Wins Last Post

Status
Not open for further replies.
I messaged chatmaster so i'll just have to wait and see. May have to step away for a few days and hope that works if cm can't fix the problem. Let's change the subject and make it fun again for other people please.
 
Good Night Lol GIF by Evan M Cohen
Tired Good Night GIF by Holler Studios
 
Hope you don't mind but this is possibly the most intellectual conversation I've ever seen on here, so I'm brining it here from the Yes/No Game


emileh said:
That has to change and the quickest way I can think of dealing with this is to limit the inheritance of relatives to a set sum, liquidise the remainder and invest it in universal health care and good social welfare programs globally. Let the relatives run the businesses that remain and make sure they treat all employees fairly by paying a decent living wage.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it also encourage either (a) people being lazy and limiting their own potential to innovate/make money and at the same time creating a class of people that don't want to/won't try to achieve their potential and create wealth because there develops a dependency culture by inheriting money from people they're not related to* and/or (b) the people that have accumulated the wealth dispose of anything over the limited before they die by either giving it away or spending/wasting a lot of it to avoid it going to people they don't know?

*Thinking about the welfare system, there are a lot of people that choose to stay on State benefits rather than getting a job because their net disposable income would be about the same. There's an argument there that employers should pay more but then if they do the argument is that benefits payments should be increased broadly in line with the lowest earners.


emileh said:
Freedom of the individual is important and to a much lesser extent, freedom of markets.
Click to expand...
I struggle to reconcile freedom of the individual with saying that when they die they're going to only be able to pass on a set amount to their family and loved ones because the State is going to take the rest. Doesn't that limit their freedom?
 
Inkandtatts said:
Hope you don't mind but this is possibly the most intellectual conversation I've ever seen on here, so I'm brining it here from the Yes/No Game




Wouldn't it also encourage either (a) people being lazy and limiting their own potential to innovate/make money and at the same time creating a class of people that don't want to/won't try to achieve their potential and create wealth because there develops a dependency culture by inheriting money from people they're not related to* and/or (b) the people that have accumulated the wealth dispose of anything over the limited before they die by either giving it away or spending/wasting a lot of it to avoid it going to people they don't know?

*Thinking about the welfare system, there are a lot of people that choose to stay on State benefits rather than getting a job because their net disposable income would be about the same. There's an argument there that employers should pay more but then if they do the argument is that benefits payments should be increased broadly in line with the lowest earners.



I struggle to reconcile freedom of the individual with saying that when they die they're going to only be able to pass on a set amount to their family and loved ones because the State is going to take the rest. Doesn't that limit their freedom?
Click to expand...
I'm all for increasing benefits and providing wider scope for support rather than the rather nasty and vindictive system we have at present for those unable to work through disability for example.

We could fund that and a lot more besides (NHS for example) by closing all of the tax avoidance loopholes and making wealthy non-domiciled scumbags (owner of the Daily Mail for example) non-citizens and barring them from owning media companies that put forward biased viewpoints to support them and their equally vile and obscenely rich chums.

Limiting inheritance isn't limiting. The likes of the offspring of Bezos, Branson, and Musk, for example would still be comparatively wealthy and able to run the business that made them wealthy in the first place. When you're faced with the obscenity that the richest 10% hold 85% of global wealth then something has to be done. I suggest we limit the inheritance of relatives to a set sum, liquidise the remainder and invest it in universal health care and good social welfare programs globally. Let's reduce the obscene gap between the haves and the have nots.

So let the relatives run the businesses that remain and make sure they treat all employees fairly by paying a decent living wage.

Capitalism as a system needs to go. You can't have a system that's predicated on continuous growth when you live in a world with finite resources.
 
emileh said:
I'm all for increasing benefits and providing wider scope for support rather than the rather nasty and vindictive system we have at present for those unable to work through disability for example.
Click to expand...
Disability support definitely needs to be increased

emileh said:
We could fund that and a lot more besides (NHS for example) by closing all of the tax avoidance loopholes and making wealthy non-domiciled scumbags (owner of the Daily Mail for example) non-citizens and barring them from owning media companies that put forward biased viewpoints to support them and their equally vile and obscenely rich chums.
Click to expand...

