JFKvsNixon Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 I think the fact that Sorrell is liable to pay 38,000x more tax than the poor ickle care worker shows perfectly well how the tickle down is working. What sort of hole in the public purse do you think we would have if rich people like Sorrell didn't put their money on the line and create these profitable businesses. Wouldn't it be a much better situation for businesses to pay their employees a living wage, rather then the government using some of the tax income to top up their employees wage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonJeremy Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 Exactamundo! ---------- Post added 09-05-2016 at 20:50 ---------- What's the difference? And if you don't think it's wrong For ONE person to get that MUCH money There's something wrong wi yo mate Nope. There's something wrong with you. It must eat you up inside all this hatred. There are people richer than you. There are people poorer than you. MANY more, MUCH poorer than you. Get over it. There are people on this planet who think the "poor" people in this country who get free education (thanks to the taxes of the rich), free healthcare (thanks to the taxes of the rich), free food (thanks to the taxes of the rich), free housing and central heating (thanks to the taxes of the rich) - I could go on ad nauseam - are wealthy beyond comprehension. The politics of envy are not pretty and they make everyone poorer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solomon1 Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 The politics of envy are not pretty and they make everyone poorer NOBODY should earn that much money dude No-one is worth it and it's a ridiculous sum for ONE person! It's like the entire GDP of Ecuador or summat - quite, QUITE, obscene Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonJeremy Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 NOBODY should earn that much money dude No-one is worth it and it's a ridiculous sum for ONE person! It's like the entire GDP of Ecuador or summat - quite, QUITE, obscene Better he packed the job in and lived doing nothing? Close the business down? Sack all the staff? And stop paying taxes? Or just shrink the business down? What are you suggesting? Your income is obscene and ridiculous to many in the world. Don't see the difference. Good luck to the man. Don't be so jealous. Get on with your own life and enjoy it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solomon1 Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 Don't be so jealous Open a space to see that FAIRNESS is the motivating factor here dude I am ashamed EVERY day of the inequalities that exist in this world One man earning 68.5 million just should NOT be a possibility EVER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 (edited) Cyclone is quite right. Inequality rose dramatically during Margaret Thatcher's time as prime minister (neoliberal) and, as we agree, remained high throughout John Major's (neoliberal), Tony Blair and Gordon Brown's (neoconservative) periods at Number 10, and they stayed high through the coalition right up to today, under David Cameron's (neoliberal) administration. Corrado Gini's measure of statistical dispersion known as the gini coefficient is famously forbidding in its complexity, but that's very much the point - economists love to make use of complex formulas and bewildering coefficients because they are guaranteed to intimidate all but the most enthusiastic of statisticians. Don't be put off by this ruse. In simple terms the gini coefficient demonstrates that inequality rose dramatically in the UK as soon as Margaret Thatcher took office, and has remained high ever since. Over the last thirty seven years inequality has been a structural feature of the government's economic policy. It's not that high though is it. http://www.poverty.org.uk/e14/index.shtml http://www.ponarseurasia.org/article/why-capital-21st-century-bestseller Looking at the longer term trends, it was lower than now for about 30 years, but otherwise as far as the data we have has always been higher... Edited May 9, 2016 by Cyclone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonJeremy Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 Open a space to see that FAIRNESS is the motivating factor here dude I am ashamed EVERY day of the inequalities that exist in this world One man earning 68.5 million just should NOT be a possibility EVER I don't understand why it shouldn't be possible? Would 6.85m be Ok then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_bloke Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 Cyclone is quite right. Inequality rose dramatically during Margaret Thatcher's time as prime minister (neoliberal) and, as we agree, remained high throughout John Major's (neoliberal), Tony Blair and Gordon Brown's (neoconservative) periods at Number 10, and they stayed high through the coalition right up to today, under David Cameron's (neoliberal) administration. So basically pre 1979 socialism was restricting high earners from earning the sort of money they can now, either due to heavy tax regimes or the state controlling everything. You know, back when we were the poor man of Europe and the country was in an economic mess. I keep hearing about how capitalism means money doesn't trickle down, but it's interesting to see how much better life is for people on low incomes than it was back in the 1970s when the Gini value was lower. Maybe with more rich people means more taxes and more support for people on low incomes now, rather than less tax income due to less 'rich' people and without having to bail out a dying selection of nationalised industries? Perish the thought! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppet2 Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 I keep hearing about how capitalism means money doesn't trickle down, but it's interesting to see how much better life is for people on low incomes than it was back in the 1970s when the Gini value was lower. Maybe with more rich people means more taxes and more support for people on low incomes now, rather than less tax income due to less 'rich' people and without having to bail out a dying selection of nationalised industries? Perish the thought! Never before have the rich paid so little tax, yet STILL many want to hide it offshore. No wonder Osborne had to revise his budget when he discovered he wasn't getting the tax receipts he expected. More rich people, esp. Global corporations, just means more greed and less tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonJeremy Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 Never before have the rich paid so little tax, yet STILL many want to hide it offshore. No wonder Osborne had to revise his budget when he discovered he wasn't getting the tax receipts he expected. More rich people, esp. Global corporations, just means more greed and less tax. Never before have the "poor" in this country been so wealthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now