Got a spare €400m ?

Stevo_666

bernithebiker wrote:

nathancom wrote:

There is no great trick in being an entrepreneur - generally it requires either a) money from another source b) a strong enough desire to get rich c) a willingness to screw over your fellow human beings to get rich d) a combination of the above.

Brilliant!

Wonderful stuff. This is the general feeling in France too, and it's what's killing the country.

So when you buy bike stuff from your bike shop or Wiggle, etc. do you do it through clenched teeth whilst cursing those entrepreneurial b^&tards?
When you call a plumber round to fix that leak, are you secretly hating him for having started his own business?
If you go for a week with Alpcycles, Col Conquerors, etc. are you seething that they're doing it just to screw you over?

What about Rapha, Hope and USE? How dare they leech off us all, and try and make stuff in the UK! I certainly won't be buying anything from them, cos I can't bear the thought of making them rich!

Entrepreneurs and businesses are everywhere, and part of the fabric of life. They drive the economy. The alternative is to be in public service, unemployed or hey, guess what, working for those nasty entrepreneurs.

+1. Incredible how people can hold these views isn't it Just as well he is in a tiny minority.

@Nathancom - are you an employee? Who do you think creates jobs so people can earn money and pay taxes? Do you think that companies just magic themselves out of the ground and give jobs to the workers?

Without these poeple you despise you and all of us would almost certainly be a lot worse off.

verylonglegs

Seems to me there is some confusion over high earners and entrepreneurs...they are not necessarily the same thing yet some talk as if they are. There are CEO's earning millions as head of large corporations where any entrepreneurial spirit has long since passed and they had nothing to do with its creation to begin with. The bloke who owns a couple of fish and chip restaurants by the coast is more of an entrepreneur than the top guy at Vodafone now.

nathancom

Stevo 666 wrote:

bernithebiker wrote:

nathancom wrote:

There is no great trick in being an entrepreneur - generally it requires either a) money from another source b) a strong enough desire to get rich c) a willingness to screw over your fellow human beings to get rich d) a combination of the above.

Brilliant!

Wonderful stuff. This is the general feeling in France too, and it's what's killing the country.

So when you buy bike stuff from your bike shop or Wiggle, etc. do you do it through clenched teeth whilst cursing those entrepreneurial b^&tards?
When you call a plumber round to fix that leak, are you secretly hating him for having started his own business?
If you go for a week with Alpcycles, Col Conquerors, etc. are you seething that they're doing it just to screw you over?

What about Rapha, Hope and USE? How dare they leech off us all, and try and make stuff in the UK! I certainly won't be buying anything from them, cos I can't bear the thought of making them rich!

Entrepreneurs and businesses are everywhere, and part of the fabric of life. They drive the economy. The alternative is to be in public service, unemployed or hey, guess what, working for those nasty entrepreneurs.

+1. Incredible how people can hold these views isn't it Just as well he is in a tiny minority.

@Nathancom - are you an employee? Who do you think creates jobs so people can earn money and pay taxes? Do you think that companies just magic themselves out of the ground and give jobs to the workers?

Without these poeple you despise you and all of us would almost certainly be a lot worse off.

I don't get why you think it is such a difficult or amazing thing to run a business. They even had businesses that provided employment in non Capitalist countries. I don't despise business owners, I just don't think they need to be raised into a special category like you Tory boys seem to enjoy doing. Economies exist without letting the rich squeeze the poor and I am in favour of higher wages, Trade Union representation on boards and state funded investment banks.

pinno

verylonglegs wrote:

Seems to me there is some confusion over high earners and entrepreneurs...they are not necessarily the same thing yet some talk as if they are. There are CEO's earning millions as head of large corporations where any entrepreneurial spirit has long since passed and they had nothing to do with its creation to begin with. The bloke who owns a couple of fish and chip restaurants by the coast is more of an entrepreneur than the top guy at Vodafone now.

Thank you.

Mikey23

That's why Vodafone don't do fish and chips...

Stevo_666

pinarello001 wrote:

Our taxation system is regressive. We pay probably as much as the Scandinavians in back door, indirect taxation, skewed to suit the better off. .

Wrong.
Our tax system is progressive. here are the facts according to the Inland Revenues: see summary page 8
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/statistics/tax-statistics/liabilities.pdf
• average rates of tax were 12.5% for basic rate taxpayers, 23.1% for higher rate taxpayers, and 39.9% for additional rate taxpayers.
• the richest 50% of taxpayers by total income accounted for a 76.5% share of total income and 88.7% of tax liabilities.
• the richest 1% of taxpayers by total income accounted for a 11.5% share of total income and 25.0% of tax liabilities.
• 61.3% of tax liabilities were due on taxable incomes falling within the basic rate tax band, 23.9% in the higher rate band, and 14.7% in the additional rate

What bit of the above is regressive?

