Extinction rebellion

sirjimmyglass wrote: Looking forward to digging this thread back up when Brexit gets cancelled and the 'scruffy [censored]' protesting are those who are complaining at this.

I always look forward to your
pearls of wisdom as I find a Corbyn loving remoaner
Surrender monkey naming himself after a Carlisle Utd legend laughable when Dilly off Catch The Pigeon would be more apt.

Laffy wrote: I’m very much in favour of a living basic income and I think at lower levels, having a roof and putting food on the table is more important than the connection between tax and responsibility

Do you agree with a maximum limit on wealth Laffy? The owner of Amazon has over $150 billion. That's not inherited, that's money he has "earned" himself. To put that number in context someone in an entry level job would need to work 24 hours a day non stop for over 2 million years to have earned that same amount. Do you seriously believe Bezos has actually done that much work that he can justify having the wealth it would take someone else millions of years of non stop work to accumulate?

I agree on principle that the owner of a company deserves more pay than the cleaner, to reflect the extra work and risk they have. But there's no way that Bezos has legitimately done the equivalent of millions of years worth of work, so in my opinion he doesn't have a legitimate claim to that wealth.

So, let me get this right, Bezos starts a business with an idea that eventually grows into something massive and you believe he doesn't have the right to hold onto the profits? He should pay tax, in fact a lot of tax but, I don't believe anyone has the right to cap what he earns in HIS business, that's just madness.

Kessler

Whats the communist view on Hays Travel?They are successful guys and just plundered the mess left by Thomas Cook and saved thousands of jobs.

Should we punish them for being ‘greedy’?

Fantastic story of an ordinary couple who have the balls to go for it-good luck to them

Bruntonpasty wrote: So, let me get this right, Bezos starts a business with an idea that eventually grows into something massive and you believe he doesn't have the right to hold onto the profits? He should pay tax, in fact a lot of tax but, I don't believe anyone has the right to cap what he earns in HIS business, that's just madness.

At the basic level I can accept that Bezos deserves to make more money than an entry level Amazon employee. He has put in more work, he's taken more risks so yes he deserves to make more than they do. But that should be on a ratio that reflects how much risk or extra work he does. If you went into an entry level job and worked 24 hours a day without rest it would take you over 2 million years to make the same amount of money he has. Do you seriously believe he's actually done the equivalent of that amount of work? If he has that much it's because the workforce are being exploited and denied their fair share. It's exploitation, and if you don't believe me just ask anyone who has worked at Amazon how they are treated.

Laffy wrote: Kessler

Whats the communist view on Hays Travel?They are successful guys and just plundered the mess left by Thomas Cook and saved thousands of jobs.

I don't know what communists think about Hays Travel, you would need to ask one of them.

So, what if your idea came into play and Jeff says "sod this, Im shutting Amazon down" Like it or not, Bezos had a good idea that grew massively and provides employment for many people. Yes, some of those people make much much less money than him, but they didn't have the idea did they?

Bruntonpasty wrote: So, what if your idea came into play and Jeff says "sod this, Im shutting Amazon down".

I don't think he would, but if he did then fine. That would leave a gap that other businesses can fill.

Bruntonpasty wrote: Like it or not, Bezos had a good idea that grew massively and provides employment for many people. Yes, some of those people make much much less money than him, but they didn't have the idea did they?

He did have a good idea and I think it's fair that he profits from that. It's the scale of the profit that I think is wrong. He has taken more risk than the average employee, and he's worked harder at building a business empire than the average employee, but he hasn't done the equivalent of millions of years worth of work which is what you'd need to do to earn billions. So if he has that much wealth despite not earning all of it, that means people are being exploited and denied their fair share. It's exploitation. If a thief stole your wallet, does he deserve to keep the money? Has he "earned" that money because he came up with an idea and took risks that you didn't? Bezos is not a thief in the legal sense of the word and I accept that his business practices are legal. But morally I think they are wrong.

It’s straightforward Kessler-don’t work for Amazon

Bruntonpasty wrote: So, let me get this right, Bezos starts a business with an idea that eventually grows into something massive and you believe he doesn't have the right to hold onto the profits? He should pay tax, in fact a lot of tax but, I don't believe anyone has the right to cap what he earns in HIS business, that's just madness.

