Open letter to Russell Brand

Heartfeltdawn

hugbot said:

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 things work like this.

True unless you're one of the poor bastards in Switzerland who will be affected by the negative interest rate.

"The Bank is imposing a rate of minus 0.25% on "sight deposits" - a form of instant access account - of more than 10m Swiss francs ($9.77m)."

It's tough to be well off

Axe_meister

One thing is apparent since the the recession started is that companies are sitting on large wads of cash. During recessions companies work heavily on increasing efficiency so once business picks up margins are significantly better. Unfortunately these increases in profit are not being passes to the employees that are left. These even happens in privately owned companies, so not just to give shareholders more money. Personally I think this is short sighted, improve pay and people will have more money to spend thus improving the economy overall.

PolarityMan

frankus said:

Drew_fx said:

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

Way to miss the point. Instead of picking one one specific example why don't you address the argument in question which is why should those who gave worked for their wealth have it forcibly redistributed?

Bucket

Gotta say, I think Russell Brand has jumped the shark.

I do get where he's coming from, even agree with occasional little bits of what he says, but he's nowhere near as clever as he thinks he is and he's going about the whole thing in the most annoying, self-aggrandising, whorish way possible. And he can take all the shite he talks about impending revolution and jam it into his own prostate. Fucking idiot.

As a political commentator, I take him about as seriously as I'd take Elmo if he started waffling on about revolution. But Elmo wouldn't do that, because he doesn't have ideas above his station, because he's made of felt. Ironically, he's less of a muppet than Russell Brand.

chillidoggy

Axe_meister said:

One thing is apparent since the the recession started is that companies are sitting on large wads of cash. During recessions companies work heavily on increasing efficiency so once business picks up margins are significantly better. Unfortunately these increases in profit are not being passes to the employees that are left. These even happens in privately owned companies, so not just to give shareholders more money. Personally I think this is short sighted, improve pay and people will have more money to spend thus improving the economy overall.

My company certainly isn't sitting on large wads of cash, far from it. Like a lot of companies it's existing pretty much to pay its pension fund deficit, and has no spare cash at all. And most of the companies I deal with are the same. They're all scratching.

Where did you get that information from, I'd be interested to see it.

Fusionista

Pension deficit ? Chance'd be a fine thing. But you know, I'm not going to whine on about it. I see it as my opportunity to busk

Axe_meister

chillidoggy;449560" said:

Axe_meister said:

One thing is apparent since the the recession started is that companies are sitting on large wads of cash. During recessions companies work heavily on increasing efficiency so once business picks up margins are significantly better. Unfortunately these increases in profit are not being passes to the employees that are left. These even happens in privately owned companies, so not just to give shareholders more money. Personally I think this is short sighted, improve pay and people will have more money to spend thus improving the economy overall.







My company certainly isn't sitting on large wads of cash, far from it. Like a lot of companies it's existing pretty much to pay its pension fund deficit, and has no spare cash at all. And most of the companies I deal with are the same. They're all scratching.

Where did you get that information from, I'd be interested to see it.

I do a lot of work with large organisations improving operational efficiencies, so first hand experience

chillidoggy

Fusionista said:

Pension deficit ? Chance'd be a fine thing. But you know, I'm not going to whine on about it. I see it as my opportunity to busk

Yes, really!

Pension deficit is a huge problem for a lot of companies. If I understand it correctly (and I'm no expert), they've probably been forced into putting a rescue package together by the Pensions Regulator, the same as my company has. It's costing an absolute packet. I wish I could quote figures, but that would not be right, however companies are pursued for previous pension liabilities: they still have to pay for past employees whether they've closed their pension finds or not, and with the interest rates on investments being so low it's a struggle.

No doubt Mags will be along to add his opinion, but past pension funds are a real headache for those companies seeking not just to make a profit, but simply to keep their corporate heads above water. Improving pay may be a nice idea, but it's not always possible, especially as it could mean the difference between existence and dissolution for a lot of small to medium sized companies.

stickyfiddle

Pensions, as they currently work, are essentially a ponzi scheme. I'm not expecting the state pension to exist in anything resembling its current form when i get that old, so trying to put money away separately 

Drew_TNBD

I plan to die before I need a pension, so fuck it.

Fusionista

Drew_fx said:

I plan to die before I need a pension, so fuck it.

That was my plan and it nearly worked. Just I recovered. Anyway I've bought a motorbike.

Snap

here's a question, why should you pay proprortionately more income tax if you earn more?

I think it's wrong.

Pay 20% of your income in tax, regardless (above the non tax threshold). Richer people pay more tax (volume).

In principle, why, if you earn more, should you give a greater percentage to state funds?

Serious question. Never agreed with it.

frankus

As Vim said earlier - money gets used to distort market behaviour and only people with enough money can benefit from this - that's usually corporations but it's also individuals.

Rich people avoid paying tax, if we had a simpler system that stopped them routing it through countries, companies and relatives so they actually paid 20% that'd be great but as it is, these people don't pay taxes.

Islandape

Snap said:

here's a question, why should you pay proprortionately more income tax if you earn more?

I think it's wrong.

Pay 20% of your income in tax, regardless (above the non tax threshold). Richer people pay more tax (volume).

In principle, why, if you earn more, should you give a greater percentage to state funds?

Serious question. Never agreed with it.

I agree with the proportionality thing so long as you have a big tax allowance at the bottom to help out low paid workers.  But what we have at the moment is actually a regressive system.  If you do any research on it you'll find the very rich pay proportionally less tax - on top of the fact that basic survival costs (as noted earlier by @hugbot) are a much smaller proportion of their income and make the disparity even greater.

