Millionaires

[catmiss 12]

3 minutes ago, carosio said:

If they didn't, they would likely be prosecuted for tax evasion.

But not for tax avoidance 

[carosio 186]

Yes, you can't prosecute anyone whose actions are legal.

[RollingJ 2,017]

Well said, @carosio!

[ECCOnoob 1,028]

6 hours ago, makapaka said:

I don’t think people hate people for being rich.

 

if my neighbour won a million on the lottery I’d be pleased for him.

 

the dislike of lots of rich people is where they arguably become rich at the expense And exploitation  of others - which is unfair.

 

Some of the names mentioned above fall into that category.

 

 

I can see that.  People's expectations are always wildly off the mark and I still believe there is an element of jealousy creeping in.   The harsh fact is that exploitation and expense of others is the realities of business.   

 

Successful businesses keep one step ahead of the game by being first and best in the market for the cheapest or even minimal outlay.   Simple as that. 

 

At some point along that journey it is inevitable that there will be elements of distastful behaviour.  That includes extracting every last drop for as cheap as possible out of your assets and labour and resources.  That will also include exploitation by making sure that you are doing every tactical, strategic and any other legal loophole you can find to make sure that you get ahead of the game both financially and in the market.

 

That is how people become billionaires in the first place.  It's a step by step process of learning how to firstly make money, keeping successful to maximise  it and then taking every step you can to ensure you keep it.    

 

Of course there has to be some control of fairness and equality and public duty and philanthropy but that doesn't make money and at some point the ruthlessness side kicks in.  

 

I don't care what people try and portray about themselves. We all have that side in our personality and to be successful and make money you have to show it.  

 

Myself and my colleagues have often had this conversation in the office.  As with many work places we are all in it together.  We are all there getting along.  We are a band of brothers a close-knit community networking and supporting the rest of our profession.  But if the proverbial hit the fan we will be jumping all over everyone to be on top. 

 

Furthermore, being born into money or suddenly acquiring it through winnings doesn't automatically mean that they have an easy ride either.  There are plenty of cautionary tales of those who had it all and then lost it.  

Edited May 31, 2020 by ECCOnoob

[Guest makapaka]

2 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

I can see that.  People's expectations are always wildly off the mark and I still believe there is an element of jealousy creeping in.   The harsh fact is that exploitation and expense of others is the realities of business.   

 

Successful businesses keep one step ahead of the game by being first and best in the market for the cheapest or even minimal outlay.   Simple as that. 

 

At some point along that journey it is inevitable that there will be elements of distastful behaviour.  That includes extracting every last drop for as cheap as possible out of your assets and labour and resources.  That will also include exploitation by making sure that you are doing every tactical, strategic and any other legal loophole you can find to make sure that you get ahead of the game both financially and in the market.

 

That is how people become billionaires in the first place.  It's a step by step process of learning how to firstly make money, keeping successful to maximise  it and then taking every step you can to ensure you keep it.    

 

Of course there has to be some control of fairness and equality and public duty and philanthropy but that doesn't make money and at some point the ruthlessness side kicks in.  

 

I don't care what people try and portray about themselves. We all have that side in our personality and to be successful and make money you have to show it.  

 

Myself and my colleagues have often had this conversation in the office.  As with many work places we are all in it together.  We are all they're getting along.  We are a band of brothers a close-knit community networking and supporting the rest of our profession.  But if the proverbial hit the fan we will be jumping all over everyone to be on top. 

 

Furthermore, being born into money or suddenly acquiring it through winnings doesn't automatically mean that they have an easy ride either.  There are plenty of cautionary tales of those who had it all and then lost it.  

I don’t mean it was unfair on the rich person! I meant unfair on those that are taking advantage

of!

 

cant stand the likes of Branson etc 

[ECCOnoob 1,028]

48 minutes ago, makapaka said:

I don’t mean it was unfair on the rich person! I meant unfair on those that are taking advantage

of!

 

cant stand the likes of Branson etc 

Just to clarify I know you didn't mean unfair to rich persons.

 

The point I'm trying to make is that this whole thing about who is "being taken advantage of" is arguable.  

 

To make a lot of money people take advantage of others all the time.  It's business.  We all do it in our own workplaces all the time.  We do it whenever we are trying to get a pay rise or a promotion or when having to face redundancy.  

[Guest makapaka]

I dont.

10 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

Just to clarify I know you didn't mean unfair to rich persons.

 

The point I'm trying to make is that this whole thing about who is "being taken advantage of" is arguable.  

