Got a spare €400m ?

VTech

nathancom wrote:

Thank God you don't run the country.

But why ?
No substance yet again which I find frustrating as you clearly have something worth while to say but are struggling to get past the offensive side and get to the validation side.

What I have written is fact. It has nothing to do with wether you agree or disagree. We need to close loopholes in the tax system and stop people banking abroad. I'm struggling to find how on one side your biatchin at me for the fact I work and play hard ( I don't really but it sounds good) and in the other suggesting we close loopholes down is a bad thing.

Please enlighten me as I'm really confused.

mr_goo

VTech wrote:

If we came to an understanding that although not legally wrong, but hugely morally wrong we could all work together for a top cap of 30% for example and why would people need to bank abroad ?

Completely flawed argument. The wealthy in the main have no moral compass. They would still employ tax experts to find 'legal' loopholes to avoid any burden to contribute to the UK treasury. The average wage earner is their equivalent of the worker ant or drone bee. Theirs to use and exploit.

If this sound like a socialist stand point, you may well be right. I was a staunch Conservative until Camoron took the reigns. Granted the country was left in a complete mess by Labour, who now point the finger at their mates in the banking industry. However, none of the 3 main parties have any interest in 'average' wage earners bettering their lot. It would not make economic or social sense.

VTech

Mr Goo wrote:

VTech wrote:

If we came to an understanding that although not legally wrong, but hugely morally wrong we could all work together for a top cap of 30% for example and why would people need to bank abroad ?

Completely flawed argument. The wealthy in the main have no moral compass. They would still employ tax experts to find 'legal' loopholes to avoid any burden to contribute to the UK treasury. The average wage earner is their equivalent of the worker ant or drone bee. Theirs to use and exploit.

If this sound like a socialist stand point, you may well be right. I was a staunch Conservative until Camoron took the reigns. Granted the country was left in a complete mess by Labour, who now point the finger at their mates in the banking industry. However, none of the 3 main parties have any interest in 'average' wage earners bettering their lot. It would not make economic or social sense.

Finally some substance.

I do agree in principle but isn't this part of the issue with a 4 year term ? who is going to be the one to take the wrap in order to bring everything back in order ?
I am not so sure that high earners would bank abroad, we are mixing high earners with corperates and capital gains tax now ? High earners look for loopholes as they pay too much tax, its quite simple. You shouldn't expect someone to pay more than half they earn in tax, that is also morally wrong, just like starbucks and the like pay zero tax.
We need a sweeping amount so all pay the same at certain levels and this amount shouldn't be disproportionate to other countries making it hard to run a global HQ in the UK.

mr_goo

VTech wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

VTech wrote:

If we came to an understanding that although not legally wrong, but hugely morally wrong we could all work together for a top cap of 30% for example and why would people need to bank abroad ?

Completely flawed argument. The wealthy in the main have no moral compass. They would still employ tax experts to find 'legal' loopholes to avoid any burden to contribute to the UK treasury. The average wage earner is their equivalent of the worker ant or drone bee. Theirs to use and exploit.

If this sound like a socialist stand point, you may well be right. I was a staunch Conservative until Camoron took the reigns. Granted the country was left in a complete mess by Labour, who now point the finger at their mates in the banking industry. However, none of the 3 main parties have any interest in 'average' wage earners bettering their lot. It would not make economic or social sense.

Finally some substance.

I do agree in principle but isn't this part of the issue with a 4 year term ? who is going to be the one to take the wrap in order to bring everything back in order ?
I am not so sure that high earners would bank abroad, we are mixing high earners with corperates and capital gains tax now ? High earners look for loopholes as they pay too much tax, its quite simple. You shouldn't expect someone to pay more than half they earn in tax, that is also morally wrong, just like starbucks and the like pay zero tax.
We need a sweeping amount so all pay the same at certain levels and this amount shouldn't be disproportionate to other countries making it hard to run a global HQ in the UK.

It isn't just the high earners and corporates that avoid taxation. My brother in law is in the band up from the basic rate (is that 40%? I don't know). But he doesn't earn 6 figures, yet for years he and his fellow directors have exploited loopholes, to the extent where their spouses were phantom employees to take away some of their tax burden.

Most of us on average wages, probably do sound like we are envious. And it is probably true in a sense, because we are not in the position where we can exploit the situation.

Here's a social class ladder for you that I came up with a while back:

Under - Person that has no interest in working and content to collect and survive on benefits for entire lifetime.

