Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Define wealthy.
    Google
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    No.

    Poor decision making is understandable in stupid or msinformed people. In people who are not stupid and have sufficient information, its obviously hubris.
    So it was a good idea to reduce the Fed target rate to 1% then?

    That was an example of good decision making?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LaughingBro)
    Google
    It could be based on their income or total assets.

    It could be compared to others in the same area or country or compared to the world population.

    I mean't a specific definition not a generic one.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    I think you are just repeating capitalist propaganda. Where did Philip Green invest the £1.4 billion he got tax free?

    Its a well know fact that small business drives economic growth and increased employment. Owners of small business are not usually in the top 10% of the wealthiest people. Owners of big buinesses are more intent on financial engineering and tax avoidance then employing more people.
    Lets see reinvesting in dieing buisness such as BHS, donation to charity high profile madeline one for example. Plus its legal everyone goes after him when he pays 300-400million in tax, his wife doesnt live in the UK so when she got the bonus you are talking about (as the owner) she didnt have to pay tax on it.

    He could quite easily run his entire buisness from Monaco (he owns a private jet for any urgent meetings) and be totally personally tax free but he doesnt which he should be respected for.

    Why dont all these people going after the rich which avoid tax get off their arse and make millions then be happy they are paying tax on it, as I would put money on it that they would do the same as Green if they could.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by brokenangel)
    Lets see reinvesting in dieing buisness such as BHS, donation to charity high profile madeline one for example. Plus its legal everyone goes after him when he pays 300-400million in tax, his wife doesnt live in the UK so when she got the bonus you are talking about (as the owner) she didnt have to pay tax on it.

    He could quite easily run his entire buisness from Monaco (he owns a private jet for any urgent meetings) and be totally personally tax free but he doesnt which he should be respected for.

    Why dont all these people going after the rich which avoid tax get off their arse and make millions then be happy they are paying tax on it, as I would put money on it that they would do the same as Green if they could.
    Why didn't you get better grades and study at Imperial or Durham? Because people are different and have different talents and ambitions.

    Not every person wants to be rich even if they have the talent and opportunity but a lot of people want a fairer society.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    Why didn't you get better grades and study at Imperial or Durham? Because people are different and have different talents and ambitions.

    Not every person wants to be rich even if they have the talent and opportunity but a lot of people want a fairer society.
    If people don't want to be rich then why should they complain when others WANT and SUCCEED at becoming rich?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    Not every person wants to be rich even if they have the talent and opportunity but a lot of people want a fairer society.
    Surely a fair society is one where people get what they earn.

    People may not want to be rich even if they have the talent, but it wouldn't be fair to actively reward that while actively penalising those who choose to.

    Otherwise how is it fair?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    So it was a good idea to reduce the Fed target rate to 1% then?

    That was an example of good decision making?
    Are you implying all bankers are stupid?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ocassus)
    If people don't want to be rich then why should they complain when others WANT and SUCCEED at becoming rich?
    I have no problem with rich people, I have a problem with people treating the rich with kid gloves when it comes to taxing them and the rich thinking they are entitled to pay less of their share then the plebs.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    Why didn't you get better grades and study at Imperial or Durham? Because people are different and have different talents and ambitions.

    Not every person wants to be rich even if they have the talent and opportunity but a lot of people want a fairer society.
    haha jumping to conclusions i have the grades for Durham Biomed or Imperial for that matter however neither of these are accredited course hence i choose sunderland as it has better job prospects in biomed, not every employer goes omg league tables you know.

    If they want a fairer society create the buisness and donate the wealth, a country that denise someone the chance to make their lifestyle is much worse than a country which has some tax evaders, especially when the tax rate is mental.

