Should billionaires exist?

[Cerberus]

1 hour ago, Hedgecutter said:

109.9 billion, pfft.  In todays money, Andrew Carnegie's net worth was 372 billion USD. 

No bad for a Fifer, eh.

He could have bought the entirety of FIfe and still had 371,999,999,999 USD left.

[Hedgecutter]

3 minutes ago, Snafu said:

How would Bruce Wayne be Batman and fight crime without being a billionaire?

Indeed.  Things were a bit different before he amassed his fortune.

 

[Derry Alli]

30 minutes ago, BigFatTabbyDave said:

Spider-Man seems to manage alright, and he's always potless.

He lived off his uncles rice empire though. 

[Mark Connolly]

3 hours ago, Cerberus said:

I'd rather have no money that be a wee man tbh.

When @Bairnardo comes up with his business idea, he's going to be fucking loaded

[Sergeant Wilson]

1 hour ago, Hedgecutter said:

Indeed.  Things were a bit different before he amassed his fortune.

 

Robin got in to the porn business and they never looked back.

[DA Baracus]

28 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

Robin got in to the porn business and they never looked back.

Blatman and Boab-in.

[Marshmallo]

Genuinely in tears at this

[Cerberus]

Remember when people gathered together to donate $100 million to Kylie Jenner so she could become the world’s youngest billionaire?


That was really generous of them. Some people just have goodness in their hearts.

[Guest JTS98]

The concept of a billionaire is absolutely disgusting and their existence is a symptom of the utterly corrupt financial system which those with power have managed, through control of all the essential organs of society, to impose on the majority.

I accept that to some that sentence will sound like tinfoil hat, student politics stuff, but it's simply true.

We have ample resources for the population of our planet and absolutely no need for any individual or family to go without. Yet, we have accepted a system that allows a tiny fraction of people at the top to hoard obscene amounts of wealth while others starve to death, hospitals go under-funded, people die of curable diseases, working families eat from food banks.

Of course, those at the top have the money to influence media output, which is precisely what allows the common sense view I have to be painted as some mental extreme-left view. That's the power of controlling information. They also have the money to lobby politicians and buy off governments to allow them to protect their wealth.

If you're not horrified, you don't understand what's going on.

Nobody should ever be inheriting a level of wealth that gives them a head-start in life ahead of another kid born on the same day as them. I don't see what right-thinking human being could disagree with that. Absolutely nobody should ever become a billionaire and the fact they not only exist, but that we accept their existence shows how far down the wrong path we are.

Ultimately, it'll be the death of us. The path of wreckless consumption that materialism on that scale leads to is going to wipe us out.

[gannonball]

Harry Arter (Bournemouth and Ireland midfielder) making a bit of a c**t of himself on twitter over this in support of Billionaires.

[Bairnardo]

Harry Arter (Bournemouth and Ireland midfielder) making a bit of a c**t of himself on twitter over this in support of Billionaires.

Its ok. Hes posted a fishing emoji, which automatically rolls back all of your thicko assertions. Phew.

[Guest]

On 31/10/2019 at 15:17, Dele said:

So we should spend our earnings on services provided by a person who, in turn, then gives that money back to us? 

No, but they should drop the price of their services as they're quite obviously ripping both us and their workforce right off, if they're making those obscene levels of profit...............

[Guest]

On 31/10/2019 at 16:16, DigOutYourSoul said:

What arbitrary level of wealth is considered “enough” and who gets to decide and impose this limit on someone’s wealth?

For any wealth cap to exists it would require near worldwide support.

How, for example, do you cap Jeff Bezos wealth when he own $100bn worth of shares in the biggest company in the world?

I would let madam Guillotine decide................

[Kuro]

11 hours ago, JTS98 said:

The concept of a billionaire is absolutely disgusting and their existence is a symptom of the utterly corrupt financial system which those with power have managed, through control of all the essential organs of society, to impose on the majority.

I accept that to some that sentence will sound like tinfoil hat, student politics stuff, but it's simply true.

We have ample resources for the population of our planet and absolutely no need for any individual or family to go without. Yet, we have accepted a system that allows a tiny fraction of people at the top to hoard obscene amounts of wealth while others starve to death, hospitals go under-funded, people die of curable diseases, working families eat from food banks.

Of course, those at the top have the money to influence media output, which is precisely what allows the common sense view I have to be painted as some mental extreme-left view. That's the power of controlling information. They also have the money to lobby politicians and buy off governments to allow them to protect their wealth.