Working - Person on minimum to £45k pa. Entitled to some benefits to assist with living costs. If this person lost their job it would have sufficient impact to put them under financial stress. Any financial settlement would soon be eaten away. Any upward adjustments to taxation or interest rates would also have severe implications.

Middle - Higher earners to Super Wealthy. Some are able to exploit their situation to the full in taxation terms. Some of these are our friends in the banking industry. If they lost their job, there may be some impact to their financial stability, but most would be sufficiently recompensed not to be in any financial dire straights in the immediate future or would have built up considerable funds for a 'rainy day'.

Upper - I believe there are very few in this category. This is the landed gentry if you will. Do not need to hold any position in the work place, other than perhaps invitations to positions or a tradition of filling certain roles in public life.

Simplistic, and can be ripped to pieces if you wish, but I don't think I am that far off the mark.

ugo.santalucia

madasahattersley wrote:

£45k still counts as working class on your ladder. Not a serious earner myself yet, but growing up I knew people who lived in households taking home that kind of money, and they lived in another world to the one I lived in.

Depends where you live. In London is just above working class... you can afford to rent a flat in a nice area or to buy one in a less nice area, you can afford to go on holiday, keep a car, eat out occasionally and that's about it

VTech

Mr Goo wrote:

VTech wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

VTech wrote:

If we came to an understanding that although not legally wrong, but hugely morally wrong we could all work together for a top cap of 30% for example and why would people need to bank abroad ?

Completely flawed argument. The wealthy in the main have no moral compass. They would still employ tax experts to find 'legal' loopholes to avoid any burden to contribute to the UK treasury. The average wage earner is their equivalent of the worker ant or drone bee. Theirs to use and exploit.

If this sound like a socialist stand point, you may well be right. I was a staunch Conservative until Camoron took the reigns. Granted the country was left in a complete mess by Labour, who now point the finger at their mates in the banking industry. However, none of the 3 main parties have any interest in 'average' wage earners bettering their lot. It would not make economic or social sense.

Finally some substance.

I do agree in principle but isn't this part of the issue with a 4 year term ? who is going to be the one to take the wrap in order to bring everything back in order ?
I am not so sure that high earners would bank abroad, we are mixing high earners with corperates and capital gains tax now ? High earners look for loopholes as they pay too much tax, its quite simple. You shouldn't expect someone to pay more than half they earn in tax, that is also morally wrong, just like starbucks and the like pay zero tax.
We need a sweeping amount so all pay the same at certain levels and this amount shouldn't be disproportionate to other countries making it hard to run a global HQ in the UK.

It isn't just the high earners and corporates that avoid taxation. My brother in law is in the band up from the basic rate (is that 40%? I don't know). But he doesn't earn 6 figures, yet for years he and his fellow directors have exploited loopholes, to the extent where their spouses were phantom employees to take away some of their tax burden.

Most of us on average wages, probably do sound like we are envious. And it is probably true in a sense, because we are not in the position where we can exploit the situation.

Here's a social class ladder for you that I came up with a while back:

Under - Person that has no interest in working and content to collect and survive on benefits for entire lifetime.

Working - Person on minimum to £45k pa. Entitled to some benefits to assist with living costs. If this person lost their job it would have sufficient impact to put them under financial stress. Any financial settlement would soon be eaten away. Any upward adjustments to taxation or interest rates would also have severe implications.

Middle - Higher earners to Super Wealthy. Some are able to exploit their situation to the full in taxation terms. Some of these are our friends in the banking industry. If they lost their job, there may be some impact to their financial stability, but most would be sufficiently recompensed not to be in any financial dire straights in the immediate future or would have built up considerable funds for a 'rainy day'.

Upper - I believe there are very few in this category. This is the landed gentry if you will. Do not need to hold any position in the work place, other than perhaps invitations to positions or a tradition of filling certain roles in public life.

Simplistic, and can be ripped to pieces if you wish, but I don't think I am that far off the mark.

"I" couldn't disagree with any of that but to answer the part about your brother, he shouldnt be paying 40% should he ?
On top of that 40% is unto 18% on national insurance leaving him 42% for his hard work. That isn't fair and brings about the need to look for loopholes.
If someone earning £100k a year gets paid only £42k where is the incentive to do better ? The incentive is to get more of the cash THEY are earning and I wouldn't argue with them trying to pay less.
We need to pay less tax but make more of us pay, we would definitely be better off as a country.