    The fact that a loss of around 200million in tax is a major problem speeks more for the overspending of the UK than the ethics of buisness men.77
    (Original post by Maker)
    I have no problem with rich people, I have a problem with people treating the rich with kid gloves when it comes to taxing them and the rich thinking they are entitled to pay less of their share then the plebs.
    Because the loss of all their tax would be worse than the amount we lose now, see above Green could totally move abroad then the gov would lose even more money. Same goes for other buisnesses what if Branson became perminatly resident on his island then no income tax and he can still run his buisness with a private jet on standby
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Surely a fair society is one where people get what they earn.

    People may not want to be rich even if they have the talent, but it wouldn't be fair to actively reward that while actively penalising those who choose to.

    Otherwise how is it fair?
    You should stop now because you just don't understand what the question is.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    they were paid more than tens of millions a year to run them but most of senior management lost everything they had. again your logic is flawed, investment banks weren't directly involved in the loan origination process although they did have (often small) affiliates, they also didn't have anywhere near the amount of cash needed to create a market, it was the government that created the market (orginally) and supplied most of the liquidity. the banks really weren't that important in the process, they didn't lend and they didn't borrow. only bear stearns really drank the kool aid. also the crisis was far bigger than subprime.

    again though i would say your identification of wealthy people is confusing...all that can be said is that the money is coming from somewhere and rich people save more than poor people. also why would a business focus on financial engineering??? that makes no sense, a business can only survive if it makes cash. there is no law that philip green has to reinvest his money anywhere or at all, if there was it would lead to massive misallocation of resources? there are the same rules for him as for everyone else, if the rules are the problem then change them rather than going after "tax-dodgers". it reli isn't a "well-known fact" about small business either...the size of the business isn't reli related to its success or how much it contributes to employment. so what are you saying that income inequality causes unemployment or the unfair tax system?

    i don't see how the UK is pro-business, in my region the public sector is the economy (over 60%) and why should the government need to be pro or anti business? government needs to get involved in regulation and business with complex liability structures but aside from that it shouldn't reli play a role. i'm not saying tho that the lack of business creativity or whatever is totally to do with the government btw but it plays a significant factor.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    I have no problem with rich people, I have a problem with people treating the rich with kid gloves when it comes to taxing them and the rich thinking they are entitled to pay less of their share then the plebs.
    So you advocate a flat tax?

    I don't think even the wealthy think the tax system shouldn't be progressive
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    I have no problem with rich people, I have a problem with people treating the rich with kid gloves when it comes to taxing them and the rich thinking they are entitled to pay less of their share then the plebs.
    Tax avoidance is perfectly legitimate. Why should somebody not minimize the loss they have?
    Taxing the rich extremely does damage business, because like it or not, if a rich person moves out of the country with their money, that country is in effect losing a greater amount from its economy and is less likely to see it circulate to others who need it.

    Also, rich people do not earn money and then sit on it, like a big gold sack. Money is worthless if it isn't spent. So it goes back into the system, where it inevitably goes to other people.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ocassus)
    Tax avoidance is perfectly legitimate. Why should somebody not minimize the loss they have?
    Taxing the rich extremely does damage business, because like it or not, if a rich person moves out of the country with their money, that country is in effect losing a greater amount from its economy and is less likely to see it circulate to others who need it.

    Also, rich people do not earn money and then sit on it, like a big gold sack. Money is worthless if it isn't spent. So it goes back into the system, where it inevitably goes to other people.
    Surely is these people have the resources to so easily move their businesses out of the country, their is little stopping them for spending the fruits of their wealth in a country with a lower cost of living, thus removing this income from the circular flow of income
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    Its been argued in other threads that we should not tax the wealthy too much because they are the ones creating jobs and they are needed for the health of the economy.

    Over the last 11 years, the wealthiest have had their income increasing more than any other group and 40% of the total increase in income have gone to the top 10%. http://www.poverty.org.uk/09/index.shtml

    If the people who argue that the wealthy did create new jobs, then there should be an increase in jobs over the last 11 years and we should have far more jobs than we did a decade ago and we should not have more than 2.5 million people unemployed.

