Detournement Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 Just now, ICTChris said: They also own The Courier. That explains it then. Dundee junkie tales are obviously a gold mine. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detournement Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 Imagine they are all snorting coke and shagging supermodels on a Yacht in Monte Carlo and it's all paid for by auld biddies writing letters about losing socks. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shotgun Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 Do the Broons get paid royalties, or are they on salary? Even split 10 ways, I would expect that after 80+ years, they must be rolling in it. Certainly comfortable enough to have bought their tenement flat outright. I imagine Oor Wullie's earnings are put in a trust fund until he's 18. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shotgun Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 10 minutes ago, MixuFixit said: The but & ben is fully booked all year for £750 a week (minimum booking) AirBnB has changed the hospitality industry. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigmouth Strikes Again Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 55 minutes ago, Detournement said: I can't believe that the people who own the Sunday Post are billionaires. Their days are numbered, it's only pensioners that read the comics/'newspapers' now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgecutter Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, Detournement said: I can't believe that the people who own the Sunday Post are billionaires. 2 hours ago, ICTChris said: They also own The Courier. 1 hour ago, Detournement said: Dundee junkie tales are obviously a gold mine. She was a Thomson, had a thirst for knowledge She studied media down at Dundee College That's where I Caught her eye She told me that her Da' was loaded I said "In that case get me a Tully and Caol Ila" She said "Fine" And then in seeven seconds time, she said: Eh want tae bide like common people Eh want tae do whitever common people do Want tae shag wi' common people Eh want tae shag wi' common people Like you What else could I do I said "I'll take you intae toon" I took her for a pint at the Market Seems it's a 'Spoons now But I had to start it somewhere So it started, there I said, "pretend you hiv nae shekles" She just laughed and said "Oh you're so teckle" I said "Aye" Well I can't see anyone shooting up in here Are you sure? .... But she didn't understand Why Hilltoon's got no broadband. Rent a flat around Lochee Beg for change around Dundee Smoke some fags in the Olympia pool Set alight to Braeview school But still you'll never get it right 'Cause when your plettie smells of s***e Thanks to the junkies through the wall If you called your Dad he could stop it all, yeah You'll never live like common people You'll never do whatever common people do Dodge the V&A like common people Never shag up the Law because of the view And then go for a drink down at Boo's Because there's f*** all else to do Edited October 31, 2019 by Hedgecutter 18 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miguel Sanchez Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 I can't tell if I'm horrified or impressed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjc Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 5 hours ago, yoda said: "Rents going up" =/= "increase in inflation" Sure, rents might go up. But then why increase wages? Why increase any social security? You're just giving people money in both of these examples, and using your logic then rents will still go up. Anyway, you're missing the point - the lack of affordable housing is not related to UBI, it's a separate issue that needs to be addressed. Nobody is arguing that UBI will solve that specific problem. The specific solution to that (in the UK at least) issue is build more houses and stop people using housing as a financial asset. You said it would increase inflation, presumably on the faulty logic that "more money = more inflation". That's not likely to happen because we're not creating money out of thin air, it's money that already exists. The idea that UBI will result in a devastating hyper-inflationary spiral is rubbish. Here's some links: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/20/16256240/mexico-cash-transfer-inflation-basic-income https://medium.com/basic-income/will-basic-income-cause-massive-inflation-no-f93175c24e48 I don't think UBI is necessarily going to fix the problem of poverty or inequality, and I'd rather see taxes from billionaire c***s spent on other things, but it's a significantly better use of Jeff Bezos's billions than vanity space projects. Cheers. Regardless of them being unrelated, my point is that without addressing the underlying issue of shortages (of whatever services/etc), UBI will just raise the base level. The demand remains the same whilst people would have £x amount of guaranteed additional income. I'm not adverse to helping people, I just don't think UBI is the answer. I personally believe providing basic housing, power, food, transportation would be more beneficial and have less economic impact. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tamthebam Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 6 hours ago, MixuFixit said: If I was given a fishing rod and told to feed myself I'd be dead in a fortnight I wouldn't. I'd hit some twat about the head with it, steal his wallet and go down the chippy. And that's mercantilism folks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tamthebam Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 "Show me a millionaire and i'll show you a million people short of a quid"- Alexei Sayle. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.A.F.C Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 3 minutes ago, tamthebam said: "Show me a millionaire and i'll show you a million people short of a quid"- Alexei Sayle. Who is that fat b*****d? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alta-pete Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 I’m a bit more neoliberal than most on here and that can lead me into trouble now and again. However:I can’t recall where I read it but there was an article about supertax in the 70s where mad mental incomes were taxed at 90+% which I now actually agree with. Net result however was there were no billionaires. They built up their businesses (to a level) at their personal taxation expense. Now however you earn a (not exceptional) £43k or more and you’re a capitalist pariah. Net result: no point striving. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerberus Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 I always wondered why China has so many billionaires.Communism at its finest. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The OP Posted November 1, 2019 Author Share Posted November 1, 2019 11 minutes ago, alta-pete said: I’m a bit more neoliberal than most on here and that can lead me into trouble now and again. However: I can’t recall where I read it but there was an article about supertax in the 70s where mad mental incomes were taxed at 90+% which I now actually agree with. Net result however was there were no billionaires. They built up their businesses (to a level) at their personal taxation expense. Now however you earn a (not exceptional) £43k or more and you’re a capitalist pariah. Net result: no point striving. Forgive me if I have misunderstood your post but it seems like you are on of those ignorami who think going into a higher tax band could leave a person worse off. Surely not and you do realise that if you are taxed at 90% over £1bn a year you still earn more than a guy earning £999,999,999 a year? So (for sociopaths who strive for more money than they could ever spend) there still would be a point in ‘striving’. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alta-pete Posted November 1, 2019 Share Posted November 1, 2019 Forgive me if I have misunderstood your post but it seems like you are on of those ignorami who think going into a higher tax band could leave a person worse off. Surely not and you do realise that if you are taxed at 90% over £1bn a year you still earn more than a guy earning £999,999,999 a year? So (for sociopaths who strive for more money than they could ever spend) there still would be a point in ‘striving’.The basic point, maybe clumsily put, would you strive if after a certain point 90% of your gain was taxed? I’m self employed and already struggle to motivate myself into the band where 40% of my extra effort is taxed. Net result: I, and therefore the wider economy, are less productive than they could be. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oneteaminglasgow Posted November 1, 2019 Share Posted November 1, 2019 The basic point, maybe clumsily put, would you strive if after a certain point 90% of your gain was taxed? I’m self employed and already struggle to motivate myself into the band where 40% of my extra effort is taxed. Net result: I, and therefore the wider economy, are less productive than they could be. Right, so you don’t want to earn more in case you’re taxed a little bit more, even though you’ll end up better off? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alta-pete Posted November 1, 2019 Share Posted November 1, 2019 Right, so you don’t want to earn more in case you’re taxed a little bit more, even though you’ll end up better off?‘Better off’ is the debatable point. Yes, I’ll have more money but what is the point in that if I’m working a 60hr week? Am I not ‘better off’ by working a 35hr week, making less money, and having an extra 25hrs to do with as I please? I’m at the wrong end of the spectrum in relation to a debate about billionaires I appreciate but the original point was that in the 70s when super income was taxed at 90% there was no point (ie nigh impossible) to become a billionaire. If you/your enterprise were making that sort of money the incentive was there to spread the wealth, reinvest it or go do something leisurely. My own view - and it won’t be a world view - is that there’s still nae danger I’m working when, by comparison to the original point, a relatively modest 40% of it disappears to HMRC. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgecutter Posted November 1, 2019 Share Posted November 1, 2019 28 minutes ago, alta-pete said: I'm self employed and already struggle to motivate myself into the band where 40% of my extra effort is taxed. Net result: I, and therefore the wider economy, are less productive than they could be. Ltd company and dividends my friend. It's all about the dividends. One of the great perks of self employment. Plus you don't lose your house if your sole trader business goes seriously tits up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The OP Posted November 1, 2019 Author Share Posted November 1, 2019 I’m pretty sure becoming a billionaire isn’t generally based upon doing a few hours O/T a week because you like the tax rate. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alta-pete Posted November 1, 2019 Share Posted November 1, 2019 I’m pretty sure becoming a billionaire isn’t generally based upon doing a few hours O/T a week because you like the tax rate.I’m sure you’re right. But equally earning a bazillion pounds a year doesn’t happen by just doing a wee bit overtime. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.