Redistribution of Wealth

[steveo]

Steveo, yes, I made my point.

I despise the world that the baby boomers have created. You and your kids need to make business.

We'll tackle that thorny issue another time; looks like you've got enough on your plate

[Huguenot]

The massive is valid, but not necessary.

[woodrot]

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What is she due?

>

> She is due what she expected when she grew up in a

> society which taxed at 40% or 60% or whatever it

> is / was

>

> She looked at that and thought "if I have an idea

> good enough and work hard enough and Get Lucky I

> will be minted even after all the taxes"

>

> And she gets to where she wants to be. What is she

> due????

>

> She didn't employ people out of altruism. She

> needed the labour. She wouldn't have succeeded

> without it

>

> She isn't due anything

>

> She is where she planned and hoped to be

fuckin hell. Marx has escaped his highate tomb and walks amongst us.

very good.

[Huguenot]

Steveo, you despise the world that I created?

I didn't create this? You did. You're older than me.

[right-clicking]

I do not think it's a question of hating hard earned wealthy rich bitches, whom through enterprise and venture produced a profit. Her taxes are her contribution in the redistribution process, had she paid less than minimum wage or cash in hand, not declared her profit or off loaded it to a tax haven then we might be more justified in using the derogatory label.

Governments are ultimately responsible as to where the tax money is spent and this current mob will happily rob the poor to pay the rich. ( benefits cut, high earners tax break)

[StraferJack]

Huguenot logs in

[passive aggressive mode] = on

"No no no. If you think 'make a difference' is phrased to suggest 'just go with the flow' is somehow saying the former is superior to the latter, it suggests you lack self confidence. Nothing to do with me"

Jesus wept

[Otta]

FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!!

[Otta]

Sorry.

[Burbage]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm going to use 'she' for brevity.

'he' would have been briefer. Unless this isn't hypothetical.

> At what point does she become a rich bitch, sucking the nation dry?

A million and a half in disposable assets (savings and what was lent against the house, which won't have been the full value) does not make you very average. An average household net wealth is something under ?250k. That puts her well within the top 10% which, I believe, is where the relevant category boundary lies. Exactly when that happened is unclear, but it's certainly what gave her, and the 99 less successful mugs, the chance to have a crack at entrepreneurship.

Without more details, it's impossible to tell, but my guess is it'll be down to luck and hidden subsidies. Anyone with modest savings five years ago would have less than modest savings now unless they'd been spectacularly fortunate. Likewise with the App itself - there is no particularly good reason why any of the millions of Apps out there sell any better than any other. So, in that sense, her bold risk was no different than the stupid gamble that the other 99 made. And anyone who bought a property in the early to mid-nineties will have done well too, thanks to the various ways in which successive governments have artificially inflated the price of housing (and thus the credit that can be obtained on them). All of which fortune is now being paid by those unlucky enough to have been born a little later. It's not just the money she relied on. She also relied on the laws that would protect her from creditors if things went badly wrong. Those laws may be the same for everyone, but they disproportionately protect those in a position to attract creditors in the first place.

It is, of course, not necessarily her fault that she's been fortunate, but it would be wrong to suspect it signified any qualities other than just happening to be lucky. That doesn't make her necessarily evil, but a lot will depend on what she does now. If she decides to keep employing those people and invest in the business, taking her 1% chance again and risking losing the lot, that would be fine. But I suspect she won't. I suspect she'll, in one way or another, take the money and run. And that's what's wrong. We see plenty of companies, and individuals, sitting on piles of cash that could be transforming the economy but which are choosing, instead, to hand out token amounts to good causes in the aims of PR or gongs, or to salve their consciences by, thanks to Gift Aid, directing the largesse of government to their chosen grateful causes. In short, they have no confidence in their own ability to repeat the trick, don't want to risk their boom-time-minted, but want to reap the rewards as if they had.

That's fair enough, but it's oddly counter to the spirit of capitalism.

[Loz]

right-clicking Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Governments are ultimately responsible as to where the tax money is spent and this current mob will

> happily rob the poor to pay the rich. ( benefits cut, high earners tax break)

Whilst I agree with the general sentiment of this thread's general conclusion, lets not go for Guardian semantics here. No one is 'robbing' the poor and 'paying' the rich. The rich are still net contributors and the poor still net beneficiaries from the tax take.

Whilst I think lowering the 50% tax band was a poor political move (and falling for the obvious trap set by Labour 17 days before leaving office), calling a tax reduction 'paying' the rich a bit of a weird way of looking at things.

[Annette Curtain]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Have they ripped off society?

Did she invent the Bento i-phone app ?

If so, yes "society" does feel ripped off, tell her I want my money back

Actually i've just invented an app

It's called CR-APp

Basically you get to try an app for 24 hrs before you accept/reject the darn thingy.

Simples, now where's my ?1.5 mil ?

*shakes fist*

[Mick Mac]

There are reliefs available to entrepreneurs that are not available to employees so her ultimate disposal of her venture will be taxed relatively lightly. Maybe thats what the government feel "she is owed".

