So would you be in favour of international economic harmonisation, with the pooling of sovereignty needed to achieve that?

For taxation you need international agreement or the current loopholes will still exist i.e. Apple being based in Ireland, Amazon in Luxembourg etc. whilst ever you have countries with very low rates of CT large companies will migrate their - altruism is not high up on their priority list.

What a pity they can't put their collective genius to building a better world.

As I mentioned before the human condition is not naturally altruistic - its no surprise that we think about others once we are in comfortable position.

If its feed your family or they go hungry so others can eat then I doubt you would be quite so considerate of others?

Your right about the complexities within tax law and the biggest problem is that the larger comglomerates have brighter people helping them avoid paying tax than HMRC have "collecting" it.

The villians are always one (or two) steps ahead.

If the whole thing was simplified, then the exchequer would benefit.
Unfortunately, the fundamental flw here is that those making our laws (MP's) would be hit in their own pocket so, we have the ultimate contradiction of MP saying that "everyone should pay their share", whilst at the same time, avoiding paying tax in any way possible.
How many MP's have offshore accounts for their personal or private affairs ??

For me poverty suggests you don't have a roof over your head, you can't cloth yourself, your don't have access to clean water and you can't feed yourself. On that basis how many people do we have in real poverty - very very few.

There needs to be the trickle down how do you make that happen whilst still rewarding the risk and encouraging investment. Interesting that Sweden a country lauds as a model society has the 2nd highest Gini co-efficient of any country!! So if you had a Gini index you would say 65 which is roughly what the world co-efficient is.

How do you re-distribute wealth - increase the minimum wage, introduce a relationship between the CEO salary and that of the average earnings in the firm. Create a tax system that encourages/forces firms to pay CT etc.

You will never stop entrepreneurs making huge piles of cash - how do stop Bill Gates building Microsoft into the firm it is and the riches that come with it. How many on here complain about big business yet use Amazon!!

There is plenty of evidence to the contrary, especially amongst children. Selfishness is taught or learned.


I am quite content in my family's demonstrations of altruism. Irrespective, we are talking about very rich people making very rich people even richer. Or selfish, greedy people richer.

It’d be worth it to see the faces of Rees-Mogg and Farage, if nowt else.

A global approach will likely see requests/demands for measures to reduce global inequality.



To me, that is a definition of extreme poverty.

Sweden has a relatively low Gini co-efficient, and certainly not the second highest in the world! The UK’s, while higher than Sweden, is lower than most.

What is you definition of poverty?

If you believe Maslow - survival + security are basic needs in built in humans - thinking about others is well up the scale once you have achieved stages 1 & 2.

You may well be altruistic now because you will not be in poverty whatever your description of that is. Bill Gates is currently in the process of divesting a large chunk of his fortune - unfortunately he is acquiring it quicker than he gives it away. I think you would be very surprised at how much the very wealthy give away to causes they believe in.

Quote ="Sal Paradise"What is you definition of poverty?'" In terms of relative of poverty, I think there’s a case for using mean rather than median values, and including wealth as well as income. I don’t have the expertise to come up with a technical definition though. In terms of what life is like, in the UK something like this seems about right to me, on a quick read: www.poverty.ac.uk/pse-research/w ... nk-we-need www.poverty.ac.uk/pse-research/g ... -1983-2012

Quote ="Sal Paradise"What is you definition of poverty?'" In terms of relative of poverty, I think there’s a case for using mean rather than median values, and including wealth as well as income. I don’t have the expertise to come up with a technical definition though. In terms of what life is like, in the UK something like this seems about right to me, on a quick read: www.poverty.ac.uk/pse-research/w ... nk-we-need www.poverty.ac.uk/pse-research/g ... -1983-2012

And here is the nub of the issue.
Striking a balance to allow entrepreneurs to fulfil their potential but not allowing them to escape their tax responsibilities, which of coures applies to Amazon as well.