If you're not horrified, you don't understand what's going on.

Nobody should ever be inheriting a level of wealth that gives them a head-start in life ahead of another kid born on the same day as them. I don't see what right-thinking human being could disagree with that. Absolutely nobody should ever become a billionaire and the fact they not only exist, but that we accept their existence shows how far down the wrong path we are.

Ultimately, it'll be the death of us. The path of wreckless consumption that materialism on that scale leads to is going to wipe us out.

Quality post.  Know what the major roadblock to changing this is?  Normal people don't go into politics, so we get bellends like boris who are genuine sociopaths and narcissists like ross thomson.

[Wee-Bey]

[Aufc]

The concept of a billionaire is absolutely disgusting and their existence is a symptom of the utterly corrupt financial system which those with power have managed, through control of all the essential organs of society, to impose on the majority.
I accept that to some that sentence will sound like tinfoil hat, student politics stuff, but it's simply true.
We have ample resources for the population of our planet and absolutely no need for any individual or family to go without. Yet, we have accepted a system that allows a tiny fraction of people at the top to hoard obscene amounts of wealth while others starve to death, hospitals go under-funded, people die of curable diseases, working families eat from food banks.
Of course, those at the top have the money to influence media output, which is precisely what allows the common sense view I have to be painted as some mental extreme-left view. That's the power of controlling information. They also have the money to lobby politicians and buy off governments to allow them to protect their wealth.
If you're not horrified, you don't understand what's going on.
Nobody should ever be inheriting a level of wealth that gives them a head-start in life ahead of another kid born on the same day as them. I don't see what right-thinking human being could disagree with that. Absolutely nobody should ever become a billionaire and the fact they not only exist, but that we accept their existence shows how far down the wrong path we are.
Ultimately, it'll be the death of us. The path of wreckless consumption that materialism on that scale leads to is going to wipe us out.

I agree with you. What are your thoughts on someone who has made a success of themselves and has wealth of circa £4-5m with the view to helping his kids and their kids in life?

[Guest JTS98]

9 hours ago, Aufc said:

 

I agree with you. What are your thoughts on someone who has made a success of themselves and has wealth of circa £4-5m with the view to helping his kids and their kids in life?

My view of that would be that his or her kids are nothing special and have done absolutely nothing to earn that. A wealthy and successful parent's reward for that success is enjoying a life of wealth.

There is no reason for that to carry over to the children. It's morally wrong and the end result of that is dynastic wealth locked into offshore accounts and tax/inheritance tax avoidance schemes to protect it and prevent it being used to benefit society as a whole.

Hospitals go under-funded, the education sector goes under-funded, public libraries close, families eat from foodbanks etc etc, all while money that should be in the system is simply passed from wealthy parents to their children, then their children, then their children. This props up the scandalous system of government-subsidised 'independent' schools for the rich (taking teachers and good pupils away from 'normal' schools) leading to places at good universities, leading to networking, leading to positions of influence and wealth that those without such rich parents are locked out of.

One example would be media work. How many people in the media today are there because they could afford to do unpaid internships? Those without mummy and daddy bankrolling them are locked out.

At the top end, this leads to huge sums of money for certain small groups of people to lobby politicians, influence the media etc. And off we go again.

Everybody says they like fairness. But when it comes to the crunch they want to set their kids up with an unfair advantage that then screws everybody else. It is the whole problem.

If I have a few million quid and decide to support my kids with that money, ultimately that wealth will probably help them beat a kid from a poorer background to a good job, and so on and so on and so on. It's not right.

Edited November 5, 2019 by JTS98

[SlipperyP]

This is a story I was told by a 89 yo Thai man how used to work in Bangkok as a financial adviser, I'm sure he never was the original story teller, and maybe  you have heard it before....

There was a  millionaire  Farange (foreigner) who came to stay in the village and bought some land next to the river.  Everyday he would wander down to the rive bank and sit with his fishing rod and catch a couple of fish and more or less sit back and enjoy life.  On each of these days he would see a villager on the opposite bank, casting his make shift wooden rod to catch 1 fish then head off.  The Farange, noticing this, took his boat over to the other bank to have a chat the conversation went like this;

Farange; Hi, I see you here everyday catching 1 fish then heading off.

Villager; Yes, I come down here and catch my dinner for the family.