Ill be honest with you, I dislike paying a lot of tax when others are happy to claim benefits yet I need to employ staff to do unskilled work when these unemployed could work for me or others business owners and contribute.
I think thats the key word, "contribution" we should all feel happy in that we do this yet so many don't want too. wether that be by the unemployed and lazy or by the super rich companies who don't feel they need too.

sloppyschleckonds

Jesus wept….

VTech

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

Jesus wept….

Did you hear him offer any advice to the subject at the same time ?

pinno

Ballysmate wrote:

There is a thread on here about poverty and relative poverty somewhere so this is a bit of déjà vu really.
People on here bemoan the inequality of wealth. It is true, there is inequality and always will be. They cite the super rich and claim,’It’s not fair!’ They think that the rich should somehow have money taken off them and given to the poor..

Therein lies the most one dimensional of arguments. Eva Peron?
It's not about giving money to the poor. It's about investing in infrastructure; schools, housing, communications, road, rail, health, education etc. Typically, the UK re-invests profits at less than 2% whereas in Germany, the levels are around 6 to 8% - who's doing better?
The Super rich do not become super rich in a vacuum. Their wealth is derived from the society in which they operate.
Capitalism requires the canon fodder to man the factories during prosperity and they becomeunwanted flotsam and jetson during recession. The problem in the UK is that we have underinvested for so long we have created a permanent underclass who have no conception of working for a living but that is another argument.

Ballysmate wrote:

But it is relative isn’t it? The gulf between the wealth of posters on here and Sugar, Branson etc is huge, but so is the gulf between the poverty stricken and someone sat in a warm 3 bed semi typing on a keyboard. Should their wealth be equalised or do people only advocate wealth sharing for people with more money than themselves?
Why stop at the border, lets share our wealth with our third world brothers and make everyone equal, or do your principles stop before selling your homes to feed the starving?
If you could redistribute this countries wealth to make everyone equal, to the last pound, how long do you think it would take for the first millionaire to emerge? My guess is, not long. That is not just human nature, but nature itself, survival of the fittest.
Life isn’t always fair, people. You don’t always get what you deserve.
If you want financial equality, go live in a commune and start the day with a group hug..

The paranoid right. Makes me laugh. I am not asking to feed the starving. The super rich have gained their wealth through us. Unless you live in a commune yourself, chances are you buy energy from some oligarch or some OPEC state intent on squeezing the maximum out of you. On the other side of the coin, we have so underinvested in housing and energy, we are being held to ransom and it is partly our fault.
Society does not benefit from individuals having a value of x billion. Through the taxation system, tax havens and a complete lack of an international banking ethic, the super rich have literally become too rich and worse too powerful. If I halved their income and spread it downwards, they would not suffer one iota but the money put back into the system - wherever that 'system' may be, would benefit enormously.

Ballysmate wrote:

Having said all that, I believe in a fair tax regime and a viable welfare system, to safeguard those who are unfortunate. Again, there are numerous threads, discussing what is a viable welfare system.
People like Vtech and the Kingpin of Scottish Recycling undoubtedly have more money than me, but I don’t cast envious glances at them.

My Recycling Organisation is a super metaphor for the ills created by capitalism and the imbalance in our society. It is also an acid test of wrong priorities.
We employ people with learning difficulties, mental health problems, addiction problems, ex cons - anyone really. It costs the Scottish Government £47k per year to maintain someone on a Methadone program. It costs the Scottish Government £30 extra per alcoholic on top of the benefits they already receive. We work hard to keep theses people on the straight and narrow and in the long term, help them back into society and or employment. The cost of Sectioning someone with mental health problems is astronomical. You would be surprised at the class and type of people who walk through our door.
I do not earn much. I claim Working Tax Credits - without which i would have to find another job despite often working 45+ hours per week. I would rather not claim WTC. When I and my organisation is saving the state so much money by keeping people on the 'straight and narrow' can I not earn a proper living wage?
Our role is key to reducing costs, helping the afflicted and we are one of many having to deal with those who cannot compete in the Capitalist horse race of winner and loosers? There is huge imbalances in our society and until you experience the lives of those at the bottom of the scale, you can sit in your ivory towers and spout one dimensional bollox.

