| Where your money really goes... 21:26 - Apr 26 with 2446 views | 1BobbyHazell |
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/apr/26/crisis-what-crisis-britains-rich
During the so called 'financial crisis', the wealthiest 1000 people in the UK have more than doubled their wealth NOT INCLUDING BANK ACCOUNTS to £547 Billion Pounds.
A gain of over 300 billion in 10 f-ing years. Not so much a 'financial crisis' as a well organised increase in the flow of wealth to the few at the top. Austerity my f-ing arse. This is why I get so peed off with the likes of Henry and those that agree with him on here focusing on the things (poor people, welfare claimants etc) that the Newspapers owned by the billionaires tell them to so that they don't focus on where the money really goes.
Benefit fraud is estimated to cost us 1 billion pounds a year, that comes to 10 billion over the same period that these 1000 people who already have more money than they could ever spend took 300 billion pounds more for themselves (plus whatever is in their bank accounts!!).
Still I'm sure Holloway will be along in a moment to tell us about the latest benefit mum exposed in his newspaper who we should all blame. Look up the definition for 'misdirection'.
Do the maths, let's all wake up, love is most definitely the key. |  | | |  |
| Where your money really goes... on 21:34 - Apr 26 with 2420 views | TacticalR |
Poor old Mittal is down a billion. My thoughts are with him. |  |
| |
| Where your money really goes... on 21:42 - Apr 26 with 2395 views | HollowayRanger |
so what do you do about it
for sure if those at the top (if haha) are not paying their taxes or doing illegal things they should be caught forced to pay and jailed if needed ,those in power have always let them get away with it because they are part of it ,not just tories but labour as well
but that doesn't mean those at the bottom should profit at our expense either
I wont ever be a millionaire I just work week after week year after year for my £16,000 take home pay ,I don't live among millionaires (well not many) but I do know, hear ,see the benefit cheats around me and have to listen to all their gloating at our expense |  |
| |
| Where your money really goes... on 21:54 - Apr 26 with 2354 views | SpiritofGregory |
I see the Guardian are slagging off their own readers. Poor people don't tend to read the Guardian. |  | | |
| Where your money really goes... on 23:31 - Apr 26 with 2259 views | Juzzie |
Not long after the credit crunch happend there was a Channel 4 documentry where a new york financial expert was very open and basically said a lot of money by people in the right places can be made from this misery.
Sure, the benefit cheats cost a lot but so do people at the top. Both need to be dealt with.
Seems the majority of people in the middle are the ones paying for it all. |  | | |
| Where your money really goes... on 23:37 - Apr 26 with 2249 views | barabajagal |
| Where your money really goes... on 21:42 - Apr 26 by HollowayRanger |
so what do you do about it
for sure if those at the top (if haha) are not paying their taxes or doing illegal things they should be caught forced to pay and jailed if needed ,those in power have always let them get away with it because they are part of it ,not just tories but labour as well
but that doesn't mean those at the bottom should profit at our expense either
I wont ever be a millionaire I just work week after week year after year for my £16,000 take home pay ,I don't live among millionaires (well not many) but I do know, hear ,see the benefit cheats around me and have to listen to all their gloating at our expense |
So we are left arguing over the crumbs. I would argue that our row is not with people receiving welfare payments, it's with those who own this kind of wealth. It's obscene that you earn what you do after grafting all week when people own that kind of wealth, and that is no criticism of your life and your choices, but a system that supports such disparity.
I'm not so sure what can be done about it. I firmly believe that a return to a unionised workforce could help, although I am also aware how unpopular that view is at the moment. I'm not convinced about the immigration arguments either, seems simplistic and provides false scapegoats. I would argue for a redistribution of wealth from the top 1% is due, but I'll have to leave the method design to others. It won't happen overnight, but if the will of the people demands something, things can change.
I've finished now, you can wake up.  |  | | |
| Where your money really goes... on 23:55 - Apr 26 with 2229 views | SpiritofGregory |
We can start by capping ludicrous player salaries.
There are people working their fingers to the bone for a pittance whist players are getting paid a fortune for kicking a ball around for a living. Most of those footballers are average at best, QPR being a prime example. | | | |
| Where your money really goes... on 07:17 - Apr 27 with 2132 views | CHUBBS |
| Where your money really goes... on 23:37 - Apr 26 by barabajagal |
So we are left arguing over the crumbs. I would argue that our row is not with people receiving welfare payments, it's with those who own this kind of wealth. It's obscene that you earn what you do after grafting all week when people own that kind of wealth, and that is no criticism of your life and your choices, but a system that supports such disparity.
I'm not so sure what can be done about it. I firmly believe that a return to a unionised workforce could help, although I am also aware how unpopular that view is at the moment. I'm not convinced about the immigration arguments either, seems simplistic and provides false scapegoats. I would argue for a redistribution of wealth from the top 1% is due, but I'll have to leave the method design to others. It won't happen overnight, but if the will of the people demands something, things can change.
I've finished now, you can wake up. |
The will of the people won't demand it,they give them just enough rope to hang themselves bickering away at each other whilst they accumulate.
I wouldn't vote as I detest high rank politics and it's pointless considering they're all controlled to meander toward the esoteric agenda.
Just look at the Liberal Democratic party who became Conservative once in power.
Over our dead bodies will a redistribution of wealth ever take place,that 1% owns and controls the media,army,police and have had the Governments in their back pockets for a century.
You saw the cash extraction experiment used on the Greek population just to see how much control they now have.
Once they gain full control of the Middle East,the acceleration will really kick in.
In a nutshell nothing will change for our benefit no matter how much we complain. |  | | |
| Where your money really goes... on 07:36 - Apr 27 with 2118 views | GetMeRangers |
| Where your money really goes... on 23:37 - Apr 26 by barabajagal |
So we are left arguing over the crumbs. I would argue that our row is not with people receiving welfare payments, it's with those who own this kind of wealth. It's obscene that you earn what you do after grafting all week when people own that kind of wealth, and that is no criticism of your life and your choices, but a system that supports such disparity.
I'm not so sure what can be done about it. I firmly believe that a return to a unionised workforce could help, although I am also aware how unpopular that view is at the moment. I'm not convinced about the immigration arguments either, seems simplistic and provides false scapegoats. I would argue for a redistribution of wealth from the top 1% is due, but I'll have to leave the method design to others. It won't happen overnight, but if the will of the people demands something, things can change.
I've finished now, you can wake up. |
The top 1% pay 30% of the national tax take. They do pay their share, it is just a discussion about whether it is felt whether they should pay more. Tax too heavily and wealth creators leave the country, much in the way we have benefited from some leaving France with their ludicrous tax rates.
Their wealth will be mainly be 'on paper', whether invested in other businesses or their own. I dont suppose their was much sympathy but during the recession their 'fortunes' would have been hit very hard during the recession. Put another way, if you had shares pre recession, your wealth would have halved during the recession and only returned to pre recession value last year. It wouldnt have meant you had earned anything unless you bought at the bottom of the market, in which case you would have doubled your money.
Any country that relies upon capitalism requires businesses to be successful to provide employment and taxes to pay for the state sector. Perhaps this article is just a reflection of the economy returning to a healthy state? |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Where your money really goes... on 08:24 - Apr 27 with 2072 views | Mvpeter |
| Where your money really goes... on 07:36 - Apr 27 by GetMeRangers |
The top 1% pay 30% of the national tax take. They do pay their share, it is just a discussion about whether it is felt whether they should pay more. Tax too heavily and wealth creators leave the country, much in the way we have benefited from some leaving France with their ludicrous tax rates.
Their wealth will be mainly be 'on paper', whether invested in other businesses or their own. I dont suppose their was much sympathy but during the recession their 'fortunes' would have been hit very hard during the recession. Put another way, if you had shares pre recession, your wealth would have halved during the recession and only returned to pre recession value last year. It wouldnt have meant you had earned anything unless you bought at the bottom of the market, in which case you would have doubled your money.
Any country that relies upon capitalism requires businesses to be successful to provide employment and taxes to pay for the state sector. Perhaps this article is just a reflection of the economy returning to a healthy state? |
This.