The very rich pay less tax than you'd expect even before their fiddles tax planning even as UK residents (non does are another matter entirely).  For example, the maximum rate of income tax in the UK is 45% and even pretty ordinary jobs like mine fall into the 40% band which doesn't go very far especially in London and/or if you didn't have a house when the prices went loony.  But the maximum rate on investments?  37.5% with no NI deductions, not bad if you inherited a shedload and managed to avoid inheritance tax - which id actually quite trivial.

This isn't just a UK phenomenon that the inherited wealth brigade look after themselves. High tax egalitarian Sweden for example has a maximum income tax as high as 59%, you have to pay for all those social programmes somehow.  But the tax falls on entrepreneurs and professionals as the investments the old money types have are taxed at a flat 30%.  There is no inheritance tax in Sweden BTW.

See the pattern?

Whatever we think of Brand (not much), he's earned (for a given value of earn) his wealth, but the powers that be still pay less and still run the show.

VimFuego

Snap said:

here's a question, why should you pay proprortionately more income tax if you earn more?

I think it's wrong.

Pay 20% of your income in tax, regardless (above the non tax threshold). Richer people pay more tax (volume).

In principle, why, if you earn more, should you give a greater percentage to state funds?

Serious question. Never agreed with it.

personally I feel tax is a very poor instrument for ensuring a fairer distribution of essential resources. I think a system that stops anyone or anything getting too big in the first place is better (thus ensuring everyone gets a fairer share from the pie before a lump gets taken by the tax man, I also think if more people earned more, there'd be less tax overall to pay). I don't know what this system would look like, but that's why I'm not in charge.

DesVegas

@blueskunk have a wisdom on me

blueskunk

Drew_fx;448960" said:

blueskunk said:

Drew_fx;448064" said:Russell Brand is a knob-head.

Glass houses young man.










Oi pissteeth! Wind yer neck in!

Genuinely giggled

Best putdown of the week !

blueskunk

DesVegas;450106" said:

@blueskunk have a wisdom on me

Thank you my man.

Happy holidays - just broke up for 2 weeks woohoo

Snap

VimFuego said:

Snap said:

here's a question, why should you pay proprortionately more income tax if you earn more?

I think it's wrong.

Pay 20% of your income in tax, regardless (above the non tax threshold). Richer people pay more tax (volume).

In principle, why, if you earn more, should you give a greater percentage to state funds?

Serious question. Never agreed with it.

personally I feel tax is a very poor instrument for ensuring a fairer distribution of essential resources. I think a system that stops anyone or anything getting too big in the first place is better (thus ensuring everyone gets a fairer share from the pie before a lump gets taken by the tax man, I also think if more people earned more, there'd be less tax overall to pay). I don't know what this system would look like, but that's why I'm not in charge.

Interesting, so are you advocating a system that says you can only earn so much or accrue so much wealth?

Don't agree with that at all. Why should the state limit what I want to earn? I get your ethos, but not the means. Take this to its extreme end, perhaps, and you say, all jobs are equal, everyone earns the same. That clearly doesn't work. Is that true communism, possibly. Thing, is, humans are basically bastards. When you introduce a fair and equitable, even egalitarian society, the bastards with the biggest mates take over.

There's a lot wrong with how we pay tax, particularly how health is funded, its all shot. Somehow the govt, whoever it is, is going to have to look at some form of compulsory means tested health insurance OR put up tax with a designated ring fenced health quota from it. I work across a lot of different countries, and not just Europe, and I think I've come to the opinion that the health systems that work best (in terms of access to good care, with good results, no matter where you live in the country) are those that have a compulsory insurance. What this ends up doing is forcing the construction of more accessible high quality care. Its not classic privatisation, as it's often state controlled, or should I say governed. WHat I am confident in syaing is that our NHS is patched together and unevenly distributed (in terms of access to care and drugs).

On tax, the notion of inheritance tax is a disgrace, IMO, as is stamp duty on property. Tax on food and fuel is wrong too.

I'd have state supplied utilities, properly governed - an elected goverment should have the duty of care to it's electorate to provide afrfordable, high quality fuel, water and transport. What they need is to have proper hardcore governance to ensure we get quality, not the bullshit we had in the 70s.

Then I'd abolish the high tax threshold, fanny around with business taxes, and taxes on investments etc, and I'd do something with VAT, and capital gains (in other words I've not thought those through at all yet, lol)

and I'd tax moustaches so that anyone having one should also have to have a beard. YOu cant have one solo.

viz

Snap said:

VimFuego said:

Snap said:

here's a question, why should you pay proprortionately more income tax if you earn more?

I think it's wrong.

Pay 20% of your income in tax, regardless (above the non tax threshold). Richer people pay more tax (volume).

In principle, why, if you earn more, should you give a greater percentage to state funds?

Serious question. Never agreed with it.

personally I feel tax is a very poor instrument for ensuring a fairer distribution of essential resources. I think a system that stops anyone or anything getting too big in the first place is better (thus ensuring everyone gets a fairer share from the pie before a lump gets taken by the tax man, I also think if more people earned more, there'd be less tax overall to pay). I don't know what this system would look like, but that's why I'm not in charge.

and I'd tax moustaches so that anyone having one should also have to have a beard. YOu cant have han solo.

http://i865.photobucket.com/albums/ab217/Vizzage/Mobile Uploads/image_zps4518c893.jpg