Indirect tax is higher in Scandanavia - VAT rates in all 4 Scandies are 25% plays UK 20%. Their VAT rules are broadly similar to our in terms of what they add VAT to as VAT is an EU tax. Petrol, fags and booze are heavily taxed there as well.

BTW you hold up the Scandies as a model but all they are is capitlaist countries with a bigger welfare state. Your ideas go further and are not consistent with a Scandie model. I showed the tax rates there - corporate tax rates are low and falling. They have low market regulation and low barriers to free trade. They are home to some overy well know major multinationals - Volvo, Nokia, Ericsson. Their success is not due to high taxes - have a read of this:
http://www.cityam.com/article/success-scandinavia-owes-nothing-high-taxes-or-welfare

pinarello001 wrote:

Mr and Mrs Smith earn 20k per annum combined income, above WTC's threshold.
£9440 is tax free.
Tax and NI contributions on the remaining £10560 is approx. £2640
Road tax 1 car: £180 pa
Council tax: £1100 pa
Fuel Duty on £45 per week petrol: £2035.80 pa
Grocery VAT bill on £80 food shopping per week: £208 pa
Fuel tax on annual energy bill of £1200 - £96
TV License - £145.50
Arbitrary VAT bill on car parts, goods, services, repairs £500

Total tax bill: £6095.30 - percentage of income: 34.5%

Mortgage: £800 per month. Expendable income, £4304 pa or £87 per week.

Mr and Mrs Smythe, combined income. £39k per annum (below 40% threshold same outgoings as Mr and Mrs Smith,

Income Tax: £5030. Total tax bill: £9295.30 - percentage of income 23%

Expendable income: £386 per week.

Low wage - High cost economy with regressive taxation system.

As mentioned by others, cars are optional which takes out a massive chunk of VAT and there is no VAT on most food apart the luxury stuff. Add to that, the first couple in your example will be entitled to tax credits which reduces their tax 'rate' considerably. You're cherry picking facts to fit your position which also calls into question your other tax claims...

pinarello001 wrote:

It is not necessarily about political ideology, it is about a culture that is lecherous. We can cure a huge number of ills through fiscal policies that are fairer and we need to close tax loopholes. Amazon and Starbucks make millions in profit and pay sweet FA. Wrong, wrong, wrong - totally wrong. .

I agree you're wrong. They pay tens of millions of VAT, business rates, national insurance and the people they employ pay tens of millions in income tax. Corporate tax represents less than 10% of the total UK tax take. The problem is with the legislators - the companies you mention have done nothing illegal.

pinarello001 wrote:

I listened in earnest to a report about Thames Water who do not re-invest but pay huge dividends to avoid tax on their profits. Essential public services screwing joe public whilst paying very little tax and they are not alone.

So wrong it hurts! Here are the facts:
1. It's already been pointed out that it's legally impossible to reduce your tax bill by paying dividends. Dividends are not and never have been tax deductible.
2. Here are the last thames water accounts: see note 8 on page 75:
http://www.thameswater.co.uk/tw/common/downloads/aboutus-financial/thames-water-utilities-limited-annual-report-and-financial-statements-31-march-2013.pdf
The reason why they have not paid tax is because of capital allowances. Sorry if you already know this but capital allowances are the tax deduction allowed by UK tax law when a business - any business - invests in 'fixed assets' - thinkgs like machinery, equipement, computers, furniture. This is not even tax planning - you get the allowances automatically when you fill in your tax return stating what assets you buy. It is the Governments incentive for business to invest more. So, what we have is a company doing the right thing and investing - what you want - and getting panned because of it. If they invested less they would pay more tax. Which way do you want it?

pinarello001 wrote:

I do not know for the life of me why you keep reverting back to Communism and Totalitarianism. Maybe that is what your fear is rather then a rational debate about the problems with rampant greed and over consumption of resources.

Read my post again, I didn't say that.

pinarello001 wrote:

You have failed to address my key questions about the over consumption of resources and sustainability and how capitalism is driving that consumption..

I have - and I told you the biggest issue by a long way is that there are too many people. The number of super rich is so small a percentage of the global economy that it is not the key problem. Look at the Inland revenue link above - of the entire UK population, 236,000 are paying top rate tax out of a population of about 60 million. That's 0.4%. Of those how many are the super rich?

pinarello001 wrote:

You make statements about human nature that are not true - capitalism has split society ever since the Industrial Revolution. It has also been the driver of population increase. If what you say is true that 'I'm alright Jack' attitude, why isn't everybody leaving Sweden, Germany and Japan in their droves?

pinarello001 wrote:

Show me some emigration data and we can have a decent discussion.

pinarello001 wrote:

You also bang on about 'Regimes' ?! Can we talk about taxation, imbalances, inequalities, consumerism, materialism, resource depletion, the super rich without retorting to paranoid fears of some sort of dictatorship?
Fiscal and housing policy can shape every aspect of our lives without mention of some irrational Orwelian scenario.