And trying to equate benefit fraud with good businessmen making good investment is ludicrous |  |
| |
| Where your money really goes... on 12:52 - Apr 27 with 1979 views | whittocksRs |
The original poster's point is exactly why focusing on benefit fraud and immigration costs etx is entirely the wrong one to focus on. Wealth distribution (or the increasing lack thereof) is what's putting people into poverty in this country. | | | |
| Where your money really goes... on 13:10 - Apr 27 with 1960 views | NW5Hoop |
| Where your money really goes... on 21:54 - Apr 26 by SpiritofGregory |
I see the Guardian are slagging off their own readers. Poor people don't tend to read the Guardian. |
The Guardian has a very mixed readership. Lots of people without high incomes read it, especially because - unlike the Sun - it is free online. It tends not to have readers who struggle with more than two sentences and need constants pictures of a woman in her underwear to help them get to the end of an article. But being stupid isn't the same as being poor. | | | |
| Where your money really goes... on 13:36 - Apr 27 with 1912 views | YorkRanger |
| Where your money really goes... on 13:10 - Apr 27 by NW5Hoop |
The Guardian has a very mixed readership. Lots of people without high incomes read it, especially because - unlike the Sun - it is free online. It tends not to have readers who struggle with more than two sentences and need constants pictures of a woman in her underwear to help them get to the end of an article. But being stupid isn't the same as being poor. |
Poor is of course relative. The Guardian has always been popular with the teaching community, many of whom are far from wealthy, struggle to make ends meet, but would not fit nicely into a categorisation of "poor"- underpaid and undervalued would be other descriptions perhaps... |  | | |
| Where your money really goes... on 18:55 - Apr 27 with 1843 views | THEBUSH |
| Where your money really goes... on 21:42 - Apr 26 by HollowayRanger |
so what do you do about it
for sure if those at the top (if haha) are not paying their taxes or doing illegal things they should be caught forced to pay and jailed if needed ,those in power have always let them get away with it because they are part of it ,not just tories but labour as well
but that doesn't mean those at the bottom should profit at our expense either
I wont ever be a millionaire I just work week after week year after year for my £16,000 take home pay ,I don't live among millionaires (well not many) but I do know, hear ,see the benefit cheats around me and have to listen to all their gloating at our expense |
'so what do you do about it '
By not voting for Farage and UKIP  |  | | |
| Where your money really goes... on 19:00 - Apr 27 with 1835 views | paesanu |
| Where your money really goes... on 23:55 - Apr 26 by SpiritofGregory |
We can start by capping ludicrous player salaries.
There are people working their fingers to the bone for a pittance whist players are getting paid a fortune for kicking a ball around for a living. Most of those footballers are average at best, QPR being a prime example. |
Economics. The basic principle is supply and demand. If you want to cut salaries, you have to cut loyalty. ie boycott games and the owners all of a sudden will pay attention.
But football fans are a special breed, and therefore the economics is a special breed, and salaries become a special breed. |  |
| |
| Where your money really goes... on 19:09 - Apr 27 with 1825 views | SimonJames |
Arguments about "wealth", rather than "income", are deeply flawed if you don't consider what constitutes that wealth. Wealth, unless it is held as money (or "near money" e.g. gold) is just a measure of what SOMEONE ELSE is willing to pay you for something you have or created.
If someone wants to pay Damien Hirst millions to buy his "art" does that make him greedy and exploitative?
Is billionaire J. K. Rowling to blame for millions of people wanting to buy her books?
Anyone can make and sell art, or write books. Does that mean you should "redistribute" their wealth to people who are sh1t at painting, or never picked up a pen?
Walmart started as one man & his shop. Now it employs 2.2 million people. The Walton family is estimated to be worth about $100BN - because that is what the market says someone would be willing to pay, to buy Walmart off them.
But that doesn't mean they have billions of dollars of loose change kicking around in their pockets. They can't go and "spend a shop" when they fancy it.
Warren Buffett is the 3rd richest man in the world, but he only ever buys second hand cars and still lives in the house he bought for $31K in 1958. He reinvests all his money in charities, worthy causes, and companies that provide jobs and pensions earnings for ordinary people.
How many of the employees at Google or Microsoft, who have earned massive stock options, feel exploited by their employers?
I know several people who are multi-millionaires.
They started their own businesses with money they begged or borrowed.
They typically worked 100+ hours a week for years, built them up so that they were able to create jobs for other people.
They don't have mountains of cash lying about because they plough everything they make back into their businesses.
When they retire they will hand over their businesses to their kids.
Does that mean that someone else (e.g. populist rhetoric-spouting, vote-seeking politician) should come along and redistribute their wealth for them?
How do you even redistribute an electrical contractors or a furniture warehouse?
Perhaps where we should really be redistributing wealth is every time an idiotic footballer buys a new Bugatti Veyron to go with his 6 other super cars. |  |
| 100% of people who drink water will die. |
| |
| Where your money really goes... on 19:33 - Apr 27 with 1799 views | barabajagal |
| Where your money really goes... on 19:09 - Apr 27 by SimonJames |
Arguments about "wealth", rather than "income", are deeply flawed if you don't consider what constitutes that wealth. Wealth, unless it is held as money (or "near money" e.g. gold) is just a measure of what SOMEONE ELSE is willing to pay you for something you have or created.
If someone wants to pay Damien Hirst millions to buy his "art" does that make him greedy and exploitative?
Is billionaire J. K. Rowling to blame for millions of people wanting to buy her books?
Anyone can make and sell art, or write books. Does that mean you should "redistribute" their wealth to people who are sh1t at painting, or never picked up a pen?
Walmart started as one man & his shop. Now it employs 2.2 million people. The Walton family is estimated to be worth about $100BN - because that is what the market says someone would be willing to pay, to buy Walmart off them.
But that doesn't mean they have billions of dollars of loose change kicking around in their pockets. They can't go and "spend a shop" when they fancy it.
Warren Buffett is the 3rd richest man in the world, but he only ever buys second hand cars and still lives in the house he bought for $31K in 1958. He reinvests all his money in charities, worthy causes, and companies that provide jobs and pensions earnings for ordinary people.
How many of the employees at Google or Microsoft, who have earned massive stock options, feel exploited by their employers?
I know several people who are multi-millionaires.
They started their own businesses with money they begged or borrowed.
They typically worked 100+ hours a week for years, built them up so that they were able to create jobs for other people.
They don't have mountains of cash lying about because they plough everything they make back into their businesses.
When they retire they will hand over their businesses to their kids.
Does that mean that someone else (e.g. populist rhetoric-spouting, vote-seeking politician) should come along and redistribute their wealth for them?
How do you even redistribute an electrical contractors or a furniture warehouse?
Perhaps where we should really be redistributing wealth is every time an idiotic footballer buys a new Bugatti Veyron to go with his 6 other super cars. |
I cannot believe it is that black and white. | | | |
| Where your money really goes... on 00:47 - Apr 28 with 1682 views | TacticalR |
| Where your money really goes... on 19:09 - Apr 27 by SimonJames |
Arguments about "wealth", rather than "income", are deeply flawed if you don't consider what constitutes that wealth. Wealth, unless it is held as money (or "near money" e.g. gold) is just a measure of what SOMEONE ELSE is willing to pay you for something you have or created.
If someone wants to pay Damien Hirst millions to buy his "art" does that make him greedy and exploitative?
Is billionaire J. K. Rowling to blame for millions of people wanting to buy her books?
Anyone can make and sell art, or write books. Does that mean you should "redistribute" their wealth to people who are sh1t at painting, or never picked up a pen?
Walmart started as one man & his shop. Now it employs 2.2 million people. The Walton family is estimated to be worth about $100BN - because that is what the market says someone would be willing to pay, to buy Walmart off them.
But that doesn't mean they have billions of dollars of loose change kicking around in their pockets. They can't go and "spend a shop" when they fancy it.
Warren Buffett is the 3rd richest man in the world, but he only ever buys second hand cars and still lives in the house he bought for $31K in 1958. He reinvests all his money in charities, worthy causes, and companies that provide jobs and pensions earnings for ordinary people.
How many of the employees at Google or Microsoft, who have earned massive stock options, feel exploited by their employers?
I know several people who are multi-millionaires.
They started their own businesses with money they begged or borrowed.
They typically worked 100+ hours a week for years, built them up so that they were able to create jobs for other people.
They don't have mountains of cash lying about because they plough everything they make back into their businesses.
When they retire they will hand over their businesses to their kids.
Does that mean that someone else (e.g. populist rhetoric-spouting, vote-seeking politician) should come along and redistribute their wealth for them?
How do you even redistribute an electrical contractors or a furniture warehouse?
Perhaps where we should really be redistributing wealth is every time an idiotic footballer buys a new Bugatti Veyron to go with his 6 other super cars. |
This board has been engulfed in a tidal wave of nonsense for the last few days, but this caps it all. | |
| |
| Where your money really goes... on 05:33 - Apr 28 with 1649 views | FDC |
Re the OP: I agree with the gist of the post, but am less convinced by "love is most definitely the key"! I can't think of any historical examples of a ruling class being "loved" into making concessions. |  | | |
| Where your money really goes... on 09:59 - Apr 28 with 1587 views | SimonJames |
| Where your money really goes... on 00:47 - Apr 28 by TacticalR |
This board has been engulfed in a tidal wave of nonsense for the last few days, but this caps it all. |
...red faced, quietly takes off economics degree hat and slips it into the back of dusty drawer for another 30 years, until next rant.
Turns on radio and listens with enthusiasm to the latest politician's ingenious new plan to pay Paul by robbing Peter. | |
| 100% of people who drink water will die. |
| |
| Where your money really goes... on 10:09 - Apr 28 with 1576 views | NW5Hoop |
| Where your money really goes... on 19:09 - Apr 27 by SimonJames |
Arguments about "wealth", rather than "income", are deeply flawed if you don't consider what constitutes that wealth. Wealth, unless it is held as money (or "near money" e.g. gold) is just a measure of what SOMEONE ELSE is willing to pay you for something you have or created.
If someone wants to pay Damien Hirst millions to buy his "art" does that make him greedy and exploitative?
Is billionaire J. K. Rowling to blame for millions of people wanting to buy her books?
Anyone can make and sell art, or write books. Does that mean you should "redistribute" their wealth to people who are sh1t at painting, or never picked up a pen?
Walmart started as one man & his shop. Now it employs 2.2 million people. The Walton family is estimated to be worth about $100BN - because that is what the market says someone would be willing to pay, to buy Walmart off them.
But that doesn't mean they have billions of dollars of loose change kicking around in their pockets. They can't go and "spend a shop" when they fancy it.
Warren Buffett is the 3rd richest man in the world, but he only ever buys second hand cars and still lives in the house he bought for $31K in 1958. He reinvests all his money in charities, worthy causes, and companies that provide jobs and pensions earnings for ordinary people.
How many of the employees at Google or Microsoft, who have earned massive stock options, feel exploited by their employers?
I know several people who are multi-millionaires.
They started their own businesses with money they begged or borrowed.
They typically worked 100+ hours a week for years, built them up so that they were able to create jobs for other people.
They don't have mountains of cash lying about because they plough everything they make back into their businesses.
When they retire they will hand over their businesses to their kids.
Does that mean that someone else (e.g. populist rhetoric-spouting, vote-seeking politician) should come along and redistribute their wealth for them?
How do you even redistribute an electrical contractors or a furniture warehouse?
Perhaps where we should really be redistributing wealth is every time an idiotic footballer buys a new Bugatti Veyron to go with his 6 other super cars. |
I don't think Walmart is the example you want to use as an embodiment of how well capitalism works, given that it's used its position as the largest private employer in the US to systematically stamp down labour costs — two thirds of its workforce earns less than $25,000 a year — and then persecute those who engage in legal protest about their working conditions. That's before we get on to the widely reported abuse of the rights of its overseas workers, and its bribery scandals. | | | |
| Where your money really goes... on 11:59 - Apr 28 with 1537 views | SimonJames |
| Where your money really goes... on 10:09 - Apr 28 by NW5Hoop |
I don't think Walmart is the example you want to use as an embodiment of how well capitalism works, given that it's used its position as the largest private employer in the US to systematically stamp down labour costs — two thirds of its workforce earns less than $25,000 a year — and then persecute those who engage in legal protest about their working conditions. That's before we get on to the widely reported abuse of the rights of its overseas workers, and its bribery scandals. |
Personally I don't like the concept of Walmart (or any supermarket that wipes out the local shops), I just used it as an example of how a small asset (one shop) can grow into a very big asset over time.
