You're forming an opinion based on heresay and...well, little else.

You're assuming all wealthy kids do naff all with their lives, when in my experience the opposite is true. Thanks to an accident of my location as a kid I know a lot of wealthy families and the majority of their kids have taken advantage of their, well, advantage, and have gone through the education system to its max, and are now occupying excellent jobs. Yes, many went the other way - many are in dead end jobs, some are in prison, some have realised the error of their ways and are now working to better themselves, but isn't that true of any sector of society?

And besides, I work to put food on the table and to provide a few luxuries. If a mysterious Aunt suddenly dumped several millions in my account, I'd jack in my job before you could say "Lee Briers lives in a caravan" and take as much time off as I wanted. Then I would use my wealth to fund an occupation I enjoyed. Perhaps I'd open a chain of restaurants. Or a couple of nice cosmopolitan bars to my tastes. Perhaps I'd try and dispose of my fortune and buy Salford. Whatever.

Most of us work because we have to. If we had the means not to, I'm sure many of us would ease off on the work front, or quit completely. And let's not tell idealistic porkies and pretend we wouldn't.

Agreed and if you didn't work you would be burning through the cash you were sat on.
So the monies would be entering the economy/Tax pile through purchases and VAT, Fuel duty etc anyway.
Some seem to think that it is magic money that doesn't get spent if you don't work.

Little to do with jealousy and everything to do with one of my main mantras in life - if you've earnt it you should as far as possible be allowed to keep it (and conversely if you haven't earnt it you better have a very good reason why you should have it).

I suspect what he's thinking of is the story from July about £13 trillion salted away in tax havens by the über rich global elite. Money taken out of the general economy – and economically inactive right now.

It's not about jealousy it is about merit and reward. We are indoctrinated with the idea you get out what you put in. This was manifested in the "American Dream" where people could work hard and improve their lot. The American Dream is no longer because those who have made it have detroyed the dynamism (like they did long ago here) by taking all the good positions, ensuring access to the best facilities, etc by pricing the poorer out.

I would much rather live in a society where every generation has to live the dream for themselves, where they can improve their lot, give their kids a good upbringing, amass a fortune if they wish but then leave it all to philanthropic causes (voluntarily but by tax if necessary). Imagine what a great and vibrant society we'sd have them. Constant striving. Well endowed hospitals, universities, arts, etc - and all without recourse to the public purse. Taxation could be extremely low too.

The problem is the rich and powerful create the rules to suit themselves and their selfishness. Also why should anyone own land? Land is a nautral resource. Everyone should only be able to lease from the nation. Leases should be capped at, say, 80 years (equivalent to a good adult life-span). That would ensure that property acquisition does not hamper real economic activity, allow for freer movement of labour, etc.

Let's have rampant, beneficial capitalism rather than current nonsense. The logic of the current system is that one family will eventually own everything and the rest just given enough to survive (maybe). A return to feudalism in effect.

What do you imagine we have now, other than rampant, laissez-faire capitalism?

And unless you create some form of controls, then someone will always end up with more – and be able to use that extra money to make more at the expense of others.

On a related matter: look at this hypocrite, [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19487985condemning people for 'not working hard enough' or for a low enough wage (like them there Africans)[/url, when she had to work oh so hard to inherit her family's wealth.

And that's not 'envy'.

The majority of income is accrued by the same very small percentage of the population, that's why.



Many of the richest people in the country do nothing themselves.
Is the Duke of Westminster an entrepreneur? I think not.

Also, the gap between the two ends of the income distribution is widening all the time, the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer and it's time to redress this.

If you want those at the bottom to pay more tax, they will need to be paid higher wages first.

And if that happened, not only would such people be paying more tax (including through VAT) but would also be costing less in in-work benefits – or taxpayer subsidies to business, as they should be correctly called.

I guess you mean envy.

As the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, climbing out of poverty gets harder and harder.
The talented from humble backgrounds have to compete with those who are often less-talented but better-educated and much better-funded and consequently, more confident.
A financial risk on a limited income is much, much harder to face than it is when you know damn well that your family fortune is big enough to not even feel the impact if the risk fails.

So, if the key to increasing personal wealth is to quit smoking & drinking and simply work harder for less, without moaning. Why isn't Africa bursting at the seams with millionaire women?

Go on I'll bite - which industries do you think currently run under laissez-faire capitalism?

Banking (one of our "success" stories (ha, ha))- largely nationalised.
NHS - (largest 'er) - public
Railways - heavily subsided
Car industry - large subsidies to foreign companies
Pharmaceutical manufacture - subsidised via NHS
A large "third sector" - hardly rampant capatalism there
Hi - tech manufacturing - propped up by MoD

We're basically left with professional services as the bastions of capitalism - and they are dependent on the above! So, as I have said before we are effectively living in the socialist utopia that the Labour party always used to aspire to. Mintball has lost the plot with that statement!