Fine, show me some verifiable facts then. You've talked about these a lot but how can debate what are only your unsupported assertions? See also what I said above about misunderstanding my earlier post.

I have at least backed up my statement where I can with links to the facts. You have not.

I'll come back on the level of investment point as I'm looking for some facts

Stevo_666

pinarello001 wrote:

The Germans do well because of their investment in infrastructure and re-investment levels, both corporate and non-corporate of on average 4-6% as opposed to the UK with it's paultry 1.5%.

Looks like the Germans have had historically high levels of infrastructure investment - according to this report is largely driven by the level of investment required after unification, i.e bringing East Germany up to West German standards. Remind me again about the political set up in East Germany pre unification.
http://planning.brookes.ac.uk/research/spg/projects/infrastructure/resources/Infrastructure%20investment%20in%20international%20comparison.ppt

pinarello001 wrote:

I have also mentioned the high cost/low wage economy in the UK - this is critical. Portugal, Spain, Greece, Italy are all low cost/low wage economies. Germany, France, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Austria, Switzerland are all high wage/high cost societies with coincidentally high standards of living.
We are alone in Europe with our low wage/high cost economy.

You have, but yet again you're wrong. Here are the facts on diposable income per head by country:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_per_capita_personal_income
The UK is fourth behind the following countries:
- USA - rather capitalist
- Switzerland - well known tax haven and bankers paradise
- Germany.
UK is ahead of every single other country you list.

Care to repeat your claim that we are low wage, high cost?

You keep making claims, I'll keep knocking them down.

nathancom

We should be looking at an additional mansion tax as well to claw back some of the expenses Tory MPs claimed to fund their duck houses. Seriously though, a progressive tax system is one that seeks to redistribute wealth. Your statistics do not provide us with a view of the total incomes of the top 1%, top 10% etc so without that information it is not clear which groups are paying more than their share. Anyway, the accountants of the rich are skilled at evading tax liabilities so no doubt much income tax that would be due never comes close to HMRC coffers, despite the rich gaining far more from our society than the poor ever do. The rich gain most from our country so have a duty to pay most.


That last set of data is fairly much worthless Wikipedia fodder that doesn't mean much and is nowhere near comprehensive.

Stevo_666

nathancom wrote:

We should be looking at an additional mansion tax as well to claw back some of the expenses Tory MPs claimed to fund their duck houses. Seriously though, a progressive tax system is one that seeks to redistribute wealth. Your statistics do not provide the us with a view of the total incomes of the top 1%, top 10% etc so without that information it is not clear which groups are paying more than their share. Anyway, the accountants of the rich are skilled at evading tax liabilities so no doubt much income tax that would be due never comes close to HMRC coffers, despite the rich gaining far more from our society than the poor ever do. The rich gain most from our country so have a duty to pay most.

:roll:

Read that Inland revenue report and the bits I quoted - it clearly says what proportion of total UK income and what proportion of total tax they pay. And that report is what they did pay - not what they should have done. I did you favour and set out the facts from HMRC and you either didn't read it or didn't understand it. Don't let the fact get in the way though

Try finding some fact of your own - Pinno at least tried to: you haven't produced anything the remotely resembles evidence. Do try harder...

nathancom

Stevo 666 wrote:

nathancom wrote:

We should be looking at an additional mansion tax as well to claw back some of the expenses Tory MPs claimed to fund their duck houses. Seriously though, a progressive tax system is one that seeks to redistribute wealth. Your statistics do not provide the us with a view of the total incomes of the top 1%, top 10% etc so without that information it is not clear which groups are paying more than their share. Anyway, the accountants of the rich are skilled at evading tax liabilities so no doubt much income tax that would be due never comes close to HMRC coffers, despite the rich gaining far more from our society than the poor ever do. The rich gain most from our country so have a duty to pay most.

:roll:

Read that Inland revenue report and the bits I quoted - it clearly says what proportion of total UK income and what proportion of total tax they pay. And that report is what they did pay - not what they should have done. I did you favour and set out the facts from HMRC and you either didn't read it or didn't understand it. Don't let the fact get in the way though

Try finding some fact of your own - Pinno at least tried to: you haven't produced anything the remotely resembles evidence. Do try harder...

Guess I deserved that for skimming! Anyway, it is symptomatic of the falling wages of the working classes during a period of wage freezes and increases in the tax free allowances up to 10k that the burden overall % of total income tax returns that the rich are paying has increased. The backdrop to this are several years of falling income tax yields leaving the untouched incomes of the rich providing a larger proportion that before. Anyway the rich are more likely to have untaxed assets earning them income that they have done nothing to deserve so it is right that they pay more and in reality it should be higher. An increase in capital gains tax would be a good start, would help dampen property speculation for one.