SJ does not agree that fairness needs to apply to the higher earners in the same way as it applies to lower earners. The balance of fairness needs to be struck in the right place and to encourage more entrepreneurship.

[right-clicking]

Less than 1/3rd of tax raised comes from income tax, most of the tax liability falls on those in the ?20-100,000 bracket. By giving that ?0.05p back per pound earned equates to ?40,000 (per million) if this not paying the rich then what is it? By having one's income cut without any way of recourse is tantamount to theft.

[Loz]

You have a really weird outlook on things, RC, and use emotional language in very inconsistent way.

> Less than 1/3rd of tax raised comes from income tax, most of the tax liability falls on those in the ?20-100,000 bracket.

Actually, the top 10% of earners (i.e. over ?50,500) contribute 55.3% of income tax revenues.

> By giving that ?0.05p back per pound earned equates to ?40,000 (per million) if this not paying the rich then what is it?

They aren't 'giving it back'. They lowering the rate from now on.

If the council tax rate falls this year, are the council 'paying' you? They dropped beer duty by 1p in the budget - are drinkers being 'paid' by the government? Obviously, no in all cases.

> By having one's income cut without any way of recourse is tantamount to theft.

'Tantamount to theft'? No. That's not theft, unless you drastically redefine the word 'theft'.

Are you saying that when Labour put the top rate of tax up to 50% that was 'theft' as well?? Well, by your definition it was.

[Jeremy]

I don't really understand the original post... what's the argument? That tax for high earners is too high? Or that there should be tax breaks for people/businesses in certain situations?

[Chillaxed]

I think the point is that some rich people may not deserve the stick they get. Which I agree with. No idea about the rest of the debate though.

[*Bob*]

Is the answer 'life's a bitch'?

[StraferJack]

"some rich people may not deserve the stick they get. "

If that is the point, can we have some real world examples of which rich people getting what stick?

In the given hypothetocal, we have a plucky heroine who I can't see getting any stick for being rich

There is a perception that rich people are picked on simply for being rich, but I really don't think that is the case. Even if it was the case, they are rich, they'll get over it

[StraferJack]

"SJ does not agree that fairness needs to apply to the higher earners in the same way as it applies to lower earners. The balance of fairness needs to be struck in the right place and to encourage more entrepreneurship."

I meant to address this as well

What does that first sentence mean and where does it come from?

How are high earners being treated unfairly? Why do I in particular support a different fairness for higher earners?

And encouraging entrepreneurship is all well and good, but that just oversupplies an economy that lacks nothing on teh supply side. What's lacking is demand. People aren't spending.

[Jeremy]

Surely nobody in their right mind would resent someone who has built up a business and makes a positive contribution to the economy? Still confused by the original post.

[silverfox]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't really understand the original post...

> what's the argument? That tax for high earners is

> too high? Or that there should be tax breaks for

> people/businesses in certain situations?

I didn't understand the original post either

[steveo]

I don't understand him most of the time

Must be my age

[El Pibe]

ignoring the use of emotive language to load the question and implicitly beg it; setting aside the straw man of addressing the wide question of redistribution of wealth with a tailored hypothetical scenario, the real issue is that she's highly unlikely to become rich given appstore's operating model.

The model is such that people expect updates for free, meaning the fifa 2000/fifa2001/fifa2002 school of income stream isn't viable, but people expect further investment in the product lest they ditch it for a rival which has surpassed it in quality, something very commonly seen in app world, especially as some geeky bedroom programmer can probably achieve that living at home with their mum rather than hiring premises and expensive development teams.

So they have to come up with a new idea, but as Burbage points out, it's incredibly difficult to stand out in a saturated market, so some ideas will fail before others succeed.

In reality her margins will be slim enough that if she's luckily she's making a decent enough wage for herself to compensate her for the hard work in keeping a company going.

In reality she'll find herself one of the squeezed middle classes, probably expecting her children to have the same educational opportunities, which given the state of affairs is looking increasingly unlikely.

The middle classes are losing their share of wealth as it concentrates on those that really are sucking the nation dry, the corporations playing with cards stacked in their favour, as they pay ever less tax whilst demanding ever more subsidies and incentives to build their factory in this constituency or their call centre in that constituency lest they outsource to India.

And in the meantime the textbooks fall apart, schools become unable to stem the flow of quality staff to the private sector, old buildings become a drain on resources, and there's less money to pay for it all.

Good luck next generation.

[Loz]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Surely nobody in their right mind would resent someone who has built up a business and makes a

> positive contribution to the economy?

You don't read the Guardian comments section...

[numbers]

silverfox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Jeremy Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I don't really understand the original post...

> > what's the argument? That tax for high earners

> is

> > too high? Or that there should be tax breaks

> for

> > people/businesses in certain situations?

>

> I didn't understand the original post either

Thank god for Jeremy - I didn't understand the original post either (but didn't want to say as thought it was just me!) ;-)