Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Ok, Elite Greedy Pigs. Please everybody name all such people in Dover you can think of.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
That is one way, Peter, to get a list of fools.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,895
Oh dear!!!!!!!!!
I admit to being a greedy pig but definitely not to being elite, by responding to this I suppose that makes me a fool as well.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Or rather, Tom, sensible people who are keen to keep as much of their own hard earned money as they can while staying within the law. After all government is inefficient and wasteful, they tax us too much and spend too much undermining the economy. We can all spend our own money better than the government can and that includes helping the less fortunate through charitable giving or building businesses to create jobs and increasing tax revenues.
Jan - nothing greedy or foolish about it, look after yourself and your own, just do not break the law while doing so. Like you I do not have an 'elite' level of income but we certainly could do with a lot more 'elite' people to come and live in Dover to help improve the prospects for regeneration.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
The 'list of fools' to which I refer would be the 'fools' that would fall for Peter's offer and post names. Not to mention what it might do to PaulB...Paul-pitations and worse, I shouldn't wonder.
You are right though Barry, the law is well behind the times.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
BarryW
I can honestly say, that I agree with everything you said in your first paragraph, post #994.
I have no problem with keeping hard earned money and I especially agree with the bit about business etc, giving to Charities.
Which leads me to ask why does this Goverment want to plugged the charity loophole, thereby, stabbing the less fortunate in the back, yet again?
It is the ones that are abusing and using the loopholes illegally, that I protest about.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
GaryC - that is a good point and is associated with the whole hoo-rah over how much tax the wealthy pay.
The reasoning was that what some call loop-holes, tax reliefs that do not have limits placed on them, should be subject to limits such as those imposed on pensions. This is clearly a case of cutting off the nose to spite the face... It did reveal from the uproar from charities that many of the so called' elite greedy pigs' are not greedy pigs after all but very generous charitable donors. Perhaps what Osborne really wanted was to expose that but I suspect, as is so often the case, its a simple balls-up of knee jerk reactions to short-term headlines over the amount of tax being paid.
If there really is evidence that charitable giving, so called, is being abused through bogus charities then it should not be a difficult one to plug using the Charities Commission.
I have to say that this, of course, was not a limit on charitable giving as such, just a limit on the amount that attracts tax relief. Of course that would reduce overall the amount charities would receive as it comes out of nett income instead over £50k, but some wealthy people who give less than £50k may adopt that as a norm, so some might even end up increasing their giving... it is a strange old world though when you apply the law of unintended consequences.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
views still are very interesting on this thread, and interesting that views can be so varied.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
Good news the `Rich List`has a solid group of Entrepreneurs who give many millions to charity or they did before the torrid
budget.
Entrepreneurs are much wealthier than Bob Diamond which is as it should be.
The bad news is there are a `few`elite greedy pigs also in the pack but that will come later after some research.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
"Entrepreneurs are much wealthier than Bob Diamond which is as it should be." So are footballers and pop stars.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
That goes back to my comment about bigotry and the judgemental attitude displayed on those posts. They smack of spite and envy.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
bern;
and this brings me back to the main point
its not as you say.
its about fairness,
remember the poor get poorer
the rich get richer
no envy
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
That seems to be all you care about Keith, your version of 'fairness'. Why not change your tune and talk about the real issues instead. Defining your idea of fairness would be a start so we can analyse the economic impact of what you say.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
barryw not just my view geezer
a number of finanial bods predicting and stating the same
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
You have said nothing Keith.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
the thread and a number of posters have remained consistant
and yes it is a passion to try to help those sometimes unable to help themselves.
whilst the rich get richer
and poor get poorer
something is going wrong
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
No these are facts of life. Successful people will always get on and improve their lot and we need their success because that creates jobs and wealth for the rest of us. Punishing them causes self-inflicted wounds that hurt the vulnerable. Remember - 28% of the total income tax 'take' comes from just the 1% top earners getting over £150,000 p.a. - these are official HMRC figures from when the top rate of tax was 40%.
Sounds like a tangent but isn't: my Old Man resisted wearing specs because he had noticed that once people started wearing glasses their sight deteriorated further. I pointed out that it was likely that would have happened anyway as the need for specs probably indicated a problem in the first place, one followed the other. In that track, entrepreneurs, successful businesspeople, driven people, hard workers, will probably become more successful and probably therefore more wealthy as a result of those qualities. That isn't a given but is a probability. It is a natural progression. The old saw about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, while it still indicates a basic "fairness" anecdote, does not hold water overall, for the reasons I have given.
Fairness is not static and means different things at different times, for different people. Equality of opportunity is a fab aspiration, and probably easier to measure and understand than a nebulous "fairness".
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
100% agree Bern. Going on about 'fairness' is pointless because what we need are solutions to our economic woes and that is the best way to help the more vulnerable. Those solutions means encouraging the natural ambitions of people to better their financial status and encourage that and their hard work and enterprise in doing so. Attacks on those and moaning about them getting richer achieves nothing at all and can be economically damaging.
Another thing that I find irksome is when people fail to give "wealthy" people credit for understanding the nuances of their success. A mate of mine is a fantastically successful serial entrepreneur in NY, and he just keeps on experiencing success because of his talent and drive. But he is pausing now to focus on his stand-up career. He feels he has sufficient wealth, has tasted success in one arena, and now wants to do something else. He isn't an "elite greedy pig", has done fab stuff with his money that people don't know about, and recognises that he has enough! The bigoted assumptions based on nothing at all apart from envy that I have seen on some of these threads have appalled me!
