Are We Heading For A Recession Like In The 30s?

[Anna B 1,401]

23 hours ago, Tomm06 said:

Fair enough. So once we have spent everyone else's money, which let's be honest would happen pretty bloody quick. Then what? 

 

Of course I don't have a plan, that's why it isn't my job to figure it out, I don't need one in order to know something isn't going to happen. 

We wouldn't be spending everyone else's money. If the super rich pay their fair share of tax, as they should, it will go a long way to solving the problem. As for the money running out pretty bloody quick, it wouldn't. Most people can't get their heads round the extraordinary figures involved in super wealth. 

Try this for starters: 

      if 1 million = 11 days

          1 billion = 32 years. 

There are 46.8 million declared millionaires, (several of them multi-millionaires,) and at least 2,153 billionaires (although the reality may well be greater, as not all wish to declare it.) There may also be a few trillionaires although at this level their finances are usually shrouded in mystery, and they have the power to keep it that way.

[tinfoilhat 11]

45 minutes ago, Tomm06 said:

I think you're just about getting me there thank you Mr. If you could provide my little mind with some examples that would be helpful. 

If I might step in, live music, theatre, more or less the entire wedding industry (and many associated suppliers). An awful lot film and tv can't be made properly either. Getting people watching football, cricket etc live as well. 

 

That said, somebody had a bash at a socially distanced music festival. Groups of 4 in what appeared to sheep pens, 2m apart. How miserable!

[Tomm06 12]

23 minutes ago, Anna B said:

We wouldn't be spending everyone else's money. If the super rich pay their fair share of tax, as they should, it will go a long way to solving the problem. As for the money running out pretty bloody quick, it wouldn't. Most people can't get their heads round the extraordinary figures involved in super wealth. 

Try this for starters: 

      if 1 million = 11 days

          1 billion = 32 years. 

There are 46.8 million declared millionaires, (several of them multi-millionaires,) and at least 2,153 billionaires (although the reality may well be greater, as not all wish to declare it.) There may also be a few trillionaires although at this level their finances are usually shrouded in mystery, and they have the power to keep it that way.

Do we have any proof of them not paying their fair share or operating illegally ?  

[Pettytom 1]

29 minutes ago, Tomm06 said:

Do we have any proof of them not paying their fair share or operating illegally ?  

Loads

 

Start here and follow your nose.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/01/super-rich-evade-on-average-nearly-third-of-their-due-tax
 

See you in a month or two

[El Cid 214]

2 hours ago, Tomm06 said:

Do we have any proof of them not paying their fair share or operating illegally ?  

Can you define "fair"?

 

They pay a lot more than me, if I can get away with NOT paying tax, I will.

[Anna B 1,401]

2 hours ago, El Cid said:

Can you define "fair"?

 

They pay a lot more than me, if I can get away with NOT paying tax, I will.

Well I wouldn't. I don't like paying tax any more than anyone else, but I do see that it is necessary in a civilized society. It provides services and infrastructure to our lives which we all benefit from, and a safety net in times of trouble.  

All I ask is that everyone contributes their fair share, and that it is spent wisely by governments. 

Sadly, I'm usually disappointed.

[ECCOnoob 1,020]

5 hours ago, Pettytom said:

Loads

 

Start here and follow your nose.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/01/super-rich-evade-on-average-nearly-third-of-their-due-tax
 

See you in a month or two

Just a few paragraphs into the guardian article and I'm already confused.

 

In the attention grabbing headline and first sentence we have lots of reference to the word 'evade' which of course is an illegal act.  But then in literally the next paragraph there is lots of whinging about how only the super rich can't access offshore bank accounts and afford clever accountants and lawyers who can advise and how to do things.  That sounds to me like tax avoidance, which for all the morality arguments, is technically legal.  

 

After all it will be highly unusual for a qualified and regulated legal advisor to be deliberately setting up their clients on a known illegal tax evasion scheme.   Add on the fact that said Panama Papers complete with confidential and privileged legal information was thrust into the public domain by why what source exactly?  I think it's pretty obvious it wasn't done by a nice request letter and signed form of authority from the the data owner.  Best not be too premature to be on the moral high ground with that one.

 

Now whilst of course I have not read the sourced academic white paper in any detail I would at least expect a supposedly journalistic outlet such as the guardian to get the basic facts clear.  

