Government & Post Election Discussion

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Chris

A few people have earned large fortunes from nothing. Many more people have earned large fortunes because they had a wealthy, well-connected family to help them get started. Their ability to earn from a similar input of hours and graft is therefore much higher.

Very few people seriously advocate Communist-style wage parity these days - those who complain about massive pay disparity are not doing that. This isn’t a binary argument. And Thatcher, incidentally, seeing as she’s been brought into this, always said she believed in equality of opportunity. A great deal of wealth inequality arises from opportunities being unequal.

This ..

The system, as it stands, cannot be justified by anyone with a moral viewpoint. The system has just been allowed to run too far without intervention. there is no incentive for the wealthy to redistribute their excessive wealth in the ways needed by the challenges we face so the system will need to change to help them.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Chris

A few people have earned large fortunes from nothing. Many more people have earned large fortunes because they had a wealthy, well-connected family to help them get started. Their ability to earn from a similar input of hours and graft is therefore much higher.

Very few people seriously advocate Communist-style wage parity these days - those who complain about massive pay disparity are not doing that. This isn’t a binary argument. And Thatcher, incidentally, seeing as she’s been brought into this, always said she believed in equality of opportunity. A great deal of wealth inequality arises from opportunities being unequal.

A spot on analysis.

[mrmistoffelees]

I have no problems with people being ultra wealthy etc. so long as things such as tax avoidance etc are cracked down on and people/businesses pay their fair share.

---------- Post added at 10:48 ---------- Previous post was at 10:46 ----------

Originally Posted by ianch99

This ..

The system, as it stands, cannot be justified by anyone with a moral viewpoint. The system has just been allowed to run too far without intervention. there is no incentive for the wealthy to redistribute their excessive wealth in the ways needed by the challenges we face so the system will need to change to help them.

Mackenzie Besos ?

Set to donate half of her $37bn divorce settlement.

[Pierre]

Equality of opportunity is paramount, not to be confused with equality of outcomes.

[Mr K]

Theresa's having a day out at the Cricket. Do you think she's rung in sick ?

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Theresa's having a day out at the Cricket. Do you think she's rung in sick ?

Not sticking up for her but are not people all entitled to have a day off occasionally.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by denphone

Not sticking up for her but are not people all entitled to have a day off occasionally.

Nah, I reckon she pulled a sickie. Should have worn a hat/dark glasses.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

I have no problems with people being ultra wealthy etc. so long as things such as tax avoidance etc are cracked down on and people/businesses pay their fair share.

---------- Post added at 10:48 ---------- Previous post was at 10:46 ----------



Mackenzie Besos ?

Set to donate half of her $37bn divorce settlement.

Interesting point. Some thoughts:

- she decides how the money is allocated. Is she the best person to do this?
- did she "earn" this money?
- would it not have been better if the Amazon employees to be better paid in the first place and Mr & Mrs Bezos to have less billions?

Don't forget, the system is a closed(ish) one. If some have disproportionately more, a great many will have less. Having less when you struggle to make ends meet means a more for them than a billionaire having less billions.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Interesting point. Some thoughts:

- she decides how the money is allocated. Is she the best person to do this?
- did she "earn" this money?
- would it not have been better if the Amazon employees to be better paid in the first place and Mr & Mrs Bezos to have less billions?

Don't forget, the system is a closed(ish) one. If some have disproportionately more, a great many will have less. Having less when you struggle to make ends meet means a more for them than a billionaire having less billions.

OK, to answer your points

it's her money, if its a choice between her deciding or the money not being made available then yes, it's fair for her to decide.

legally, yes, she did earn the money

Amazon employees recently received a raise increase in the US to $15ph and in the UK to £9.50PH

Another one for you to consider, the Bill & Melinda (Gates) foundation is working it's way towards giving $60Bn away in the form of various initiatives.

There are wealthy people who do a lot of good in the world.

Here's a US article from a couple of years ago for you to look at

http://money.com/money/4543503/wealt...-philanthropy/

returning back to the pay amazon employees more, that's not how it works. if you were to start paying low skilled employees a significant increase on salaries then the salaries for skilled employees are going to rise also. costs of living, inflation increasing etc. leaving the low skilled/low paid employees exactly where they were with a much devalued currency

Purple""I believe that we are wandering away from the topic somewhat. Possibly this is a discussion for a whole new thread?

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

OK, to answer your points

it's her money, if its a choice between her deciding or the money not being made available then yes, it's fair for her to decide.

legally, yes, she did earn the money

Amazon employees recently received a raise increase in the US to $15ph and in the UK to £9.50PH

Another one for you to consider, the Bill & Melinda (Gates) foundation is working it's way towards giving $60Bn away in the form of various initiatives.

There are wealthy people who do a lot of good in the world.

Here's a US article from a couple of years ago for you to look at

http://money.com/money/4543503/wealt...-philanthropy/

returning back to the pay amazon employees more, that's not how it works. if you were to start paying low skilled employees a significant increase on salaries then the salaries for skilled employees are going to rise also. costs of living, inflation increasing etc. leaving the low skilled/low paid employees exactly where they were with a much devalued currency

Legally yes but morally? Also, define "earn" in your context

I am very aware of the concept of billionaire philanthropy but the whole thing is predicated on a construct that is flawed. My point is that no one should be allowed to accrue such wealth in the first place. The wealth curve needs to be much flatter so allow a return the position where the employer/employee relationship was a symbiotic one and not exploitative as it is now.

Look at the examples set by John Lewis and Richer Sounds. These prove that you can have successful businesses and have a balance between profit and responsibility.

---------- Post added at 15:46 ---------- Previous post was at 15:44 ----------

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Purple""I believe that we are wandering away from the topic somewhat. Possibly this is a discussion for a whole new thread?

Sounds a good idea. Can you move these posts to a new thread titled "Capitalism: still fit for purpose?" or should I open one myself?

Originally Posted by ianch99

Sounds a good idea. Can you move these posts to a new thread titled "Capitalism: still fit for purpose?" or should I open one myself?

If you kindly provide to me the posts via (The #number in top right corner) that need to be in a new thread, I will move them out of this thread to the new thread.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Mick

If you kindly provide to me the posts via (The #number in top right corner) that need to be in a new thread, I will move them out of this thread to the new thread.

I think these are the ones:

#2056, #2057, #2058, #2059, #2060, #2061, #2062, #2063, #2064, #2065, #2066, #2067, #2068, #2069, #2070, #2071, #2072, #2073, #2074, #2078, #2079, #2081

Thanks for doing this, I appreciate it.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by denphone

Two more hopefuls join the race to become the new Conservative party leader.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ce-theresa-may



Plus the BBC announces head-to-head debates in the Tory leadership race.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...e-live-updates

They are mostly ******s out for themselves.

John Redwood (not standing) would be my pick.


I now await the "talking of ******s…." replies!

[ianch99]

This is interesting:

'Stop Raab': Tory moderates seek to block hardliner's path to PM

Tory moderates are beginning to coalesce around candidates they believe could defeat Dominic Raab, rather than Boris Johnson, as several MPs told the Guardian they considered the former Brexit secretary the bigger threat.

The moves against Raab from moderates are likely to also benefit Johnson and the environment secretary, Michael Gove, who Tory backbenchers believe is gaining momentum over his cabinet rival Jeremy Hunt.