Farange; Very good, you should upgrade your rod, like mine, you will catch more fish quicker.

Villager; Why, what would I do with the extra fish.

Farange; you could eat more and sell the rest to the other villagers.

Villager; why would I want to do that?

Farange; make a little money to buy yourselves a net, then the fish you catch you can take to the village market to sell.

Villager; Why would I want to that?

Farange; Then you could by a boat like mine and be able to catch more fish and get it to the market quicker, making  you more money.

Villager: What would I do then?

Farange; You could be the supplier of all the fish in the village, which will give you money to buy a truck to take fish to the other villages.

Villager: why?

Farange; You will make lots of money, be able to employ people to catch your  fish, which will mean more money.

Villager; Really? But why would I want to do that?

Farange; You will then have people working for you and enough fish and transport to sell at the town market, again making you more money.

Villager; I would have too much money to spent on the thing I need. what would I do also with all my free time?

Farange: We could go fishing...

There is a few morals to that story, can you get them all?

 

 

 

Edited November 5, 2019 by SlipperyP

[Aufc]

My view of that would be that his or her kids are nothing special and have done absolutely nothing to earn that. A wealthy and successful parent's reward for that success is enjoying a life of wealth.
There is no reason for that to carry over to the children. It's morally wrong and the end result of that is dynastic wealth locked into offshore accounts and tax/inheritance tax avoidance schemes to protect it and prevent it being used to benefit society as a whole.
Hospitals go under-funded, the education sector goes under-funded, public libraries close, families eat from foodbanks etc etc, all while money that should be in the system is simply passed from wealthy parents to their children, then their children, then their children. This props up the scandalous system of government-subsidised 'independent' schools for the rich (taking teachers and good pupils away from 'normal' schools) leading to places at good universities, leading to networking, leading to positions of influence and wealth that those without such rich parents are locked out of.
One example would be media work. How many people in the media today are there because they could afford to do unpaid internships? Those without mummy and daddy bankrolling them are locked out.
At the top end, this leads to huge sums of money for certain small groups of people to lobby politicians, influence the media etc. And off we go again.
Everybody says they like fairness. But when it comes to the crunch they want to set their kids up with an unfair advantage that then screws everybody else. It is the whole problem.
If I have a few million quid and decide to support my kids with that money, ultimately that wealth will probably help them beat a kid from a poorer background to a good job, and so on and so on and so on. It's not right.

I agree that private schools should have their tax breaks removed. This is despite me attending one. However, it seems that you are tarring a lot of people with the same brush. Yes there are some people who do well by doing not very much which is wrong, however, you are tagging people like me in with them.

At the end of the day, i work hard to help my kids and i wouldnt want all my hard work to be lost once i pass on. This is the same for my parents. I have no issue with some of it being paid in tax but just seems a bit excessive that we pay taxes all of our life and you then want everything else to be paid in tax when we die.

For the record, i would be more than willing to pay more tax. I feel anyone over a certain amount should pay more in tax and it saddens me when i hear people saying they earn over x amount saying they dont want to pay anymore tax when there are people living in poverty.

Regarding your point about the media, do you have any evidence for that? I genuinely dont have a clue. I have no doubts that it does happen in some jobs but i think you are making a sweeping generalisation

[Jacksgranda]

8 minutes ago, Aufc said:

 

I agree that private schools should have their tax breaks removed. This is despite me attending one. However, it seems that you are tarring a lot of people with the same brush. Yes there are some people who do well by doing not very much which is wrong, however, you are tagging people like me in with them.

At the end of the day, i work hard to help my kids and i wouldnt want all my hard work to be lost once i pass on. This is the same for my parents. I have no issue with some of it being paid in tax but just seems a bit excessive that we pay taxes all of our life and you then want everything else to be paid in tax when we die.

For the record, i would be more than willing to pay more tax. I feel anyone over a certain amount should pay more in tax and it saddens me when i hear people saying they earn over x amount saying they dont want to pay anymore tax when there are people living in poverty.

Regarding your point about the media, do you have any evidence for that? I genuinely dont have a clue. I have no doubts that it does happen in some jobs but i think you are making a sweeping generalisation
 

 

What is a "certain amount"? £5,000 p/a more than you are currently earning? £100,000 p/a? What rate would this extra tax be paid at? Why not raise the amount earned before tax is paid to say £15,000 per year?