Dystopia, It's all too awful

[unbeliever 10]

That figure doesn't look accurate. Can you provide the source?

 

As far as I know Bill Gates is the richest man in the world and worth way less than £100bn.

 

Our National Debt is £1.7 trillion.

 

It isn't accurate.

The actual statistic is that the 62 richest people in the world have as much wealth as the poorest half. Not even close to being the same thing. The poorest half have well under half.

I think it originates from an Oxfam study.

[Santo 10]

It isn't accurate.

The actual statistic is that the 62 richest people in the world have as much wealth as the poorest half. Not even close to being the same thing. The poorest half have well under half.

I think it originates from an Oxfam study.

 

Ahh ok, thanks.

 

I suppose the point Anna B makes is, is it ever right for someone to be a billionaire? A hundred millionaire, a multi-millionaire?

 

But does the average billionaire actually have billions in the bank or do they just run a company that is valued in billions? I think it's the latter. So, in Anna B's world, when a company becomes successful should it pass into state ownership to prevent its owners being obscenely wealthy?

 

What's the cutoff?

 

Sounds a bit commie to me. And communism doesn't work. I'd go as far as to say it's against natural selection.

Edited October 4, 2016 by Santo

[unbeliever 10]

Ahh ok, thanks.

 

I suppose the point Anna B makes is, is it ever right for someone to be a billionaire? A hundred millionaire, a multi-millionaire?

 

But does the average billionaire actually have billions in the bank or do they just run a company that is valued in billions? I think it's the latter. So, in Anna B's world, when a company becomes successful should it pass into state ownership to prevent its owners being obscenely wealthy?

 

What's the cutoff?

 

Sounds a bit commie to me. And communism doesn't work. I'd go as far as to say it's against natural selection.

 

The idea that you can take from the rich and give to the poor without incurring negative consequences is the ultimate problem.

[Anna B 1,417]

Ahh ok, thanks.

 

I suppose the point Anna B makes is, is it ever right for someone to be a billionaire? A hundred millionaire, a multi-millionaire?

 

But does the average billionaire actually have billions in the bank or do they just run a company that is valued in billions? I think it's the latter. So, in Anna B's world, when a company becomes successful should it pass into state ownership to prevent its owners being obscenely wealthy?

 

What's the cutoff?

 

Sounds a bit commie to me. And communism doesn't work. I'd go as far as to say it's against natural selection.

 

What's Commie about getting them to pay the tax they owe?

 

If they just did that, (even at 30%,) the world's financial problems would be solved. They could even donate the money they spend on dodgy tax accountants, to the poor. That would go a long way to helping.

[unbeliever 10]

What's Commie about getting them to pay the tax they owe?

 

If they just did that, (even at 30%,) the world's financial problems would be solved. They could even donate the money they spend on dodgy tax accountants, to the poor. That would go a long way to helping.

 

There's so much wrong with this I don't know where to start.

 

Where's the evidence that even a substantial fraction of these 62 people are engaged in aggressive tax avoidance?

Bill Gates for example has his own charity the sole purpose of which is to give away a good fraction the money he's earned through his life (apart from that he's already paid in taxes) to the needy. I think you own him an apology for a start. I have no idea about the others, but perhaps you should find out before mindlessly attacking them.

 

Extra taxes on the mega rich, who would otherwise spend their money on business investment and otherwise employing people. ¿ Sure. No down side there. ¿

Edited October 4, 2016 by unbeliever

[Santo 10]

What's Commie about getting them to pay the tax they owe?

 

If they just did that, (even at 30%,) the world's financial problems would be solved. They could even donate the money they spend on dodgy tax accountants, to the poor. That would go a long way to helping.

 

I have no problem with legislation to make sure everyone pays their share of tax.

 

I was confused about your claim that half the world's wealth is held by just 62 people. This is clearly not true.

 

And I have issues with the idea that no-one should be allowed to accumulate wealth, regardless of how much wealth. Unless it's accumulated illegally.

[apelike 10]

Ahh ok, thanks.