Honestly though the best place to start is to ban private healthcare and private schools, make the rich mix with the poor and you will soon see an interest in well run public services whereas now the rich can just vote for their Tory boy friends in power to privatise them. Then there would be a clamour for state intervention, rather than privatisation.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

The Germans do well because of their investment in infrastructure and re-investment levels, both corporate and non-corporate of on average 4-6% as opposed to the UK with it's paultry 1.5%.

Looks like the Germans have had historically high levels of infrastructure investment - according to this report is largely driven by the level of investment required after unification, i.e bringing East Germany up to West German standards. Remind me again about the political set up in East Germany pre unification.
http://planning.brookes.ac.uk/research/spg/projects/infrastructure/resources/Infrastructure%20investment%20in%20international%20comparison.ppt

pinarello001 wrote:

I have also mentioned the high cost/low wage economy in the UK - this is critical. Portugal, Spain, Greece, Italy are all low cost/low wage economies. Germany, France, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Austria, Switzerland are all high wage/high cost societies with coincidentally high standards of living.
We are alone in Europe with our low wage/high cost economy.

You have, but yet again you're wrong. Here are the facts on diposable income per head by country:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_per_capita_personal_income
The UK is fourth behind the following countries:
- USA - rather capitalist
- Switzerland - well known tax haven and bankers paradise
- Germany.
UK is ahead of every single other country you list.

Care to repeat your claim that we are low wage, high cost?

You keep making claims, I'll keep knocking them down.

That Wikipedia table is income per capita, not median wage (the usual measure).
This is a bit better for the UK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_in_the_United_Kingdom

And internationally http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/income/

nathancom

Does anyone other than one of the top 85 richest people think that this is reasonable?
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/20/oxfam-85-richest-people-half-of-the-world

A handful of people, a bus load, have more money than half the world's entire population. That money could be put to much better use, to invest in roads and schools and hospitals that would utterly transform the lives of billions. Yet the Tories will try and say this is how it should be.

"The Oxfam report found that over the past few decades, the rich have successfully wielded political influence to skew policies in their favour on issues ranging from financial deregulation, tax havens, anti-competitive business practices to lower tax rates on high incomes and cuts in public services for the majority. Since the late 1970s, tax rates for the richest have fallen in 29 out of 30 countries for which data are available, said the report."

bernithebiker

nathancom wrote:

I don't get why you think it is such a difficult or amazing thing to run a business. They even had businesses that provided employment in non Capitalist countries. I don't despise business owners, I just don't think they need to be raised into a special category like you Tory boys seem to enjoy doing. Economies exist without letting the rich squeeze the poor and I am in favour of higher wages, Trade Union representation on boards and state funded investment banks.

Did I (or others) ask for a 'special category'? For recognition, praise, love and hugs, because I run a business? No.

I seek no plaudits whatsoever. I merely seek to defend myself when people like you launch attacks, saying how we trample over everyone else and are effectively parasites of society.

And if you think it's so easy to run a business (I have never said it is or isn't), why don't you give it a bash? You might quite like it. But watch out, in your 1st year, your chance of failure is >50%.

However, as for further down this page, I do agree that the richest 0.1% are too rich and that the biggest 20 or so companies in the world are too powerful; this is capitalism that has got ahead of itself and run too far. If we can rein these aspects in a bit, we're probably doing the right thing.

Mikey23

More like the German system of regulated capitalism?

It does seem to me that a totally unfettered free market economy is potentially dangerous and does cause lots of inequalities. But it seems to be what 'the market' wants to see and nation states have to bow and scrape to 'the market'. Which seems to be why the UK is allegedly getting out of this recession quicker than France which still has a protectionist socialist ideology

VTech

nathancom wrote:

Does anyone other than one of the top 85 richest people think that this is reasonable?
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/20/oxfam-85-richest-people-half-of-the-world

A handful of people, a bus load, have more money than half the world's entire population. That money could be put to much better use, to invest in roads and schools and hospitals that would utterly transform the lives of billions. Yet the Tories will try and say this is how it should be.

"The Oxfam report found that over the past few decades, the rich have successfully wielded political influence to skew policies in their favour on issues ranging from financial deregulation, tax havens, anti-competitive business practices to lower tax rates on high incomes and cuts in public services for the majority. Since the late 1970s, tax rates for the richest have fallen in 29 out of 30 countries for which data are available, said the report."

That wouldn't happen though would it.
Being idealistic is so far removed from being in touch with reality that its a joke.

Forget the top 85 richest people, thats the biggest fake list you will ever read, there are 20 year olds with more cash than bill gates will ever earn. !

