tonyh29 Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Businesses don't pay at 50% Pete so I doubt they are saying wah wah wah at all , individuals of course do... On your scenario then rich or poor , they are still taking up the same resources so maybe we should tax everyone at 50% of we want equality? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 I beg to differ Martin. You're right they are there for everyone to use. That's the point. The state provides the transport network which businesses use to distribute their goods. They don't have that resource available to them because of their own efforts. Transport links are cited as a clear business advantage. As is a pool of either skilled or desperate labour available. These things are not down to individuals "efforts", but to the nation as a whole (hole). Much of the tools available to business are quite happily used by those businesses to generate wealth for the owners and staff, but have nothing to do with the "hard work" of the owners. Come the time the Country wants them to contribute to the upkeep or improvement of these things it's all "wah wah wah 50% tax not fair my hard work". Which rather contrasts with calls for better transport links, a third runway, tax breaks for business from the Gov't. Double standards and taking credit for stuff that's not their doing. Surely these companies using HGV's etc,to distribute their goods, by paying about 6 times more for road tax, than the average family car, are paying their share towards the infrastructure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Seeing as the Romans built the A1, how long before we have to stop feeling grateful for the ability to use roads?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnsonp Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Seeing as the Romans built the A1, how long before we have to stop feeling grateful for the ability to use roads?! Bloody italians, they could have made it 3 lanes all the way up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Seeing as the Romans built the A1, how long before we have to stop feeling grateful for the ability to use roads?! Bloody italians, they could have made it 3 lanes all the way up. I'm now reminded now of the often overlooked Chelmsford 123 Roman : You there , Why do you Britons build your road so bendy Briton : cause it makes it easier to go around the corners Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Condimentalist Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Well, I sort of took it that basic infrastructure is a given. Not if the Tories get their way. If you're aggrieved paying for this through the state, you wait til you see what you'll be paying the private sector. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Well, if you're going to take the Daily Mirror view that all rich people are bankers, and that all bankers are rich, then you're probably right. Obviously not all rich people are bankers. By the way, when people talk about rich bankers, they are pretty clearly speaking of the people at the top, not cashiers, cleaners and call centre workers, but defenders of rich bankers like to try to make out that the term means everyone who works for banks. You're not doing that, are you? You appear to be the one making sweeping generalisations. I haven't once defended bankers, so no, I'm clearly not doing what you suggested. No, no, dear boy. You're the one who tried to categorise my views wrongly. And the very post of mine you quote cautions against sweeping and inaccurate generalisations. As for your defence of groups of people, I'm happy to agree your point. It seems to me that you defend them purely by income group and you are quite indifferent as to occupation. As long as they're rich, you're for them. Would that be a reasonable description of your values? If that generalisation is too sweeping, pray tell why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Well, I sort of took it that basic infrastructure is a given. Yes I know that needs paying for, but unless I'm misunderstanding your argument entirely, successful businesses still rely upon somebody having the vision and drive to make a success of something. Yes there are bankers who are massive twunts, and yes lots of people have inherited lots of wealth. But there are still hundreds of thousands of businesses in the UK, and people who have made money from those businesses who have worked bloody hard to make a product or provide a service that people want, and employ people to make those businesses successful. To say that isn't down to hard work because they haven't had to build their own railway strikes me as a bit odd. Why do you think these people choose to start their businesses here rather than Malawi or the Congo? Could the massive public investment in infrastructure, education, health, the legal system, in fact just about everything a business needs to recruit staff, get them to work, distribute goods and enforce contracts, possibly have anything to do with it? Or maybe all this physical infrastructure and social capital just fell down from the sky, no need to pay for it or even recognise it exists, just freeload off it and claim the profit is down to entrepreneurial genius? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 I have to say I find your argument increasingly strange. Many people have started successful businesses in the UK fot the simple reason that they live in the UK. I've already acknowledged that infrastructure needs to be paid for, but the point remains that lots of people have made money from providing a service or product that people want, and society on the whole benefits from that. Or are you arguing that nobody who is rich has worked hard for their money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 i agree with mart i dont understand your point. not everyone has inherited their wealth alot of people work damn hard hence now they are reaping the beenfits anyway how can you inherit it when you pay 50% inheritance tax?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted March 23, 2012 Moderator Share Posted March 23, 2012 Well, I sort of took it that basic infrastructure is a given. Yes I know that needs paying for, but unless I'm misunderstanding your argument entirely, successful businesses still rely upon somebody having the vision and drive to make a success of something....there are still hundreds of thousands of businesses in the UK, and people who have made money from those businesses who have worked bloody hard to make a product or provide a service that people want, and employ people to make those businesses successful. To say that isn't down to hard work because they haven't had to build their own railway strikes me as a bit odd. That's not my train of thought, you scamp. My argument was (and still is) that a lot of what people claim to be "the results of their own hard work" is in fact the result of inherited genes, good education, good opportunities, serendipity, location, national infrastructure and so on. The hard work is the finishing layer to a whole bunch of stuff that is entirely outside the control of the "hard worker". People who work hard as cleaners, nurses, taxy drivers, gardeners... or whatever - like the Poles you mentioned much earlier, for example, work every bit as hard as Partners in Tax companies. Hard work is not the factor that does bring about high reward, clearly. As you say, many inherit, many get reward without hard work. Some get rewards whixch they wouldn't if they didn't work hard - Sure. Good on them. Others work hard and get no reward because they are a crofter on the Isle of Skye, or a cleaner in Peckham or a hotel worker in Fulham.... And they do those roles because it's all that's available to them, or because they have left their home country which happens to be very poor. It's human nature to think that all you get you deserve and other people don't deserve as much, because we work harder than they do. But it's almost always delusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 I dont agree with that, I have worked in large companies employing 800+ people on the shop floor. When we put incentiveised bonus schemes, not only did production improve but individual pay packets did also. So these people, and about 99% of them got it, worked harder to get more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 (edited) Potentially more bad news for Ed as McBride decides to cash in and spill a few beans Startling admissions of smear campaigns, manipulating the media and destroying political rivals have been made by Gordon Brown's former spin doctor, Damian McBride. Four years after he quit in disgrace, the controversial former Number 10 spinner has published candid memoirs revealing his role in the feuding at the heart of New Labour in the Blair-Brown years. Mr McBride was a former Treasury civil servant who became the Chancellor's personal spin doctor and then moved with him from the Treasury to 10 Downing Street when Mr Brown became Prime Minister in 2007. But after a colourful and incident-packed two years in No 10, Mr McBride was forced to resign amid allegations of a plot to smear prominent Conservative politicians. In extracts from his memoirs serialised in the Daily Mail, Mr McBride describes Ed Miliband as ruthless and claims Mr Brown damaged his protege Ed Balls to help Mr Miliband become Labour leader in 2010. He reveals how he manipulated the media, twisted the truth and destroyed Mr Brown's rivals for the Labour leadership after Tony Blair stepped down as PM. Assassination one, according to Mr McBride, was former Home Secretary John Reid, who had previously been a heavy drinker. "I decided to unearth from my black book some of the stories I'd gathered over the years about Mr Reid's escapades from the '80s and early '90s," he writes. Assassination two was Charles Clarke, another former Home Secretary. "For several weeks in succession in 2005 when Charles Clarke was Home Secretary and a declared opponent of Gordon's succession to the premiership, I orchestrated what looked like a briefing war between Charles and Tony Blair's anti-social behaviour guru, Louise Casey." He also admits to a "classic smear" against Ivan Lewis, now in the Shadow Cabinet, after an "unhelpful intervention on tax policy". "The following weekend, the News Of The World duly splashed a story - quite obviously from me - about his supposed pestering of a young civil servant who used to work in his private office." But these damaging disclosures about the past present embarrassing questions for Ed Miliband and the current Labour leadership. The timing could not be worse for Mr Miliband, coming on the eve of the Labour Party conference, which starts in Brighton this weekend. While they want to focus on Labour policies and fighting the coalition, Mr Miliband and Mr Balls will be challenged during the conference about what they knew about Mr McBride's conduct. Edited September 20, 2013 by tonyh29 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 A spin doctor writing to the Daily