But whilst their ethics and operating practices are shady (and probably immoral), I suspect the low pay of workers is due mostly to the fact that, because of the price cutting competition in their market, they only make a shade over 3% net profit each year (and a return on assets of 8%).
So there is a limit to how far they can nudge up wages before they have to put up prices, at which point (unless the competition follow suit) they loose business and have to start cutting costs further... e.g. cut the workforce, squeeze the small suppliers, etc. | |
| 100% of people who drink water will die. |
| |
| Where your money really goes... on 12:19 - Apr 28 with 1516 views | whittocksRs |
| Where your money really goes... on 11:59 - Apr 28 by SimonJames |
Personally I don't like the concept of Walmart (or any supermarket that wipes out the local shops), I just used it as an example of how a small asset (one shop) can grow into a very big asset over time.
But whilst their ethics and operating practices are shady (and probably immoral), I suspect the low pay of workers is due mostly to the fact that, because of the price cutting competition in their market, they only make a shade over 3% net profit each year (and a return on assets of 8%).
So there is a limit to how far they can nudge up wages before they have to put up prices, at which point (unless the competition follow suit) they loose business and have to start cutting costs further... e.g. cut the workforce, squeeze the small suppliers, etc. |
Because they couldn't reduce the multi-million executive salaries, of course. | | | |
| Where your money really goes... on 13:36 - Apr 28 with 1473 views | SimonJames |
| Where your money really goes... on 12:19 - Apr 28 by whittocksRs |
Because they couldn't reduce the multi-million executive salaries, of course. |
The CEO of the biggest retailer in the world gets paid slightly more than Wayne Rooney (not the best player of not the best team in the world).
According to Walmart's accounts, total executive compensation for last year was $77.2M (less than what Ronaldo gets paid). So if you divided that amongst the workers, they'd each get an extra 45 pence a week (less tax of course).
But even that amount would help people in the poorest parts of the world. I'd vote for a party that promised to tax the fat cats more and then give it all to people living in extreme poverty abroad. | |
| 100% of people who drink water will die. |
| |
| Where your money really goes... on 14:01 - Apr 28 with 1453 views | NW5Hoop |
| Where your money really goes... on 13:36 - Apr 28 by SimonJames |
The CEO of the biggest retailer in the world gets paid slightly more than Wayne Rooney (not the best player of not the best team in the world).
According to Walmart's accounts, total executive compensation for last year was $77.2M (less than what Ronaldo gets paid). So if you divided that amongst the workers, they'd each get an extra 45 pence a week (less tax of course).
But even that amount would help people in the poorest parts of the world. I'd vote for a party that promised to tax the fat cats more and then give it all to people living in extreme poverty abroad. |
On Walmart, here's an article from that noted socialist muckraking rag Fortune, explaining how Walmart could easily increase wages by 50% without upsetting its shareholders, scaring Wall Street, or doing great damage to its bottom line. You forget that while its profit margin may be small, its size means that still affords it upwards of $100bn a year in profits.
http://fortune.com/2013/11/12/why-wal-mart-can-afford-to-give-its-workers-a-50-r | | | |
| Where your money really goes... on 15:12 - Apr 28 with 1423 views | SimonJames |
| Where your money really goes... on 14:01 - Apr 28 by NW5Hoop |
On Walmart, here's an article from that noted socialist muckraking rag Fortune, explaining how Walmart could easily increase wages by 50% without upsetting its shareholders, scaring Wall Street, or doing great damage to its bottom line. You forget that while its profit margin may be small, its size means that still affords it upwards of $100bn a year in profits.
http://fortune.com/2013/11/12/why-wal-mart-can-afford-to-give-its-workers-a-50-r |
Hmmm. That calculation seems to have left out a couple of nit picky details such as all the fixed costs and all the operating costs!
So that implies that they have no existing staff costs and the stores cost nothing to run.
At the end of the day, I don't know anyone who works at Walmart, I've never been in a Walmart, and frankly I couldn't give a monkeys' about big supermarkets in America (yes I know they also own Asda).
I just used it at as an example of why assets that are not comparable to disposable income.
... and now I'm going to go back to grumbling about Redknapp (estimated wealth of £12M) and SWP (estimated wealth of £8.3M). | |
| 100% of people who drink water will die. |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