Regardless of how bright someone is or how innovative their products may be, is it right that someone should earn £1000's per hour, while paying another person £9.00 per hour ?? and having to subsidise them with "handouts", which are in place to allow the top earners to pay their staff less money ??

If ALL full time employees were paid a proper living wage, there would be far less need for benefits to be paid out but, there would be issues around inflation and our (the UK's) competitiveness overseas.

Happy Fat Cat Friday, everyone. Keep grafting. https://news.sky.com/story/fat-cat-frid ... y-11598353

Happy Fat Cat Friday, everyone. Keep grafting. https://news.sky.com/story/fat-cat-frid ... y-11598353

The issue about a living wage is an interesting one - its then a balance between staff pay and profits. Shareholders - predominantly pension funds - want share price growth and dividends if the minimum wage is increased at say Sainsburys/Asda either profits fall and everyone's pension suffers, unlikely or prices increase so are the lower paid going to be any better off?

What price do you place on risk and innovation - if through their hard work, risk taking and skill levels they build a business that is very profitable and employs hundreds of people what should they earn? These are people making the critical decisions/managing the risk/raising the finance in that business - are you suggesting a cap on earnings?

Absolutely no-one is saying there shouldn't be a reward for risk (as long as the counter to that is that the risk taker pays the price of failure, not the public). Plenty of successful & 'happier' countries - Sweden, Germany, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Austria - manage to have a much lower gap between low/high earnings.

Any "cap on earnings" could be managed with an efficient taxation system and not allowing offshore accounts, image rights, ghost companies etc.

One issue that does puzzle me on people "paying their share" is people always pointing the finger at Amazon, Google etc but, "we" are "happy" to allow our tp sportsman and entertainers to take their wealth abroad.

Getting back to taking risks etc to make money, the clever ones end up with very, very little personal risk as they use "borrowd money" to fund their ventures, leaving me and you to foot the bill.

There are two elements that concern me here.

1. Those that are paid huge amounts for delivering failure or even mediocrity.

2. While I’m happy for people who through some combination of luck, talent and hard work become multi-millionaires, nobody deserves to be a billionaire, imo. I don’t think it is healthy for society, including the billionaires themselves. I don’t believe in the idea of superpeople. Bill Gates excelled in what he did, but a lot of it was right time, right place - he lived down the road from one of the few decent computers of the time when he was a kid and had access to it. And I doubt he’d have sacked his endeavours off if he’d be told his net worth would would be limited to $93 million rather than being able to reach the current estimated $93 billion.

If I was king of everything, and somebody came up with something brilliant and valuable, I’d happily pay them handsomely from the world treasury i’d oversee. However, if when they’ve got tens of millions of dollars, euros or pounds, they’re still asking for more, i’d ask ‘what for?’. For me, at that point trying to ensure that other people can live fulfilling lives beyond just the basics of survival would be a much bigger priority.

To be able to say that anybody with any sort a roof over their head, with access to tap water and food in their belly is doing just fine, while fretting about motivating people who are concerned about only being super rich, rather than mind boggling rich, is a bit odd.

The last time the UK had very high personal taxation 98% at the top IIRC all the high earners simply left and the tax take went down - so not sure how you stop that happening. Its a balancing act tax rates against tax take - put it up too much and the take falls.

The amounts earned by top entertainers/sportsmen is tiny compared to the earning of our larger corporations there are so few mega earners - no doubt you would have them capped/taxed too?

Not sure you last statement is correct especially in their Genesis of their companies.

Where does the wealth generation come from that supports the whole economy? That is why these entrepeneurs are so important. THey create companies that employ people - its is the private sector that basically funds the whole economy, yes the government can borrow but that is not a long term solution.


Yes there are people paid massive money to oversee failure - they don't usually last too long though.

