business are rich/likeable. Personal wealth doesn't mean billions in the bank sitting waiting to be spent.
I think there needs to be some qualification so that multi-millionaires don't pass the cost on to the taxpayer. Not based on likability obviously
But if a company has 500 workers full-time on £1500 a month that is £750,000 per month. So if someone is extremely rich with 10mil in the bank, we should then say they cannot access that scheme and it has to come out of their pocket. 4 months and 30% of their bank balance has gone on staff. That's not fair at all.
The issue is Branson doesn’t own 100% of all of his companies, he’s asking for a loan that he’s putting his house up as collateral for & what’s up with that ? Jobs saved , interest paid on loan win win
The issue is Branson doesn’t own 100% of all of his companies, he’s asking for a loan that he’s putting his house up as collateral for & what’s up with that ? Jobs saved , interest paid on loan win win
The issue is Branson doesn’t own 100% of all of his companies, he’s asking for a loan that he’s putting his house up as collateral for & what’s up with that ? Jobs saved , interest paid on loan win win
The issue is Branson doesn’t own 100% of all of his companies, he’s asking for a loan that he’s putting his house up as collateral for & what’s up with that ? Jobs saved , interest paid on loan win win
He is asking for £500m that must be some house.
Down to his last private island 🌴
yes, an asset. What he should do, whilst we seem to be in the market of telling others what they should do with their own personal wealth.... - As he won't be able to sell that particular asset in order to pay for the staffing costs of a company he has a share in is offer vouchers to everyone one of the employees which entitle them to a weeks stay on his own personal island. Maybe then people wont think him some kind of ogre.
Also the BA thing - i don't know the details, but what the government are doing at the moment is helping out ALL businesses, and not singling out individual businesses to help which I'm sure is what he was objecting to at the time - seeing as had shares in a rival. why should one company get an hand out and not another. Surely that is exactly the point Branson was trying to make, and is possibly why the company that he set up and now has a share in is seeking the same financial benefit afforded to them by the government.
I know this is going round in circles, but it basically comes down to the fact that every business has a right to claim because 'dem da rules' and picking off individual rich successful people who you think are sitting at home on a throne of pound coins who have attributed their name to a company should not be enjoying themselves so much.
Is Cath Kidson putting her hand in her pocket to help the company she set up in 1993 but sold 10 years ago maintaining a minority share? Should she?
Simon Cowell and Duncan Bannatyne take aim at Richard Branson and Victoria Beckham over their pleas for taxpayer help while they use their own cash to support staff
Comments
Government money comes from taxpayers and borrowings the interest on which is financed by the aforementioned taxpayers.
Legally Branson and his ilk have done nothing wrong, as companies are separate legal entities from individuals, but morally is another debate, particularly when, as they do, faux socialists of his ilk try to tell 'ordinary people' how to live their lives when they do not live their own lives in the same way.
First mantra of socialism: Do as I say not as I do.
I wonder who said this?
https://hollowverse.com/richard-branson/
designing a scheme that assesses whether there is any alternate source of funds that could be used, a means tested scheme if you like, Is unfortunately totally unfeasible. The current scheme is nearly breaking HMRC with nearly every non-essential service being binned to provide hands to get furlough working and to prevent fraudulent use of the scheme.
The only thing we can do is try and remember who has used and abused the scheme when making choices on goods and commenting in the future.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2009/jun/22/richard-branson-attacks-british-airways
Do as I say not as I do.
yes, an asset. What he should do, whilst we seem to be in the market of telling others what they should do with their own personal wealth.... - As he won't be able to sell that particular asset in order to pay for the staffing costs of a company he has a share in is offer vouchers to everyone one of the employees which entitle them to a weeks stay on his own personal island. Maybe then people wont think him some kind of ogre.
Also the BA thing - i don't know the details, but what the government are doing at the moment is helping out ALL businesses, and not singling out individual businesses to help which I'm sure is what he was objecting to at the time - seeing as had shares in a rival. why should one company get an hand out and not another. Surely that is exactly the point Branson was trying to make, and is possibly why the company that he set up and now has a share in is seeking the same financial benefit afforded to them by the government.
I know this is going round in circles, but it basically comes down to the fact that every business has a right to claim because 'dem da rules' and picking off individual rich successful people who you think are sitting at home on a throne of pound coins who have attributed their name to a company should not be enjoying themselves so much.
Is Cath Kidson putting her hand in her pocket to help the company she set up in 1993 but sold 10 years ago maintaining a minority share? Should she?
Simon Cowell and Duncan Bannatyne take aim at Richard Branson and Victoria Beckham over their pleas for taxpayer help while they use their own cash to support staff