    Can those who argue that the wealthy create jobs explain why we have fewer jobs now despite the wealthiest people getting more wealthy at a faster rate than everyone else but we still have high unemployment?
    Jobs did increase over the past 11 years.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ocassus)
    Tax avoidance is perfectly legitimate. Why should somebody not minimize the loss they have?
    Taxing the rich extremely does damage business, because like it or not, if a rich person moves out of the country with their money, that country is in effect losing a greater amount from its economy and is less likely to see it circulate to others who need it.

    Also, rich people do not earn money and then sit on it, like a big gold sack. Money is worthless if it isn't spent. So it goes back into the system, where it inevitably goes to other people.
    Its not that easy for a rich person to move abroad and still earn their money. A wealthy executive or barrister can't commute to Britain and say Monaco on a daily basis and still work.

    Trickle down economics has never worked.
    • Offline

      13
      (Original post by Maker)
      Its been argued in other threads that we should not tax the wealthy too much because they are the ones creating jobs and they are needed for the health of the economy.

      Over the last 11 years, the wealthiest have had their income increasing more than any other group and 40% of the total increase in income have gone to the top 10%. http://www.poverty.org.uk/09/index.shtml

      If the people who argue that the wealthy did create new jobs, then there should be an increase in jobs over the last 11 years and we should have far more jobs than we did a decade ago and we should not have more than 2.5 million people unemployed.

      Can those who argue that the wealthy create jobs explain why we have fewer jobs now despite the wealthiest people getting more wealthy at a faster rate than everyone else but we still have high unemployment?
      The last thing the capitalist class want to do is incur labour costs in their money making aims; we should never foget that the wealthy are only interested in getting wealthier, not in generating jobs for others. Indeed, under capitalism jobs are created (and maintained) only where there's no cheaper alternative to increasing profit, and the advance of technology is allowing more and more sectors to avoid having to employ people. I've recently noticed, for one example, how supermarkets are introducing self-service payment machines so that they can avoid employing humans - notwithstanding that supermarket profits go up and up. Stark evidence if ever it was needed that there's no necessary relationship between capital accumulation and job creation - often enough the opposite is what happens. Under capitalism, the capitalist class would gladly see everyone else unemployed provided it didn't interfere with their wealth.

      For the moment the middle classes are safe as the employment categories they tend to occupy are not in immediate danger of technological replacement (though they may go overseas where labour is a cheaper commodity). Given that there is no let up in the extent to which technology is replacing human labour, however, even middle-class and 'educated' workers should be nervous.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Oswy)
      Stark evidence if ever it was needed that there's no necessary relationship between capital accumulation and job creation - often enough the opposite is what happens. Under capitalism, the capitalist class would gladly see everyone else unemployed provided it didn't interfere with their wealth
      why should anyone be forced to hire people who aren't needed? why is it anyone elses business what people do with their money? in your supermarket example, you highlight one result of less staff but the other result is that the consumer benefits and the only case which the consumer wouldn't is in a monopoly which is something else altogether...the implication though that anyone should be under any obligation to give someone else a job reli doesn't make sense.

      saying that technology is making people unemployed also is fairly retarded...reli is pretty obvious that isn't the case... Luddite much?
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      20
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by crcr)
      why should anyone be forced to hire people who aren't needed? why is it anyone elses business what people do with their money? in your supermarket example, you highlight one result of less staff but the other result is that the consumer benefits and the only case which the consumer wouldn't is in a monopoly which is something else altogether...the implication though that anyone should be under any obligation to give someone else a job reli doesn't make sense.

      saying that technology is making people unemployed also is fairly retarded...reli is pretty obvious that isn't the case... Luddite much?
      Technology have made lots of people unemployed, its quite obvious. I'm not going to find any examples for you since I am not responsible for your education.
     
     
     
  1. See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  2. Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  3. See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  4. The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.