I agree with all of that except the media companies bit. There’s a risk that those getting into power would bar their opponents from owning media companies.

emileh said:
Limiting inheritance isn't limiting. The likes of the offspring of Bezos, Branson, and Musk, for example would still be comparatively wealthy and able to run the business that made them wealthy in the first place. When you're faced with the obscenity that the richest 10% hold 85% of global wealth then something has to be done. I suggest we limit the inheritance of relatives to a set sum, liquidise the remainder and invest it in universal health care and good social welfare programs globally. Let's reduce the obscene gap between the haves and the have nots.
Click to expand...
This is where I disagree a little. None of those people stole money. They built businesses that generated their money. A lot of them will have worked hard, often living in crappy conditions on their way up the ladder, and been taxed throughout their lifetime. Those that inherit after their death would pay IHT (at least in this country) on their inheritance anyway and there’s no limit on that.

I don’t disagree that obscene amounts of wealth is arguably wrong particularly when there’s so much that it can’t ever be spent and in typing that I’m coming round to your way of thinking. It just doesn’t sit right with me to say “you must only earn this much money and if you earn more than that we’ll take it when you die”
 
Inkandtatts said:
Disability support definitely needs to be increased
Click to expand...

So do other benefits or at least availability needs to be sorted out.

Inkandtatts said:
I agree with all of that except the media companies bit. There’s a risk that those getting into power would bar their opponents from owning media companies.
Click to expand...

You have a good point there. I wasn't advocating state ownership of the media though, just tighter regulation.

Inkandtatts said:
This is where I disagree a little. None of those people stole money. They built businesses that generated their money. A lot of them will have worked hard, often living in crappy conditions on their way up the ladder, and been taxed throughout their lifetime. Those that inherit after their death would pay IHT (at least in this country) on their inheritance anyway and there’s no limit on that.
Click to expand...

There's an expression that Terry Pratchett's Death character used in Mort. "Mortared with the blood of 1,000 slaves" which is apposite. They made that money by paying the least they could get away with and forcing intolerable working conditions on their staff. They're not benefactors, they're exploitative pond scum. I have little sympathy for them.

Inkandtatts said:
I don’t disagree that obscene amounts of wealth is arguably wrong particularly when there’s so much that it can’t ever be spent and in typing that I’m coming round to your way of thinking. It just doesn’t sit right with me to say “you must only earn this much money and if you earn more than that we’ll take it when you die”
Click to expand...

No they just leave it all to their over entitled offspring which perpetuates the vile system of inequality.
 
emileh said:
There's an expression that Terry Pratchett's Death character used in Mort. "Mortared with the blood of 1,000 slaves" which is apposite. They made that money by paying the least they could get away with and forcing intolerable working conditions on their staff. They're not benefactors, they're exploitative pond scum. I have little sympathy for them.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure that’s completely accurate though. Branson’s UK companies as an example would have been paying at least the minimum wage to staff (since the late 90s at least) and with decent employment rights/protections that everyone has in the UK.

Their business premises would have been paying business rates to the local authorities and the products/services they sold would have been subject to VAT. The companies themselves would have been paying corporation tax on their income and employer NICs would have been paid on the salaries they paid to staff.
 
Inkandtatts said:
I’m not sure that’s completely accurate though. Branson’s UK companies as an example would have been paying at least the minimum wage to staff (since the late 90s at least) and with decent employment rights/protections that everyone has in the UK.

Their business premises would have been paying business rates to the local authorities and the products/services they sold would have been subject to VAT. The companies themselves would have been paying corporation tax on their income and employer NICs would have been paid on the salaries they paid to staff.
Click to expand...
I win!
 
Inkandtatts said:
I’m not sure that’s completely accurate though. Branson’s UK companies as an example would have been paying at least the minimum wage to staff (since the late 90s at least) and with decent employment rights/protections that everyone has in the UK.
Click to expand...