Heil? Sounds believable to me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 More evidence of the failure of a labour education it would seemIt's a book he's written , he just happens to have done the labour thing and sold the serialisation rights to the highest bidder 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted September 20, 2013 Moderator Share Posted September 20, 2013 ..a lot of what people claim to be "the results of their own hard work" is in fact the result of inherited genes, good education, good opportunities, serendipity, location, national infrastructure and so on. The hard work is the finishing layer to a whole bunch of stuff that is entirely outside the control of the "hard worker". People who work hard as cleaners, nurses, taxy drivers, gardeners... or whatever - like the Poles you mentioned much earlier, for example, work every bit as hard as Partners in Tax companies. Hard work is not the factor that does bring about high reward, clearly. As you say, many inherit, many get reward without hard work. Some get rewards which they wouldn't if they didn't work hard - Sure. Good on them. Others work hard and get no reward because they are a crofter on the Isle of Skye, or a cleaner in Peckham or a hotel worker in Fulham....It's human nature to think that all you get you deserve and other people don't deserve as much, because we work harder than they do. But it's almost always delusion. I dont agree with that, I have worked in large companies employing 800+ people on the shop floor. When we put incentiveised bonus schemes, not only did production improve but individual pay packets did also. So these people, and about 99% of them got it, worked harder to get more That's not disagreeing with what I wrote, Col! - saying that someone in a factory worked harder when incentivised, and as a result earnt a bit more money, is not the same thing as saying rich people are rich because they worked hard. I'm all for incentivisation of working people via a bonus scheme or similar. We have one where I work. If all sorts of targets are met, I could get a 5% bonus. Mostly they're not al lmet, for a variety of reasons outside my control, and I might get 2% say. It's nice to get. It does to an extent motivate me to work a little harder. Meanwhile, if all us underlings do out extra work, and we collectively meet the target, the Big Man at the top, will get several million quid in bonuses. Did he work extra hard? maybe. Did he work 3 million quid extra hard? - I mean if his salary is say 2 million quid a year, did he do so much extra that he desrved to more than double his salary as a result, whilst we only did so much extra as to gain at most 5% extra?Was it his efforts or us underlings, collectively that caused the increased company performance? I know what I think. I think the 5% max bonus is about right. I think the millions extra that go to each of the men at the top is not right. They don't "earn it through their hard work". They do work hard. But what they get is not in any way directly in relation to their hard work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 blummin eck, I've been waitng here 18 months for you to reply to that, but I get your point and it is valid 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 (edited) Potentially more bad news for Ed as McBride decides to cash in and spill a few beansWell, it will doubtless be the subject of much talk over the next few weeks but should anyone be surprised that what he has said happens or that politicians know about it (that it goes on if not the details)?Is there really any difference between the likes of Campbell, McBride, Coulson, Crosbie et al.?Time was, I suppose, that the scheming would have been done by the politicians themselves - even that seems to have been mostly outsourced.p.s. This bit 'Mr McBride describes Ed Miliband as ruthless' might not turn out to be so bad for Miliband, either, as the Tory campaigns against him seem to be based on accusations that he's wet and indecisive. Edited September 20, 2013 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 (edited) could be a new business to tender for. Sneaky Bastards.co.uk We don't care what your politics are we can stitch up anyone Complete discretion assured Edited September 20, 2013 by colhint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 snowychap, on 20 Sept 2013 - 09:40 AM, said: tonyh29, on 20 Sept 2013 - 08:11 AM, said: Potentially more bad news for Ed as McBride decides to cash in and spill a few beans Well, it will doubtless be the subject of much talk over the next few weeks but should anyone be surprised that what he has said happens or that politicians know about it (that it goes on if not the details)?Is there really any difference between the likes of Campbell, McBride, Coulson, Crosbie et al.? Time was, I suppose, that the scheming would have been done by the politicians themselves - even that seems to have been mostly outsourced. p.s. This bit 'Mr McBride describes Ed Miliband as ruthless' might not turn out to be so bad for Miliband, either, as the Tory campaigns against him seem to be based on accusations that he's wet and indecisive. well I was under the impression from the "Tory" thread that is was only the Tories that engaged in the dark arts ... but yes I agree with you is the un-official answer .. " I agree with Snowy" has a better ring to it than" I agree with Nick ", don't you think ? ... I await the 2015 TV campaigns to see if it takes off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts