Should billionaires exist?

[Detournement]

Just now, ICTChris said:

 

They also own The Courier.

That explains it then.

Dundee junkie tales are obviously a gold mine.

[Detournement]

Imagine they are all snorting coke and shagging supermodels on a Yacht in Monte Carlo and it's all paid for by auld biddies writing letters about losing socks.

[Shotgun]

Do the Broons get paid royalties, or are they on salary? Even split 10 ways, I would expect that after 80+ years, they must be rolling in it. Certainly comfortable enough to have bought their tenement flat outright. I imagine Oor Wullie's earnings are put in a trust fund until he's 18.

[Shotgun]

10 minutes ago, MixuFixit said:

The but & ben is fully booked all year for £750 a week (minimum booking)

AirBnB has changed the hospitality industry.

[Bigmouth Strikes Again]

55 minutes ago, Detournement said:

I can't believe that the people who own the Sunday Post are billionaires.

 

Their days are numbered, it's only pensioners that read the comics/'newspapers' now.

[Hedgecutter]

2 hours ago, Detournement said:

I can't believe that the people who own the Sunday Post are billionaires.

 

2 hours ago, ICTChris said:

They also own The Courier.

 

1 hour ago, Detournement said:

Dundee junkie tales are obviously a gold mine.

She was a Thomson, had a thirst for knowledge 
She studied media down at Dundee College
That's where I
Caught her eye
She told me that her Da' was loaded
I said "In that case get me a Tully and Caol Ila"
She said "Fine"
And then in seeven seconds time, she said:

Eh want tae bide like common people
Eh want tae do whitever common people do
Want tae shag wi' common people
Eh want tae shag wi' common people
Like you

What else could I do
I said "I'll take you intae toon"
I took her for a pint at the Market
Seems it's a 'Spoons now
But I had to start it somewhere
So it started, there
I said, "pretend you hiv nae shekles"
She just laughed and said
"Oh you're so teckle"
I said "Aye"

Well I can't see anyone shooting up in here
Are you sure?

....

But she didn't understand
Why Hilltoon's got no broadband.

Rent a flat around Lochee
Beg for change around Dundee
Smoke some fags in the Olympia pool
Set alight to Braeview school
But still you'll never get it right
'Cause when your plettie smells of s***e
Thanks to the junkies through the wall
If you called your Dad he could stop it all, yeah

You'll never live like common people
You'll never do whatever common people do
Dodge the V&A like common people
Never shag up the Law because of the view
And then go for a drink down at Boo's
Because there's f*** all else to do

Edited October 31, 2019 by Hedgecutter

[Miguel Sanchez]

I can't tell if I'm horrified or impressed. 

[sjc]

5 hours ago, yoda said:

"Rents going up" =/= "increase in inflation"

Sure, rents might go up. But then why increase wages? Why increase any social security? You're just giving people money in both of these examples, and using your logic then rents will still go up.  Anyway, you're missing the point - the lack of affordable housing is not related to UBI, it's a separate issue that needs to be addressed. Nobody is arguing that UBI will solve that specific problem. The specific solution to that (in the UK at least) issue is build more houses and stop people using housing as a financial asset.

You said it would increase inflation, presumably on the faulty logic that "more money = more inflation". That's not likely to happen because we're not creating money out of thin air, it's money that already exists. The idea that UBI will result in a devastating hyper-inflationary spiral is rubbish.

Here's some links:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/20/16256240/mexico-cash-transfer-inflation-basic-income

https://medium.com/basic-income/will-basic-income-cause-massive-inflation-no-f93175c24e48

 

I don't think UBI is necessarily going to fix the problem of poverty or inequality, and I'd rather see taxes from billionaire c***s spent on other things, but it's a significantly better use of Jeff Bezos's billions than vanity space projects.

Cheers.

Regardless of them being unrelated, my point is that without addressing the underlying issue of shortages (of whatever services/etc), UBI will just raise the base level.

The demand remains the same whilst people would have £x amount of guaranteed additional income.

I'm not adverse to helping people, I just don't think UBI is the answer. I personally believe providing basic housing, power, food, transportation would be more beneficial and have less economic impact.

[tamthebam]

6 hours ago, MixuFixit said:

If I was given a fishing rod and told to feed myself I'd be dead in a fortnight

I wouldn't. I'd hit some twat about the head with it, steal his wallet and go down the chippy. 

 

And that's mercantilism folks. 

[tamthebam]

"Show me a millionaire and i'll show you a million people short of a quid"- Alexei Sayle. 

[D.A.F.C]

3 minutes ago, tamthebam said:

"Show me a millionaire and i'll show you a million people short of a quid"- Alexei Sayle. 

Who is that fat b*****d?

[alta-pete]

I’m a bit more neoliberal than most on here and that can lead me into trouble now and again. However:

I can’t recall where I read it but there was an article about supertax in the 70s where mad mental incomes were taxed at 90+% which I now actually agree with.

Net result however was there were no billionaires. They built up their businesses (to a level) at their personal taxation expense.

Now however you earn a (not exceptional) £43k or more and you’re a capitalist pariah.

Net result: no point striving.

[Cerberus]

I always wondered why China has so many billionaires.
Communism at its finest.

[The OP]

11 minutes ago, alta-pete said:

I’m a bit more neoliberal than most on here and that can lead me into trouble now and again. However:

I can’t recall where I read it but there was an article about supertax in the 70s where mad mental incomes were taxed at 90+% which I now actually agree with.

Net result however was there were no billionaires. They built up their businesses (to a level) at their personal taxation expense.

Now however you earn a (not exceptional) £43k or more and you’re a capitalist pariah.

Net result: no point striving.

Forgive me if I have misunderstood your post but it seems like you are on of those ignorami who think going into a higher tax band could leave a person worse off. Surely not and you  do realise that if you are taxed at 90% over £1bn a year you still earn more than a guy earning £999,999,999 a year?

So (for sociopaths who strive for more money than they could ever spend) there still would be a point in ‘striving’.

[alta-pete]

Forgive me if I have misunderstood your post but it seems like you are on of those ignorami who think going into a higher tax band could leave a person worse off. Surely not and you  do realise that if you are taxed at 90% over £1bn a year you still earn more than a guy earning £999,999,999 a year?
So (for sociopaths who strive for more money than they could ever spend) there still would be a point in ‘striving’.

The basic point, maybe clumsily put, would you strive if after a certain point 90% of your gain was taxed?

I’m self employed and already struggle to motivate myself into the band where 40% of my extra effort is taxed. Net result: I, and therefore the wider economy, are less productive than they could be.

[oneteaminglasgow]

The basic point, maybe clumsily put, would you strive if after a certain point 90% of your gain was taxed?

I’m self employed and already struggle to motivate myself into the band where 40% of my extra effort is taxed. Net result: I, and therefore the wider economy, are less productive than they could be.

Right, so you don’t want to earn more in case you’re taxed a little bit more, even though you’ll end up better off?

[alta-pete]

 

Right, so you don’t want to earn more in case you’re taxed a little bit more, even though you’ll end up better off?

‘Better off’ is the debatable point.

 

Yes, I’ll have more money but what is the point in that if I’m working a 60hr week? Am I not ‘better off’ by working a 35hr week, making less money, and having an extra 25hrs to do with as I please?

 

I’m at the wrong end of the spectrum in relation to a debate about billionaires I appreciate but the original point was that in the 70s when super income was taxed at 90% there was no point (ie nigh impossible) to become a billionaire. If you/your enterprise were making that sort of money the incentive was there to spread the wealth, reinvest it or go do something leisurely.

 

My own view - and it won’t be a world view - is that there’s still nae danger I’m working when, by comparison to the original point, a relatively modest 40% of it disappears to HMRC.

[Hedgecutter]

28 minutes ago, alta-pete said:

I'm self employed and already struggle to motivate myself into the band where 40% of my extra effort is taxed. Net result: I, and therefore the wider economy, are less productive than they could be.

 

Ltd company and dividends my friend.  It's all about the dividends. 

One of the great perks of self employment.  Plus you don't lose your house if your sole trader business goes seriously tits up. 

[The OP]

I’m pretty sure becoming a billionaire isn’t generally based upon doing a few hours O/T a week because you like the tax rate.

[alta-pete]

I’m pretty sure becoming a billionaire isn’t generally based upon doing a few hours O/T a week because you like the tax rate.

I’m sure you’re right. But equally earning a bazillion pounds a year doesn’t happen by just doing a wee bit overtime.