Super rich

[Scouse]

I've said the following many times, only to be facepalmed, ignored and ridiculed on here:

The most wealth anyone should be able to accumulate should be set at a hard ceiling of £100 million pounds. After that all the money should go straight back to social projects

I say it because the biggest failing of capitalism is that it allows stupendous wealth to be accrued by a tiny amount of people - and that is WRONG.

So, reading the beeb today, I see this...

The 100 richest people in the world earned enough last year to end extreme poverty suffered by the poorest on the planet four times over

"End extreme poverty".

End it.

It is time our leaders reformed the system so that it works in the interests of the whole of humanity rather than a global elite

Hear hear.

I've long said we could solve the "financial crisis" by rounding up the 1000 richest people, taking all their money and giving them back 100 million pounds each - more than any human being would ever need for an amazing lifestyle, ever.

Please to be adding facepalms, criticisms, call me a commie, Waz can post a picture of a dead horse being beaten up, whatever nonsensical bollocks you blinkered idiots want to post below...

 

[soze]

I see no problem with what you are saying except it is far too simplistic. And seeing as you admitted to dodging tax if I remember rightly then I don't think you should really comment unless every penny you dodged you gave to charity rather than keeping it for yourself.

Also if anything like this ever existed they would just find ways to hide the money.

 

[rynnor]

The reality is that the amount the west has given as aid could have ended extreme poverty but corruption means that throwing money at it doesnt work.

 

[Gwadien]

Why would people want to be rich then if they had to get rid of their money to help people? - they're either charitable or not.

There would be no point growing a business to stupid extents if your money is just going to be taken off you to help people, so people won't therefore there will be less jobs.

 

[dysfunction]

Yes stupid idea. As soze says people will hide their cash and therefore the system would be a failure.

Communist ideas are not a solution to capitalism 'greed'.

You start policing people's freedoms like that is a slippery slope.

 

[Tuthmes]

Yes stupid idea. As soze says people will hide their cash and therefore the system would be a failure.

Communist ideas are not a solution to capitalism 'greed'.

You start policing people's freedoms like that is a slippery slope.

Introduce a new form of policy/goverment. The best of socialism mixed with capitalism. Ie. Take care of the poor and weak and give room for people that want to expand/grow. Somehow the rich don't want to take care of the poor and weak though as it slows their growth potential.

 

[Corran]

and you class it by what? just cash or all holdings?

Personally If you introduced that it would just bring in new dodging anyways. My social project would be family. They could have 100 million each too... the rest i would just piss away on things that can not be tracked in terms of money

 

[soze]

Exactly just store it as Diamonds or Gold in safety deposit boxes. Are the government going to force people to open them and then sell what is in there because they are too rich?

 

[Tuthmes]

and you class it by what? just cash or all holdings?

Personally If you introduced that it would just bring in new dodging anyways. My social project would be family. They could have 100 million each too... the rest i would just piss away on things that can not be tracked in terms of money

Cash (income, savings), real estate and holdings = your net worth. Atleast here in the Netherlands and you'll be taxed accordingly. Not mentioning loopholes. Perfectly fine with your family beeing your social project. Infact it should be anyways. What always baffles me is patriotism (more associated with the right side ie. the rich). You're proud (whatever) of your country, but refuse to take care of it. It's a paradox that always makes me chuckle.

 

[Tuthmes]

Exactly just store it as Diamonds or Gold in safety deposit boxes. Are the government going to force people to open them and then sell what is in there because they are too rich?

They will and do. They'd be interested to know where you got it from. Anyways it's nearly impossible todo so nowadays. Unless you want your company to pay you in gold. But then your company has got to show for it.

 

[Himse]

If it was your money you'd be very pissed off, fact is alot of these guys donate alot of money to charity already, where is it going? Warren Buffet & Bill Gates have already pledged something like 90% of their wealth to charity in their wills..

Why would people want to be rich then if they had to get rid of their money to help people? - they're either charitable or not.

There would be no point growing a business to stupid extents if your money is just going to be taken off you to help people, so people won't therefore there will be less jobs.

This exactly, why would I want to start a business, that then grows on a large scale, to then have to donate my money to somebody else. You can't force charity.

 

[Chilly]

You're forgetting, OP, that those top 100 people probably paid bazillions in tax. Just because the RATE is low, doesnt mean they didnt already pay the fair share of millions of people each.

 

[soze]

Plus when the super rich die the country collects a fuck ton of death tax.

 

[rynnor]

Plus when the super rich die the country collects a fuck ton of death tax.

I dont think so...

 

[soze]

No nor do I really but it does show how useless it is should the government decide they want these peoples money. As I doubt that anyone in the top 10 (ever not that list) has lost half of their fortune to death tax.

 

[Tuthmes]

If it was your money you'd be very pissed off

Why would I be pissed off?

 

[soze]

Why would I be pissed off?

If you had 50 billion then had all but 100 million taken away you would be mad. Lets not forget these people spend 100 million on boats are homes so it would affect their lives so would piss them off.

 

[megadave]

Tax rate once you hit a certain amount should be extortionate imo, if you're a billionaire you can start paying 90%

 

[Tuthmes]

If you had 50 billion then had all but 100 million taken away you would be mad. Lets not forget these people spend 100 million on boats are homes so it would affect their lives so would piss them off.