VTech

pinarello001 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

There is a thread on here about poverty and relative poverty somewhere so this is a bit of déjà vu really.
People on here bemoan the inequality of wealth. It is true, there is inequality and always will be. They cite the super rich and claim,’It’s not fair!’ They think that the rich should somehow have money taken off them and given to the poor..

Therein lies the most one dimensional of arguments. Eva Peron?
It's not about giving money to the poor. It's about investing in infrastructure; schools, housing, communications, road, rail, health, education etc. Typically, the UK re-invests profits at less than 2% whereas in Germany, the levels are around 6 to 8% - who's doing better?
The Super rich do not become super rich in a vacuum. Their wealth is derived from the society in which they operate.
Capitalism requires the canon fodder to man the factories during prosperity and they becomeunwanted flotsam and jetson during recession. The problem in the UK is that we have underinvested for so long we have created a permanent underclass who have no conception of working for a living but that is another argument.

Ballysmate wrote:

But it is relative isn’t it? The gulf between the wealth of posters on here and Sugar, Branson etc is huge, but so is the gulf between the poverty stricken and someone sat in a warm 3 bed semi typing on a keyboard. Should their wealth be equalised or do people only advocate wealth sharing for people with more money than themselves?
Why stop at the border, lets share our wealth with our third world brothers and make everyone equal, or do your principles stop before selling your homes to feed the starving?
If you could redistribute this countries wealth to make everyone equal, to the last pound, how long do you think it would take for the first millionaire to emerge? My guess is, not long. That is not just human nature, but nature itself, survival of the fittest.
Life isn’t always fair, people. You don’t always get what you deserve.
If you want financial equality, go live in a commune and start the day with a group hug..

The paranoid right. Makes me laugh. I am not asking to feed the starving. The super rich have gained their wealth through us. Unless you live in a commune yourself, chances are you buy energy from some oligarch or some OPEC state intent on squeezing the maximum out of you. On the other side of the coin, we have so underinvested in housing and energy, we are being held to ransom and it is partly our fault.
Society does not benefit from individuals having a value of x billion. Through the taxation system, tax havens and a complete lack of an international banking ethic, the super rich have literally become too rich and worse too powerful. If I halved their income and spread it downwards, they would not suffer one iota but the money put back into the system - wherever that 'system' may be, would benefit enormously.

Ballysmate wrote:

Having said all that, I believe in a fair tax regime and a viable welfare system, to safeguard those who are unfortunate. Again, there are numerous threads, discussing what is a viable welfare system.
People like Vtech and the Kingpin of Scottish Recycling undoubtedly have more money than me, but I don’t cast envious glances at them.

My Recycling Organisation is a super metaphor for the ills created by capitalism and the imbalance in our society. It is also an acid test of wrong priorities.
We employ people with learning difficulties, mental health problems, addiction problems, ex cons - anyone really. It costs the Scottish Government £47k per year to maintain someone on a Methadone program. It costs the Scottish Government £30 extra per alcoholic on top of the benefits they already receive. We work hard to keep theses people on the straight and narrow and in the long term, help them back into society and or employment. The cost of Sectioning someone with mental health problems is astronomical. You would be surprised at the class and type of people who walk through our door.
I do not earn much. I claim Working Tax Credits - without which i would have to find another job despite often working 45+ hours per week. I would rather not claim WTC. When I and my organisation is saving the state so much money by keeping people on the 'straight and narrow' can I not earn a proper living wage?
Our role is key to reducing costs, helping the afflicted and we are one of many having to deal with those who cannot compete in the Capitalist horse race of winner and loosers? There is huge imbalances in our society and until you experience the lives of those at the bottom of the scale, you can sit in your ivory towers and spout one dimensional bollox.

I don't think ballysmate was trying to argue anything against the points you have made.
If the likes of shloppyseconds and matc59 bothered to read my posts here and others I've made on the subject they would realise that yours is a point in I have listed before (not exactly yours but your position).
I have a friends on the firearms squad in london who lives outside of london as he can't afford a house near where he works. You have to claim credits which I agree with in terms of allowance but disagree with in terms of need.
Why should someone working in the community for the good of others struggle ?

So many short minded people here (which is valid of the country so worthwhile discussing) think to blame the high earners when in fact that isn't the issue.

We need fairness, both for the high earners to pay a fair amount and the lazy to pay something.
For the middle classes to be able to afford a car, a house and a holiday a year and for the super rich corperates to be able to pay here.