Amazon loses money

I’m certain that if l’d spent years building up a business, no [censored] would tell me how much money l can make.

Not quite true Marko-Amazon will make net income of c 20bn this year.Unfortunately a lot of it disappears in Juncker’s Luxembourg tax haven and other jurisdictions that turn a blind eye

Markovitch wrote:

Bruntonpasty wrote: So, let me get this right, Bezos starts a business with an idea that eventually grows into something massive and you believe he doesn't have the right to hold onto the profits? He should pay tax, in fact a lot of tax but, I don't believe anyone has the right to cap what he earns in HIS business, that's just madness.

Amazon loses money

I’m not sure I see the relevance of that? Man has idea.
Man starts business which gets big.
Man makes himself a lot of money.
You say his business loses money?
He still trades.
His staff still get paid.

?

Getting back to the environment topic, there's plenty of firms pumping god knows what into the environment locally, Innovia at Wigton to name one. You can smell that place at Thursby!

There's the 'Penrith pong' and what could in the sea and rivers near Sellafield?

Mush wrote: Getting back to the environment topic, there's plenty of firms pumping god knows what into the environment locally, Innovia at Wigton to name one. You can smell that place at Thursby!

There's the 'Penrith pong' and what could in the sea and rivers near Sellafield?

Big businesses cause a majority of the pollution but instead of changing that it's easier to blame it on the rest of us and tell us to use paper straws.

As much as I respect people's choice to demonstrate, this is absolute embarrassing nonsense.



If you're going to demonstrate and protest you need to try and get people on your side. This totally alienates themselves and makes people laugh and them, and their cause.

Kessler wrote:

Bruntonpasty wrote: So, what if your idea came into play and Jeff says "sod this, Im shutting Amazon down".

I don't think he would, but if he did then fine. That would leave a gap that other businesses can fill.

Bruntonpasty wrote: Like it or not, Bezos had a good idea that grew massively and provides employment for many people. Yes, some of those people make much much less money than him, but they didn't have the idea did they?

He did have a good idea and I think it's fair that he profits from that. It's the scale of the profit that I think is wrong. He has taken more risk than the average employee, and he's worked harder at building a business empire than the average employee, but he hasn't done the equivalent of millions of years worth of work which is what you'd need to do to earn billions. So if he has that much wealth despite not earning all of it, that means people are being exploited and denied their fair share. It's exploitation. If a thief stole your wallet, does he deserve to keep the money? Has he "earned" that money because he came up with an idea and took risks that you didn't? Bezos is not a thief in the legal sense of the word and I accept that his business practices are legal. But morally I think they are wrong.

The single most nonsensical post I have ever read on here Kessler, comparing a bloke who set up and runs a successful business to a thief who stole your wallet? Really?

Bruntonpasty wrote:

Markovitch wrote:

Bruntonpasty wrote: So, let me get this right, Bezos starts a business with an idea that eventually grows into something massive and you believe he doesn't have the right to hold onto the profits? He should pay tax, in fact a lot of tax but, I don't believe anyone has the right to cap what he earns in HIS business, that's just madness.

Amazon loses money

I’m not sure I see the relevance of that? Man has idea.
Man starts business which gets big.
Man makes himself a lot of money.
You say his business loses money?
He still trades.
His staff still get paid.

?

He doesn't own amazon, he owns some of it. Its quoted on the stock exchange. Why did Bury go bust, because they couldn't afford wages

Are Amazon going bust then Marko?

franksidebottom wrote: The single most nonsensical post I have ever read on here Kessler, comparing a bloke who set up and runs a successful business to a thief who stole your wallet? Really?

I don't mind people making a profit if they have genuinely earned that profit. When you start a business you are taking risks that the average person isn't, you are putting in more work so you deserve to make more money. But the amount of money you make should fairly reflect the level of risk you take and work you do compared to the average employee. Jeff Bezos has over $150 billion. If he was in an entry level job he'd have to work 24 hours a day non stop for millions of years. Do you seriously think he's done that amount of work, do you seriously believe he has "earned" that wealth? If he's got that amount of wealth but hasn't done the equivalent amount of work for it, then that means somewhere along the line other people have done the work but not been paid a fair amount for their work. It's exploitation. Why does Bezos deserve money he hasn't earned?

