Open letter to Russell Brand

Drew_TNBD

frankus said:

How did they work for it?

Well, in the case of the Reuben brothers... they:

...made their early money out of metals. Born in India but brought up in London, they started in local scrap metal but branched out into trading tin and aluminium.

So what... take 20% of their earnings because they had the temerity to go out and make something for themselves? Because that's what people in the comments section of that article seem to want!

Lets say that my mum gives me £100. I take that £100, and I pass it on to my son. He takes it and passes it on to his girlfriend. She takes it and passes it on to her mum. Should her mum have to pay up 20% of it to the taxman because of my mum being generous or choosing to make a decision with her own money?

It's just bonkers. Rich people shouldn't have to face one off taxes like what some of the idiots are suggesting in that comments thread on the Guardian article. They're just seeing someone else with wealth and success, and they want a piece of the pie. It's utterly parasitic.

I know everything isn't black and white. But I do think to a large extent people being poor has more to do with their own apathy and their own inaction than it does with a bunch of old people who inherited or made fortunes.

Drew_TNBD

Even if they didn't work for it, in a lot of cases they still took a risk - investment and what not... 

viz

Fusionista said:

holnrew said:

Fusionista said:

da**ed 

Took me ages to work out what that was. Did it need to be censored?

Not if you used r instead of m.

but there's no r or m in dashed, surely?

Fusionista

viz said:

Fusionista said:

holnrew said:

Fusionista said:

da**ed 

Took me ages to work out what that was. Did it need to be censored?

Not if you used r instead of m.

but there's no r or m in dashed, surely?

Now we're playing Countdown Oh well, beats the h**l out of washing cars to grow rich and then be taxed by champagne socialists to pay public sector pensions while the poor and disabled have to give up their bedrooms so that even more deserving hard-working families' children can have free school meals in addition to the Red Bull and crisps they had for breakfast and generations of mining communities watch helpless as the community they established,...er, sometime in the 19th century when they were chased off the Commons by greedy landowners..., is destroyed by Maggie Thatcher, er...thirty years ago. Anyway, it's not my fault.

frankus

Drew_fx said:

Even if they didn't work for it, in a lot of cases they still took a risk - investment and what not... 

Yes, those Hinduja Brothers, bravely paying off MPs, bravely cleared of buying their British passports and bravely cleared of bribery in arms deals...

and by bravely I mean allegedly of course

Drew_TNBD

frankus said:

Drew_fx said:

Even if they didn't work for it, in a lot of cases they still took a risk - investment and what not... 

Yes, those Hinduja Brothers, bravely paying off MPs, bravely cleared of buying their British passports and bravely cleared of bribery in arms deals...

and by bravely I mean allegedly of course

lol. Well I don't know about any of that.

Jalapeno

frankus said:

How did they work for it? Crawling out of some upper class bint's welly-boot top doesn't really count as work does it these days?

Duke of Westminster & Cadogans you might make a case for, but the other 3 are Mike Astley, the Hinduja brothers, and Rueben brothers - all self-made.

frankus

they've been cleared of most of those accusations, after a lot of years... I guess it's like an eBay auction if you wait long enough you can get it for the price you want to pay.

frankus

Thing is that taxation in it's current form favours people with assets, not workers or people who do anything, that's a shift that's seen the cost of living increase.

VimFuego

frankus said:

Drew_fx said:

Even if they didn't work for it, in a lot of cases they still took a risk - investment and what not... 

Yes, those Hinduja Brothers, bravely paying off MPs, bravely cleared of buying their British passports and bravely cleared of bribery in arms deals...

and by bravely I mean allegedly of course

that's the thing isn't it though, these people and families are so wealthy they kinda distort the fabric of the economy, they tilt the playing field in their favour (don't get me wrong, that's human nature) but it has an impact on everyone else. While money may be limitless, wealth is finite. I don't mind someone having more than me, I don't even mind someone having too much, but when people are being forced into lifelong debt just to obtain the basic requirements of life (food, shelter, warmth etc.) then I don't think it's unfair to question that system. I don't think it's a bad thing for the cards to be shuffled occasionally, see if we can't get thoses aces dealt somewhere else.

Fusionista

VimFuego said:

but when people are being forced into lifelong debt just to obtain the basic requirements of life (food, shelter, warmth etc.) then I don't think it's unfair to question that system. I don't think it's a bad thing for the cards to be shuffled occasionally, see if we can't get thoses aces dealt somewhere else.

I used to wonder why people would insist in living in deserts where there is no water, and in places where every so often there is a drought and all the crops die and they starve to death. People told me it was because others were greedy and had taken all the land and water.  I cared, so I gave money to such worthy causes. I still do, but now it's a proxy for not actually doing something about it. Because I can't.  I tried - I won some, I lost some. I still fight for right when I can, but I don't make others wrong - especially not to make myself right.

Actually it's because people breed and use up resources.  Once they would move on.  Finally it gets to the point where there is nowhere to move on to, and some people end up somewhere marginal where no-one lives - for a reason:  every so often everyone starves to death. Sure there have been increases in productivity, but people keep breeding. 

You think I'm wrong ?  Tell me then why when most of the fish stocks in the world are depleted and increasingly unsustainable the fishermen keep arguing to be able to fish more  ? Why miners insist on their right to keep mining, when it is cheaper to strip mine on Australia and ship coal around the world than it is to make some poor Welsh (or Yorkshire, Notts County etc) man gasp and sweat his life away in some hellhole to die wheezing ?