The fix is to charge an amount that is affordable and not too great that alternatives are sought.
Then a global compromise of taxation sharing which is a possibility and we will be far better off.

The other fix is to take a risk and hope it pays off, even if you lose your no worse off and you may enjoy the ride.

Stevo_666

nathancom wrote:

Does anyone other than one of the top 85 richest people think that this is reasonable?
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/20/oxfam-85-richest-people-half-of-the-world

A handful of people, a bus load, have more money than half the world's entire population. That money could be put to much better use, to invest in roads and schools and hospitals that would utterly transform the lives of billions. Yet the Tories will try and say this is how it should be.

"The Oxfam report found that over the past few decades, the rich have successfully wielded political influence to skew policies in their favour on issues ranging from financial deregulation, tax havens, anti-competitive business practices to lower tax rates on high incomes and cuts in public services for the majority. Since the late 1970s, tax rates for the richest have fallen in 29 out of 30 countries for which data are available, said the report."

I'll let you off your skimming

But this report (by the famously unbiased Guardian :roll: ) tries to imply that the top echelons are simply sitting on a big cash pile and doing nothing with it. The reality is that he vast majority of their wealth is tied up in businesses that they own and run - businesses that invest/provide jobs/pay tax etc etc. What you propose is taking that away from these businesses and spending it the way the state see fit - in my experience te state is more wasteful than private enterprise when it comes to investment. Show me the evidence that this will be spent any better in the hands of the state.

I'll also take you back to the point about mobile capital and the evidence from UK and France and my own experience in keeping it mobile. I can supply more example if needed...

Stevo_666

VTech wrote:

nathancom wrote:

Does anyone other than one of the top 85 richest people think that this is reasonable?
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/20/oxfam-85-richest-people-half-of-the-world

A handful of people, a bus load, have more money than half the world's entire population. That money could be put to much better use, to invest in roads and schools and hospitals that would utterly transform the lives of billions. Yet the Tories will try and say this is how it should be.

"The Oxfam report found that over the past few decades, the rich have successfully wielded political influence to skew policies in their favour on issues ranging from financial deregulation, tax havens, anti-competitive business practices to lower tax rates on high incomes and cuts in public services for the majority. Since the late 1970s, tax rates for the richest have fallen in 29 out of 30 countries for which data are available, said the report."

That wouldn't happen though would it.
Being idealistic is so far removed from being in touch with reality that its a joke.

Forget the top 85 richest people, thats the biggest fake list you will ever read, there are 20 year olds with more cash than bill gates will ever earn. !

The fix is to charge an amount that is affordable and not too great that alternatives are sought.
Then a global compromise of taxation sharing which is a possibility and we will be far better off.

The other fix is to take a risk and hope it pays off, even if you lose your no worse off and you may enjoy the ride.

Agree with a lot of of what you say there. We already effectively have a taxation sharing mechanism in place globally - ever come across transfer pricing?

BTW: got a link to this point you made earlier about the IRS cutting deals with potntial big investors into the US to encourage investment? Not saying you're wrong, just taking a professional interest.

bernithebiker

Stevo 666 wrote:

BTW: got a link to this point you made earlier about the IRS cutting deals with potntial big investors into the US to encourage investment? Not saying you're wrong, just taking a professional interest.

Not sure about the US, but I know for sure the Swiss did it when I was there (200-2004).

VTech

I don't have any direct links but it isn't a secret.
It is actually a wonderful way to do business, you have a huge company who want to invest in your country, they obviously have to invest millions, if not billions so ask for a tax break. The IRS will work to make a deal happen and the company start building and offering jobs. The IRS make money and America is better for it.

In the UK there is a yes or no system, for almost all large corporate companies we PAY THEM to open within the UK and offer a zero tax rate for set times (Peugeot, Renault, Land Rover) which means we lose.

If I ran this place !

pinno

VTech wrote:

In the UK there is a yes or no system, for almost all large corporate companies we PAY THEM to open within the UK and offer a zero tax rate for set times (Peugeot, Renault, Land Rover) which means we lose.

If I ran this place !

That is a problem Stevo. Fix that. That underlines the UK PLC up for grabs to the highest bidder line that I have emphasised.

I have not had a chance to look at the links to warrant a proper reply to them just yet.

Going back, the car in my example may be due to the Mrs and Mrs Smith/Smythe living rurally, so not really a 'choice'.
Mr and Mrs Smythe would qualify for £155 Working Tax Credits per month. This is not a good scenario to not receive a proper living wage. Mrs and Mrs Smythe would not receive WTC's.

The Guardian - bias? of course it is bias but so are all newspapers.