I object to Laffy using the word "greed" to describe higher taxation on businesses. Higher taxation is simply the working class asking for a fair share of the money that they have helped businesses make. How can it be greedy to ask for something which already belongs to you?

You proudly boasted a new car fairly recently did you not Kes - instead of wallowing in the trappings of wealth that working for Mr Jenkins bestows upon yourself, could you not have bought a pushbike or a Vespa and with the money saved you could donate to a donkey sanctuary in Spain to make you feel good and with your new choice of vehicle then you would also be doing your bit for the environment.

munchymagic wrote: You proudly boasted a new car fairly recently did you not Kes

No that wasn't me.

I’ve decided Kessler that you are totally unemployable by any private company-you would be trouble with a capital T.

When you describe higher taxation as ordinary workers taking back some of what they created, do you realise that governments don’t create wealth-they spend it!!

I spent 15 years at PWC in the tax sector-I met many successful wealth and job creators.Not one asked me to increase their or their company’s tax bill.They did however ask many times to find ways of handing value to their employees in a tax efficient way eg share options.I met no employee who said ‘please organise things so that I pay the highest rate of tax on my options’-the question was always ‘can you get my tax rate down to 10pc’

I did meet many entrepreneurs who didn’t want to pay any tax on the basis that they rolled over all their gains into new businesses, only paying tax on personal income.I think that is exactly how the tax system should work for risk takers.

Wake up Kessler or the world will pass you by.

Laffy wrote: I’ve decided Kessler that you are totally unemployable by any private company-you would be trouble with a capital T.

You don't really have a say in that though.

Laffy wrote: When you describe higher taxation as ordinary workers taking back some of what they created, do you realise that governments don’t create wealth-they spend it!!

Yes, Corbyn wants to spend that money helping those on lower incomes. The working class create the wealth, all Corbyn wants to do is ensure they get a fair share of that wealth. How can it be greedy to ask for something which already belongs to you?

Laffy wrote: I spent 15 years at PWC in the tax sector-I met many successful wealth and job creators.Not one asked me to increase their or their company’s tax bill.They did however ask many times to find ways of handing value to their employees in a tax efficient way eg share options.I met no employee who said ‘please organise things so that I pay the highest rate of tax on my options’-the question was always ‘can you get my tax rate down to 10pc’

I think we agree on the general principle of profit sharing but the devil is in the details. Share options are good, but I think there should be a maximum wage linked to how much risk and work the CEO does compared to the average worker. But nobody "earns" $150 billion. If people have that much then they are exploiting their workers and denying them a fair share.

The irony is when wealth is spread around, everyone benefits. When you're poor, all you can afford are the essentials - which generally means the utilities, big food companies and the likes. The poor can't support the entrepreneur or the small business person.

Reverting back to Extinction Rebellion theme.

Are people ready to give up wearing contact lenses?

'New figures from Optical Express suggest that over 750 million plastic lenses are being flushed down the drain or put in landfill every year. Once in landfill it may take up to 500 years to decompose. Even more shocking, more than 1 in 4 people admit to disposing of their lenses via the sink or toilet – with the true number of offenders potentially higher still. These lenses form microplastics, pollute the oceans and endanger marine life.'

Well are you?

For the record, I don't wear contact lenses.

How many XR campaigners do?

Kessler wrote:

Laffy wrote: I’ve decided Kessler that you are totally unemployable by any private company-you would be trouble with a capital T.

You don't really have a say in that though.

Laffy wrote: When you describe higher taxation as ordinary workers taking back some of what they created, do you realise that governments don’t create wealth-they spend it!!

Yes, Corbyn wants to spend that money helping those on lower incomes. The working class create the wealth, all Corbyn wants to do is ensure they get a fair share of that wealth. How can it be greedy to ask for something which already belongs to you?