As others have said, there seems to be no middle ground so whilst many blame firms like starbucks we have to realise what choice do they have ?
They can pay nothing as they have done for 7 years or pay around 75% total.

Surely common sense would be a system like the IRS in the USA where a deal can be done, lets say 30% flat, no option to bank abroad, what they earn in the state is paid in the state.
No loopholes, just fairness.

Think about it, it makes sense.
Even del boy could work that out !

mr_goo

Until their is a sea change in worldwide society and economics then there will always be this argument.
I refer you all to Star Trek Next Generations. Where Jean Luc Picard revealed that it wasn't until the world did away with money and everyone worked for the common good that humanity was able to advance.
Fiction or Fairy Tale, I think there is something to be learnt from that.

VTech

Mr Goo wrote:

Until their is a sea change in worldwide society and economics then there will always be this argument.
I refer you all to Star Trek Next Generations. Where Jean Luc Picard revealed that it wasn't until the world did away with money and everyone worked for the common good that humanity was able to advance.
Fiction or Fairy Tale, I think there is something to be learnt from that.

I have been known to quote the Matrix, Agent Smith statement of Humans being locusts and the destroyer of earth.
Funny how films are in fact reality, the more fiction the closer to realism.

ugo.santalucia

Mr Goo wrote:

Until their is a sea change in worldwide society and economics then there will always be this argument.
I refer you all to Star Trek Next Generations. Where Jean Luc Picard revealed that it wasn't until the world did away with money and everyone worked for the common good that humanity was able to advance.
Fiction or Fairy Tale, I think there is something to be learnt from that.

Wouldn't work...
If we were sheep or cattle or bees it would work, as they like to live as a big bunch. Humans like to live in restricted families, like the monkeys we are... and fight neighbouring families for territory... common good doesn't work biologically, until someone manipulate human DNA and fit a couple of bee genes

arran77

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Wouldn't work...
If we were sheep or cattle or bees it would work, as they like to live as a big bunch. Humans like to live in restricted families, like the monkeys we are... and fight neighbouring families for territory... common good doesn't work biologically, until someone manipulate human DNA and fit a couple of bee genes

It's already happened, after all people here seem to be agreed that fiction often contains a lot of truth

junglist_matty

If I had a few mil in the bank, let alone 400m, this is my dream (skip to 29.57):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... 2_01_2014/

Stevo_666

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Until their is a sea change in worldwide society and economics then there will always be this argument.
I refer you all to Star Trek Next Generations. Where Jean Luc Picard revealed that it wasn't until the world did away with money and everyone worked for the common good that humanity was able to advance.
Fiction or Fairy Tale, I think there is something to be learnt from that.

Wouldn't work...
If we were sheep or cattle or bees it would work, as they like to live as a big bunch. Humans like to live in restricted families, like the monkeys we are... and fight neighbouring families for territory... common good doesn't work biologically, until someone manipulate human DNA and fit a couple of bee genes

This is why socialism in the varying degrees proposed by some on here doesn't and will never work - it goes against too may fundamentals of human nature.

To those advocating extracting ever increasing amounts of tax from the wealthy and corporates - sorry it is counterproductive as they are finding out yet again in parts of Europe just now.

Much of what you seek to tax is 'mobile capital' and if attacked too much it will go elsewhere, find way around it - or not come in the first place. Human nature. People dispute that but I've worked in quite a few multinationals and, yes, tax is one of the factors in deciding where to site economic activity. A lot of countries are sensible enough to realise that a reasonable percentage of something is better than a high percentage of nothing. In the long term, you will get more tax if you keep rates at a reasonable level as it encourages investment, jobs etc. But some people never seem to learn.

A few other practical examples:
- Take a look at the number of French professionals and business people living in the UK - London is effectively the 5th or 6th largest French city by population of French people. Why are they here? Well it's not because the food, wine or weather is better than Paris It's because they are getting taxed to hell and the government is overtly anti-business. Result: Frances loses all of the tax revenue from these people.
- The Inland Revenue also did a survey recently on the impact of the 50% income tax rate on tax revenues: their own conclusion: naff all.

I had an exchange of views with some lefty type on here a while ago and asked him to spell out in a bit of detail how he would do things better than the current set up. Got no reply. Anyone here care to set out the business case for socialist utopia?

sloppyschleckonds

VTech wrote:

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

Jesus wept….

Did you hear him offer any advice to the subject at the same time ?

Yes, but only to those intelligent enough to understand and comprehend.

VTech

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

VTech wrote:

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

Jesus wept….

Did you hear him offer any advice to the subject at the same time ?

Yes, but only to those intelligent enough to understand and comprehend.

Read the reply from Steve666 above and if you can truly argue the point of his post I will bow my head in shame.
Actually what you may or may not do is to either post another daft reply like several others or argue that he is wrong. Either way ill chuckle to myself as I figure out what I am going to get to put myself into yet more debt on this self gratifying ride I call life. It's my birthday this week. I am sure I deserve something ?

pinno

Stevo 666 wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Until their is a sea change in worldwide society and economics then there will always be this argument.

I had an exchange of views with some lefty type on here a while ago and asked him to spell out in a bit of detail how he would do things better than the current set up. Got no reply. Anyone here care to set out the business case for socialist utopia?

You are blinkered like a lot of right wing people. You seem to think the only alternative to the current capitalist economy is socialism. The current global order has plunged billions of people into poverty and it is a direct consequence of exploitation of raw materials, people, goods and services.
There is no 'utopia' not under capitalism and not under socialism. What exists is a phenominal inbalance of the share of wealth. Too few have too much and too many have too little. It is imperative that the balane is addressed. I do not think that humanity has a snow flake in hell's chance because of the unsustainable use of resources. In my mind, capitalism in direct parallel to globilisation, has become unchecked and out of control because there is no international ethic when it comes to banking and finance so the mega rich exploit every avenue to hold on to their wealth - the very wealth derived from ordinary people.
In countries where the taxation system is fairer (I did not say Fair), the greater population do much better.

Read the Spirit Level - I doubt any of the right wing protagonists would because they would immediately dismiss the book as lefty propoganda but it isn't and it has huge relevance.

mr_goo

I heard on the radio before Christmas somebody from a government think tank stating that the general population should not expect to pass on any inheritance to their children. This due to the ever aging population and the need to fund care.
Another social engineering statement applied to the 'average Joe' that will not affect the wealthy.

Giraffoto

Mr Goo wrote:

I heard on the radio before Christmas somebody from a government think tank stating that the general population should not expect to pass on any inheritance to their children. This due to the ever aging population and the need to fund care.
Another social engineering statement applied to the 'average Joe' that will not affect the wealthy.

Leaving aside the question of how far up the scale of wealth this will be the case, it's not altogether a bad thing. The money will be in the economy, rather than being held immobile from one generation to the next. Offspring will be motivated to make something of themselves. I did know someone whose long term plan was not to succeed in his own right but to wait for the old man to pop his clogs, and cash in. When Senior instead married a gold digger less than half his age I distinctly remember thinking, good for you!

ballysmate

pinarello001 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

There is a thread on here about poverty and relative poverty somewhere so this is a bit of déjà vu really.
People on here bemoan the inequality of wealth. It is true, there is inequality and always will be. They cite the super rich and claim,’It’s not fair!’ They think that the rich should somehow have money taken off them and given to the poor..

Therein lies the most one dimensional of arguments. Eva Peron?
It's not about giving money to the poor. It's about investing in infrastructure; schools, housing, communications, road, rail, health, education etc. Typically, the UK re-invests profits at less than 2% whereas in Germany, the levels are around 6 to 8% - who's doing better?
The Super rich do not become super rich in a vacuum. Their wealth is derived from the society in which they operate.
Capitalism requires the canon fodder to man the factories during prosperity and they becomeunwanted flotsam and jetson during recession. The problem in the UK is that we have underinvested for so long we have created a permanent underclass who have no conception of working for a living but that is another argument.

Ballysmate wrote:

But it is relative isn’t it? The gulf between the wealth of posters on here and Sugar, Branson etc is huge, but so is the gulf between the poverty stricken and someone sat in a warm 3 bed semi typing on a keyboard. Should their wealth be equalised or do people only advocate wealth sharing for people with more money than themselves?
Why stop at the border, lets share our wealth with our third world brothers and make everyone equal, or do your principles stop before selling your homes to feed the starving?
If you could redistribute this countries wealth to make everyone equal, to the last pound, how long do you think it would take for the first millionaire to emerge? My guess is, not long. That is not just human nature, but nature itself, survival of the fittest.
Life isn’t always fair, people. You don’t always get what you deserve.
If you want financial equality, go live in a commune and start the day with a group hug..