Stevo_666

pinarello001 wrote:

VTech wrote:

In the UK there is a yes or no system, for almost all large corporate companies we PAY THEM to open within the UK and offer a zero tax rate for set times (Peugeot, Renault, Land Rover) which means we lose.

If I ran this place !

That is a problem Stevo. Fix that. That underlines the UK PLC up for grabs to the highest bidder line that I have emphasised.

1. Don't agree with Vtech on that point - these tax free periods don't exist in the UK AFAIK. I'm not aware of anything other than a few minor concessions and can't see anything on the HMRC website. (There was a 'holiday' on National Insurance for regional employers that ended last September - but that's one minor part of the overall tax 'take' so hardly a tax holiday).
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/payerti/getting-started/nics-holiday/index.htm
If you or Vtech can point me to a link to a proper UK tax holiday, please do

2. Even if they did, so what? It's like a discount on your mortgage rate that banks sometimes offer for the first couple of years. It gets you in through the door then they get your custom for the next however many years. Same would apply to companies/investors if it existed in the UK (evidence please...)

3. Tax 'holidays' even in those countries do not involve all taxes - so they company will still be paying VAT, payroll taxes, business rates etc etc. Even where the corporate tax discount is permenant, in the long run, they win because they get the investment and the other taxes. Some countries like Switzerland, Hungary, Luxembourg do it and it works well in upping tax revenues.

nathancom

Stevo 666 wrote:

nathancom wrote:

Does anyone other than one of the top 85 richest people think that this is reasonable?
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/20/oxfam-85-richest-people-half-of-the-world

A handful of people, a bus load, have more money than half the world's entire population. That money could be put to much better use, to invest in roads and schools and hospitals that would utterly transform the lives of billions. Yet the Tories will try and say this is how it should be.

"The Oxfam report found that over the past few decades, the rich have successfully wielded political influence to skew policies in their favour on issues ranging from financial deregulation, tax havens, anti-competitive business practices to lower tax rates on high incomes and cuts in public services for the majority. Since the late 1970s, tax rates for the richest have fallen in 29 out of 30 countries for which data are available, said the report."

I'll let you off your skimming

But this report (by the famously unbiased Guardian :roll: ) tries to imply that the top echelons are simply sitting on a big cash pile and doing nothing with it. The reality is that he vast majority of their wealth is tied up in businesses that they own and run - businesses that invest/provide jobs/pay tax etc etc. What you propose is taking that away from these businesses and spending it the way the state see fit - in my experience te state is more wasteful than private enterprise when it comes to investment. Show me the evidence that this will be spent any better in the hands of the state.

I'll also take you back to the point about mobile capital and the evidence from UK and France and my own experience in keeping it mobile. I can supply more example if needed...

Ok, you are right, it is perfectly reasonable for less than 100 people to hold more assets than 3.5 billion people. It makes perfect economic sense for half the world's population to have very little purchasing power whilst allowing assets and capital to be stockpiled by a miniscule minority. How is it remotely economically beneficial for the purchasing power of 3.5 billion to be so restricted? It reduces the size of the potential market, inhibiting worldwide economic growth.

Further, the claim that these frighteningly rich individuals are responsible for the economic well being of thousands is a moot point. Worldwide, large swathes of the working population are living on wages that barely sustain their lives and it is this chronic exploitation of their labour that has allowed such wealth to be amassed. It is unjust to these individuals and injurious to the state of the world economy for it to remain.

How to rebalance this situation is another question that is harder to answer. It is unlikely that governments have the desire or ability to provide the solution like you say, so I fall back on the idea that we will most likely see war and revolution at some point. The Arab spring is a clear expression of the desire of the street for an economic overhaul.

pinno

Stevo 666 wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

VTech wrote:

3. Tax 'holidays' even in those countries do not involve all taxes - so they company will still be paying VAT, payroll taxes, business rates etc etc. Even where the corporate tax discount is permenant, in the long run, they win because they get the investment and the other taxes. Some countries like Switzerland, Hungary, Luxembourg do it and it works well in upping tax revenues.

So a foreign company that sets up in the UK will be paying, VAT, Business rates etc but will be taking profits out of the country. In other words, for the UK - a net gain in income or a net loss?
If they are making more money than they are putting in (surely thats their reason for investing here), then that is in the minus column of GDP.

For every industrial post lost, you have to replace it with 3 in the service sector but the service sector is fickle isn't it?
Ref:
The Dynamics of Employee Relations (Management, Work and Organisations) by Paul Blyton

Stevo_666

pinarello001 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

VTech wrote:

3. Tax 'holidays' even in those countries do not involve all taxes - so they company will still be paying VAT, payroll taxes, business rates etc etc. Even where the corporate tax discount is permenant, in the long run, they win because they get the investment and the other taxes. Some countries like Switzerland, Hungary, Luxembourg do it and it works well in upping tax revenues.