Yes, because buying a large boat is as important as paying your rent or the food you need. Not like it will have an effect, they could still buy the boat, but I understand you. If you get upset because you can buy your latest toy and other people in your country cannot afford to buy healthcare or food, there is something wrong with you. Pay your tax and buy your toy a little l8r. That or buy a smaller boat or work more.

Either way if I hade 50 billion, I'd donate 100 million just to FH alone and couldnt care less about it.

 

[megadave]

If I was super rich and this rule existed i'd just constantly spend money so none ever gets taken away, although that would actually be incredibly beneficial for the economy.

 

[Wij]

Bill Gates is rich and gives Billions away already. Plus I'm not entirely convinced by the figures in the article. How much of that wealth is shares in the company they founded? You can't just force them to sell it or if you do then who decides the best time to sell? What would that do to the company's value? Who decides where the money goes? What if they are already doing charitable stuff? What if that wealth is tied up in company assets? I could pick at this all day.

Simplistic bolox is simplistic.

 

[soze]

Yes, because buying a large boat is as important as paying your rent or the food you need. Not like it will have an effect, they could still buy the boat, but I understand you. If you get upset because you can buy your latest toy and other people in your country cannot afford to buy healthcare or food, there is something wrong with you. Pay your tax and buy your toy a little l8r. That or buy a smaller boat or work more.

Either way if I hade 50 billion, I'd donate 100 million just to FH alone and couldnt care less about it.

You have lived your life with your money so it is easy to say that. They have homes that cost in the millions a year to keep up and running. When you live your life like that have all but £100m taken off you would make an impact.

And donating your whole £50b would do fuck all in the scheme of things according to Wiki the UK Deficit in 2012 was £90 billion. So you are Bill Gates and you give Breast Cancer research £100m to help find a cure within 20 minutes of the news being announced every charity in the world will be begging for the same. And as has been said if you send £10b to the Africa you would of just made some tin pot dictator a Billionaire unless you invade the country and occupy it for 20 years while a new government is established.

So I agree with parts of the article a corporation tax that is universal is good so is no tax havens but it will never happen some countries only have business there because they are a tax haven why would they give that up so the companies leave and go back to America or China. But the idea the rich will just stand by a take it and the idea they should have too is stupid. Some of these Billionaires are self made and I don't think saying "Well done for all your hard work now we are just going to be taking 98% of your wealth to pay off our deficit, but you should be grateful plenty of people live on less that £100m" will go down well. They will just take their money and fuck off to a country that leaves them alone.

 

[SilverHood]

I am totally against giving something for nothing... what entitles "poor" people to free money? Have they worked for it? Have they earned it? What happens when we lift those poor people out of poverty? They are going to spiral straight back into the poverty where they came from. Far better to invest in education, infrastructure and sustainable water, electricity and food sources.

 

[Tuthmes]

You have lived your life with your money so it is easy to say that. They have homes that cost in the millions a year to keep up and running. When you live your life like that have all but £100m taken off you would make an impact.

If you cannot afford it, start buying a smaller house.

And donating your whole £50b would do fuck all in the scheme of things according to Wiki the UK Deficit in 2012 was £90 billion. So you are Bill Gates and you give Breast Cancer research £100m to help find a cure within 20 minutes of the news being announced every charity in the world will be begging for the same. And as has been said if you send £10b to the Africa you would of just made some tin pot dictator a Billionaire unless you invade the country and occupy it for 20 years while a new government is established.

I'm not saying we should take it all from 1 person. You live in Great Britain, lets all keep Britain great. If that means some people have to buy a smaller boat (to fund a better healthcare system), then those people have no right to complain.

So I agree with parts of the article a corporation tax that is universal is good so is no tax havens but it will never happen some countries only have business there because they are a tax haven why would they give that up so the companies leave and go back to America or China. But the idea the rich will just stand by a take it and the idea they should have too is stupid. Some of these Billionaires are self made and I don't think saying "Well done for all your hard work now we are just going to be taking 98% of your wealth to pay off our deficit, but you should be grateful plenty of people live on less that £100m" will go down well. They will just take their money and fuck off to a country that leaves them alone.

And Britain will be a better country for it. Whats the point of having those people, if they don't care for (the people of) Britain anyways. Also China is an interesting country.

 

[Tuthmes]

I am totally against giving something for nothing... what entitles "poor" people to free money? Have they worked for it? Have they earned it? What happens when we lift those poor people out of poverty? They are going to spiral straight back into the poverty where they came from. Far better to invest in education, infrastructure and sustainable water, electricity and food sources.

There's 1001 reasons why someone has less money then Bill Gates. Or to put it in another way, we cannot all be Bill Gates.

 

[soze]

If you cannot afford it, start buying a smaller house.

They could afford it until you stole all their money.

 

[Tuthmes]

They could afford it until you stole all their money.

Like I said, start buying a smaller house. Perhaps one without a pool in the basement.

 

[soze]

Like I said, start buying a smaller house. Perhaps one without a pool in the basement.

And why should they? Do you live in a bedsit and give all the extra money do don't need to your government or do you live in a nice house that's the best you can afford for the money you earn?

 

[Tuthmes]

And why should they? Do you live in a bedsit and give all the extra money do don't need to your government or do you live in a nice house that's the best you can afford for the money you earn?

If you can afford the house, go for it. If you cannot afford it, go buy a smaller house. It's not rocket science soze.

 

[soze]

If you can afford the house, go for it. If you cannot afford it, go buy a smaller house. It's not rocket sience soze.

But they can until you take their money. That is not rocket science.

I am not even sure what you are arguing now. So I give in.