 

But does the average billionaire actually have billions in the bank or do they just run a company that is valued in billions? I think it's the latter.

 

In the case of Branson and Gates its the former. Most of their wealth has come from selling shares and they now hold just a small stake in the companies they are part of.

 

Gates now owns only around 6% of Microsoft the rest of his wealth is in capital, I dont think he now has any say in the running of Microsoft. Branson's affairs are harder to determine as he has a stake in over 400 companies under the Virgin banner. He is set to get at least $500 million for his stake in the Virgin America Airline when it is sold. So yes, they do actually have billions in the bank.

[Santo 10]

In the case of Branson and Gates its the former. Most of their wealth has come from selling shares and they now hold just a small stake in the companies they are part of.

 

Gates now owns only around 6% of Microsoft the rest of his wealth is in capital, I dont think he now has any say in the running of Microsoft. Branson's affairs are harder to determine as he has a stake in over 400 companies under the Virgin banner. He is set to get at least $500 million for his stake in the Virgin America Airline when it is sold. So yes, they do actually have billions in the bank.

 

According to this an average billionaire is worth $3bn but has 'just' $600m in cash.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2759353/Are-YOU-just-like-typical-billionaire.html

[Anna B 1,417]

It isn't accurate.

The actual statistic is that the 62 richest people in the world have as much wealth as the poorest half. Not even close to being the same thing. The poorest half have well under half.

I think it originates from an Oxfam study.

 

OK, so 62 rich people have as much money as 3.5 Billion poor people have to share between them. Is that better?

 

Still hardly seems fair does it?

[petemcewan 27]

According to Alice Korngold, corporations will save the planet "A Better World Inc".

So competition is still in the driving seat for the foreseeable future.

[unbeliever 10]

OK, so 62 rich people have as much money as 3.5 Billion poor people have to share between them. Is that better?

 

Still hardly seems fair does it?

 

Much better. It may actually be true, where as the original statement was wildly inaccurate.

 

Simplistically fair, certainly not. But it may be the lesser evil.

Bill Gates for example was a big part of the computer revolution. His activities have made a major contribution to massively increasing global GDP.

If you had set the tax system to deter people like Bill Gates from doing what they did, that computer revolution might never have happened.

Those 3.5bn people would be the worst affected if it had not.

 

Present me with a system for addressing this "fairness" that doesn't deter the most productive people in the world from getting out of bed in the first place, and doesn't thereby hurt the people you want to help; then we can talk.

 

Bill Gates didn't need government to force him to share his wealth and to use it to help the poorest people of the world. He did it of his own volition. He deserves better than being talked about as an amoral aggressive tax avoider when nothing could be further from the truth.

 

By the way. I hate Microsoft software and I'm typing this on a mac (it's easier than using my iPhone). I would have preferred to use Steve Jobs as an example but he's far less rich and he's dead.

Edited October 5, 2016 by unbeliever

[Santo 10]

Much better. It may actually be true, where as the original statement was wildly inaccurate.

 

Simplistically fair, certainly not. But it may be the lesser evil.

Bill Gates for example was a big part of the computer revolution. His activities have made a major contribution to massively increasing global GDP.

If you had set the tax system to deter people like Bill Gates from doing what they did, that computer revolution might never have happened.

Those 3.5bn people would be the worst affected if it had not.

 

Present me with a system for addressing this "fairness" that doesn't deter the most productive people in the world from getting out of bed in the first place, and doesn't thereby hurt the people you want to help; then we can talk.

 

Bill Gates didn't need government to force him to share his wealth and to use it to help the poorest people of the world. He did it of his own volition. He deserves better than being talked about as an amoral aggressive tax avoider when nothing could be further from the truth.

 

By the way. I hate Microsoft software and I'm typing this on a mac (it's easier than using my iPhone). I would have preferred to use Steve Jobs as an example but he's far less rich and he's dead.

 

To be fair I don't think Anna has been critical of Gates specifically.

 

Anna, you might be interested in The Giving Pledge.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Giving_Pledge