On the other hand your examples are either examples of where the private sector has tried its hand at running a public service and then failed miserably (Railways), examples of where the private sector will only take on part of the job (Health), examples where rampant capitalism ended up chasing and then eating its own tail (Banking) or examples where no other market exists other than the public sector (MoD and NHS suppliers)

I haven't a clue what you mean by "third sector" but your list is contrary to the point you are trying to make.

One could start with the (news) media, which is so unhampered by government and regulation, that Leveson is now having to take place, with the possibility of the industry being regulated, since it so evidently cannot regulate itself.

One could throw in the country's biggest industry – food processing – which with few 'nudges' from government gets away with pretty much what it wants. Consumer pressure is not the same. Indeed, government 'nudge' policy on public health has now even ensured that taxpayers' money is being spent on effectively advertising for some very big businesses under the guise of 'health advice' (see [url=http://thevoluptuousmanifesto.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/meaty-advice-thats-tough-to-chew.htmlhere[/url). Read more [url=http://www.amazon.co.uk/Not-Label-What-Really-Plate/dp/0141015667/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1347272139&sr=1-1here[/url.

One could look at big grocery retail, which effectively has so much financial clout that it can ride roughshod over local communities and businesses that are smaller; and which is also, in practice, able to bully producers and suppliers (see [url=http://www.amazon.co.uk/Shopped-Shocking-Power-British-Supermarkets/dp/0007158041/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1347269622&sr=8-1this[/url with nothing stopping them.

By third sector I meant the charity / not-for-profit sector.

I have listed alot of our major employers and "success" stories but none of them are free-standing and outside "taxpayer" support. In what way does that suggest the UK is a hotbed of rampant, laissez-faire capitalism? Just because each thing listed is some form of "exception" to a perceived norm in your mind means nothing.

One could examine big pharm – which, it should also be clear, does not (generally) operate simply on a UK basis.

In terms of its relationship with the UK health system, it is using that to create greater profits.

As Dr Phil Hammond explains (and as I mentioned in another thread recently), we are seeing an increasing "medicalisation" of the population. By 50, they'll have you on a couple of drugs, by 80, it'll be a dozen.

This is boosted by a policy of creating complaints that require a new drug. It usually starts with a drug or possible drug – and then the need follows to create the problem. Thus the rise now of declining female sexual desire as a 'problem' to be solved with – guess what? A female version of Viagra.

On the 'third sector' – huge swathes of public services have been and are being privatised. In other words, they'll be for profit. It creates situations such as that in hospitals where the medical staff can no longer instruct the cleaners, because the latter are employed and managed by a private company, which has different priorities.

Look at Atos: the motive and prime mover here is not what is best for an individual or even society in general, but private profit – to the extent that Atos happily usurps the expertise of actually medical personnel (a process aided by the behaviour of many within the same news media mentioned earlier).

The 'third sector' as a non-profit one is dying on its feet.

God bless the drugs companies. That should be a mandatory medication for females.

You couldn't keep up.

In increasing areas of life, the transnational nature of big business renders them pretty much immune to all but a few regulations that they agree to abide by. National governments are, at present, pretty much impotent in the face of it, even when (in theory) ideologically opposed. In the UK, government is currently of the rich, by the rich and for the rich – which largely translates into big business.

So perhaps we're actually at a stage beyond laissez faire capitalism, if we take that to mean capitalism free from government intervention. As illustrated, we're now seeing examples of intervention, both direct and surreptitious, to boost big business and avoid actual regulation.

Meh, theres a drug for that as well

[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/09/payday-loans-shaft-the-poor?CMP=twt_guHere's a bit more 'we'll regulate you less than anywhere else in Europe so that you can screw people as much as possible'.[/url

Read recently that a surprisingly high proprtion of payday loan takers are professionals such as solicitors and doctors, which was surprising.

Not particularly surprised to be honest, when you are talking of "professionals" who traditionally have never questioned where their good salaries came from and never questioned why their outgoings were so high (private education for children is a tad expensive these days isn't it), then stir in a drop in income, yes, even among those "professionals" of just a few percentage points and you are suddenly looking at serious shortfalls every month.

I've had a 62% drop in income since 2008 but we cope because our outgoings are at an acceptable level, I doubt very much whether my GP could stand such decimation to his income.

The problem is that it is closely associated with other forms of criminal behaviour; squatters may have been coached that just five minutes before they turned up someone else conveniently forced the back door open, but the reality is just a loophole to commit breaking and entering, probably followed by other crimes. What other crimes would people be happy to hide behind risible conceits like that?

And unless squatters leave absolutely everything untouched the reality is criminal damage, theft and vandalism, with things of value frequently removed and sold, parts of properties damaged or covered in graffiti etc. There are also many reasons why properties are left vacant, it could be that someone has died and the estate is being disposed of, it could be the owner is in hospital or some other form of care, it could be the owner is on holiday, or they work away part of the time, maybe they are trying to rent it out, or sell it, or planning to refurbish it but don’t yet have the money? That they are not there to protect their property should not mean someone else can in reality break in and seize its use from them, and then force them into expensive legal battles to regain their property. The law of tort did not protect the victim from the reality of the situation and that’s ultimately why it was changed.