Jump to content

British Billionaire equates paying more taxes to 'being raped'

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Penistone999 said:

Do you not know the actual meaning of the word ? 

 

( a clue , read post 7 ) :rolleyes:

Can you smell gammon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, tlangdon12 said:

John Caudwell no longer has a stake in Phones4u. Phones4u will pay UK corporation tax correctly, unlike some global corporations who use their global scale to minimise the tax they pay in the UK. 

 

John is entitled to his opinion, and to lobby for or against any political party he wishes to. He clearly has no faith that a  Labour Party Government lead by Jeremy Corbyn would implement what he would regards as a 'fair' taxation policy. John has been happy enough to live in the UK to date and to pay tax at the current levels, so we can assume that he thinks the current taxation policy is not unfair. He is probably paying £35-£50m a year in income tax at present. 

 

Even billionaires are entitled to an opinion, especially one who did what John Caudwell did. I worked for John and saw the tremendous opportunities he created for everyone who worked for him.  John's employees paid more tax per year  than he is paying now, so he has been a major creator of wealth in the country and a major creator of tax revenues.

I don't believe that £billionaires are entitled to an opinion, or anything else.

 

They should be persecuted for practicing income inequality on a huge scale. NOBODY should have a billion pounds, or dollars, as their personal wealth. The only reason they have this wealth is because they have STOLEN it from the rest of us.

 

Any system that creates £billionaires is a failed system and must be closed down.

Edited by Car Boot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Pettytom said:

It just comes over as a bit snidey and unpleasant really. If you think it’s ok, then fair enough. I don’t agree with you though.

 

As for taxation. We are long past the point where we can allow the super rich and big corporations to dictate how much they will pay. You’ve seen the size of the deficit. It’s time to fill that gap by taxing the rich properly. If people then run off the Monaco, that’s fine, I’m sure we can deal with that.

Are we past it? Sometimes I think the relationship between big business and politicians is similar to the one between Mathew Corbett and Sooty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Waldo said:

Are we past it? Sometimes I think the relationship between big business and politicians is similar to the one between Mathew Corbett and Sooty.

Thank you for making me smile😀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 26/04/2019 at 21:56, Pettytom said:

As for taxation. We are long past the point where we can allow the super rich and big corporations to dictate how much they will pay. You’ve seen the size of the deficit. It’s time to fill that gap by taxing the rich properly. If people then run off the Monaco, that’s fine, I’m sure we can deal with that.

Do you get the bit about tax receipts falling if you increase that top rate?   That doesn't do anything for the deficit.

 

Increasing the top rate of tax is nothing more than dog whistle politics.

On 26/04/2019 at 22:53, tlangdon12 said:

John Caudwell no longer has a stake in Phones4u. Phones4u will pay UK corporation tax correctly, unlike some global corporations who use their global scale to minimise the tax they pay in the UK. 

 

John is entitled to his opinion, and to lobby for or against any political party he wishes to. He clearly has no faith that a  Labour Party Government lead by Jeremy Corbyn would implement what he would regards as a 'fair' taxation policy. John has been happy enough to live in the UK to date and to pay tax at the current levels, so we can assume that he thinks the current taxation policy is not unfair. He is probably paying £35-£50m a year in income tax at present. 

 

Even billionaires are entitled to an opinion, especially one who did what John Caudwell did. I worked for John and saw the tremendous opportunities he created for everyone who worked for him.  John's employees paid more tax per year  than he is paying now, so he has been a major creator of wealth in the country and a major creator of tax revenues.

You're estimating that he pays tax on an income of approx £100 million a year?

 

I looked up what some very rich people pay and you're probably in the right ballpark

 

https://www.theweek.co.uk/99233/which-super-rich-brits-pay-the-most-tax

 

Edited by Cyclone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are weary, our sensibilities have been cauterised, we hardly even notice when ten or twenty people die in a Florida spree-killing. Such events are no longer headline news. Similarly, another sneering billionaire bleating about the unfairness of the world is so commonplace that we no longer discern the violent injustice of a useless capitalist amassing over a thousand million pounds even, as Mister M points out with admirable lucidity, people in the most desperate need are losing their basic support services.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're conflating the behaviour of someone who invests capital and pays a lot of tax and generates money, with the behaviour of the government who cut services.  I don't think that we can blame rich people for the government.  Blame the people who voted for a government that wanted (and has) implemented austerity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even the most intelligent among the sheffieldforum community, such as Cyclone, are just as vulnerable as the rest of us to the conventions that have rendered any alternative to aggressive capitalism unthinkable. But social justice, redistribution of wealth, equality and neighbourliness are possibilities that we should not give up on. The neoliberal project actively exercised its governance in order to elevate the few to billionaire status whilst simultaneously proliferating the lie of austerity in order to wither the state. None of this was inevitable or incidental, it was all carefully planned and executed with ruthless vigour. And sadly we have been too exhausted by the desperate struggle to survive amid the crumbling public infrastructure, too distracted and soothed by the venal operatives of the mainstream media, to hold onto and defend our political interests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Minimal research reveals that this man's annual tax bill would pay for four years of rape support centre funding. Let's hope that people like him don't have a reason to move their money out of the reach of a future chancellor.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-increases-funding-for-rape-and-sexual-abuse-victims

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Staunton said:

Even the most intelligent among the sheffieldforum community, such as Cyclone, are just as vulnerable as the rest of us to the conventions that have rendered any alternative to aggressive capitalism unthinkable.

By this are you recommending non-aggressive capitalism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Karl Marx himself is on record as assuming that the Rhineland had of necessity to develop through capitalist bourgeoisment towards the radical discontinuity represented by communism. Whilst wishing to avoid any claim that Marx was prey to utopian thinking, the same cannot be said for the proponents of neoliberalism, a form of utopian ideology that has proved anything but durable. The project of globalisation has sawed through the very branch the neoliberals gathered upon. Even their patron Saint Adam Smith sought to discredit the 'beggar my neighbour' logic of unfettered capitalism. But his warnings were subtly suppressed and written out of the neoliberal narrative. Neoliberalism constituted a violent rupture of the capitalist social contract, and its aggressive process of deregulation delivered vast inequality which we can now see created a wake of mass poverty, humiliation and rage.

 

There was nothing aleatory in this process. As the freemarketeers structured their vision, they deliberately sabotaged traditional conservatism, and with it any hope that capitalism might serve a progressive politics. We now see neo-reactionary forces clamouring for the opportunity to wrest power, but to what end? If ever there was a chance for some form of benign capitalism to emerge, that chance was dependent upon robust democratic principles. That hope has rotted. My own concerns and anxieties are immaterial. The question is now one if survival. That billionaires can trumpet their discontents in the columns of luxury lifestyle magazines and that we cannot see through this nonsense demonstrates that we became indifferent to our own condition, and have been rendered powerless to structure any solidarity in a narrative that was triumphantly inscribed by the authors of  neoliberalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Tony said:

Minimal research reveals that this man's annual tax bill would pay for four years of rape support centre funding. Let's hope that people like him don't have a reason to move their money out of the reach of a future chancellor.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-increases-funding-for-rape-and-sexual-abuse-victims

Let him leave. Seriously.

 

However bad he thinks it is here the reality is the U.K. tax regime is much more generous than other countries. He would be replaced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.