An entrpeneur builds a business that goes massive and it earns him billions what are you suggesting that a point in its development the owner hands over his shares when he has accumlated say £100m and the wealth in the business is then put in the hands of the likes of Corbyn/McDonald - seriously

First of all, I'm not advocating a 98% top tax rate and secondly, my point regarding entertainers/sportsmen (and women) is that they are happy to take the rewards and "prestige" that comes with thier fame and fortune but many are just tax dodgers, finding any which way to avoid paying income tax and yet they are idolised in the media and press.

If you or I used the same evasion/avoidance we'd probably be hunted down and put behind bars. and thats with a top rate of income tax of 45% (not 98%).

Quote ="Sal Paradise"Where does the wealth generation come from that supports the whole economy? That is why these entrepeneurs are so important. THey create companies that employ people - its is the private sector that basically funds the whole economy, yes the government can borrow but that is not a long term solution. Yes there are people paid massive money to oversee failure - they don't usually last too long though. An entrpeneur builds a business that goes massive and it earns him billions what are you suggesting that a point in its development the owner hands over his shares when he has accumlated say £100m and the wealth in the business is then put in the hands of the likes of Corbyn/McDonald - seriously'" Wealth generation isn’t just one person having a good idea and employing people from a sense of altruism. Workers contribute massively to the success of these enterprises. You exaggerate their importance (the entrepreneurs) because you imagine they’re irreplaceable benefactors, whereas workers are seen as interchangeable. It’s economics’ answer to history’s great man theory. I’m not suggesting i really be made king of the world, but I would support measures to redistribute wealth quite dramatically. Through more progressive taxes on income and wealth, greater employee ownership and so on. Even if that were feasible, in the UK I feel like we have a second order problem though. A lack of social cohesion means that we have tiered ghettoisation. Most notably in terms of schools, perhaps. Therefore, there’s a danger that distributed wealth would just be sunk into spiralling housing costs as people scramble to get into better catchment areas. As for failing upwards - Donald Trump is a striking example, obviously. But Richard Fuld is still worth $160 million and he is one of those associated with massive failure during the crash who is back on Wall Street. https://www.ft.com/content/5fbb6f16-c33 ... 86f39ef675

Quote ="Sal Paradise"Where does the wealth generation come from that supports the whole economy? That is why these entrepeneurs are so important. THey create companies that employ people - its is the private sector that basically funds the whole economy, yes the government can borrow but that is not a long term solution. Yes there are people paid massive money to oversee failure - they don't usually last too long though. An entrpeneur builds a business that goes massive and it earns him billions what are you suggesting that a point in its development the owner hands over his shares when he has accumlated say £100m and the wealth in the business is then put in the hands of the likes of Corbyn/McDonald - seriously'" Wealth generation isn’t just one person having a good idea and employing people from a sense of altruism. Workers contribute massively to the success of these enterprises. You exaggerate their importance (the entrepreneurs) because you imagine they’re irreplaceable benefactors, whereas workers are seen as interchangeable. It’s economics’ answer to history’s great man theory. I’m not suggesting i really be made king of the world, but I would support measures to redistribute wealth quite dramatically. Through more progressive taxes on income and wealth, greater employee ownership and so on. Even if that were feasible, in the UK I feel like we have a second order problem though. A lack of social cohesion means that we have tiered ghettoisation. Most notably in terms of schools, perhaps. Therefore, there’s a danger that distributed wealth would just be sunk into spiralling housing costs as people scramble to get into better catchment areas. As for failing upwards - Donald Trump is a striking example, obviously. But Richard Fuld is still worth $160 million and he is one of those associated with massive failure during the crash who is back on Wall Street. https://www.ft.com/content/5fbb6f16-c33 ... 86f39ef675

There are plenty of solutions out there that could improve equality, but the conservatives are not interested in helping your average working class family. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ ... d-13804031

There are plenty of solutions out there that could improve equality, but the conservatives are not interested in helping your average working class family. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ ... d-13804031