If you didn't get my Brand-style rant above, it's not anyone's fault and NOR is it anyone's responsibility.  You are FREE.  Free to move, free to make your own living as best you may, free to care or not care, free to help and free to play the guitar.

Sure, I'm pissed off because I don't look like David Gandy, I haven't fucked as many women as Russell Brand (although even saying that you immediately appreciate what a futile exercise it is - just, maybe, better than wanking). I'm exercised that Jemima fucking Khan has a lovely face i will never kiss, some super tits i wll never squeeze, a fanny I will never get near, and above all more money than she knows what to do with, whereas I really could make a difference with it.  Also while we're on the subject, I am mega-pissed so many cnuts can play guitar so much better than I can.  

But so what ?

Live your life. Die your death. Just please, everybody, stop whining about what others do don't and have got or haven't. FFS.

VimFuego

I have never seen so many words used to say so little, grats.

Here's the thing, you may be happy with the status quo, good for you. I am not and will not be shouted down by apologists like you. As for your previous rant, not only did I not get it, I didn't even read it.

Fusionista

VimFuego said:

I have never seen so many words used to say so little, grats.

Here's the thing, you may be happy with the status quo, good for you. I am not and will not be shouted down by apologists like you. As for your previous rant, not only did I not get it, I didn't even read it.

You're projecting Vim - wasn't aimed at you.

VimFuego

would that be why you quoted me?

Gassage

OooooOooOOoooo

Fight!

If Scott Peterson saw this you'd face lethal injection.

Fusionista

VimFuego said:

would that be why you quoted me?

Just set me off mate.  I actually agree with you.

hugbot

Drew_fx said:

frankus said:

How did they work for it?

Well, in the case of the Reuben brothers... they:

...made their early money out of metals. Born in India but brought up in London, they started in local scrap metal but branched out into trading tin and aluminium.

So what... take 20% of their earnings because they had the temerity to go out and make something for themselves? Because that's what people in the comments section of that article seem to want!

Lets say that my mum gives me £100. I take that £100, and I pass it on to my son. He takes it and passes it on to his girlfriend. She takes it and passes it on to her mum. Should her mum have to pay up 20% of it to the taxman because of my mum being generous or choosing to make a decision with her own money?

It's just bonkers. Rich people shouldn't have to face one off taxes like what some of the idiots are suggesting in that comments thread on the Guardian article. They're just seeing someone else with wealth and success, and they want a piece of the pie. It's utterly parasitic.

I know everything isn't black and white. But I do think to a large extent people being poor has more to do with their own apathy and their own inaction than it does with a bunch of old people who inherited or made fortunes.

20% isnt a particularly punitive tax hitorically. To quote Warren Buffet: "there’s been class warfare going on for the last 20 years, and my class has won. We’re the ones that have gotten our tax rates reduced dramatically."

Heartfeltdawn

Drew_fx said:

Well, in the case of the Reuben brothers... they:

...made their early money out of metals. Born in India but brought up in London, they started in local scrap metal but branched out into trading tin and aluminium.

So what... take 20% of their earnings because they had the temerity to go out and make something for themselves? Because that's what people in the comments section of that article seem to want!

They are the same Reuben brothers who own Milibank Tower. They bought it via a company based in the British Virgin Islands. Because of this, they are almost certainly eligible for the Non-Resident Landlord Scheme, meaning they can apply to HMRC for tax exemption on the rent money they receive from those renting space in Milibank Tower. It is also likely that they avoided stamp duty on the property purchase through use of the BVI-registered company, saving them over a million quid. I'd agree that getting stung for additional taxes could well be unfair but then so is avoiding many of the taxes the ordinary person would pay when purchasing property. 

Heartfeltdawn

frankus said:

I like the Brand quote in his reply: "when I was poor and complained about inequality, people told me I was bitter, now I'm rich and complaining about inequality people tell me I'm a hypocrite, I'm beginning to think they don't want social change on the agenda".

Possibly the best thing he has ever said. I enjoyed his reply. 

hugbot

Anyway, regarding "they worked for it".

The problem with saying "well how would YOU like it if someone came along and took £20 from ever £100 you earned" is that wealth on a large scale operates in a totally different way to wealth on a small scale.

Theres a Louie CK joke where he observes that when you have no money, the bank hits you with overdraft fees so you go into debt. But when you have LOTS of money, they pay you more money just to have your service. The problem with income inequality is that a lot of economic situations work like this.

A poor persons income will be spent 95% keeping a roof over their head, a rich person will have enough to invest and thus make more money. And wealth isnt just your bank account, but properties, businesses, connections, education...

Have enough money/property and you will literally make more just by doing nothing. It sits there while people pay you to rent your properties, hold your cash ect.

As a buisness owner, increases in productivity in the future will work to your benefit as well. Someone invents a new program that can do work 12x as fast? Great! Now you can hire 1 person instead of 12. Not so great for the 11 people whose jobs you just laid off.

In addition, the wealthy directly benefit from society. Society provides them with an educated workforce (to a point, the individual has to pay more and more for higher education now, so they go into debt if they want a decent start), the infrastructure they use to maintain their business, the consumer base (can't sell gizmos if people are too poor to buy gizmos) why should they not contribute more back to society in terms of tax (which will go back into education, infrastructure, more consumers who can afford gizmos.)?