Laffy wrote: I spent 15 years at PWC in the tax sector-I met many successful wealth and job creators.Not one asked me to increase their or their company’s tax bill.They did however ask many times to find ways of handing value to their employees in a tax efficient way eg share options.I met no employee who said ‘please organise things so that I pay the highest rate of tax on my options’-the question was always ‘can you get my tax rate down to 10pc’

I think we agree on the general principle of profit sharing but the devil is in the details. Share options are good, but I think there should be a maximum wage linked to how much risk and work the CEO does compared to the average worker. But nobody "earns" $150 billion. If people have that much then they are exploiting their workers and denying them a fair share.

The devil isn’t in the detail, the devil is in how [censored] boring you are.

Kessler-the good thing about the private sector is we do still have a choice around who we employ.Your views are unlikely to endear yourself though you might have a chance of employment with the public sector.

Giving Corbyn a load of cash to spread about is a version of a theory called ‘helicopter’-basically drop money from the sky in the hope some of it sticks and isn’t just blown away by the general public.A version of that is the £50bn that has been recycled in the PPI scandal but how much of it has been ‘invested’ in wealth creation rather than just spent on holidays or a new kitchen?

Helicopter funding

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_money

That plane with the idiot glued on the roof should have taken off and completed it's journey.

Laffy wrote: Kessler-the good thing about the private sector is we do still have a choice around who we employ

That's only true up to a point. There are certain things you can't discriminate on and I know of at least one case where an employee successfully argued their socialist beliefs counted as protected under the Equality Act. If I suspected that was the reason you refused to hire me then I'd be asking for an explanation. I don't have experience running a business like you do, but isn't it true that companies do best when they hire the best people for the job? Even if that means your workforce has a huge range of political beliefs.

Can we stop this conversation? It's so boring it's making my eyes water.

Laffy wrote: Kessler-the good thing about the private sector is we do still have a choice around who we employ.Your views are unlikely to endear yourself though you might have a chance of employment with the public sector.

Giving Corbyn a load of cash to spread about is a version of a theory called ‘helicopter’-basically drop money from the sky in the hope some of it sticks and isn’t just blown away by the general public.A version of that is the £50bn that has been recycled in the PPI scandal but how much of it has been ‘invested’ in wealth creation rather than just spent on holidays or a new kitchen?

Laffy - isn’t that just the same as the Tory policy of “trickle down” where they give big businesses financial benefits, and the richest people tax concessions, in the hope that some of it sticks through job creation and higher tax income/reduction in benefits but a lot of it is creamed off in Directors’ bonuses, higher dividends to shareholders and a lot of it ends up offshore? I’ve always seen it as exactly the same thing.

Kessler wrote:

Laffy wrote: Kessler-the good thing about the private sector is we do still have a choice around who we employ

That's only true up to a point. There are certain things you can't discriminate on and I know of at least one case where an employee successfully argued their socialist beliefs counted as protected under the Equality Act. If I suspected that was the reason you refused to hire me then I'd be asking for an explanation. I don't have experience running a business like you do, but isn't it true that companies do best when they hire the best people for the job? Even if that means your workforce has a huge range of political beliefs.

I've worked in both the private and public sectors and not once during an interview have i been asked about my political beliefs , so i've no idea how they'd find out unless they do an in depth search of you to find anything. The questions i've been asked is whether you can do the job or not.

There was a comment on here about you being a trouble employee resulting in a tribunral. I wasn't a troubled employee but i've been to a tribunral and won, with a team of 3, when a company that I worked for didn't pay us for 2 months and went bust yet the same owners/directors opened another similar company, taking their contracts with them. We won and got our money owed - you only go to a tribunal if the employer has done something seriously wrong.

So although I don't agree with all you're saying Kes, i don't agree with much to be honest with you - I do think that comment against you was unjustified as there's many justified reasons to go to a tribunal.

Mullen103 wrote: I've worked in both the private and public sectors and not once during an interview have i been asked about my political beliefs , so i've no idea how they'd find out unless they do an in depth search of you to find anything. The questions i've been asked is whether you can do the job or not.

And that's all they should be concerned about. Political beliefs are not relevant, all that matters is can you do the job and would you be better at it than other candidates. If businesses only recruit people who share their political beliefs then they are losing out on a lot of talent. In a competitive free market, a business who refuses to hire the best person for the job won't perform as well as business who do.

CCU wrote: What if the hiring company is a Political Party?!

I'd imagine you'd be asked, but I wouldn't imagine a supporter of the Brexit party wanting to work for the lib Dems wanting to keep us in the EU.

CCU wrote:

Mullen103 wrote:

CCU wrote: What if the hiring company is a Political Party?!

I'd imagine you'd be asked, but I wouldn't imagine a supporter of the Brexit party wanting to work for the lib Dems wanting to keep us in the EU.

What if it was say an IT or clerical role, where your political persuasion wouldn’t really matter (Obviously most folk applying would likely be a supporter but you never know)?

True

I guess the emphasis would be on the employee working in an environment where they may not believe in the work their doing.

However i've done work/sites for organisations I don't particularly like but you've got to remain professional and do the job. If I wasn't comfortable I wouldn't do it but that decision was entirely by me as the employee of the agency and if I said I didn't want to work on a project i'd be let go.

Kessler wrote:

Mullen103 wrote: I've worked in both the private and public sectors and not once during an interview have i been asked about my political beliefs , so i've no idea how they'd find out unless they do an in depth search of you to find anything. The questions i've been asked is whether you can do the job or not.

And that's all they should be concerned about. Political beliefs are not relevant, all that matters is can you do the job and would you be better at it than other candidates. If businesses only recruit people who share their political beliefs then they are losing out on a lot of talent. In a competitive free market, a business who refuses to hire the best person for the job won't perform as well as business who do.

Let us test to see if you really believe in what you preach, or are just jealous.

Take this scenario, which is a real situation.

A hard working class guy, sets up his own business, makes a few bob, gets married , has kids, life is great.

Buy's a new home, and car, the kids are well looked after, do well at school and follow in Dad's foot-steps, the business grows, they end employing 100's of people.

Get a bigger house and a holiday home in Spain, all is great for them.

Suddenly Dad kicks the bucket, big funeral, Mum's devastated but well looked after for the rest of her days.

So, mum is lefts in a very large house, lots of money,( way more than she needs) kids are well catered for.

Do you think Mum has to much ?

Should she be kicked out of the large property and given a small (but nice) bungalow ?

Should she give her vast cash pile away, and to who, and just be left with enough to live ' comfortably ' ?

I await you answers with interest...........

It's about privilege/ luck and being born/marrying into it. It can be seen as unfair by those without those things, but that's life.

I've had disagreements with Mouldy on here in that he was born into his business. I'm not doubting his ability because I'm sure he is fantastic at it and his business gets a lot of good reviews. However, would he have got the business if we weren't born into it - probably not but that's life. To be fair Mouldy doesn't come across as the privileged type, as a lot of people in his situation are.

Same for Story's daughter who is in the paper this week. Completely agree she is probably a hard worker but would she have got the position if she wasn't Storys daughter, probably not.

Lifes unfair to those without, but if was in their parent's shoes I'd probably do the same. Parents have earned it created the business its up to them what they do with it i suppose.

Good question!

As for Helicopter funding, it is very like QE economics in my view and likely to see the money flow to the money.Exactly what has happened in the last decade.

So I favour raising the bar where you pay tax to a much higher level-say £20k pa.

Laffy wrote: I’ve decided Kessler that you are totally unemployable by any private company-you would be trouble with a capital T.

When you describe higher taxation as ordinary workers taking back some of what they created, do you realise that governments don’t create wealth-they spend it!!

I spent 15 years at PWC in the tax sector-I met many successful wealth and job creators.Not one asked me to increase their or their company’s tax bill.They did however ask many times to find ways of handing value to their employees in a tax efficient way eg share options.I met no employee who said ‘please organise things so that I pay the highest rate of tax on my options’-the question was always ‘can you get my tax rate down to 10pc’

I did meet many entrepreneurs who didn’t want to pay any tax on the basis that they rolled over all their gains into new businesses, only paying tax on personal income.I think that is exactly how the tax system should work for risk takers.