Minimum wage is intended to be a minimum not an actual pay level. Responsible employers pay a living wage, not minimum wage. Rolling contracts are used to avoid employee protection along with zero hour contracts. All designed and used to exploit the workforce and put fat bonuses in management pockets.

Inkandtatts said:
Their business premises would have been paying business rates to the local authorities and the products/services they sold would have been subject to VAT. The companies themselves would have been paying corporation tax on their income and employer NICs would have been paid on the salaries they paid to staff.
Click to expand...
In an ideal world that would all be true. Local authorities are likely to reduce or waive business rates to attract large businesses and that should not be allowed. They employ legal and accounting specialists to dodge paying taxes on the corporate income and in some cases avoid it altogether (Apple anyone?). The only thing they can't avoid is PAYE and NIC employee contributions (which come directly out of the employee pay anyway) and Employer NIC contributions. They'll employ people on an intern basis to avoid even that where they can.
 
emileh said:
Minimum wage is intended to be a minimum not an actual pay level. Responsible employers pay a living wage, not minimum wage.
Click to expand...
I agree.

emileh said:
Rolling contracts are used to avoid employee protection along with zero hour contracts.
Click to expand...
I agree on zero hours contract but they’ve only been around for a relatively short time and they make up only around 2.8% of those in work so I don’t think it can be said that people get mega rich off the back of those. Rolling contracts can be beneficial to employees as well as employers. I believe they have the same employment protections as those on normal contracts including redundancy etc.

emileh said:
In an ideal world that would all be true. Local authorities are likely to reduce or waive business rates to attract large businesses and that should not be allowed.
Click to expand...
They can only do that if it’s a designated investment zone (or whatever the buzzword is now), limited to a few years of free rates and they tend to be in areas that are in dire need of investment and with very high unemployment rates. I know of a few of those quite local to me and they’ve transformed the areas quite drastically. Very few of the businesses have moved out after the initial 4 years free rates, and the local authorities have put the rates up. The initial few years free rates bought investment, a reduction in crime, and an increase in employment rates. Most of those areas were developed in the 90s and are still going strong now. I don’t think that’s a bad thing.


emileh said:
They employ legal and accounting specialists to dodge paying taxes on the corporate income and in some cases avoid it altogether (Apple anyone?).
Click to expand...
100% which is why they need to close those loopholes
 
Inkandtatts said:
I agree.


I agree on zero hours contract but they’ve only been around for a relatively short time and they make up only around 2.8% of those in work so I don’t think it can be said that people get mega rich off the back of those. Rolling contracts can be beneficial to employees as well as employers. I believe they have the same employment protections as those on normal contracts including redundancy etc.
Click to expand...

Rolling contracts are used to get around the statutory protections that, IIRC, kick in after 2 years of continuous employment. Guess how long the average rolling contract is for? I fail to see how they benefit employees over a single contract with no endpoint set.

Then there are interns. Come and give your life up, work all the hours we want from you with no rewards other than the vague chance of a contract at the end of the internship. Exploitative shite. You want someone to do work for you? Employ them and pay them and give them all of the normal employment benefits.

Inkandtatts said:
They can only do that if it’s a designated investment zone (or whatever the buzzword is now), limited to a few years of free rates and they tend to be in areas that are in dire need of investment and with very high unemployment rates. I know of a few of those quite local to me and they’ve transformed the areas quite drastically. Very few of the businesses have moved out after the initial 4 years free rates, and the local authorities have put the rates up. The initial few years free rates bought investment, a reduction in crime, and an increase in employment rates. Most of those areas were developed in the 90s and are still going strong now. I don’t think that’s a bad thing.
Click to expand...

That may be different in England and Scotland.

Inkandtatts said:
100% which is why they need to close those loopholes
Click to expand...
 
what have I just created 😶‍🌫️

haha but no. I ended up back in a thread of LPW soapie created. Server glitch in matrix
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top