The paranoid right. Makes me laugh. I am not asking to feed the starving. The super rich have gained their wealth through us. Unless you live in a commune yourself, chances are you buy energy from some oligarch or some OPEC state intent on squeezing the maximum out of you. On the other side of the coin, we have so underinvested in housing and energy, we are being held to ransom and it is partly our fault.
Society does not benefit from individuals having a value of x billion. Through the taxation system, tax havens and a complete lack of an international banking ethic, the super rich have literally become too rich and worse too powerful. If I halved their income and spread it downwards, they would not suffer one iota but the money put back into the system - wherever that 'system' may be, would benefit enormously.

Ballysmate wrote:

Having said all that, I believe in a fair tax regime and a viable welfare system, to safeguard those who are unfortunate. Again, there are numerous threads, discussing what is a viable welfare system.
People like Vtech and the Kingpin of Scottish Recycling undoubtedly have more money than me, but I don’t cast envious glances at them.

My Recycling Organisation is a super metaphor for the ills created by capitalism and the imbalance in our society. It is also an acid test of wrong priorities.
We employ people with learning difficulties, mental health problems, addiction problems, ex cons - anyone really. It costs the Scottish Government £47k per year to maintain someone on a Methadone program. It costs the Scottish Government £30 extra per alcoholic on top of the benefits they already receive. We work hard to keep theses people on the straight and narrow and in the long term, help them back into society and or employment. The cost of Sectioning someone with mental health problems is astronomical. You would be surprised at the class and type of people who walk through our door.
I do not earn much. I claim Working Tax Credits - without which i would have to find another job despite often working 45+ hours per week. I would rather not claim WTC. When I and my organisation is saving the state so much money by keeping people on the 'straight and narrow' can I not earn a proper living wage?
Our role is key to reducing costs, helping the afflicted and we are one of many having to deal with those who cannot compete in the Capitalist horse race of winner and loosers? There is huge imbalances in our society and until you experience the lives of those at the bottom of the scale, you can sit in your ivory towers and spout one dimensional bollox.

I thought the Kingpin crack was over egging the pudding but whoa, I'm gonna need a bigger boat.

sloppyschleckonds

VTech wrote:

It's my birthday this week. I am sure I deserve something ?

A life?

VTech

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

VTech wrote:

It's my birthday this week. I am sure I deserve something ?

A life?

How did you guess ?
Anything more to add ?
/me chuckling loudly.

sloppyschleckonds

VTech wrote:

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

VTech wrote:

It's my birthday this week. I am sure I deserve something ?

A life?

How did you guess ?
Anything more to add ?
/me chuckling loudly.

No, I find you extremely boring. At least try and give it a couple of minutes before replying as it makes you appear quite desperate.

Enjoy your birthday. Post some more about your philanthropy efforts.

VTech

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

VTech wrote:

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

VTech wrote:

It's my birthday this week. I am sure I deserve something ?

A life?

How did you guess ?
Anything more to add ?
/me chuckling loudly.

No, I find you extremely boring. At least try and give it a couple of minutes before replying as it makes you appear quite desperate.

Enjoy your birthday. Post some more about your philanthropy efforts.

You haven't got a clue. Truth is, you don't know me yet make judgements. You mark me as someone who does everything for me but couldn't be further from the truth and yet you revel in it.
Remember this, I have never followed you onto a thread you made. !

Anyway, boring as I may be, I put my neck on the line for my beliefs and back it up with words, wether that be agreeable to you or not, its better than "get a life" statements made by others :?:
Reality is, I did something at xmas that I have never done before and feel great about it. you don't know what this was and you don't need to know but it is very funny from my side reading your comments when they are so very wrong. I may post pics of my present to myself at the weekend if to do nothing more than to p[55 you off.
On the other hand, I may not.

nathancom

No, you talk a load of old balls.

Edit: I tried to be more constructive but nothing else quite summed up what I thought about the garbage you are spewing.

arran77

This is the classic VTech of old that we all love

arthur_scrimshaw

arran77 wrote:

This is the classic VTech of old that we all love

I have a theory that VTech is just a marketing creation by Future Publishing designed to generate site traffic?

arran77

Arthur Scrimshaw wrote:

arran77 wrote:

This is the classic VTech of old that we all love

I have a theory that VTech is just a marketing creation by Future Publishing designed to generate site traffic?

Quite possibly