 

To make a lot of money people take advantage of others all the time.  It's business.  We all do it in our own workplaces all the time.  We do it whenever we are trying to get a pay rise or a promotion or when having to face redundancy.  

I don’t.

[Waldo 96]

I think there’s a lot to be said for financial intelligence, how to most optimally use, invest and grow your money. People who come in to money by way of lottery wins or inheritance etc; if they don’t have the right financial wherewithal they’ll likely not hold on to their wealth very long.

[tinfoilhat 11]

20 minutes ago, CaptainSwing said:

I don't think most people are bothered by your average run of the mill millionaire.  That's not particularly exceptional nowadays.  The problem is with billionaires, quite possibly soon-to-be trillionaires, who have between them accumulated enough capital to distort the whole global economy and take unaccountable control of the whole global political system.

That's not far off. Unless you do a job purely for the love of it, or the thrill of it, people earn to get stuff. For most it's food, housing and maybe holiday, for the rich it's - presumably- many holidays and perhaps the ability to work less (or stop working) and still have a nice life. And of course to buy more stuff, bigger stuff - the second or third homes, the flash cars and a yacht. That's pretty easy for people worth hundreds of millions. After that, I'll admit I'm a bit lost. Bazos pays his workers peanuts and still accumulates millions- he isn't on his own - he isn't financially limited in any way so it must be a quest for power.

[ECCOnoob 1,028]

15 minutes ago, CaptainSwing said:

I don't think most people are bothered by your average run of the mill millionaire.  That's not particularly exceptional nowadays.  The problem is with billionaires, quite possibly soon-to-be trillionaires, who have between them accumulated enough capital to distort the whole global economy and take unaccountable control of the whole global political system.

So where would the cap be then?  What line in the sand gets crossed where a deemed "acceptable" rich person suddenly become an "unacceptable" rich person with too much money.   

 

Are you advocating a point where a business must stop being successful in some show fairness and give all the others a chance to catch up?  Would you propose some cap on how much wealth someone can accumulate before the government mandatory takes it or redistributes it?  

 

I can't imagine any of that is going to incentivise people to take risk, invest and succeede and then we need to think how that would impact on the wider economy and our position as a free and democratic society.  What point would such actions we  bordering the line with what others would deem a communist state.

[ECCOnoob 1,028]

1 minute ago, tinfoilhat said:

That's not far off. Unless you do a job purely for the love of it, or the thrill of it, people earn to get stuff. For most it's food, housing and maybe holiday, for the rich it's - presumably- many holidays and perhaps the ability to work less (or stop working) and still have a nice life. And of course to buy more stuff, bigger stuff - the second or third homes, the flash cars and a yacht. That's pretty easy for people worth hundreds of millions. After that, I'll admit I'm a bit lost. Bazos pays his workers peanuts and still accumulates millions- he isn't on his own - he isn't financially limited in any way so it must be a quest for power.

Yes of course he earns millions. He owns the company.  He put in the investment, he founded it and he took the risks which resulted in a highly successful global organisation which employs 840,000 people.

 

Those people are not "paid peanuts" as you say, they are paid what the market rightly or wrongly dictates their job role is worth.  It goes back to the point I made earlier, in this free society of ours - any one of those lower paid employees can set their own path for advancement.  They can forge their own career with whatever skills to aim to earn the most money they can.  

 

I don't think there are many people who enter the job market and really choose to be in the same lower level position from day one to retirement.  Everybody has some considerations of advancement either in the same organisation or by choosing to take that risk and go and find a job elsewhere or even start their own business.

 

Yes of course there will be always people who are cruelly overlooked or suffer unfortunate circumstances halfway through their career path or simply can't make it due to ill health but that is a way of life for a lot of things.

[tinfoilhat 11]

23 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

So where would the cap be then?  What line in the sand gets crossed where a deemed "acceptable" rich person suddenly become an "unacceptable" rich person with too much money.   

 

Are you advocating a point where a business must stop being successful in some show fairness and give all the others a chance to catch up?  Would you propose some cap on how much wealth someone can accumulate before the government mandatory takes it or redistributes it?  

 

I can't imagine any of that is going to incentivise people to take risk, invest and succeede and then we need to think how that would impact on the wider economy and our position as a free and democratic society.  What point would such actions we  bordering the line with what others would deem a communist state.

It's down to taxation. I wouldn't limit earnings though.

 

How much is enough for you? Would you stop at a billion? 10 billion?