Wake up Kessler or the world will pass you by.

Dunno why you’re always showing off about your PWC days

When I was with Deloitte we used to get together with the KPMG lads, head down to the wharf, neck some cortados, get outside your offices and start belting out some chants

‘Your tax advice (your tax advice) is [censored] s-hit (is [censored] s-hit)!’

And not once did your lot take up out offer of a aggressive discussion on capital gains you chickens

thesilentone wrote: A hard working class guy, sets up his own business, makes a few bob, gets married , has kids, life is great.

Buy's a new home, and car, the kids are well looked after, do well at school and follow in Dad's foot-steps, the business grows, they end employing 100's of people.

Get a bigger house and a holiday home in Spain, all is great for them.

Suddenly Dad kicks the bucket, big funeral, Mum's devastated but well looked after for the rest of her days.

So, mum is lefts in a very large house, lots of money,( way more than she needs) kids are well catered for.

Do you think Mum has to much ?

Should she be kicked out of the large property and given a small (but nice) bungalow ?

Should she give her vast cash pile away, and to who, and just be left with enough to live ' comfortably ' ?

I await you answers with interest...........

In my opinion it would depend on what her contribution was. How was he able to spend so much time building a business when there was kids at home to be looked after? Was the mum providing free childcare for the kids which meant the dad was able to spend more time running the business which meant more income for them? If so then I think they have both contributed to earning that wealth.

Under Kessler's law all lottery winners would have their winnings confiscated as they haven't worked hard for their financial reward and the money redistributed to people who put some graft in.

I can't see out wrong with being a capitalist. Nobody (including most Communists) would have a job if there wasn't any.

Having said that I would never bust a gut working for someone just to line their pockets. I'd rather be living on the street.

Kessler wrote:

thesilentone wrote: A hard working class guy, sets up his own business, makes a few bob, gets married , has kids, life is great.

Buy's a new home, and car, the kids are well looked after, do well at school and follow in Dad's foot-steps, the business grows, they end employing 100's of people.

Get a bigger house and a holiday home in Spain, all is great for them.

Suddenly Dad kicks the bucket, big funeral, Mum's devastated but well looked after for the rest of her days.

So, mum is lefts in a very large house, lots of money,( way more than she needs) kids are well catered for.

Do you think Mum has to much ?

Should she be kicked out of the large property and given a small (but nice) bungalow ?

Should she give her vast cash pile away, and to who, and just be left with enough to live ' comfortably ' ?

I await you answers with interest...........

In my opinion it would depend on what her contribution was. How was he able to spend so much time building a business when there was kids at home to be looked after? Was the mum providing free childcare for the kids which meant the dad was able to spend more time running the business which meant more income for them? If so then I think they have both contributed to earning that wealth.

Hell, you changed your mind quick !

So, cutting all the blurb you have changed your post to, any chance of answers to the questions. Oh, and just to test you even further, when Mum finally turns her toes up, who should get the House's, car's, loot etc etc ??

thesilentone wrote: So, cutting all the blurb you have changed your post to, any chance of answers to the questions. Oh, and just to test you even further, when Mum finally turns her toes up, who should get the House's, car's, loot etc etc ??

I've tried to answer you as much as I can based on the limited information you gave. You're expecting me to answer a question while withholding some of the key information I need to be able to make an informed decision. My answer to your last question is that it should go to whoever she decides to leave it. It's her wealth that she genuinely earned, so it's up to her who she gives it to.

What, you would allow those wealthy children to inherit even more wealth and assets, maybe expand the business further, take on more staff and get even richer ?

Surely not........

What about, say giving a million to the local footy club or summat ?

thesilentone wrote: What, you would allow those wealthy children to inherit even more wealth and assets, maybe expand the business further, take on more staff and get even richer ?

Surely not........

What about, say giving a million to the local footy club or summat ?

I don't see a problem with that as long as that wealth hasn't come from workers being unfairly exploited. If the parents have built up a business and genuinely earned their wealth then I don't see anything wrong with that.