The quantity of assets hidden offshore indicates IMO a certain degree of insecurity at best, utter contempt for the common good and collective effort at worst.
2 Likes
I spent my whole working life trying to keep wealthy people happy, for the most part I failed. From those that had just a couple of million to a family that are on the Sunday Times Rich List the theme was the same - they always wanted more.
If improving inequality is the aim of taxing the rich how would that work in practice, is taking millions more off a billionaire really going to change the life of a single parent with three kids relying on benefits, are they simply going to be given more money so they donât have to choose between eating and heating?
Always good to use the inverse argument, is allowing the rich to get even richer going to affect the single parent with 3 kids?
Years ago when I was trying to do some estate planning for a client, their response said it all. If we all had a million no one would be rich, only by you having a million and the others not could you be classed as rich.
1 Like
Your point being?
Thatâs not answer or even an argument merely just another question.
I believe in taxing the wealthy more so those at the other end of the wealth divide benefit, I assume youâd agree with that?
1 Like
What I meant was in some countries economy where there are more wealthy people prices are naturally higher making it worse for poorer folk. Doesnt affect the wealthy. A wealthy family member never leaves a tip in a restaurant but has far more than they would ever spend yet still looking for more, the stress of trying to obtain more is taking a toll on their health but if thats what makes them happy.
1 Like
The big question - Does more 
= more 
?
Lemon sorbet recipe, please!
1 Like
Lemons, water and a shed load of sugar.
1 Like
all that + vodka for a lemon slushy 
1 Like
I think that you might have to multiply your capital/income significantly to get into paranoid peopleâs wealth category. It seems more common at the extremes not the the run of the mill well off.
Nothing to do with jealousy, more like justice, allright?
2 Likes
Not all will be well, more like the system will be more just.
I could live more easily with the thought of âsuper-richnessâ if the seemingly necessary opposite of âsuper-povertyâ wasnât significantly damaging lives. Theresa May spoke of the âjamsâ (just amount managing) It was one of the few things that I thought offered a glimmer of hope in her government. I even put on hold my previous opinion of her which was based on the hostile environment policy. I digress.
There are many families working darned hard; a number of jobs and juggling expenses. Their quality of life made worse purely due to limited income. Other familes/individuals donât even have that luxury. Poverty impacts access to health, to education, to good nutrition. Any system that enables resources to be pooled so significantly at one end, denying basics at the other, is unjust. I can find no other word for it.
4 Likes
I am at the moment listening to The Rest is Politics podcast episode called The Billionaire Tax, with Professor Gabriel Zucman. Very interesting.
2 Likes
We are all entitled to our opinion but to advise me of yours followed by âalright?â Looks very much like shouting me down. I suppose I am countering your opinion simply by replying.
3 Likes
Free to make comments JB, without that no opinion changes. Afterall if it was easy they would have solved it a long time ago.
Iâm reminded of when John Majorâs government like to rebut criticism with âpolitics of envyâ. The arrogant smugness of it irritated me back then but, more generally, god forbid we are ever forbidden the right to question, the temerity of asking being struck down with âknow your placeâ
2 Likes
Wealthy and rich are just words, until someone puts a monetary value to what the words mean in economic terms how can we possibly begin to reduce the inequality gap?
2 Likes
Has socialist multi-millionaire Bernie â5 housesâ Sanders flapped his gums on this topic yet?