So a foreign company that sets up in the UK will be paying, VAT, Business rates etc but will be taking profits out of the country. In other words, for the UK - a net gain in income or a net loss?
If they are making more money than they are putting in (surely thats their reason for investing here), then that is in the minus column of GDP.

Err no - because the corporation tax holiday you refer to doesn't exist in the UK ! RTFP

But even if it did, then the net effect would probably be positive for tax revenues as corporation tax is only about 10% of the total tax take. That's why it's a good idea that the UK should look at.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/statistics/receipts/info-analysis.pdf

pinarello001 wrote:

For every industrial post lost, you have to replace it with 3 in the service sector but the service sector is fickle isn't it?
Ref:
The Dynamics of Employee Relations (Management, Work and Organisations) by Paul Blyton

Not got time to check that publication tonight buy why 3 to 1? If service sector job pays the same as industrial post, tax revenue will be the same - other things being equal. If it's a City job, it will yield a lot more tax. Disagree that service sector is fickle - why? It's over 3/4 of the UK economy so looks like its fairly permenant. If you're talking about easier to relocate a sevice business because it doesn't have loads of large machines - well to some extent but some service businesses need to be physically where the customer is so to swings and roundabouts. Overall the regulatory and tax regime no longer seems to scare investors away like it used to as they have realised you need to attract investement and policy is reflecting that again.

I'll google your ref tomorrow.

pinno

I wasn't referring to the 'Holiday' period, I was referring to investment by foriegn companies on the whole, underlining a lack of home grown industries (service or otherwise).
It still makes no sense - a foreign company does not set up to add value to the economy - it is there to take profits out.
So answer the question, if they are taking more out of the country than they are putting in, then it is a net loss to the UK? Full stop. No argument there.

Service sector jobs by their nature do not support a network of other related industry (other than the service sector - which is fickle). This goes back to Germany - at least half of their economy is industrial. The strongest economies have big industry, our service sector is not only fickle and far too susceptible to global economic changes, it is not balanced and supported by the volume of British owned industrial production.
Lack if investment in infrastructure. Lack of forward thinking from education to mis-management.
P1ss poor Britain. P1ss poor performance. P1ss poor economy with Cameroon begging foreign compaies to invest in. He even asked the Chinese for investment money in our new power stations?!? So when we buy energy in the future, half the profits go out of the door.
Great future for us - half of the UK owned by foreign companies leeching money out of the system and you can justify that because they pay corporation tax, VAT and employ people.?
We can't and have never been able to run a p1ss up in a brewery so we go begging for inward investment. It is a no brainer.
"It's the best we got".[Ref: Stevo 666, 2014)
UK PLC, a ship with a weak hull run by half wits.

pblakeney

nathancom wrote:

Ok, you are right, it is perfectly reasonable for less than 100 people to hold more assets than 3.5 billion people. It makes perfect economic sense for half the world's population to have very little purchasing power whilst allowing assets and capital to be stockpiled by a miniscule minority. How is it remotely economically beneficial for the purchasing power of 3.5 billion to be so restricted? It reduces the size of the potential market, inhibiting worldwide economic growth.

Further, the claim that these frighteningly rich individuals are responsible for the economic well being of thousands is a moot point. Worldwide, large swathes of the working population are living on wages that barely sustain their lives and it is this chronic exploitation of their labour that has allowed such wealth to be amassed. It is unjust to these individuals and injurious to the state of the world economy for it to remain.

How to rebalance this situation is another question that is harder to answer. It is unlikely that governments have the desire or ability to provide the solution like you say, so I fall back on the idea that we will most likely see war and revolution at some point. The Arab spring is a clear expression of the desire of the street for an economic overhaul.

You are quite correct in your sarcasm.
It is perfectly unreasonable. Unfortunately, it is also human nature.
Name a society with the utopia of everyone equal and no one oppressed?

It is unfair, it is unreasonable. It is human nature.

Earlier, in a similar thread, someone made reference to cinema quotes. Here is one that comes to mind:-
"Loki: Kneel before me. I said, KNEEL!
[Loki stamps his scepter on the ground, causing a shockwave that intimidates the crowd into silence as they all kneel before him]
Loki: Is not this simpler? Is this not your natural state? It's the unspoken truth of humanity, that you crave subjugation. The bright lure of freedom diminishes your life's joy in a mad scramble for power, for identity. You were made to be ruled. In the end, you will always kneel.
German Old Man: [slowly rises to his feet] Not to men like you.
Loki: [smiling] There are no men like me.
German Old Man: There are *always* men like you."

As a film it was complete tosh but the quote reverberates.

Please note that my point centralises on the last sentence.

pblakeney

Mr. Pinarello001,

Does your post go full circle to the "We are incompetent" thread?