 

So my question is which is it?   Is it a fantastic piece of investigative reporting highlighting lots of illegal activity which of course should be forward into the relevant authorities.......   Or is it a general whinge about how it's all so unfair and immoral and selfish and greedy, despite in reality being perfectly legal to those who have enough assets and enough knowledge.

[El Cid 214]

5 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

That sounds to me like tax avoidance, which for all the morality arguments, is technically legal.  

 

After all it will be highly unusual for a qualified and regulated legal advisor to be deliberately setting up their clients on a known illegal tax evasion scheme.  

The Money pages of the Guardian have rarely seen such a huge volume of angry, heartfelt letters from people who describe themselves as normal families whose lives are being destroyed, they say, by huge and unfair demands from HM Revenue & Customs.

The battle is over the innocuously named 2019 Loan Charge. This measure is designed to claw back unpaid taxes by people who, HMRC says, used so-called disguised remuneration schemes since April 1999 – with the demands for repayment kicking in from  April 2019.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/feb/16/thousands-of-workers-hit-with-massive-tax-avoidance-bills

[Lockjaw 11]

18 hours ago, Tomm06 said:

How are you going to spend their money again if you won't allow them to open and trade to make their, sorry 'our' money. 

Well, I assume that once they've spent it all somebody else will be able to spend it.

 

Edited August 15, 2020 by Lockjaw
Posted twice. Soz.

[Anna B 1,401]

9 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

Just a few paragraphs into the guardian article and I'm already confused.

 

In the attention grabbing headline and first sentence we have lots of reference to the word 'evade' which of course is an illegal act.  But then in literally the next paragraph there is lots of whinging about how only the super rich can't access offshore bank accounts and afford clever accountants and lawyers who can advise and how to do things.  That sounds to me like tax avoidance, which for all the morality arguments, is technically legal.  

 

After all it will be highly unusual for a qualified and regulated legal advisor to be deliberately setting up their clients on a known illegal tax evasion scheme.   Add on the fact that said Panama Papers complete with confidential and privileged legal information was thrust into the public domain by why what source exactly?  I think it's pretty obvious it wasn't done by a nice request letter and signed form of authority from the the data owner.  Best not be too premature to be on the moral high ground with that one.

 

Now whilst of course I have not read the sourced academic white paper in any detail I would at least expect a supposedly journalistic outlet such as the guardian to get the basic facts clear.  

 

So my question is which is it?   Is it a fantastic piece of investigative reporting highlighting lots of illegal activity which of course should be forward into the relevant authorities.......   Or is it a general whinge about how it's all so unfair and immoral and selfish and greedy, despite in reality being perfectly legal to those who have enough assets and enough knowledge.

Morals counts. They are the bedrock of a civilized society which we all should live by.  People ignore  them at their peril.

 

If the law can't apply them, then sooner or later the little people will. This is how revolutions start.  We have already had the gross immorality of the banking crisis, unresolved and unpunished. We are now nearing a breaking point, this may be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Tensions are simmering and showing themselves in strange and curious ways.

 

It's  a recipe for civil unrest.

 

[apelike 10]

39 minutes ago, Anna B said:

It's  a recipe for civil unrest.

It may be but any civil unrest will be put down very swiftly by those in charge. 

[tinfoilhat 11]

30 minutes ago, Anna B said:

Morals counts. They are the bedrock of a civilized society which we all should live by.  People ignore  them at their peril.

 

If the law can't apply them, then sooner or later the little people will. This is how revolutions start.  We have already had the gross immorality of the banking crisis, unresolved and unpunished. We are now nearing a breaking point, this may be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Tensions are simmering and showing themselves in strange and curious ways.

 

It's  a recipe for civil unrest.

 

Normally I'd disagree but the numbers of unhappy people are increasing.

 

1) A-Levels - lots of unhappy people, that number will increase when state school GCSE results are down graded.

 

2) families of victims of covid. Did the government do enough.

 

3) people who have had to dash back from holiday because of quarantine because we don't have a track and trace system or anything like it for returning travellers (other countries do)

 

4) racists. Yep, they arent happy either because of the failure of our government to invade France or drown children or something. Odd though that the Mail says it's easy for migrants to cross the channel in a dinghy but hard for holiday makers.

 

Then there's the financial cliff in October. Will be interesting.