Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I also am not sure I agree with how strongly he sees wealth inequality is the MAIN problem that current generations face, although it is certainly something he sees as the driving factor behind a fall in living standards, I'm sure that money isn't just the only thing that's hurting people. " So the older people have worked hard and got themselves in a good position. We have younger lads at work doing what I did and are allready starting to get on the Housing market like I did. Hope fully it might even go better for them than it gid for me buying my fist property in August 1989. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I also am not sure I agree with how strongly he sees wealth inequality is the MAIN problem that current generations face, although it is certainly something he sees as the driving factor behind a fall in living standards, I'm sure that money isn't just the only thing that's hurting people. " Why is wealth inequality a problem? If I have ten million and my neighbour has one hundred million why is that a problem? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I also am not sure I agree with how strongly he sees wealth inequality is the MAIN problem that current generations face, although it is certainly something he sees as the driving factor behind a fall in living standards, I'm sure that money isn't just the only thing that's hurting people. Why is wealth inequality a problem? If I have ten million and my neighbour has one hundred million why is that a problem?" So long as your both happy there is know problem. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I also am not sure I agree with how strongly he sees wealth inequality is the MAIN problem that current generations face, although it is certainly something he sees as the driving factor behind a fall in living standards, I'm sure that money isn't just the only thing that's hurting people. So the older people have worked hard and got themselves in a good position. We have younger lads at work doing what I did and are allready starting to get on the Housing market like I did. Hope fully it might even go better for them than it gid for me buying my fist property in August 1989." I'm not quite sure what that has to do with wealth inequality? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I also am not sure I agree with how strongly he sees wealth inequality is the MAIN problem that current generations face, although it is certainly something he sees as the driving factor behind a fall in living standards, I'm sure that money isn't just the only thing that's hurting people. So the older people have worked hard and got themselves in a good position. We have younger lads at work doing what I did and are allready starting to get on the Housing market like I did. Hope fully it might even go better for them than it gid for me buying my fist property in August 1989. I'm not quite sure what that has to do with wealth inequality?" It does have relevance over the last 40+ years Housing in isolation, in 1980 the average house price/ average income ratio was 3 times, now it’s nearly 9 times. Similar comparisons to rents. Social housing stock halved through right to buy and demolition, replaced by expensive private rented sector rents. Increasing age of first time buyers, more younger people living with parents, more longer term mortgages. Housing representing the largest proportion of overall uk wealth. ONS says Uk housing valued at £9trn while total value of Uk £13.3trn. Housing is worth more than the combined values of all stock uk listed stock market indices, pension funds and savings. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I also am not sure I agree with how strongly he sees wealth inequality is the MAIN problem that current generations face, although it is certainly something he sees as the driving factor behind a fall in living standards, I'm sure that money isn't just the only thing that's hurting people. Why is wealth inequality a problem? If I have ten million and my neighbour has one hundred million why is that a problem?" You don't understand what wealth inequality is or are being obtuse?! I can tell that by the out of context question | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I also am not sure I agree with how strongly he sees wealth inequality is the MAIN problem that current generations face, although it is certainly something he sees as the driving factor behind a fall in living standards, I'm sure that money isn't just the only thing that's hurting people. So the older people have worked hard and got themselves in a good position. We have younger lads at work doing what I did and are allready starting to get on the Housing market like I did. Hope fully it might even go better for them than it gid for me buying my fist property in August 1989. I'm not quite sure what that has to do with wealth inequality?" So why is there wealth inequality to me it's 1 person is happy to work harder to increase the wealth and later comfort in life. The other person wants what the person above has but did not want to do the hard graft. No | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I also am not sure I agree with how strongly he sees wealth inequality is the MAIN problem that current generations face, although it is certainly something he sees as the driving factor behind a fall in living standards, I'm sure that money isn't just the only thing that's hurting people. Why is wealth inequality a problem? If I have ten million and my neighbour has one hundred million why is that a problem? You don't understand what wealth inequality is or are being obtuse?! I can tell that by the out of context question" No go.on I probably don't to be fair so as your the OP can you explain it to us. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I also am not sure I agree with how strongly he sees wealth inequality is the MAIN problem that current generations face, although it is certainly something he sees as the driving factor behind a fall in living standards, I'm sure that money isn't just the only thing that's hurting people. So the older people have worked hard and got themselves in a good position. We have younger lads at work doing what I did and are allready starting to get on the Housing market like I did. Hope fully it might even go better for them than it gid for me buying my fist property in August 1989. I'm not quite sure what that has to do with wealth inequality? So why is there wealth inequality to me it's 1 person is happy to work harder to increase the wealth and later comfort in life. The other person wants what the person above has but did not want to do the hard graft. No " you are comparing income inequality not wealth inequality ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I also am not sure I agree with how strongly he sees wealth inequality is the MAIN problem that current generations face, although it is certainly something he sees as the driving factor behind a fall in living standards, I'm sure that money isn't just the only thing that's hurting people. So the older people have worked hard and got themselves in a good position. We have younger lads at work doing what I did and are allready starting to get on the Housing market like I did. Hope fully it might even go better for them than it gid for me buying my fist property in August 1989. I'm not quite sure what that has to do with wealth inequality? So why is there wealth inequality to me it's 1 person is happy to work harder to increase the wealth and later comfort in life. The other person wants what the person above has but did not want to do the hard graft. No you are comparing income inequality not wealth inequality ? " How surly the 2 must be related. If your income is generating Wealth. Even Branson made his own money. So if that's income I guess he is not classed as wealthy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I also am not sure I agree with how strongly he sees wealth inequality is the MAIN problem that current generations face, although it is certainly something he sees as the driving factor behind a fall in living standards, I'm sure that money isn't just the only thing that's hurting people. So the older people have worked hard and got themselves in a good position. We have younger lads at work doing what I did and are allready starting to get on the Housing market like I did. Hope fully it might even go better for them than it gid for me buying my fist property in August 1989. I'm not quite sure what that has to do with wealth inequality? So why is there wealth inequality to me it's 1 person is happy to work harder to increase the wealth and later comfort in life. The other person wants what the person above has but did not want to do the hard graft. No you are comparing income inequality not wealth inequality ? How surly the 2 must be related. If your income is generating Wealth. Even Branson made his own money. So if that's income I guess he is not classed as wealthy." Not necessarily. Going back to housing, older generations have benefitted from four decades of house price growth, 65% of uk housing wealth is controlled by the 65 and over age group. They were not necessarily high earners. Conversely living standards have increased yet more younger people are excluded from home ownership due to inadequate income to buy houses at prices now at nine times income | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I also am not sure I agree with how strongly he sees wealth inequality is the MAIN problem that current generations face, although it is certainly something he sees as the driving factor behind a fall in living standards, I'm sure that money isn't just the only thing that's hurting people. So the older people have worked hard and got themselves in a good position. We have younger lads at work doing what I did and are allready starting to get on the Housing market like I did. Hope fully it might even go better for them than it gid for me buying my fist property in August 1989. I'm not quite sure what that has to do with wealth inequality? So why is there wealth inequality to me it's 1 person is happy to work harder to increase the wealth and later comfort in life. The other person wants what the person above has but did not want to do the hard graft. No you are comparing income inequality not wealth inequality ? How surly the 2 must be related. If your income is generating Wealth. Even Branson made his own money. So if that's income I guess he is not classed as wealthy. Not necessarily. Going back to housing, older generations have benefitted from four decades of house price growth, 65% of uk housing wealth is controlled by the 65 and over age group. They were not necessarily high earners. Conversely living standards have increased yet more younger people are excluded from home ownership due to inadequate income to buy houses at prices now at nine times income " Why are they excluded there are 7 days in a week and you can work 16 hours a day like I did. So most can earn £1000 a week, or £50k a year. We have Guys earning way more at work. And most on the property ladder. And how knows where that will be in 30 years possible more then 65% | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I also am not sure I agree with how strongly he sees wealth inequality is the MAIN problem that current generations face, although it is certainly something he sees as the driving factor behind a fall in living standards, I'm sure that money isn't just the only thing that's hurting people. So the older people have worked hard and got themselves in a good position. We have younger lads at work doing what I did and are allready starting to get on the Housing market like I did. Hope fully it might even go better for them than it gid for me buying my fist property in August 1989. I'm not quite sure what that has to do with wealth inequality? So why is there wealth inequality to me it's 1 person is happy to work harder to increase the wealth and later comfort in life. The other person wants what the person above has but did not want to do the hard graft. No you are comparing income inequality not wealth inequality ? How surly the 2 must be related. If your income is generating Wealth. Even Branson made his own money. So if that's income I guess he is not classed as wealthy. Not necessarily. Going back to housing, older generations have benefitted from four decades of house price growth, 65% of uk housing wealth is controlled by the 65 and over age group. They were not necessarily high earners. Conversely living standards have increased yet more younger people are excluded from home ownership due to inadequate income to buy houses at prices now at nine times income " I can see that 50 shades has a good idea of what 'wealth' is and how it has caused massive inequality in the generations. What Gary Stevenson point is though is not just that there is a gap generationally, it's that we're basically turning the UK into the age when kings and lords owned all the land, where the plebs had nothing, paid astronomical tax on what they did and worked till they dropped dead. And if you look in the mirror and answer truthfully, that is literally what is happening before your eyes. Regardless of if you're left, right, centre or extremist; Unless you're born into a WEALTHY family, it doesn't matter how hard you work you will always be poor. History has a funny way of repeating itself | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I also am not sure I agree with how strongly he sees wealth inequality is the MAIN problem that current generations face, although it is certainly something he sees as the driving factor behind a fall in living standards, I'm sure that money isn't just the only thing that's hurting people. So the older people have worked hard and got themselves in a good position. We have younger lads at work doing what I did and are allready starting to get on the Housing market like I did. Hope fully it might even go better for them than it gid for me buying my fist property in August 1989. I'm not quite sure what that has to do with wealth inequality? So why is there wealth inequality to me it's 1 person is happy to work harder to increase the wealth and later comfort in life. The other person wants what the person above has but did not want to do the hard graft. No you are comparing income inequality not wealth inequality ? How surly the 2 must be related. If your income is generating Wealth. Even Branson made his own money. So if that's income I guess he is not classed as wealthy. Not necessarily. Going back to housing, older generations have benefitted from four decades of house price growth, 65% of uk housing wealth is controlled by the 65 and over age group. They were not necessarily high earners. Conversely living standards have increased yet more younger people are excluded from home ownership due to inadequate income to buy houses at prices now at nine times income Why are they excluded there are 7 days in a week and you can work 16 hours a day like I did. So most can earn £1000 a week, or £50k a year. We have Guys earning way more at work. And most on the property ladder. And how knows where that will be in 30 years possible more then 65% " Homeownership peaked at 71% in 2001 Today it is 62% The reason for falling home ownership is the cost of housing linked to wages. Half a million graduates annually with 50k student debt each and less young people with cars. The average age of first time buyers in the UK has been steadily increasing, reaching 33 years old in 2024, the highest in two decades. This trend is attributed to factors like rising house prices and economic pressures | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I also am not sure I agree with how strongly he sees wealth inequality is the MAIN problem that current generations face, although it is certainly something he sees as the driving factor behind a fall in living standards, I'm sure that money isn't just the only thing that's hurting people. So the older people have worked hard and got themselves in a good position. We have younger lads at work doing what I did and are allready starting to get on the Housing market like I did. Hope fully it might even go better for them than it gid for me buying my fist property in August 1989. I'm not quite sure what that has to do with wealth inequality? So why is there wealth inequality to me it's 1 person is happy to work harder to increase the wealth and later comfort in life. The other person wants what the person above has but did not want to do the hard graft. No you are comparing income inequality not wealth inequality ? How surly the 2 must be related. If your income is generating Wealth. Even Branson made his own money. So if that's income I guess he is not classed as wealthy. Not necessarily. Going back to housing, older generations have benefitted from four decades of house price growth, 65% of uk housing wealth is controlled by the 65 and over age group. They were not necessarily high earners. Conversely living standards have increased yet more younger people are excluded from home ownership due to inadequate income to buy houses at prices now at nine times income I can see that 50 shades has a good idea of what 'wealth' is and how it has caused massive inequality in the generations. What Gary Stevenson point is though is not just that there is a gap generationally, it's that we're basically turning the UK into the age when kings and lords owned all the land, where the plebs had nothing, paid astronomical tax on what they did and worked till they dropped dead. And if you look in the mirror and answer truthfully, that is literally what is happening before your eyes. Regardless of if you're left, right, centre or extremist; Unless you're born into a WEALTHY family, it doesn't matter how hard you work you will always be poor. History has a funny way of repeating itself " Absolutely agreed. On taxation progressive rates from nil rate band to 45%, plus national insurance while corporation tax rates are 25% increasing to 28% over £250k profits. More lower paid people paying higher rates of indirect taxation like vat, and high rents. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I also am not sure I agree with how strongly he sees wealth inequality is the MAIN problem that current generations face, although it is certainly something he sees as the driving factor behind a fall in living standards, I'm sure that money isn't just the only thing that's hurting people. So the older people have worked hard and got themselves in a good position. We have younger lads at work doing what I did and are allready starting to get on the Housing market like I did. Hope fully it might even go better for them than it gid for me buying my fist property in August 1989. I'm not quite sure what that has to do with wealth inequality? So why is there wealth inequality to me it's 1 person is happy to work harder to increase the wealth and later comfort in life. The other person wants what the person above has but did not want to do the hard graft. No you are comparing income inequality not wealth inequality ? How surly the 2 must be related. If your income is generating Wealth. Even Branson made his own money. So if that's income I guess he is not classed as wealthy. Not necessarily. Going back to housing, older generations have benefitted from four decades of house price growth, 65% of uk housing wealth is controlled by the 65 and over age group. They were not necessarily high earners. Conversely living standards have increased yet more younger people are excluded from home ownership due to inadequate income to buy houses at prices now at nine times income I can see that 50 shades has a good idea of what 'wealth' is and how it has caused massive inequality in the generations. What Gary Stevenson point is though is not just that there is a gap generationally, it's that we're basically turning the UK into the age when kings and lords owned all the land, where the plebs had nothing, paid astronomical tax on what they did and worked till they dropped dead. And if you look in the mirror and answer truthfully, that is literally what is happening before your eyes. Regardless of if you're left, right, centre or extremist; Unless you're born into a WEALTHY family, it doesn't matter how hard you work you will always be poor. History has a funny way of repeating itself Absolutely agreed. On taxation progressive rates from nil rate band to 45%, plus national insurance while corporation tax rates are 25% increasing to 28% over £250k profits. More lower paid people paying higher rates of indirect taxation like vat, and high rents. " Gary is calling for a "wealth tax". For people that don't understand what that is or what is 'wealth' (watch the fucking link I posted😅); we can tax assets and commodities (which the rich own) and tax WORK less. Sitting on hundreds of millions of £s in assets and generating passive income from that is not WORK. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I also am not sure I agree with how strongly he sees wealth inequality is the MAIN problem that current generations face, although it is certainly something he sees as the driving factor behind a fall in living standards, I'm sure that money isn't just the only thing that's hurting people. So the older people have worked hard and got themselves in a good position. We have younger lads at work doing what I did and are allready starting to get on the Housing market like I did. Hope fully it might even go better for them than it gid for me buying my fist property in August 1989. I'm not quite sure what that has to do with wealth inequality? So why is there wealth inequality to me it's 1 person is happy to work harder to increase the wealth and later comfort in life. The other person wants what the person above has but did not want to do the hard graft. No you are comparing income inequality not wealth inequality ? How surly the 2 must be related. If your income is generating Wealth. Even Branson made his own money. So if that's income I guess he is not classed as wealthy. Not necessarily. Going back to housing, older generations have benefitted from four decades of house price growth, 65% of uk housing wealth is controlled by the 65 and over age group. They were not necessarily high earners. Conversely living standards have increased yet more younger people are excluded from home ownership due to inadequate income to buy houses at prices now at nine times income Why are they excluded there are 7 days in a week and you can work 16 hours a day like I did. So most can earn £1000 a week, or £50k a year. We have Guys earning way more at work. And most on the property ladder. And how knows where that will be in 30 years possible more then 65% Homeownership peaked at 71% in 2001 Today it is 62% The reason for falling home ownership is the cost of housing linked to wages. Half a million graduates annually with 50k student debt each and less young people with cars. The average age of first time buyers in the UK has been steadily increasing, reaching 33 years old in 2024, the highest in two decades. This trend is attributed to factors like rising house prices and economic pressures" So you don't think it's because they could do a paper round at 13, but don't, or do a saterday job but don't, or work when at university but don't. By the way I think university for lots is over rated. If an electrical engineer or most trades can get skills and earn at the same time why incurage so meany to go to university when they don't know what they realy want. Practical skills are just under valued buy schools trying to keep children in education. As for home ownership dropping I do see it but only because life is to easy at home. I do wander how meany still living at home are even saving for a deposit. Or paying rent. I don't get it as I'm not like that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I also am not sure I agree with how strongly he sees wealth inequality is the MAIN problem that current generations face, although it is certainly something he sees as the driving factor behind a fall in living standards, I'm sure that money isn't just the only thing that's hurting people. So the older people have worked hard and got themselves in a good position. We have younger lads at work doing what I did and are allready starting to get on the Housing market like I did. Hope fully it might even go better for them than it gid for me buying my fist property in August 1989. I'm not quite sure what that has to do with wealth inequality? So why is there wealth inequality to me it's 1 person is happy to work harder to increase the wealth and later comfort in life. The other person wants what the person above has but did not want to do the hard graft. No you are comparing income inequality not wealth inequality ? How surly the 2 must be related. If your income is generating Wealth. Even Branson made his own money. So if that's income I guess he is not classed as wealthy. Not necessarily. Going back to housing, older generations have benefitted from four decades of house price growth, 65% of uk housing wealth is controlled by the 65 and over age group. They were not necessarily high earners. Conversely living standards have increased yet more younger people are excluded from home ownership due to inadequate income to buy houses at prices now at nine times income I can see that 50 shades has a good idea of what 'wealth' is and how it has caused massive inequality in the generations. What Gary Stevenson point is though is not just that there is a gap generationally, it's that we're basically turning the UK into the age when kings and lords owned all the land, where the plebs had nothing, paid astronomical tax on what they did and worked till they dropped dead. And if you look in the mirror and answer truthfully, that is literally what is happening before your eyes. Regardless of if you're left, right, centre or extremist; Unless you're born into a WEALTHY family, it doesn't matter how hard you work you will always be poor. History has a funny way of repeating itself Absolutely agreed. On taxation progressive rates from nil rate band to 45%, plus national insurance while corporation tax rates are 25% increasing to 28% over £250k profits. More lower paid people paying higher rates of indirect taxation like vat, and high rents. Gary is calling for a "wealth tax". For people that don't understand what that is or what is 'wealth' (watch the fucking link I posted😅); we can tax assets and commodities (which the rich own) and tax WORK less. Sitting on hundreds of millions of £s in assets and generating passive income from that is not WORK. " I will when I'm not working 😕 time is money. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I also am not sure I agree with how strongly he sees wealth inequality is the MAIN problem that current generations face, although it is certainly something he sees as the driving factor behind a fall in living standards, I'm sure that money isn't just the only thing that's hurting people. So the older people have worked hard and got themselves in a good position. We have younger lads at work doing what I did and are allready starting to get on the Housing market like I did. Hope fully it might even go better for them than it gid for me buying my fist property in August 1989. I'm not quite sure what that has to do with wealth inequality? So why is there wealth inequality to me it's 1 person is happy to work harder to increase the wealth and later comfort in life. The other person wants what the person above has but did not want to do the hard graft. No you are comparing income inequality not wealth inequality ? How surly the 2 must be related. If your income is generating Wealth. Even Branson made his own money. So if that's income I guess he is not classed as wealthy. Not necessarily. Going back to housing, older generations have benefitted from four decades of house price growth, 65% of uk housing wealth is controlled by the 65 and over age group. They were not necessarily high earners. Conversely living standards have increased yet more younger people are excluded from home ownership due to inadequate income to buy houses at prices now at nine times income I can see that 50 shades has a good idea of what 'wealth' is and how it has caused massive inequality in the generations. What Gary Stevenson point is though is not just that there is a gap generationally, it's that we're basically turning the UK into the age when kings and lords owned all the land, where the plebs had nothing, paid astronomical tax on what they did and worked till they dropped dead. And if you look in the mirror and answer truthfully, that is literally what is happening before your eyes. Regardless of if you're left, right, centre or extremist; Unless you're born into a WEALTHY family, it doesn't matter how hard you work you will always be poor. History has a funny way of repeating itself Absolutely agreed. On taxation progressive rates from nil rate band to 45%, plus national insurance while corporation tax rates are 25% increasing to 28% over £250k profits. More lower paid people paying higher rates of indirect taxation like vat, and high rents. " Cooperation tax for small businesses is 19% well that's what I have to pay. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I also am not sure I agree with how strongly he sees wealth inequality is the MAIN problem that current generations face, although it is certainly something he sees as the driving factor behind a fall in living standards, I'm sure that money isn't just the only thing that's hurting people. So the older people have worked hard and got themselves in a good position. We have younger lads at work doing what I did and are allready starting to get on the Housing market like I did. Hope fully it might even go better for them than it gid for me buying my fist property in August 1989. I'm not quite sure what that has to do with wealth inequality? So why is there wealth inequality to me it's 1 person is happy to work harder to increase the wealth and later comfort in life. The other person wants what the person above has but did not want to do the hard graft. No you are comparing income inequality not wealth inequality ? How surly the 2 must be related. If your income is generating Wealth. Even Branson made his own money. So if that's income I guess he is not classed as wealthy. Not necessarily. Going back to housing, older generations have benefitted from four decades of house price growth, 65% of uk housing wealth is controlled by the 65 and over age group. They were not necessarily high earners. Conversely living standards have increased yet more younger people are excluded from home ownership due to inadequate income to buy houses at prices now at nine times income I can see that 50 shades has a good idea of what 'wealth' is and how it has caused massive inequality in the generations. What Gary Stevenson point is though is not just that there is a gap generationally, it's that we're basically turning the UK into the age when kings and lords owned all the land, where the plebs had nothing, paid astronomical tax on what they did and worked till they dropped dead. And if you look in the mirror and answer truthfully, that is literally what is happening before your eyes. Regardless of if you're left, right, centre or extremist; Unless you're born into a WEALTHY family, it doesn't matter how hard you work you will always be poor. History has a funny way of repeating itself Absolutely agreed. On taxation progressive rates from nil rate band to 45%, plus national insurance while corporation tax rates are 25% increasing to 28% over £250k profits. More lower paid people paying higher rates of indirect taxation like vat, and high rents. Gary is calling for a "wealth tax". For people that don't understand what that is or what is 'wealth' (watch the fucking link I posted😅); we can tax assets and commodities (which the rich own) and tax WORK less. Sitting on hundreds of millions of £s in assets and generating passive income from that is not WORK. " I don't think there are meny left in the UK worth hundreds of millions but again I could be wrong. But I do know if you push they will jump. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I also am not sure I agree with how strongly he sees wealth inequality is the MAIN problem that current generations face, although it is certainly something he sees as the driving factor behind a fall in living standards, I'm sure that money isn't just the only thing that's hurting people. So the older people have worked hard and got themselves in a good position. We have younger lads at work doing what I did and are allready starting to get on the Housing market like I did. Hope fully it might even go better for them than it gid for me buying my fist property in August 1989. I'm not quite sure what that has to do with wealth inequality? So why is there wealth inequality to me it's 1 person is happy to work harder to increase the wealth and later comfort in life. The other person wants what the person above has but did not want to do the hard graft. No you are comparing income inequality not wealth inequality ? How surly the 2 must be related. If your income is generating Wealth. Even Branson made his own money. So if that's income I guess he is not classed as wealthy. Not necessarily. Going back to housing, older generations have benefitted from four decades of house price growth, 65% of uk housing wealth is controlled by the 65 and over age group. They were not necessarily high earners. Conversely living standards have increased yet more younger people are excluded from home ownership due to inadequate income to buy houses at prices now at nine times income Why are they excluded there are 7 days in a week and you can work 16 hours a day like I did. So most can earn £1000 a week, or £50k a year. We have Guys earning way more at work. And most on the property ladder. And how knows where that will be in 30 years possible more then 65% " Ok, so from what I can understand there, I will explain with my own context. For me to earn as much as my parents did in spending terms, the house they had and 2 cars on the drive etc, I'd need to earn more like £2000 a week. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I also am not sure I agree with how strongly he sees wealth inequality is the MAIN problem that current generations face, although it is certainly something he sees as the driving factor behind a fall in living standards, I'm sure that money isn't just the only thing that's hurting people. So the older people have worked hard and got themselves in a good position. We have younger lads at work doing what I did and are allready starting to get on the Housing market like I did. Hope fully it might even go better for them than it gid for me buying my fist property in August 1989. I'm not quite sure what that has to do with wealth inequality? So why is there wealth inequality to me it's 1 person is happy to work harder to increase the wealth and later comfort in life. The other person wants what the person above has but did not want to do the hard graft. No you are comparing income inequality not wealth inequality ? How surly the 2 must be related. If your income is generating Wealth. Even Branson made his own money. So if that's income I guess he is not classed as wealthy. Not necessarily. Going back to housing, older generations have benefitted from four decades of house price growth, 65% of uk housing wealth is controlled by the 65 and over age group. They were not necessarily high earners. Conversely living standards have increased yet more younger people are excluded from home ownership due to inadequate income to buy houses at prices now at nine times income Why are they excluded there are 7 days in a week and you can work 16 hours a day like I did. So most can earn £1000 a week, or £50k a year. We have Guys earning way more at work. And most on the property ladder. And how knows where that will be in 30 years possible more then 65% Ok, so from what I can understand there, I will explain with my own context. For me to earn as much as my parents did in spending terms, the house they had and 2 cars on the drive etc, I'd need to earn more like £2000 a week. " That's just me. Not my missus earnings too which would also be needed to obtain that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When you are extremely asset rich, you make those assets generate returns (not necessarily income). If I had £1m of spare cash lying around, I could lend it to the bank and get say 5% interest per year, i.e. £50k per year. The bank has to cough up £50k from somewhere, so it lends to two people each taking out a £500k mortgage at a higher interest of 10% These two people, pay their mortgages by working. Indirectly I have extracted 25k from each of the two people, by virtue of having £1m spare cash sitting around to lend. Basically, return on capital is far greater than return on labour. Return on capital, piggybacks off return on labour by siphoning productivity from the labour force to create value for the people that have assets." This is a good example of why income tax triggers me so much, hard work is punished and the richest benefit. Ah that's fine. Yet you start talking about wealth tax/inheritance tax... the majority of people lose their shit | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When you are extremely asset rich, you make those assets generate returns (not necessarily income). If I had £1m of spare cash lying around, I could lend it to the bank and get say 5% interest per year, i.e. £50k per year. The bank has to cough up £50k from somewhere, so it lends to two people each taking out a £500k mortgage at a higher interest of 10% These two people, pay their mortgages by working. Indirectly I have extracted 25k from each of the two people, by virtue of having £1m spare cash sitting around to lend. Basically, return on capital is far greater than return on labour. Return on capital, piggybacks off return on labour by siphoning productivity from the labour force to create value for the people that have assets. This is a good example of why income tax triggers me so much, hard work is punished and the richest benefit. Ah that's fine. Yet you start talking about wealth tax/inheritance tax... the majority of people lose their shit" So at what level of wealth would you want to start say a 1% tax on wealth £10 million, £50 million, £100 million, And if so how would this happen Or is it just a pipe dream. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I also am not sure I agree with how strongly he sees wealth inequality is the MAIN problem that current generations face, although it is certainly something he sees as the driving factor behind a fall in living standards, I'm sure that money isn't just the only thing that's hurting people. So the older people have worked hard and got themselves in a good position. We have younger lads at work doing what I did and are allready starting to get on the Housing market like I did. Hope fully it might even go better for them than it gid for me buying my fist property in August 1989. I'm not quite sure what that has to do with wealth inequality? So why is there wealth inequality to me it's 1 person is happy to work harder to increase the wealth and later comfort in life. The other person wants what the person above has but did not want to do the hard graft. No you are comparing income inequality not wealth inequality ? How surly the 2 must be related. If your income is generating Wealth. Even Branson made his own money. So if that's income I guess he is not classed as wealthy. Not necessarily. Going back to housing, older generations have benefitted from four decades of house price growth, 65% of uk housing wealth is controlled by the 65 and over age group. They were not necessarily high earners. Conversely living standards have increased yet more younger people are excluded from home ownership due to inadequate income to buy houses at prices now at nine times income I can see that 50 shades has a good idea of what 'wealth' is and how it has caused massive inequality in the generations. What Gary Stevenson point is though is not just that there is a gap generationally, it's that we're basically turning the UK into the age when kings and lords owned all the land, where the plebs had nothing, paid astronomical tax on what they did and worked till they dropped dead. And if you look in the mirror and answer truthfully, that is literally what is happening before your eyes. Regardless of if you're left, right, centre or extremist; Unless you're born into a WEALTHY family, it doesn't matter how hard you work you will always be poor. History has a funny way of repeating itself Absolutely agreed. On taxation progressive rates from nil rate band to 45%, plus national insurance while corporation tax rates are 25% increasing to 28% over £250k profits. More lower paid people paying higher rates of indirect taxation like vat, and high rents. Gary is calling for a "wealth tax". For people that don't understand what that is or what is 'wealth' (watch the fucking link I posted😅); we can tax assets and commodities (which the rich own) and tax WORK less. Sitting on hundreds of millions of £s in assets and generating passive income from that is not WORK. I don't think there are meny left in the UK worth hundreds of millions but again I could be wrong. But I do know if you push they will jump." Who will jump, and where they gonna jump to? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I also am not sure I agree with how strongly he sees wealth inequality is the MAIN problem that current generations face, although it is certainly something he sees as the driving factor behind a fall in living standards, I'm sure that money isn't just the only thing that's hurting people. So the older people have worked hard and got themselves in a good position. We have younger lads at work doing what I did and are allready starting to get on the Housing market like I did. Hope fully it might even go better for them than it gid for me buying my fist property in August 1989. I'm not quite sure what that has to do with wealth inequality? So why is there wealth inequality to me it's 1 person is happy to work harder to increase the wealth and later comfort in life. The other person wants what the person above has but did not want to do the hard graft. No you are comparing income inequality not wealth inequality ? How surly the 2 must be related. If your income is generating Wealth. Even Branson made his own money. So if that's income I guess he is not classed as wealthy. Not necessarily. Going back to housing, older generations have benefitted from four decades of house price growth, 65% of uk housing wealth is controlled by the 65 and over age group. They were not necessarily high earners. Conversely living standards have increased yet more younger people are excluded from home ownership due to inadequate income to buy houses at prices now at nine times income I can see that 50 shades has a good idea of what 'wealth' is and how it has caused massive inequality in the generations. What Gary Stevenson point is though is not just that there is a gap generationally, it's that we're basically turning the UK into the age when kings and lords owned all the land, where the plebs had nothing, paid astronomical tax on what they did and worked till they dropped dead. And if you look in the mirror and answer truthfully, that is literally what is happening before your eyes. Regardless of if you're left, right, centre or extremist; Unless you're born into a WEALTHY family, it doesn't matter how hard you work you will always be poor. History has a funny way of repeating itself Absolutely agreed. On taxation progressive rates from nil rate band to 45%, plus national insurance while corporation tax rates are 25% increasing to 28% over £250k profits. More lower paid people paying higher rates of indirect taxation like vat, and high rents. Gary is calling for a "wealth tax". For people that don't understand what that is or what is 'wealth' (watch the fucking link I posted😅); we can tax assets and commodities (which the rich own) and tax WORK less. Sitting on hundreds of millions of £s in assets and generating passive income from that is not WORK. I don't think there are meny left in the UK worth hundreds of millions but again I could be wrong. But I do know if you push they will jump. Who will jump, and where they gonna jump to?" The wealth will up and move abroad. Where there tax liabilities are less. If its even UK assets they hold they could posably sell and reinvest somewhere else. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When you are extremely asset rich, you make those assets generate returns (not necessarily income). If I had £1m of spare cash lying around, I could lend it to the bank and get say 5% interest per year, i.e. £50k per year. The bank has to cough up £50k from somewhere, so it lends to two people each taking out a £500k mortgage at a higher interest of 10% These two people, pay their mortgages by working. Indirectly I have extracted 25k from each of the two people, by virtue of having £1m spare cash sitting around to lend. Basically, return on capital is far greater than return on labour. Return on capital, piggybacks off return on labour by siphoning productivity from the labour force to create value for the people that have assets. This is a good example of why income tax triggers me so much, hard work is punished and the richest benefit. Ah that's fine. Yet you start talking about wealth tax/inheritance tax... the majority of people lose their shit So at what level of wealth would you want to start say a 1% tax on wealth £10 million, £50 million, £100 million, And if so how would this happen Or is it just a pipe dream. " I want it to be fair! Not sure how that's a pipe dream lol. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I also am not sure I agree with how strongly he sees wealth inequality is the MAIN problem that current generations face, although it is certainly something he sees as the driving factor behind a fall in living standards, I'm sure that money isn't just the only thing that's hurting people. So the older people have worked hard and got themselves in a good position. We have younger lads at work doing what I did and are allready starting to get on the Housing market like I did. Hope fully it might even go better for them than it gid for me buying my fist property in August 1989. I'm not quite sure what that has to do with wealth inequality? So why is there wealth inequality to me it's 1 person is happy to work harder to increase the wealth and later comfort in life. The other person wants what the person above has but did not want to do the hard graft. No you are comparing income inequality not wealth inequality ? How surly the 2 must be related. If your income is generating Wealth. Even Branson made his own money. So if that's income I guess he is not classed as wealthy. Not necessarily. Going back to housing, older generations have benefitted from four decades of house price growth, 65% of uk housing wealth is controlled by the 65 and over age group. They were not necessarily high earners. Conversely living standards have increased yet more younger people are excluded from home ownership due to inadequate income to buy houses at prices now at nine times income I can see that 50 shades has a good idea of what 'wealth' is and how it has caused massive inequality in the generations. What Gary Stevenson point is though is not just that there is a gap generationally, it's that we're basically turning the UK into the age when kings and lords owned all the land, where the plebs had nothing, paid astronomical tax on what they did and worked till they dropped dead. And if you look in the mirror and answer truthfully, that is literally what is happening before your eyes. Regardless of if you're left, right, centre or extremist; Unless you're born into a WEALTHY family, it doesn't matter how hard you work you will always be poor. History has a funny way of repeating itself Absolutely agreed. On taxation progressive rates from nil rate band to 45%, plus national insurance while corporation tax rates are 25% increasing to 28% over £250k profits. More lower paid people paying higher rates of indirect taxation like vat, and high rents. Gary is calling for a "wealth tax". For people that don't understand what that is or what is 'wealth' (watch the fucking link I posted😅); we can tax assets and commodities (which the rich own) and tax WORK less. Sitting on hundreds of millions of £s in assets and generating passive income from that is not WORK. I don't think there are meny left in the UK worth hundreds of millions but again I could be wrong. But I do know if you push they will jump. Who will jump, and where they gonna jump to? The wealth will up and move abroad. Where there tax liabilities are less. If its even UK assets they hold they could posably sell and reinvest somewhere else. " Bingo. They will sell! The issue that is driving wealth inequality is just that! Hording of BRITISH assets. I do advise you to watch that link. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When you are extremely asset rich, you make those assets generate returns (not necessarily income). If I had £1m of spare cash lying around, I could lend it to the bank and get say 5% interest per year, i.e. £50k per year. The bank has to cough up £50k from somewhere, so it lends to two people each taking out a £500k mortgage at a higher interest of 10% These two people, pay their mortgages by working. Indirectly I have extracted 25k from each of the two people, by virtue of having £1m spare cash sitting around to lend. Basically, return on capital is far greater than return on labour. Return on capital, piggybacks off return on labour by siphoning productivity from the labour force to create value for the people that have assets. This is a good example of why income tax triggers me so much, hard work is punished and the richest benefit. Ah that's fine. Yet you start talking about wealth tax/inheritance tax... the majority of people lose their shit So at what level of wealth would you want to start say a 1% tax on wealth £10 million, £50 million, £100 million, And if so how would this happen Or is it just a pipe dream. I want it to be fair! Not sure how that's a pipe dream lol." Pipe dream so tomorrow you will launch a new political party to be ready in 4 years to get some votes in its first General Election. Hoping to get in to power say 2032. If not then 2036. That's only 12 years to re right the political system. Then it's going to take 10 years to implement and change the Tax system. So change is about 20 years away at a cost of X millions. Or do you think you could reduce this time line dramatically. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I also am not sure I agree with how strongly he sees wealth inequality is the MAIN problem that current generations face, although it is certainly something he sees as the driving factor behind a fall in living standards, I'm sure that money isn't just the only thing that's hurting people. So the older people have worked hard and got themselves in a good position. We have younger lads at work doing what I did and are allready starting to get on the Housing market like I did. Hope fully it might even go better for them than it gid for me buying my fist property in August 1989. I'm not quite sure what that has to do with wealth inequality? So why is there wealth inequality to me it's 1 person is happy to work harder to increase the wealth and later comfort in life. The other person wants what the person above has but did not want to do the hard graft. No you are comparing income inequality not wealth inequality ? How surly the 2 must be related. If your income is generating Wealth. Even Branson made his own money. So if that's income I guess he is not classed as wealthy. Not necessarily. Going back to housing, older generations have benefitted from four decades of house price growth, 65% of uk housing wealth is controlled by the 65 and over age group. They were not necessarily high earners. Conversely living standards have increased yet more younger people are excluded from home ownership due to inadequate income to buy houses at prices now at nine times income I can see that 50 shades has a good idea of what 'wealth' is and how it has caused massive inequality in the generations. What Gary Stevenson point is though is not just that there is a gap generationally, it's that we're basically turning the UK into the age when kings and lords owned all the land, where the plebs had nothing, paid astronomical tax on what they did and worked till they dropped dead. And if you look in the mirror and answer truthfully, that is literally what is happening before your eyes. Regardless of if you're left, right, centre or extremist; Unless you're born into a WEALTHY family, it doesn't matter how hard you work you will always be poor. History has a funny way of repeating itself Absolutely agreed. On taxation progressive rates from nil rate band to 45%, plus national insurance while corporation tax rates are 25% increasing to 28% over £250k profits. More lower paid people paying higher rates of indirect taxation like vat, and high rents. Gary is calling for a "wealth tax". For people that don't understand what that is or what is 'wealth' (watch the fucking link I posted😅); we can tax assets and commodities (which the rich own) and tax WORK less. Sitting on hundreds of millions of £s in assets and generating passive income from that is not WORK. I don't think there are meny left in the UK worth hundreds of millions but again I could be wrong. But I do know if you push they will jump. Who will jump, and where they gonna jump to? The wealth will up and move abroad. Where there tax liabilities are less. If its even UK assets they hold they could posably sell and reinvest somewhere else. Bingo. They will sell! The issue that is driving wealth inequality is just that! Hording of BRITISH assets. I do advise you to watch that link." So let's say between them they own a large stake in say a property building company. And sell it how will that company not become vunerable to forin investment. And if they don't want it how dose that company not collapse. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I also am not sure I agree with how strongly he sees wealth inequality is the MAIN problem that current generations face, although it is certainly something he sees as the driving factor behind a fall in living standards, I'm sure that money isn't just the only thing that's hurting people. So the older people have worked hard and got themselves in a good position. We have younger lads at work doing what I did and are allready starting to get on the Housing market like I did. Hope fully it might even go better for them than it gid for me buying my fist property in August 1989. I'm not quite sure what that has to do with wealth inequality? So why is there wealth inequality to me it's 1 person is happy to work harder to increase the wealth and later comfort in life. The other person wants what the person above has but did not want to do the hard graft. No you are comparing income inequality not wealth inequality ? How surly the 2 must be related. If your income is generating Wealth. Even Branson made his own money. So if that's income I guess he is not classed as wealthy. Not necessarily. Going back to housing, older generations have benefitted from four decades of house price growth, 65% of uk housing wealth is controlled by the 65 and over age group. They were not necessarily high earners. Conversely living standards have increased yet more younger people are excluded from home ownership due to inadequate income to buy houses at prices now at nine times income I can see that 50 shades has a good idea of what 'wealth' is and how it has caused massive inequality in the generations. What Gary Stevenson point is though is not just that there is a gap generationally, it's that we're basically turning the UK into the age when kings and lords owned all the land, where the plebs had nothing, paid astronomical tax on what they did and worked till they dropped dead. And if you look in the mirror and answer truthfully, that is literally what is happening before your eyes. Regardless of if you're left, right, centre or extremist; Unless you're born into a WEALTHY family, it doesn't matter how hard you work you will always be poor. History has a funny way of repeating itself Absolutely agreed. On taxation progressive rates from nil rate band to 45%, plus national insurance while corporation tax rates are 25% increasing to 28% over £250k profits. More lower paid people paying higher rates of indirect taxation like vat, and high rents. Gary is calling for a "wealth tax". For people that don't understand what that is or what is 'wealth' (watch the fucking link I posted😅); we can tax assets and commodities (which the rich own) and tax WORK less. Sitting on hundreds of millions of £s in assets and generating passive income from that is not WORK. I don't think there are meny left in the UK worth hundreds of millions but again I could be wrong. But I do know if you push they will jump. Who will jump, and where they gonna jump to? The wealth will up and move abroad. Where there tax liabilities are less. If its even UK assets they hold they could posably sell and reinvest somewhere else. Bingo. They will sell! The issue that is driving wealth inequality is just that! Hording of BRITISH assets. I do advise you to watch that link." Would think most spred there assets across the world. 🌎 no one puts all there eggs in one basket. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"One of Garrys main points is that a lot of assets in the UK are held by wealthy individuals and companies who are either foreign or located overseas for tax reasons. These entities are siphoning of billions out of the country mainly being made from a increasingly poorer working class British worker. That money leaves the UK economy and makes the country poorer. If that money was going to a British entity or more stayed in the pocket of the British worker. That money would stay in the British economy. I give you a example. The car park at Glasgow airport is run by NCP. NCP is owned by Park24, a listed Japanese company, and Development Bank of Japan (DBJ). Before covid the charge for a 10 minute was £2. Now it is £5.50, a 175% increase. Now what has wages risen in this time. Britain seems content to selling out to foreign owners and letting them fleece their citizens. There will be plenty of other examples, like the Premier league football clubs and the increasing pricing there. " So let's look at foot ball clubs. Are you saying you guys don't want the foreign investment In the clubs as this is money leaving the UK. But at the same time want to tax the clubs say 2% on their holdings. And Tax the Wealthy players on their acumerlated wealth. So why would anyone want to buy a football club as the wealth needs to be there but the profit is small. If you take all the foreign investment out of football would the Premier league not fall apart. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"One of Garrys main points is that a lot of assets in the UK are held by wealthy individuals and companies who are either foreign or located overseas for tax reasons. These entities are siphoning of billions out of the country mainly being made from a increasingly poorer working class British worker. That money leaves the UK economy and makes the country poorer. If that money was going to a British entity or more stayed in the pocket of the British worker. That money would stay in the British economy. I give you a example. The car park at Glasgow airport is run by NCP. NCP is owned by Park24, a listed Japanese company, and Development Bank of Japan (DBJ). Before covid the charge for a 10 minute was £2. Now it is £5.50, a 175% increase. Now what has wages risen in this time. Britain seems content to selling out to foreign owners and letting them fleece their citizens. There will be plenty of other examples, like the Premier league football clubs and the increasing pricing there. " Possibly. But where would say a Google type business fit with that? Foreign company opens an office in the UK staffed by mainly highly skilled workers who are fairly well paid. If the government forced them to keep any profits in the UK, or mandated set salaries for workers, why would they bother investing in the UK at all? That would just mean that plenty of UK workers wouldn’t have good jobs. Also, I’m sure that plenty of less well off people send money abroad. Immigrants remitting funds to family. British people spending on holidays. Should we ban all spending outside of the UK? Insist that people holiday at home? A British owned company may send money abroad. If I own a successful business I may choose to send the profits overseas because of diversification, tax reasons, to buy a holiday home etc. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"One of Garrys main points is that a lot of assets in the UK are held by wealthy individuals and companies who are either foreign or located overseas for tax reasons. These entities are siphoning of billions out of the country mainly being made from a increasingly poorer working class British worker. That money leaves the UK economy and makes the country poorer. If that money was going to a British entity or more stayed in the pocket of the British worker. That money would stay in the British economy. I give you a example. The car park at Glasgow airport is run by NCP. NCP is owned by Park24, a listed Japanese company, and Development Bank of Japan (DBJ). Before covid the charge for a 10 minute was £2. Now it is £5.50, a 175% increase. Now what has wages risen in this time. Britain seems content to selling out to foreign owners and letting them fleece their citizens. There will be plenty of other examples, like the Premier league football clubs and the increasing pricing there. " As for NCP it's posable it's also about supply and demand. I guess like down south the parking at an airport is limited. Or is this carpark empty most of the time as the price has doubled. Or is it as I guess still like down south full. To a point it's hard to park at the airport. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"One of Garrys main points is that a lot of assets in the UK are held by wealthy individuals and companies who are either foreign or located overseas for tax reasons. These entities are siphoning of billions out of the country mainly being made from a increasingly poorer working class British worker. That money leaves the UK economy and makes the country poorer. If that money was going to a British entity or more stayed in the pocket of the British worker. That money would stay in the British economy. I give you a example. The car park at Glasgow airport is run by NCP. NCP is owned by Park24, a listed Japanese company, and Development Bank of Japan (DBJ). Before covid the charge for a 10 minute was £2. Now it is £5.50, a 175% increase. Now what has wages risen in this time. Britain seems content to selling out to foreign owners and letting them fleece their citizens. There will be plenty of other examples, like the Premier league football clubs and the increasing pricing there. " You are right in that a lot of foreign companies invest in the UK. The UK typically ranks in the top 5 globally for inward investment. However the Uk also typically ranks in the top 5 for global outward investment. A lot of people invest here and we invest in a lot of other places. Your comments could very well be made by other people about UK companies in their country. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I can see people are going off tandem a bit here, I'd say that's from failing to understand the difference between wealth and income. I forgot about it as I've read it such a while ago now that Gary Stevenson has a website that explains this in plain English. Give it a go https://www.wealtheconomics.org/introduction-2/what-is-wealth/ I'm not claiming to be even in the slightest an expert on economics, it's just not that interesting to me either. However since I found people like him I am much more clued up on things than the majority of people are. I feel it is very important to have a slight knowledge about something that affects everybody's lives especially the decisions we make." It is a huge topic and easy to unintentionally go off at a tangent. If the narrative was low pay for example, we can blame overseas markets chosen for lower wage costs. HSBC, Barclays, British Gas, virgin etc to name a very few choosing overseas call centres in favour of uk for lower wage costs, but the customer doesn’t pay lower costs for it. A billion people in China for factory jobs, a country that now manufactures 30% of everything on the globe. A food industry that relies on overseas imports due to low wage costs while 37% uk farms have closed since 1973. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I can see people are going off tandem a bit here, I'd say that's from failing to understand the difference between wealth and income. I forgot about it as I've read it such a while ago now that Gary Stevenson has a website that explains this in plain English. Give it a go https://www.wealtheconomics.org/introduction-2/what-is-wealth/ I'm not claiming to be even in the slightest an expert on economics, it's just not that interesting to me either. However since I found people like him I am much more clued up on things than the majority of people are. I feel it is very important to have a slight knowledge about something that affects everybody's lives especially the decisions we make. It is a huge topic and easy to unintentionally go off at a tangent. If the narrative was low pay for example, we can blame overseas markets chosen for lower wage costs. HSBC, Barclays, British Gas, virgin etc to name a very few choosing overseas call centres in favour of uk for lower wage costs, but the customer doesn’t pay lower costs for it. A billion people in China for factory jobs, a country that now manufactures 30% of everything on the globe. A food industry that relies on overseas imports due to low wage costs while 37% uk farms have closed since 1973. " So are you saying if call centers where to move back to the UK the cost to the sector would be the same as the oversea call center? If call centre came back to the UK the cost to the consumer would go up to cover this additional cost. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I can see people are going off tandem a bit here, I'd say that's from failing to understand the difference between wealth and income. I forgot about it as I've read it such a while ago now that Gary Stevenson has a website that explains this in plain English. Give it a go https://www.wealtheconomics.org/introduction-2/what-is-wealth/ I'm not claiming to be even in the slightest an expert on economics, it's just not that interesting to me either. However since I found people like him I am much more clued up on things than the majority of people are. I feel it is very important to have a slight knowledge about something that affects everybody's lives especially the decisions we make." When you hold Shears you get paid in dividends. Witch are TAXED so are you saying you want to tax On top of dividend tax 🤔 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I can see people are going off tandem a bit here, I'd say that's from failing to understand the difference between wealth and income. I forgot about it as I've read it such a while ago now that Gary Stevenson has a website that explains this in plain English. Give it a go https://www.wealtheconomics.org/introduction-2/what-is-wealth/ I'm not claiming to be even in the slightest an expert on economics, it's just not that interesting to me either. However since I found people like him I am much more clued up on things than the majority of people are. I feel it is very important to have a slight knowledge about something that affects everybody's lives especially the decisions we make. It is a huge topic and easy to unintentionally go off at a tangent. If the narrative was low pay for example, we can blame overseas markets chosen for lower wage costs. HSBC, Barclays, British Gas, virgin etc to name a very few choosing overseas call centres in favour of uk for lower wage costs, but the customer doesn’t pay lower costs for it. A billion people in China for factory jobs, a country that now manufactures 30% of everything on the globe. A food industry that relies on overseas imports due to low wage costs while 37% uk farms have closed since 1973. " The farms closing has to be down to consumers. If people want cheap imports that is what the shops will stock. Supermarkets will not stock more expensive items that do not sell. And if like most things you want cheep this is what happens in a competitive market. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" HSBC, Barclays, British Gas, virgin etc to name a very few choosing overseas call centres in favour of uk for lower wage costs, but the customer doesn’t pay lower costs for it. A billion people in China for factory jobs, a country that now manufactures 30% of everything on the globe. A food industry that relies on overseas imports due to low wage costs while 37% uk farms have closed since 1973. " Now, although I can't stand the cunt, Donald trump has been championing a control measure that might solve that. That is tariffs! If you apply them on those imports you would/could stop that outsourcing and increase wages within the country. That would take it to be correctly targeted and specific to certain industries etc. There's evidence of tariffs doing just that and protecting local businesses. But that's not what trumps tariffs are designed to do, lol. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" HSBC, Barclays, British Gas, virgin etc to name a very few choosing overseas call centres in favour of uk for lower wage costs, but the customer doesn’t pay lower costs for it. A billion people in China for factory jobs, a country that now manufactures 30% of everything on the globe. A food industry that relies on overseas imports due to low wage costs while 37% uk farms have closed since 1973. Now, although I can't stand the cunt, Donald trump has been championing a control measure that might solve that. That is tariffs! If you apply them on those imports you would/could stop that outsourcing and increase wages within the country. That would take it to be correctly targeted and specific to certain industries etc. There's evidence of tariffs doing just that and protecting local businesses. But that's not what trumps tariffs are designed to do, lol." So give me examples of investments that are not TAXED. OK so you can get £500 in dividends TAX free. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" When you hold Shears you get paid in dividends. Witch are TAXED so are you saying you want to tax On top of dividend tax 🤔 " I'm almost certain from many of your posts that you believe in capitalism and more so; meritocracy, that's fine it makes sense, certainly to me and is mostly how I think society around me should be. You think hard work shouldn't be punished and taxes are punitive to people who deserve more than someone of less merit, ie doesn't work as hard/isn't as smart. I think this is a common mistake people make with tax and why they think its not meritocratic, probably because income tax affects people with the least wealth the most; not every poor person born is lazy/not smart. Similarly, not every rich person is clever/hard working. But income tax on people with less is more noticeable, so it's easy to take that picture as hard working poor people are punished by tax income and wealth are two different things. Don't get me started on stocks and shares, I'm no expert on them, but passive income isn't hard work. The people with hundreds of millions in passive income own those markets. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"More over sea investment this time its looking like Boots is about to sell to a USA company. And the Post Office is Looking venerable so might get taken over. " Boots was sold to a US company (Walgreens) over a decade ago. This is them selling to another US company. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" When you hold Shears you get paid in dividends. Witch are TAXED so are you saying you want to tax On top of dividend tax 🤔 I'm almost certain from many of your posts that you believe in capitalism and more so; meritocracy, that's fine it makes sense, certainly to me and is mostly how I think society around me should be. You think hard work shouldn't be punished and taxes are punitive to people who deserve more than someone of less merit, ie doesn't work as hard/isn't as smart. I think this is a common mistake people make with tax and why they think its not meritocratic, probably because income tax affects people with the least wealth the most; not every poor person born is lazy/not smart. Similarly, not every rich person is clever/hard working. But income tax on people with less is more noticeable, so it's easy to take that picture as hard working poor people are punished by tax income and wealth are two different things. Don't get me started on stocks and shares, I'm no expert on them, but passive income isn't hard work. The people with hundreds of millions in passive income own those markets. " But this passage income is allready TAXED when you receive cash in the way of dividends you get £500 TAX free that's it. Do you believe passive income is not TAXED. As for inheritance Tax yes I do think it's about right where it is some loopholes need looking at but that is the same for all taxation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't think even that would work. It's a start to get things moving, but it's like pick up pennies in front of a steamroller." You comment means less if you don't reply and Quote | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't think even that would work. It's a start to get things moving, but it's like pick up pennies in front of a steamroller. You comment means less if you don't reply and Quote " Oops, yea, looks like clicked the wrong button. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Don't get me started on stocks and shares, I'm no expert on them, but passive income isn't hard work. The people with hundreds of millions in passive income own those markets. But this passage income is allready TAXED when you receive cash in the way of dividends you get £500 TAX free that's it. Do you believe passive income is not TAXED. As for inheritance Tax yes I do think it's about right where it is some loopholes need looking at but that is the same for all taxation. " In the uk dividends for individuals are: Tax free if held in a personal equity plan, now superseded by individual savings accounts No tax paid if held in a pension plan / scheme If directly held: 8.75% tax for BRT 33.75% tax HRT 39.35% tax AHRT If the shares are held in pooled investments, ie investment trusts, unit trusts, oeic then different rates may apply depending what tax structure applies. Ie if the pooled investments are in isa / pension So different rates apply depending on the individual and investment vehicle. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Don't get me started on stocks and shares, I'm no expert on them, but passive income isn't hard work. The people with hundreds of millions in passive income own those markets. But this passage income is allready TAXED when you receive cash in the way of dividends you get £500 TAX free that's it. Do you believe passive income is not TAXED. As for inheritance Tax yes I do think it's about right where it is some loopholes need looking at but that is the same for all taxation. In the uk dividends for individuals are: Tax free if held in a personal equity plan, now superseded by individual savings accounts No tax paid if held in a pension plan / scheme If directly held: 8.75% tax for BRT 33.75% tax HRT 39.35% tax AHRT If the shares are held in pooled investments, ie investment trusts, unit trusts, oeic then different rates may apply depending what tax structure applies. Ie if the pooled investments are in isa / pension So different rates apply depending on the individual and investment vehicle. " But if there in a plan or pension the growth is in the pension or plan. The Individual dose not directly benefit. Until that scheme is yoused as a pension or income and then it's subject to income TAX. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So give me examples of investments that are not TAXED. " Pension fund growth up to the lifetime limit, currently £1.037 million fund value ISA’s unlimited. ( Google - As of 2024, there were around 5,000 ISA millionaires in the UK. This is an 11-fold increase from 2016, when there were only 450) VCT’s, EIS, forestry / woodland, seed investment trusts (50% income tax relief). Up to £50k in premium bonds and a few others with reliefs on income tax All gains on owner occupied residential property. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Don't get me started on stocks and shares, I'm no expert on them, but passive income isn't hard work. The people with hundreds of millions in passive income own those markets. But this passage income is allready TAXED when you receive cash in the way of dividends you get £500 TAX free that's it. Do you believe passive income is not TAXED. As for inheritance Tax yes I do think it's about right where it is some loopholes need looking at but that is the same for all taxation. In the uk dividends for individuals are: Tax free if held in a personal equity plan, now superseded by individual savings accounts No tax paid if held in a pension plan / scheme If directly held: 8.75% tax for BRT 33.75% tax HRT 39.35% tax AHRT If the shares are held in pooled investments, ie investment trusts, unit trusts, oeic then different rates may apply depending what tax structure applies. Ie if the pooled investments are in isa / pension So different rates apply depending on the individual and investment vehicle. But if there in a plan or pension the growth is in the pension or plan. The Individual dose not directly benefit. Until that scheme is yoused as a pension or income and then it's subject to income TAX. " Yes and no In the case of pensions 25% tax free cash, then income tax dependant on individuals tax position. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Don't get me started on stocks and shares, I'm no expert on them, but passive income isn't hard work. The people with hundreds of millions in passive income own those markets. But this passage income is allready TAXED when you receive cash in the way of dividends you get £500 TAX free that's it. Do you believe passive income is not TAXED. As for inheritance Tax yes I do think it's about right where it is some loopholes need looking at but that is the same for all taxation. In the uk dividends for individuals are: Tax free if held in a personal equity plan, now superseded by individual savings accounts No tax paid if held in a pension plan / scheme If directly held: 8.75% tax for BRT 33.75% tax HRT 39.35% tax AHRT If the shares are held in pooled investments, ie investment trusts, unit trusts, oeic then different rates may apply depending what tax structure applies. Ie if the pooled investments are in isa / pension So different rates apply depending on the individual and investment vehicle. But if there in a plan or pension the growth is in the pension or plan. The Individual dose not directly benefit. Until that scheme is yoused as a pension or income and then it's subject to income TAX. " If we were lucky enough to hold £1M in an isa then both the capital and unlimited income are tax feee. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So give me examples of investments that are not TAXED. Pension fund growth up to the lifetime limit, currently £1.037 million fund value ISA’s unlimited. ( Google - As of 2024, there were around 5,000 ISA millionaires in the UK. This is an 11-fold increase from 2016, when there were only 450) VCT’s, EIS, forestry / woodland, seed investment trusts (50% income tax relief). Up to £50k in premium bonds and a few others with reliefs on income tax All gains on owner occupied residential property. " Did not know about forestry investment might have to look at that. As for premium bonds its such a gamble if you don't win and inflation is hi your money gose backwards. At best it's average is 4% so its a low investment. Gold Coins are Tax free but again at the moment up and DOWN | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Don't get me started on stocks and shares, I'm no expert on them, but passive income isn't hard work. The people with hundreds of millions in passive income own those markets. But this passage income is allready TAXED when you receive cash in the way of dividends you get £500 TAX free that's it. Do you believe passive income is not TAXED. As for inheritance Tax yes I do think it's about right where it is some loopholes need looking at but that is the same for all taxation. In the uk dividends for individuals are: Tax free if held in a personal equity plan, now superseded by individual savings accounts No tax paid if held in a pension plan / scheme If directly held: 8.75% tax for BRT 33.75% tax HRT 39.35% tax AHRT If the shares are held in pooled investments, ie investment trusts, unit trusts, oeic then different rates may apply depending what tax structure applies. Ie if the pooled investments are in isa / pension So different rates apply depending on the individual and investment vehicle. But if there in a plan or pension the growth is in the pension or plan. The Individual dose not directly benefit. Until that scheme is yoused as a pension or income and then it's subject to income TAX. If we were lucky enough to hold £1M in an isa then both the capital and unlimited income are tax feee. " How is going to manage that at £20k per year that's 50 years. And posably you could earn more in different markets even after TAX | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Don't get me started on stocks and shares, I'm no expert on them, but passive income isn't hard work. The people with hundreds of millions in passive income own those markets. But this passage income is allready TAXED when you receive cash in the way of dividends you get £500 TAX free that's it. Do you believe passive income is not TAXED. As for inheritance Tax yes I do think it's about right where it is some loopholes need looking at but that is the same for all taxation. In the uk dividends for individuals are: Tax free if held in a personal equity plan, now superseded by individual savings accounts No tax paid if held in a pension plan / scheme If directly held: 8.75% tax for BRT 33.75% tax HRT 39.35% tax AHRT If the shares are held in pooled investments, ie investment trusts, unit trusts, oeic then different rates may apply depending what tax structure applies. Ie if the pooled investments are in isa / pension So different rates apply depending on the individual and investment vehicle. But if there in a plan or pension the growth is in the pension or plan. The Individual dose not directly benefit. Until that scheme is yoused as a pension or income and then it's subject to income TAX. If we were lucky enough to hold £1M in an isa then both the capital and unlimited income are tax feee. How is going to manage that at £20k per year that's 50 years. And posably you could earn more in different markets even after TAX " 5000 people have, and the personal equity plan annual allowance was £6000 when they were first introduced. Nearly £750bn is held in ISAs owned by UK adults. That includes around £456bn invested in stocks and shares ISAs, and £285bn in cash ISAs. A further £9bn is held in Junior ISAs for children, with £5bn in investment accounts and £4bn held in cash. (A J Bell website) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Don't get me started on stocks and shares, I'm no expert on them, but passive income isn't hard work. The people with hundreds of millions in passive income own those markets. But this passage income is allready TAXED when you receive cash in the way of dividends you get £500 TAX free that's it. Do you believe passive income is not TAXED. As for inheritance Tax yes I do think it's about right where it is some loopholes need looking at but that is the same for all taxation. In the uk dividends for individuals are: Tax free if held in a personal equity plan, now superseded by individual savings accounts No tax paid if held in a pension plan / scheme If directly held: 8.75% tax for BRT 33.75% tax HRT 39.35% tax AHRT If the shares are held in pooled investments, ie investment trusts, unit trusts, oeic then different rates may apply depending what tax structure applies. Ie if the pooled investments are in isa / pension So different rates apply depending on the individual and investment vehicle. But if there in a plan or pension the growth is in the pension or plan. The Individual dose not directly benefit. Until that scheme is yoused as a pension or income and then it's subject to income TAX. If we were lucky enough to hold £1M in an isa then both the capital and unlimited income are tax feee. How is going to manage that at £20k per year that's 50 years. And posably you could earn more in different markets even after TAX " A $1 share in Berkshire Hathaway class A in 1962 is now $742,901.00 (USD yesterdays price) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" When you hold Shears you get paid in dividends. Witch are TAXED so are you saying you want to tax On top of dividend tax 🤔 I'm almost certain from many of your posts that you believe in capitalism and more so; meritocracy, that's fine it makes sense, certainly to me and is mostly how I think society around me should be. You think hard work shouldn't be punished and taxes are punitive to people who deserve more than someone of less merit, ie doesn't work as hard/isn't as smart. I think this is a common mistake people make with tax and why they think its not meritocratic, probably because income tax affects people with the least wealth the most; not every poor person born is lazy/not smart. Similarly, not every rich person is clever/hard working. But income tax on people with less is more noticeable, so it's easy to take that picture as hard working poor people are punished by tax income and wealth are two different things. Don't get me started on stocks and shares, I'm no expert on them, but passive income isn't hard work. The people with hundreds of millions in passive income own those markets. But this passage income is allready TAXED when you receive cash in the way of dividends you get £500 TAX free that's it. Do you believe passive income is not TAXED. As for inheritance Tax yes I do think it's about right where it is some loopholes need looking at but that is the same for all taxation. " This thread is not really about income tax though. I never mentioned anything about it being that relevant or claim to be an expert in it but you repeat it, thus why I'm vindicated by saying you're under the illusion that is meritocracy. I'm talking about the type of passive income that buys out multinational businesses, not buying a few public shares in Starbucks. You will find many of these deals ARE avoiding billions in tax, mainly because they can afford to employ lawyers that will make it so. Completely different things. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why should wealth inequality be a problem? I don't worry because some people have got more than me." Usually because it can lead to some very dreadful outcomes including years lost from lives, years reduced from healthy lifetimes, higher loads on health services etc. Many are paying, whilst our country has become more extremely divided.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Many are paying, whilst our country has become more extremely divided." The UK's GINI coefficient (the accepted measure of wealth inequality) is projected to reach 35 this year. That's in line with the average over the past 40 years. Wealth inequality is not increasing in the UK. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Wealth inequality is not increasing in the UK." Do you have any sources for that you could share? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Many are paying, whilst our country has become more extremely divided. The UK's GINI coefficient (the accepted measure of wealth inequality) is projected to reach 35 this year. That's in line with the average over the past 40 years. Wealth inequality is not increasing in the UK." (Guardian - letters 4 Oct 2019 There are lies, damned lies and Gini index statistics. A single statistical measure invented in 1912 cannot hope to capture the nature of inequality in an entire country in 2019. Tim Worstall of the Adam Smith Institute (Letters, 2 October) is careful to refer to income inequality, as do the Tory politicians who often make the same claim, but accumulated wealth is now a very important component of inequality: 10% of the population own over 45% of total wealth. There are separate Gini indices for property wealth, financial wealth and private pension wealth, also published by the Office for National Statistics, that all have much higher values than the index for income. Effective disposable incomes are also crucial; if you are spending 30%-50% of your post-tax income on rent, you are not as rich as the Gini index says you are. The closing sentence: “Rents now represent a significant transfer of money from the poor to the rich”. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"More children living in poverty (record 36%, or 5.2 million children living in deprivation Record homelessness (highest since 1998) Record foodbank users (3.1 million last year, 94% over the past five years) More in rent arrears (8.4% increase yoy) Wealth inequality is less of the problem. Income inequality and cost of living the bigger problem. " How do you Mesure children living in poverty 50 years ago when I was 7 I would guess more children where living in poverty than they are now. Most my self in cluded did not have central heating. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The constant referencing of “the rich” as a coordinated group conspiring to control wealth is misleading. While wealth disparity is real, taxing the rich heavily won’t work they can move assets abroad, and much UK wealth is already in protected positions. As he said, holding property as wealth is not the best idea, it cannot be cashed in and moved easily. A flaw in his summary is the assumption that the wealth gap widened because the rich absorbed furlough money. Reality was the government borrowing to support the furloughed without any production returns led to inflation. People spent less while still earning, that accumulated savings. Once lockdown ended, instant demand and broken supply chains expedited a spending boom from the majority. While taxes will eventually recoup some of this, inflation has already done its damage. Also, asset wealth isn’t “real money” it only has a value as long as there is confidence in the asset. If everyone sold assets at once, values would collapse, which is what would happen if wealth taxes were introduced. The rich get richer by holding and investing in assets, but the moment they realise their wealth, they stop getting richer. Cash in a drawer loses value over time. Money in a bank linked to inflation retains value. Money invested in loans above inflation grows in value. Most people gain some wealth as part of broader economic growth, but the system rewards those who invest rather than spend. This is how our economy works, we all contribute and those who can hold onto more than they spend will see a return on that investment if the assets the hold have public confidence. Stevenson is right in some areas, but without offering a realistic alternative. His view also carries an undertone of resentment." To add to this people how live with by borrowing money are helping the Rich. As its the rich lending to banks to cover you Debts. More lower income need to get out of the debt. This will make them better off. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The constant referencing of “the rich” as a coordinated group conspiring to control wealth is misleading. While wealth disparity is real, taxing the rich heavily won’t work they can move assets abroad, and much UK wealth is already in protected positions. As he said, holding property as wealth is not the best idea, it cannot be cashed in and moved easily. A flaw in his summary is the assumption that the wealth gap widened because the rich absorbed furlough money. Reality was the government borrowing to support the furloughed without any production returns led to inflation. People spent less while still earning, that accumulated savings. Once lockdown ended, instant demand and broken supply chains expedited a spending boom from the majority. While taxes will eventually recoup some of this, inflation has already done its damage. Also, asset wealth isn’t “real money” it only has a value as long as there is confidence in the asset. If everyone sold assets at once, values would collapse, which is what would happen if wealth taxes were introduced. The rich get richer by holding and investing in assets, but the moment they realise their wealth, they stop getting richer. Cash in a drawer loses value over time. Money in a bank linked to inflation retains value. Money invested in loans above inflation grows in value. Most people gain some wealth as part of broader economic growth, but the system rewards those who invest rather than spend. This is how our economy works, we all contribute and those who can hold onto more than they spend will see a return on that investment if the assets the hold have public confidence. Stevenson is right in some areas, but without offering a realistic alternative. His view also carries an undertone of resentment. To add to this people how live with by borrowing money are helping the Rich. As its the rich lending to banks to cover you Debts. More lower income need to get out of the debt. This will make them better off. " If you have a savings account you are doing the same thing as "the rich" you are lending the banks money to provide loans. The difference will be scale, the more capital you have to invest, the higher the potential for wealth growth. However if the system collapses you stand a chance of losing all or some of your money. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"More children living in poverty (record 36%, or 5.2 million children living in deprivation Record homelessness (highest since 1998) Record foodbank users (3.1 million last year, 94% over the past five years) More in rent arrears (8.4% increase yoy) Wealth inequality is less of the problem. Income inequality and cost of living the bigger problem. How do you Mesure children living in poverty 50 years ago when I was 7 I would guess more children where living in poverty than they are now. Most my self in cluded did not have central heating." As always it's the definition of poverty that gets distorted. What we in the 60's 70's called a comfortable lifestyle would almost certainly be described as poverty today. Central heating was only for a very fortunate few. We had a coal fire and that was pretty much it. Washing machine? Nah! It was my job on a Saturday to go to the launderette. Even the first house I bought in 1980 had no central heating and single glazed windows that would ice up inside. It was only when we moved in 1984 that we got heating and double glazing. Nowadays the measure for poverty is set at a much higher level yet we still use the same word. A word which conjures up visions of of 3rd world slums. OK I know, there are parts of the UK which are getting close but wealth inequality is only one of myriad reasons. Maybe it's time we invented a new word or even use the term "modern poverty". Also it must be stated (like it or not) that a fair amount of modern poverty is self inflicted. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have been following this guys stuff a bit more lately, especially over the last year or more and as his youtube following has exploded. I came across his stuff originally back in early 2020, but back then I was a bit dismissive and probably thought he was just another covid loon looking to cash in on all the mayhem, using the usual flavour of gaining popularity by blaming Bill gates, soros, 5g etc... I mostly thought like this because his arguments were a bit ranty (still are to a degree) and not too cohesive, so I just watched and never actually considered what he meant or had the scope to believe it. I think he's evolved quite well though now and it's hard to ignore his points as many of his predictions have come true. I'm still wary and not entirely convinced by him as it remains to be seen what his intentions are too, if he's trying to get into politics to challenge and really put his money where his mouth is by putting his theories in the firing line. However he is offering the only real alternative trail of thought than that to the dross of all UKs traditional political parties have in the last decade, such is the emergence of reform. Also, I'd say he's another option to what Nigel farage/reform policy is, that is if we ever find out what reforms policies truly are. I liked this very recent interview with krishnan on c4, seemed much more willing to put his neck on the line, albeit still quite reluctantly https://youtu.be/0quhLtBXijM?si=OyZiVtSzf0n8X8BJ To me he's got the only explanation as to what has happened over the last few decades and where it's heading. Acknowledges that people are fed up with it and that change is needed/wanted, but it appears there is none in the offing other than that of reform, so is likely why they're winning in popularity at the moment. " So let's say your right and Gary has a point and the rich are TAX more and the poor are taxed less so they have more to spend /save for a home, How would you make them save for a home and not spend it all on Drink and Drugs putting them in a worse position than there are now. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have been following this guys stuff a bit more lately, especially over the last year or more and as his youtube following has exploded. I came across his stuff originally back in early 2020, but back then I was a bit dismissive and probably thought he was just another covid loon looking to cash in on all the mayhem, using the usual flavour of gaining popularity by blaming Bill gates, soros, 5g etc... I mostly thought like this because his arguments were a bit ranty (still are to a degree) and not too cohesive, so I just watched and never actually considered what he meant or had the scope to believe it. I think he's evolved quite well though now and it's hard to ignore his points as many of his predictions have come true. I'm still wary and not entirely convinced by him as it remains to be seen what his intentions are too, if he's trying to get into politics to challenge and really put his money where his mouth is by putting his theories in the firing line. However he is offering the only real alternative trail of thought than that to the dross of all UKs traditional political parties have in the last decade, such is the emergence of reform. Also, I'd say he's another option to what Nigel farage/reform policy is, that is if we ever find out what reforms policies truly are. I liked this very recent interview with krishnan on c4, seemed much more willing to put his neck on the line, albeit still quite reluctantly https://youtu.be/0quhLtBXijM?si=OyZiVtSzf0n8X8BJ To me he's got the only explanation as to what has happened over the last few decades and where it's heading. Acknowledges that people are fed up with it and that change is needed/wanted, but it appears there is none in the offing other than that of reform, so is likely why they're winning in popularity at the moment. So let's say your right and Gary has a point and the rich are TAX more and the poor are taxed less so they have more to spend /save for a home, How would you make them save for a home and not spend it all on Drink and Drugs putting them in a worse position than there are now. " Oh those d*unken drug addled poor people, they’re all the same. They can’t be trusted with money so we best give it to those who already have more than they could ever spend in their lives. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We also document substantial variation in EATRs within remuneration level: a quarter of those in the top 1 per cent pay headline rates, while another quarter pay at least 9pp less than the headline rate." So their big reveal is that a quarter of those in the top 1% pay 9 percentage points, or 0.09% less than the headline rate. Not much of a story. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So let's say your right and Gary has a point and the rich are TAX more and the poor are taxed less so they have more to spend /save for a home, How would you make them save for a home and not spend it all on Drink and Drugs putting them in a worse position than there are now. " I never said "I'm right", I'm an idiot really when it comes to this, but there's an actual millionaire highly educated economist who explains most of that stuff in plain English, that any other 'idiot' can also understand. All I'm highlighting is that this guy has consistently offered tangible answers to the biggest questions that people 'should' concern themselves with. You don't have to agree with it, but if you're going to challenge it, show me some alternatives. To answer your question, that I don't feel its quite relevant but nonetheless... I don't think it's mine, yours or the governments responsibility to tell people what they want to do with their money. We live in a relatively free and liberated society, arguably the most, thankfully! So I don't have to do anything unless it makes me feel right. The contrast or what I think you're suggesting is the UK becomes more authoritarian (USSR) and people are made to do what society sees they're born to do and free choice is withdrawn? No! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The constant referencing of “the rich” as a coordinated group conspiring to control wealth is misleading. While wealth disparity is real, taxing the rich heavily won’t work they can move assets abroad, and much UK wealth is already in protected positions. As he said, holding property as wealth is not the best idea, it cannot be cashed in and moved easily. " He's answered (dispelled) that one plenty of times in multiple videos to be honest. I used to ask the same question, not that I cared too much, but more from the point that I wanted to know what would happen "if they just leave". But the main video he made a few years ago dedicated to explaining why that's not true is here. https://youtu.be/luobN4xGOdA?si=Sqp8spGahlCCwpj- | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The constant referencing of “the rich” as a coordinated group conspiring to control wealth is misleading. While wealth disparity is real, taxing the rich heavily won’t work they can move assets abroad, and much UK wealth is already in protected positions. As he said, holding property as wealth is not the best idea, it cannot be cashed in and moved easily. A flaw in his summary is the assumption that the wealth gap widened because the rich absorbed furlough money. Reality was the government borrowing to support the furloughed without any production returns led to inflation. People spent less while still earning, that accumulated savings. Once lockdown ended, instant demand and broken supply chains expedited a spending boom from the majority. While taxes will eventually recoup some of this, inflation has already done its damage. Also, asset wealth isn’t “real money” it only has a value as long as there is confidence in the asset. If everyone sold assets at once, values would collapse, which is what would happen if wealth taxes were introduced. The rich get richer by holding and investing in assets, but the moment they realise their wealth, they stop getting richer. Cash in a drawer loses value over time. Money in a bank linked to inflation retains value. Money invested in loans above inflation grows in value. Most people gain some wealth as part of broader economic growth, but the system rewards those who invest rather than spend. This is how our economy works, we all contribute and those who can hold onto more than they spend will see a return on that investment if the assets the hold have public confidence. Stevenson is right in some areas, but without offering a realistic alternative. His view also carries an undertone of resentment." I'm not naive to think there's a silver bullet to the societal misery that the UK is in and that what he's saying is a magic wand, think he's acknowledged that what he wants isn't enough. But it is a start that would make massive changes to many, but inconvenience few by much less. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The constant referencing of “the rich” as a coordinated group conspiring to control wealth is misleading. While wealth disparity is real, taxing the rich heavily won’t work they can move assets abroad, and much UK wealth is already in protected positions. As he said, holding property as wealth is not the best idea, it cannot be cashed in and moved easily. He's answered (dispelled) that one plenty of times in multiple videos to be honest. I used to ask the same question, not that I cared too much, but more from the point that I wanted to know what would happen "if they just leave". But the main video he made a few years ago dedicated to explaining why that's not true is here. https://youtu.be/luobN4xGOdA?si=Sqp8spGahlCCwpj-" Thanks just watched this, and I understand what is alluding to but there are fundamentals being missed. The richest as he said hold assets, however those assets are usually part of a portfolio that spreads the risk and managed not by the rich. This pivots away from his argument that they are easy to tax, and as I mentioned in my last post those assets are only worth what someone will pay for it, put those portfolios and assets under tax regimes that do not favour the richest, those assets will be dropped and become a fraction of what they were worth. The very rich will not care, they cut and run leaving behind a huge dent in the value of the economy. There were many other points he glossed over on the covid figures in the first link you provided, ref where the money went and who got wealthy. His point is wealth distribution could help society, it can on paper but not in reality, not without sending us backwards. My point.. You can tax a static wealth but that will devalue the asset, however when wealth is fluid and reactive, which it is for the very rich, trying to tax that encourages capital cut and flight, which then creates economic shrinkage. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The constant referencing of “the rich” as a coordinated group conspiring to control wealth is misleading. While wealth disparity is real, taxing the rich heavily won’t work they can move assets abroad, and much UK wealth is already in protected positions. As he said, holding property as wealth is not the best idea, it cannot be cashed in and moved easily. A flaw in his summary is the assumption that the wealth gap widened because the rich absorbed furlough money. Reality was the government borrowing to support the furloughed without any production returns led to inflation. People spent less while still earning, that accumulated savings. Once lockdown ended, instant demand and broken supply chains expedited a spending boom from the majority. While taxes will eventually recoup some of this, inflation has already done its damage. Also, asset wealth isn’t “real money” it only has a value as long as there is confidence in the asset. If everyone sold assets at once, values would collapse, which is what would happen if wealth taxes were introduced. The rich get richer by holding and investing in assets, but the moment they realise their wealth, they stop getting richer. Cash in a drawer loses value over time. Money in a bank linked to inflation retains value. Money invested in loans above inflation grows in value. Most people gain some wealth as part of broader economic growth, but the system rewards those who invest rather than spend. This is how our economy works, we all contribute and those who can hold onto more than they spend will see a return on that investment if the assets the hold have public confidence. Stevenson is right in some areas, but without offering a realistic alternative. His view also carries an undertone of resentment. I'm not naive to think there's a silver bullet to the societal misery that the UK is in and that what he's saying is a magic wand, think he's acknowledged that what he wants isn't enough. But it is a start that would make massive changes to many, but inconvenience few by much less." Our views on economic policy is largely shaped by political leaning, you lean left, I lean right, so our views will differ. An economy is very simple as a system of exchange, value created, traded, and grown through investment and productivity. Stevenson thinks that redistributing wealth will solve disparities without discussing the fundamental issues of an economy that doesn’t promote or encourage individual wealth. This is where our political views go their separate ways. So many policies shape our economic landscape and wealth. Don’t get me started on IHT  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What is happening with Thames Water is a classic example of what happens when your country no longer owns assets. TW being over 90% foreign owned, whose interest is in maximising return in investment. This means: - maximising revenue, by way of higher water charges, - minimising expenses, meaning lower salaries, minimal investment in better infrastructure." Really? Thames Water have just spent £5bn (yes, billion) on the Thames Tideway tunnel, and a further £635m on the Lee Tunnel. That doesn't sound like a lack of investment to me. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What is happening with Thames Water is a classic example of what happens when your country no longer owns assets. TW being over 90% foreign owned, whose interest is in maximising return in investment. This means: - maximising revenue, by way of higher water charges, - minimising expenses, meaning lower salaries, minimal investment in better infrastructure. Really? Thames Water have just spent £5bn (yes, billion) on the Thames Tideway tunnel, and a further £635m on the Lee Tunnel. That doesn't sound like a lack of investment to me." "just spent"? .... wonder what they were doing for the other 35 years? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What is happening with Thames Water is a classic example of what happens when your country no longer owns assets. TW being over 90% foreign owned, whose interest is in maximising return in investment. This means: - maximising revenue, by way of higher water charges, - minimising expenses, meaning lower salaries, minimal investment in better infrastructure. Really? Thames Water have just spent £5bn (yes, billion) on the Thames Tideway tunnel, and a further £635m on the Lee Tunnel. That doesn't sound like a lack of investment to me. "just spent"? .... wonder what they were doing for the other 35 years?" Well it's actually customers who will be paying for it with the Ofwat approved rises to their bills.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What is happening with Thames Water is a classic example of what happens when your country no longer owns assets. TW being over 90% foreign owned, whose interest is in maximising return in investment. This means: - maximising revenue, by way of higher water charges, - minimising expenses, meaning lower salaries, minimal investment in better infrastructure." "Really? Thames Water have just spent £5bn (yes, billion) on the Thames Tideway tunnel, and a further £635m on the Lee Tunnel. That doesn't sound like a lack of investment to me." ""just spent"? .... wonder what they were doing for the other 35 years?" Not relevant. The contention was that foreign ownership would lead to a lack of investment, which is clearly untrue. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thames Water have just spent £5bn (yes, billion) on the Thames Tideway tunnel, and a further £635m on the Lee Tunnel. That doesn't sound like a lack of investment to me." "Well it's actually customers who will be paying for it with the Ofwat approved rises to their bills.." The same is true of all companies. For the company to have the money for investment, they have to get it from their customers. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What is happening with Thames Water is a classic example of what happens when your country no longer owns assets. TW being over 90% foreign owned, whose interest is in maximising return in investment. This means: - maximising revenue, by way of higher water charges, - minimising expenses, meaning lower salaries, minimal investment in better infrastructure. Really? Thames Water have just spent £5bn (yes, billion) on the Thames Tideway tunnel, and a further £635m on the Lee Tunnel. That doesn't sound like a lack of investment to me. "just spent"? .... wonder what they were doing for the other 35 years? Not relevant. The contention was that foreign ownership would lead to a lack of investment, which is clearly untrue." actually the lack of investment caused by foreign ownership is proven  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thames Water have just spent £5bn (yes, billion) on the Thames Tideway tunnel, and a further £635m on the Lee Tunnel. That doesn't sound like a lack of investment to me. Well it's actually customers who will be paying for it with the Ofwat approved rises to their bills.. The same is true of all companies. For the company to have the money for investment, they have to get it from their customers." I do wonder what they’ve done with the money, 16 million customers with annual revenues around £2.2bn, and a staggering £19bn in debt. That is some gearing. And the CEO on £2.3m package | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What is happening with Thames Water is a classic example of what happens when your country no longer owns assets. TW being over 90% foreign owned, whose interest is in maximising return in investment. This means: - maximising revenue, by way of higher water charges, - minimising expenses, meaning lower salaries, minimal investment in better infrastructure." "Really? Thames Water have just spent £5bn (yes, billion) on the Thames Tideway tunnel, and a further £635m on the Lee Tunnel. That doesn't sound like a lack of investment to me." ""just spent"? .... wonder what they were doing for the other 35 years?" "Not relevant. The contention was that foreign ownership would lead to a lack of investment, which is clearly untrue." "actually the lack of investment caused by foreign ownership is proven" You have proof that Thames Water would have invested more if they hadn't been foreign owned? I'd like to see that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What is happening with Thames Water is a classic example of what happens when your country no longer owns assets. TW being over 90% foreign owned, whose interest is in maximising return in investment. This means: - maximising revenue, by way of higher water charges, - minimising expenses, meaning lower salaries, minimal investment in better infrastructure. Really? Thames Water have just spent £5bn (yes, billion) on the Thames Tideway tunnel, and a further £635m on the Lee Tunnel. That doesn't sound like a lack of investment to me. "just spent"? .... wonder what they were doing for the other 35 years? Not relevant. The contention was that foreign ownership would lead to a lack of investment, which is clearly untrue. actually the lack of investment caused by foreign ownership is proven You have proof that Thames Water would have invested more if they hadn't been foreign owned? I'd like to see that." that's such a juvenile and garbage question that it requires not to be dignified by an answer | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"besides..... if it's the customers who pay for infrastructure upgrading then it may as well be run as a nationalised company as there's absolutely no need for shareholder investment." The shareholders can be soaked for funds. And a high share price makes the company look good to outside investors, giving the company better access to cheaper funds. There's no "need" for shareholder investment in any company. But private investment is easier to get, cheaper, and won't bankrupt the nation if it goes wrong. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"besides..... if it's the customers who pay for infrastructure upgrading then it may as well be run as a nationalised company as there's absolutely no need for shareholder investment. The shareholders can be soaked for funds. And a high share price makes the company look good to outside investors, giving the company better access to cheaper funds. There's no "need" for shareholder investment in any company. But private investment is easier to get, cheaper, and won't bankrupt the nation if it goes wrong." that's just ill informed nonsense | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You have proof that Thames Water would have invested more if they hadn't been foreign owned? I'd like to see that." "that's such a juvenile and garbage question that it requires not to be dignified by an answer" Ah! Straight to personal insults. So you have no such evidence. I'm not surprised. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The shareholders can be soaked for funds. And a high share price makes the company look good to outside investors, giving the company better access to cheaper funds. There's no "need" for shareholder investment in any company. But private investment is easier to get, cheaper, and won't bankrupt the nation if it goes wrong." "that's just ill informed nonsense" Which bit of it do you consider to be incorrect? And which bit do you believe does not make sense? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The shareholders can be soaked for funds. And a high share price makes the company look good to outside investors, giving the company better access to cheaper funds. There's no "need" for shareholder investment in any company. But private investment is easier to get, cheaper, and won't bankrupt the nation if it goes wrong. that's just ill informed nonsense Which bit of it do you consider to be incorrect? And which bit do you believe does not make sense?" thames water is begging for the taxpayer to foot the bill for their humongous debt in order to attract new investors, while at the same time current investors are still demanding dividends. it's just laundering money from the treasurey into the pockets of overseas investors which removes money from the economy. to argue different is naive or idiotic or both. basically your tax is bailing out a private company from which you don't even benefit from. it's utter nonsense | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"thames water is begging for the taxpayer to foot the bill for their humongous debt ..." Thames Water is desperate to NOT have the tax payer footing the bill. If the government has to step in, the whole company will collapse. "... in order to attract new investors, while at the same time current investors are still demanding dividends. it's just laundering money from the treasurey into the pockets of overseas investors which removes money from the economy. to argue different is naive or idiotic or both. basically your tax is bailing out a private company from which you don't even benefit from. it's utter nonsense" You seem to be arguing that Thames Water is badly run, and in a terrible state. This is true. No one is suggesting otherwise. What does that have to do with the idea that foreign ownership will lead to lack of investment, which Thames Water has proved to be incorrect? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"thames water is begging for the taxpayer to foot the bill for their humongous debt ... Thames Water is desperate to NOT have the tax payer footing the bill. If the government has to step in, the whole company will collapse. ... in order to attract new investors, while at the same time current investors are still demanding dividends. it's just laundering money from the treasurey into the pockets of overseas investors which removes money from the economy. to argue different is naive or idiotic or both. basically your tax is bailing out a private company from which you don't even benefit from. it's utter nonsense You seem to be arguing that Thames Water is badly run, and in a terrible state. This is true. No one is suggesting otherwise. What does that have to do with the idea that foreign ownership will lead to lack of investment, which Thames Water has proved to be incorrect?" thames water has done nothing of the sort... that's just more of your ill informed uneducated garbage. conversely it is proven that foreign investment has rinsed all of the money from thames water leaving it billions in debt. that is an absolute fact. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What does that have to do with the idea that foreign ownership will lead to lack of investment, which Thames Water has proved to be incorrect?" "thames water has done nothing of the sort... that's just more of your ill informed uneducated garbage. conversely it is proven that foreign investment has rinsed all of the money from thames water leaving it billions in debt. that is an absolute fact. "Back to the personal insults again, with no facts to support your case. I've explained that Thames Water has recently completed almost £6bn of investment in infrastructure, done whilst it was held in foreign hands. Where's your proof that that hasn't happened? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What does that have to do with the idea that foreign ownership will lead to lack of investment, which Thames Water has proved to be incorrect? thames water has done nothing of the sort... that's just more of your ill informed uneducated garbage. conversely it is proven that foreign investment has rinsed all of the money from thames water leaving it billions in debt. that is an absolute fact.
Back to the personal insults again, with no facts to support your case.
I've explained that Thames Water has recently completed almost £6bn of investment in infrastructure, done whilst it was held in foreign hands. Where's your proof that that hasn't happened?"i wonder what they were doing for the other 35 years? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What does that have to do with the idea that foreign ownership will lead to lack of investment, which Thames Water has proved to be incorrect? thames water has done nothing of the sort... that's just more of your ill informed uneducated garbage. conversely it is proven that foreign investment has rinsed all of the money from thames water leaving it billions in debt. that is an absolute fact.
Back to the personal insults again, with no facts to support your case.
I've explained that Thames Water has recently completed almost £6bn of investment in infrastructure, done whilst it was held in foreign hands. Where's your proof that that hasn't happened?
i wonder what they were doing for the other 35 years?"oh yeah .... running up a huge debt pile in the billions while puring billions into dividends illegally .... that's what they were doing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thames Water have just spent £5bn (yes, billion) on the Thames Tideway tunnel, and a further £635m on the Lee Tunnel. That doesn't sound like a lack of investment to me. Well it's actually customers who will be paying for it with the Ofwat approved rises to their bills.. The same is true of all companies. For the company to have the money for investment, they have to get it from their customers." But most companies don't have a monopoly, customers can choose who to go to a rival customer. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What does that have to do with the idea that foreign ownership will lead to lack of investment, which Thames Water has proved to be incorrect? thames water has done nothing of the sort... that's just more of your ill informed uneducated garbage. conversely it is proven that foreign investment has rinsed all of the money from thames water leaving it billions in debt. that is an absolute fact.
Back to the personal insults again, with no facts to support your case.
I've explained that Thames Water has recently completed almost £6bn of investment in infrastructure, done whilst it was held in foreign hands. Where's your proof that that hasn't happened?
i wonder what they were doing for the other 35 years?
oh yeah .... running up a huge debt pile in the billions while puring billions into dividends illegally .... that's what they were doing."
Highly complicated company restructuring, in the most complex ways possible, to shift money around, fabricating loans and payments between these artificial corporate structures, so that investment is minimized, whilst bonuses are inevitably paid, taking money out of the companies, never to be seen again, whilst the public are forced to continue to pay more, for inadequate services. It's a public heist, that the previous governments helped to establish and do little, except encourage.
Whilst the money has been extracted from the remaining just about living shell of a company, the public are rinsed of further money | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What does that have to do with the idea that foreign ownership will lead to lack of investment, which Thames Water has proved to be incorrect? thames water has done nothing of the sort... that's just more of your ill informed uneducated garbage. conversely it is proven that foreign investment has rinsed all of the money from thames water leaving it billions in debt. that is an absolute fact.
Back to the personal insults again, with no facts to support your case.
I've explained that Thames Water has recently completed almost £6bn of investment in infrastructure, done whilst it was held in foreign hands. Where's your proof that that hasn't happened?
i wonder what they were doing for the other 35 years?
oh yeah .... running up a huge debt pile in the billions while puring billions into dividends illegally .... that's what they were doing.
Highly complicated company restructuring, in the most complex ways possible, to shift money around, fabricating loans and payments between these artificial corporate structures, so that investment is minimized, whilst bonuses are inevitably paid, taking money out of the companies, never to be seen again, whilst the public are forced to continue to pay more, for inadequate services. It's a public heist, that the previous governments helped to establish and do little, except encourage.
Whilst the money has been extracted from the remaining just about living shell of a company, the public are rinsed of further money"this is begining to reinforce what this gary stevenson guy is trying to get across in his video to be fair | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"i wonder what they were doing for the other 35 years? oh yeah .... running up a huge debt pile in the billions while puring billions into dividends illegally ..." Illegally? You should notify the authorities. The directors will get locked up, and the company will have to be nationalised, which is what you want. Unless, of course, that isn't true. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"i wonder what they were doing for the other 35 years? oh yeah .... running up a huge debt pile in the billions while puring billions into dividends illegally ... Illegally? You should notify the authorities. The directors will get locked up, and the company will have to be nationalised, which is what you want. Unless, of course, that isn't true." the fact that they were fined 18 millions by ofwat proves it chap | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"i wonder what they were doing for the other 35 years? oh yeah .... running up a huge debt pile in the billions while puring billions into dividends illegally ..." "Illegally? You should notify the authorities. The directors will get locked up, and the company will have to be nationalised, which is what you want. Unless, of course, that isn't true." "the fact that they were fined 18 millions by ofwat proves it chap" They were fined £18m for failing to link dividend payments to performance, as required by their licence. Bad company management - yes. Operating outside of authorisation - yes. Illegal - no. Thames Water are an awful company, but if you keep trying to make them look worse by spouting easily disproved falsehoods, people will just stop listening to you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"i wonder what they were doing for the other 35 years? oh yeah .... running up a huge debt pile in the billions while puring billions into dividends illegally ... Illegally? You should notify the authorities. The directors will get locked up, and the company will have to be nationalised, which is what you want. Unless, of course, that isn't true. the fact that they were fined 18 millions by ofwat proves it chap They were fined £18m for failing to link dividend payments to performance, as required by their licence. Bad company management - yes. Operating outside of authorisation - yes. Illegal - no. Thames Water are an awful company, but if you keep trying to make them look worse by spouting easily disproved falsehoods, people will just stop listening to you." fined for illegal payments ... proven! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They were fined £18m for failing to link dividend payments to performance, as required by their licence. Bad company management - yes. Operating outside of authorisation - yes. Illegal - no. Thames Water are an awful company, but if you keep trying to make them look worse by spouting easily disproved falsehoods, people will just stop listening to you." "fined for illegal payments ... proven!" Failing to comply with the provisions of a licence is not the same thing as failing to comply with the law But it's clear that I'm wasting my time. You carry on believing what you want, regardless of the evidence. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"i wonder what they were doing for the other 35 years? oh yeah .... running up a huge debt pile in the billions while puring billions into dividends illegally ... Illegally? You should notify the authorities. The directors will get locked up, and the company will have to be nationalised, which is what you want. Unless, of course, that isn't true. the fact that they were fined 18 millions by ofwat proves it chap They were fined £18m for failing to link dividend payments to performance, as required by their licence. Bad company management - yes. Operating outside of authorisation - yes. Illegal - no. Thames Water are an awful company, but if you keep trying to make them look worse by spouting easily disproved falsehoods, people will just stop listening to you." You can stop listening but I don't see a takeover happening it's a company and a task that nobody wants. That's why it was sold in the first place. How wants a company that needs so much investment and produces so little profit. Its like go going g on dragons den and pitching for £100 million for 0.5% and when they look at the ballance sheet they all laff out loud. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They were fined £18m for failing to link dividend payments to performance, as required by their licence. Bad company management - yes. Operating outside of authorisation - yes. Illegal - no. Thames Water are an awful company, but if you keep trying to make them look worse by spouting easily disproved falsehoods, people will just stop listening to you. fined for illegal payments ... proven! Failing to comply with the provisions of a licence is not the same thing as failing to comply with the law But it's clear that I'm wasting my time. You carry on believing what you want, regardless of the evidence." you can be as narrow minded as you like but it won't change the well documented fact that thames water acted illegally and got fined as a result chap | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Our views on economic policy is largely shaped by political leaning, you lean left, I lean right, so our views will differ. An economy is very simple as a system of exchange, value created, traded, and grown through investment and productivity. Stevenson thinks that redistributing wealth will solve disparities without discussing the fundamental issues of an economy that doesn’t promote or encourage individual wealth. This is where our political views go their separate ways. So many policies shape our economic landscape and wealth. Don’t get me started on IHT "I'm not left leaning and don't know where that is derived, I'm fairly centrist and quite conservative about a few things if anything. I may seem like that because I argue for balance most of the time but I don't think someone should take that as me being left leaning. I don't think wanting to see public services functioning effectively and indefinitely for everybody is left leaning. What I am is authoritarian, if you have to label me. I think liberalism is mostly the scourge of society and only empowers the luckiest or most cut throat. I like capitalism and innovation, the people that want to go out and work to be multimillionaires then fine, tax them less! I've consistently been aggrieved that my income is taxed to near half and cannot understand why that doesn't piss people off, yet council tax rises a couple of hundred a year, or I lose ten grand (doesn't come close to my yearly tax bill that's taken off me and never seen) on a million pound of inheritance they didn't earn, then everyone loses their minds. The consistent de-regulation has led to the western world declining in standards and played into the hands of the venture capitalists. I'm not saying I want the UK to turn into China, but if it carries on the way it has for the last 40-50 years well then for most it gets much worse and we will return to feudal Europe. The economy is much more diverse and complicated than you state it is. That's part of garys points about economists, specifically government ones, being wrong for like ever. They take economic concepts that generalise people into statistics and don't look at the reality. IHT is definitely one of many taxes that should be used to stop wealth hording! I'm not sure if you're being obtuse but I give you the benefit of the doubt, saying that Stevenson wants wealth redistributing is categorically wrong. He is trying to tell people that wealth has, is and continues to exponentially be redistributed from the poor to the rich. He's fairly qualified to make his views too I'd say. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thames Water have just spent £5bn (yes, billion) on the Thames Tideway tunnel, and a further £635m on the Lee Tunnel. That doesn't sound like a lack of investment to me. Well it's actually customers who will be paying for it with the Ofwat approved rises to their bills.. The same is true of all companies. For the company to have the money for investment, they have to get it from their customers. But most companies don't have a monopoly, customers can choose who to go to a rival customer. " MrDiscretionxxx you not going to answer me..? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What does that have to do with the idea that foreign ownership will lead to lack of investment, which Thames Water has proved to be incorrect? thames water has done nothing of the sort... that's just more of your ill informed uneducated garbage. conversely it is proven that foreign investment has rinsed all of the money from thames water leaving it billions in debt. that is an absolute fact.
Back to the personal insults again, with no facts to support your case.
I've explained that Thames Water has recently completed almost £6bn of investment in infrastructure, done whilst it was held in foreign hands. Where's your proof that that hasn't happened?
i wonder what they were doing for the other 35 years?
oh yeah .... running up a huge debt pile in the billions while puring billions into dividends illegally .... that's what they were doing."So on one thread you declare the closed shop as being legal. Now you say a company paying dividends is illegal. Jeez, if I was ever in court I wouldn't want you as my brief. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What does that have to do with the idea that foreign ownership will lead to lack of investment, which Thames Water has proved to be incorrect? thames water has done nothing of the sort... that's just more of your ill informed uneducated garbage. conversely it is proven that foreign investment has rinsed all of the money from thames water leaving it billions in debt. that is an absolute fact.
Back to the personal insults again, with no facts to support your case.
I've explained that Thames Water has recently completed almost £6bn of investment in infrastructure, done whilst it was held in foreign hands. Where's your proof that that hasn't happened?
i wonder what they were doing for the other 35 years?
oh yeah .... running up a huge debt pile in the billions while puring billions into dividends illegally .... that's what they were doing.
So on one thread you declare the closed shop as being legal. Now you say a company paying dividends is illegal.
Jeez, if I was ever in court I wouldn't want you as my brief."ok grandad .... nurse will bring your plum pudding soon | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What does that have to do with the idea that foreign ownership will lead to lack of investment, which Thames Water has proved to be incorrect? thames water has done nothing of the sort... that's just more of your ill informed uneducated garbage. conversely it is proven that foreign investment has rinsed all of the money from thames water leaving it billions in debt. that is an absolute fact.
Back to the personal insults again, with no facts to support your case.
I've explained that Thames Water has recently completed almost £6bn of investment in infrastructure, done whilst it was held in foreign hands. Where's your proof that that hasn't happened?
i wonder what they were doing for the other 35 years?
oh yeah .... running up a huge debt pile in the billions while puring billions into dividends illegally .... that's what they were doing.
So on one thread you declare the closed shop as being legal. Now you say a company paying dividends is illegal.
Jeez, if I was ever in court I wouldn't want you as my brief.
ok grandad .... nurse will bring your plum pudding soon "No it's hot stone fillet steak rinsed down with a nice Rioja tonight. Plums aren't good for my bowels. As you will probably find out sooner rather than later. You're not that far behind me.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What does that have to do with the idea that foreign ownership will lead to lack of investment, which Thames Water has proved to be incorrect? thames water has done nothing of the sort... that's just more of your ill informed uneducated garbage. conversely it is proven that foreign investment has rinsed all of the money from thames water leaving it billions in debt. that is an absolute fact.
Back to the personal insults again, with no facts to support your case.
I've explained that Thames Water has recently completed almost £6bn of investment in infrastructure, done whilst it was held in foreign hands. Where's your proof that that hasn't happened?
i wonder what they were doing for the other 35 years?
oh yeah .... running up a huge debt pile in the billions while puring billions into dividends illegally .... that's what they were doing.
So on one thread you declare the closed shop as being legal. Now you say a company paying dividends is illegal.
Jeez, if I was ever in court I wouldn't want you as my brief.
ok grandad .... nurse will bring your plum pudding soon
No it's hot stone fillet steak rinsed down with a nice Rioja tonight.
Plums aren't good for my bowels. As you will probably find out sooner rather than later.
You're not that far behind me. "you got one foot in the box grandad  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What does that have to do with the idea that foreign ownership will lead to lack of investment, which Thames Water has proved to be incorrect? thames water has done nothing of the sort... that's just more of your ill informed uneducated garbage. conversely it is proven that foreign investment has rinsed all of the money from thames water leaving it billions in debt. that is an absolute fact.
Back to the personal insults again, with no facts to support your case.
I've explained that Thames Water has recently completed almost £6bn of investment in infrastructure, done whilst it was held in foreign hands. Where's your proof that that hasn't happened?
i wonder what they were doing for the other 35 years?
oh yeah .... running up a huge debt pile in the billions while puring billions into dividends illegally .... that's what they were doing.
So on one thread you declare the closed shop as being legal. Now you say a company paying dividends is illegal.
Jeez, if I was ever in court I wouldn't want you as my brief.
ok grandad .... nurse will bring your plum pudding soon
No it's hot stone fillet steak rinsed down with a nice Rioja tonight.
Plums aren't good for my bowels. As you will probably find out sooner rather than later.
You're not that far behind me.
you got one foot in the box grandad "Yes it's quite a big box, 100,000 tons 12 restaurants, 4 swimming pools, cinema, theatre, numerous bars and wafts me through tropical climes. Such a hard life for us oldies. At least I won't be thinking about the winter fuel allowance for a couple of weeks. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thames Water have just spent £5bn (yes, billion) on the Thames Tideway tunnel, and a further £635m on the Lee Tunnel. That doesn't sound like a lack of investment to me." "Well it's actually customers who will be paying for it with the Ofwat approved rises to their bills." "The same is true of all companies. For the company to have the money for investment, they have to get it from their customers." "But most companies don't have a monopoly, customers can choose who to go to a rival customer." "MrDiscretionxxx you not going to answer me..?" I'm not sure I understand your point. Yes, Thames Water is a monopoly. But even if some method were found to introduce competition, the new companies would still be dealing with Victorian infrastructure, a lack of maintenance, and increasing environmental regulations. Those new companies would also have to borrow huge amounts of money to fix those issues, and would have to recoup that by charging the costs to their customers. If people want Thames Water to provide a better service, they'll have to accept that will cost money, and it's always the customer that ends up paying. That's how business works, it provides services to customers. If those customers don't pay, the business folds. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thames Water have just spent £5bn (yes, billion) on the Thames Tideway tunnel, and a further £635m on the Lee Tunnel. That doesn't sound like a lack of investment to me. Well it's actually customers who will be paying for it with the Ofwat approved rises to their bills. The same is true of all companies. For the company to have the money for investment, they have to get it from their customers. But most companies don't have a monopoly, customers can choose who to go to a rival customer. MrDiscretionxxx you not going to answer me..? I'm not sure I understand your point. Yes, Thames Water is a monopoly. But even if some method were found to introduce competition, the new companies would still be dealing with Victorian infrastructure, a lack of maintenance, and increasing environmental regulations. Those new companies would also have to borrow huge amounts of money to fix those issues, and would have to recoup that by charging the costs to their customers. If people want Thames Water to provide a better service, they'll have to accept that will cost money, and it's always the customer that ends up paying. That's how business works, it provides services to customers. If those customers don't pay, the business folds." How many people have a choice to not pay for a basic human necessity. So in the end the public is paying for the investment. So when you said Thames Water had "spent" x amount. I don't see how you can compare its decision to one a normal company has to make when they are making investment decisions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So when you said Thames Water had "spent" x amount. I don't see how you can compare its decision to one a normal company has to make when they are making investment decisions. " I'm really having to guess at what your point is now. If you look back at my first post, I wasn't trying to say that Thames Water is a good company, or that they deserve any credit. I was just saying that they had recently spent a lot of money on infrastructure. Someone else had claimed that foreign ownership would mean that TW would not be investing in infrastructure. I was pointing out that this was incorrect, because they have just invested a lot in new infrastructure. That's all I was saying. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thames Water have just spent £5bn (yes, billion) on the Thames Tideway tunnel, and a further £635m on the Lee Tunnel. That doesn't sound like a lack of investment to me. Well it's actually customers who will be paying for it with the Ofwat approved rises to their bills. The same is true of all companies. For the company to have the money for investment, they have to get it from their customers. But most companies don't have a monopoly, customers can choose who to go to a rival customer. MrDiscretionxxx you not going to answer me..? I'm not sure I understand your point. Yes, Thames Water is a monopoly. But even if some method were found to introduce competition, the new companies would still be dealing with Victorian infrastructure, a lack of maintenance, and increasing environmental regulations. Those new companies would also have to borrow huge amounts of money to fix those issues, and would have to recoup that by charging the costs to their customers. If people want Thames Water to provide a better service, they'll have to accept that will cost money, and it's always the customer that ends up paying. That's how business works, it provides services to customers. If those customers don't pay, the business folds." The big problem is they have not been charging enough for so long now when bills go up 33% people complain. My southern Water bill has also gone up from £605 to £915 a year so 33% | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