Quote ="Mild Rover"Wealth generation isn’t just one person having a good idea and employing people from a sense of altruism. Workers contribute massively to the success of these enterprises. You exaggerate their importance (the entrepreneurs) because you imagine they’re irreplaceable benefactors, whereas workers are seen as interchangeable. It’s economics’ answer to history’s great man theory. I’m not suggesting i really be made king of the world, but I would support measures to redistribute wealth quite dramatically. Through more progressive taxes on income and wealth, greater employee ownership and so on. Even if that were feasible, in the UK I feel like we have a second order problem though. A lack of social cohesion means that we have tiered ghettoisation. Most notably in terms of schools, perhaps. Therefore, there’s a danger that distributed wealth would just be sunk into spiralling housing costs as people scramble to get into better catchment areas. As for failing upwards - Donald Trump is a striking example, obviously. But Richard Fuld is still worth $160 million and he is one of those associated with massive failure during the crash who is back on Wall Street. https://www.ft.com/content/5fbb6f16-c33 ... 86f39ef675'" Yes I take you point about the workers but without the entrepeneur the workers never get a chance and everything stagnates. Someone has to get the ball running and manage the growth both financially and operationally and that isn't the workers. The Labour idea of having a cleaner on the board of a PLC is completely bonkers - what would they actually contribute at that level. Education is an interesting one - you will always have inequality that is the human condition - some are genetically more intelligent than others and some parents see education as a way of progress and some see it as a necessary evil you can never have the level-playing field utopia that Labour seem to think is possible.

Quote ="Mild Rover"Wealth generation isn’t just one person having a good idea and employing people from a sense of altruism. Workers contribute massively to the success of these enterprises. You exaggerate their importance (the entrepreneurs) because you imagine they’re irreplaceable benefactors, whereas workers are seen as interchangeable. It’s economics’ answer to history’s great man theory. I’m not suggesting i really be made king of the world, but I would support measures to redistribute wealth quite dramatically. Through more progressive taxes on income and wealth, greater employee ownership and so on. Even if that were feasible, in the UK I feel like we have a second order problem though. A lack of social cohesion means that we have tiered ghettoisation. Most notably in terms of schools, perhaps. Therefore, there’s a danger that distributed wealth would just be sunk into spiralling housing costs as people scramble to get into better catchment areas. As for failing upwards - Donald Trump is a striking example, obviously. But Richard Fuld is still worth $160 million and he is one of those associated with massive failure during the crash who is back on Wall Street. https://www.ft.com/content/5fbb6f16-c33 ... 86f39ef675'" Yes I take you point about the workers but without the entrepeneur the workers never get a chance and everything stagnates. Someone has to get the ball running and manage the growth both financially and operationally and that isn't the workers. The Labour idea of having a cleaner on the board of a PLC is completely bonkers - what would they actually contribute at that level. Education is an interesting one - you will always have inequality that is the human condition - some are genetically more intelligent than others and some parents see education as a way of progress and some see it as a necessary evil you can never have the level-playing field utopia that Labour seem to think is possible.

No we wouldn't, as a director I could take a lower salary and pay myself a dividend - both are legal ways of reducing my tax burden. I could employ my wife and take a lower salary i.e. get double personal allowance. The taxation system has evolved and is continuing to evolve to max the tax take. It may seem unfair but it does appear to offer the best solution. If we left the EU and with a Tory government the first they would do is lower Corporation Tax - if they did that guarantee the tax take would increase. Between 2011 and 2016 CT take increased by £13bn despite the CT rate dropping from 28% to 19%. Its a balancing act its about revenues not rates

You are right to say that, from the Exchequer's point of view, it's about maximising revenues. However, the system has to be viewed as being "fair".

One of the flaws in Labours manifesto is to believe that increasing corporation tax, will substantially increase revenues. Business will always try to retain as much cash as possible and investing in capital is an area where the UK, particularily through the 70's and 80's and currently (due to the uncertainty of Brexit), has dropped way behind other parts of the world.