If I was capable of remembering the correct thread subject or finding it in a search then I would supply a link. Apologies.

nathancom

PBlakeney wrote:

nathancom wrote:

Ok, you are right, it is perfectly reasonable for less than 100 people to hold more assets than 3.5 billion people. It makes perfect economic sense for half the world's population to have very little purchasing power whilst allowing assets and capital to be stockpiled by a miniscule minority. How is it remotely economically beneficial for the purchasing power of 3.5 billion to be so restricted? It reduces the size of the potential market, inhibiting worldwide economic growth.

Further, the claim that these frighteningly rich individuals are responsible for the economic well being of thousands is a moot point. Worldwide, large swathes of the working population are living on wages that barely sustain their lives and it is this chronic exploitation of their labour that has allowed such wealth to be amassed. It is unjust to these individuals and injurious to the state of the world economy for it to remain.

How to rebalance this situation is another question that is harder to answer. It is unlikely that governments have the desire or ability to provide the solution like you say, so I fall back on the idea that we will most likely see war and revolution at some point. The Arab spring is a clear expression of the desire of the street for an economic overhaul.

You are quite correct in your sarcasm.
It is perfectly unreasonable. Unfortunately, it is also human nature.
Name a society with the utopia of everyone equal and no one oppressed?

It is unfair, it is unreasonable. It is human nature.

Earlier, in a similar thread, someone made reference to cinema quotes. Here is one that comes to mind:-
"Loki: Kneel before me. I said, KNEEL!
[Loki stamps his scepter on the ground, causing a shockwave that intimidates the crowd into silence as they all kneel before him]
Loki: Is not this simpler? Is this not your natural state? It's the unspoken truth of humanity, that you crave subjugation. The bright lure of freedom diminishes your life's joy in a mad scramble for power, for identity. You were made to be ruled. In the end, you will always kneel.
German Old Man: [slowly rises to his feet] Not to men like you.
Loki: [smiling] There are no men like me.
German Old Man: There are *always* men like you."

As a film it was complete tosh but the quote reverberates.

Please note that my point centralises on the last sentence.

It was once human nature to kill people who lived in the next village or if you suspected them of being witches.

Maybe our current governments have neither the knowledge nor expertise to improve the economic model but then wealth has not always been so polarised as today, when we had more socialist governments so I don't believe that is the case. Human nature is no excuse for not trying to improve and find solutions.

d87francis

Speak to a few geneticists if you want to learn about human nature, if it exists it is socially constructed. Our values, our traits, our morals, and our behaviours are all created through human action.

"Human capacities are not genetically specified but emerge within processes of ontogenetic development. Moreover the circumstances of development are continually shaped through human activity. There is consequently no human nature that has escaped the current of history. . . .

This does not mean, of course, that a human being can be anything you please. But it does mean that there is no way of describing what human beings are independently of the manifold historical and environmental circumstances in which they become–in which they grow up and live out their lives." - Ingold, Against Human Nature (2006:259)

Similarly the field of anthropology has much to offer on the age old questions of nature vs nurture - sadly perhaps because of our highly atomised, competitive society, such revelations are clouded from public discourse and especially educational curriculums (look at where Gove wants education heading - back to ages where such arguments of human nature where enforced by the cultural overlords of the time, the church). One such notable anthropological study, from which many have stemmed, used "The Ultimatum Game" on disconnected groups and communities to assess if all humans share the same cognitive traits or if they are socially imparted: https://www.adbusters.org/magazine/109/human-nature.html

Orthodox Western notions of nature and culture tend to be analysing capitalist traits and tend to ignore the only universal character of human sociality, that of kinship relations. Western society has been built on flawed ideas of human nature, the fact it is so ingrained is obvious, as it underpins and is core to all those individualistic, competitive assumptions. How do you defend a dogmatic failing ideology? Simple, in the same manner people defended slavery, poverty, suffering and war for centuries, say it is human nature and thus unavoidable.

What we really need now more than ideology, is empiricism. To measure the successes, failures, and traits of society and human interaction through a holistic manner of scientific, sociological, political and economic means, in order to determine the best forms of socio-economic and political forms of organisation. Instead we cannot see what we are told and what is going on around us for the propaganda and intense ideology it is based on: that business minded focus of efficiency, targets, cutting red tape, de-regulating, creating trade partnerships and economic development zones, and the whole free-market mantra of trickle-down economics is not apolitical, but is pure neo-liberalism and is failing everyone - even the elite suffer slightly from income inequality (http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html).

Given this thread is already using examples from films and is steeped in ideology, I feel it appropriate to share some slobbering Zizeck: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uejTAJ3R3ic (warning possible nsfw title, but content is sfw).

pblakeney

nathancom wrote:

Human nature is no excuse for not trying to improve and find solutions.

I totally agree.
I am just trying to temper expectations.