Cost of living crisis.

[grobyfox1990]

5 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

You might be right, but of course there is a vast difference in scale.  For example, suppose someone has $100m in assets and $3m in income, all based in his home state of Oregon.  The "millionaire's rate" income tax of 11% means he pays about 5% extra on $2m of his income, or about $100,000, and the evidence says this isn't enough to make him move.

 

Can that be taken as definitive proof that a 5% wealth tax on all his assets, $5m per year, wouldn't make him move either?  I don't think it could.  It's far too much of an extrapolation.

Lol dude it’s ok to admit you aren’t on the handle on this point, it’s an anonymous online football forum, no one is holding you to account or keeping scores!!! The evidence is clear, you can’t throw it out with made up hypotheticals 

[ozleicester]

8 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

You might be right, but of course there is a vast difference in scale.  For example, suppose someone has $100m in assets and $3m in income, all based in his home state of Oregon.  The "millionaire's rate" income tax of 11% means he pays about 5% extra on $2m of his income, or about $100,000, and the evidence says this isn't enough to make him move.

 

Can that be taken as definitive proof that a 5% wealth tax on all his assets, $5m per year, wouldn't make him move either?  I don't think it could.  It's far too much of an extrapolation.

so.. lets give it a try.

 

And.. perhaps, using the laws of competition and supply and demand... we put our tax rates up... our "competitors" see that and put theirs up, the gap remains much as it is now... and those money hoarders decide to remain where they are as the "benefit" of avoiding tax doesn't exist.

 

Edited 17 January 2023 by ozleicester

[ozleicester]

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/16/richest-1percent-amassed-almost-two-thirds-of-new-wealth-created-since-2020-oxfam.html

 

• Since 2020, the richest 1% of people have accumulated close to two-thirds of all new wealth created around the world, a new report from Oxfam says.
   
• Taxes must be increased for the ultra-rich as a “strategic precondition to reducing inequality and resuscitating democracy,” Gabriela Bucher, executive director of Oxfam International said.

 

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Fair points and a lot of those countries you see government interference in the market, often very significant bribery and corruption.  We are finally starting to see the west punishing people for corruption which occurs overseas.  I never said capitalism was perfect, just better than everything else.  It needs structure around t of course.

Yeah, I hear that. The best solution most likely lies in the middle.

 

2 hours ago, grobyfox1990 said:

You can’t realistically have a global tax solution because each jurisdiction carries different threats and opportunities. A baseline tax rate with varying interest rates across the world is one example, arbitrage will still be possible

 

anyway what the conspiracy theorists get wrapped up in when ‘wealth tax!!!’ is mentioned is some belief that this means we want billionaires to hand over all their money. Incorrect. We want them to pay their fair share like the rest of us suckers do without using borrowing or carry profits etc etc 

 

 

And as per above, I would hope measures taken to ease inequality would even out some of those threats and opportunities. I understand that would come with its own set of issues, though.

 

Obliviously agree with the second paragraph.

 

28 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Lol dude it’s ok to admit you aren’t on the handle on this point, it’s an anonymous online football forum, no one is holding you to account or keeping scores!!! The evidence is clear, you can’t throw it out with made up hypotheticals 

Speaking personally, I rather like it when people qualify their remarks here, adds to the discourse. Hitchens Razor and all that.

[grobyfox1990]

57 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Yeah, I hear that. The best solution most likely lies in the middle.

 

And as per above, I would hope measures taken to ease inequality would even out some of those threats and opportunities. I understand that would come with its own set of issues, though.

 

Obliviously agree with the second paragraph.

 

Speaking personally, I rather like it when people qualify their remarks here, adds to the discourse. Hitchens Razor and all that.

Yeh good point, another problem with an online forum. People aren’t desperately trying to prove they are right, despite how comments may read, and are prob just adding a qualifying remark to their view. And long may that continue! 

[dsr-burnley]

1 hour ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Lol dude it’s ok to admit you aren’t on the handle on this point, it’s an anonymous online football forum, no one is holding you to account or keeping scores!!! The evidence is clear, you can’t throw it out with made up hypotheticals 

Actually, the reason I disagree with you isn't just for the sake of it, it's because I genuinely think you're wrong.  Don't fall into the trap of believing that you're so obviously right that you can't be disagreed with.

 

It's the same in football as it is in other walks of life.  Evidence shows that increasing the price of football tickets by £1 does not noticeably affect the gate; does that mean that you could increase prices by £50?  Not necessarily.

 

Until this is tried, it can't be proved either way.  But I reckon you'll find that most people, even millionaires and billionaires, will jib at the idea that they must pay far more in tax than they receive in income, and it would take more than examples of a smallish rise in income tax to convince me otherwise.

[grobyfox1990]

8 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Actually, the reason I disagree with you isn't just for the sake of it, it's because I genuinely think you're wrong.  Don't fall into the trap of believing that you're so obviously right that you can't be disagreed with.

 

It's the same in football as it is in other walks of life.  Evidence shows that increasing the price of football tickets by £1 does not noticeably affect the gate; does that mean that you could increase prices by £50?  Not necessarily.

 

Until this is tried, it can't be proved either way.  But I reckon you'll find that most people, even millionaires and billionaires, will jib at the idea that they must pay far more in tax than they receive in income, and it would take more than examples of a smallish rise in income tax to convince me otherwise.

What you are talking about is proper pie in the sky. Any wealth tax introduced will not be sensationalist, e.g. 50% of net holdings or otherwise, we both know that, it's not a debate. The evidence in the real world is that any wealth tax introduced in any jurisdiction will not be overly onerous or burdensome, and does not invoke mass flight of capital. Of course a tax bill being bigger than income will ensue flight of capital, but no one is suggesting that, and that's not what we are discussing.

 

You can't throw out reams of evidence by saying 'yeh but what if the tax is set at 75% of holdings and will cost billions per year!!' - it won't be, proper conspiracy theory guff. Your football example proves that lol, who is talking about/threatening a £50 price increase in football tickets?!

[dsr-burnley]

27 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

What you are talking about is proper pie in the sky. Any wealth tax introduced will not be sensationalist, e.g. 50% of net holdings or otherwise, we both know that, it's not a debate. The evidence in the real world is that any wealth tax introduced in any jurisdiction will not be overly onerous or burdensome, and does not invoke mass flight of capital. Of course a tax bill being bigger than income will ensue flight of capital, but no one is suggesting that, and that's not what we are discussing.

 

You can't throw out reams of evidence by saying 'yeh but what if the tax is set at 75% of holdings and will cost billions per year!!' - it won't be, proper conspiracy theory guff. Your football example proves that lol, who is talking about/threatening a £50 price increase in football tickets?!

What do you mean, no-one's suggesting that?  Ozleicester suggested it.  That's what we were talking about.  He said 5% annual wealth tax would raise $29 billion in Australia, I disagreed.  Why are you sticking your oar in if you haven't even read the discussion?

[dsr-burnley]

2 hours ago, ozleicester said:

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/16/richest-1percent-amassed-almost-two-thirds-of-new-wealth-created-since-2020-oxfam.html

 

• Since 2020, the richest 1% of people have accumulated close to two-thirds of all new wealth created around the world, a new report from Oxfam says.
   
• Taxes must be increased for the ultra-rich as a “strategic precondition to reducing inequality and resuscitating democracy,” Gabriela Bucher, executive director of Oxfam International said.

 

Do they say when in 2020 this period dates from?  The fairest report would date from January 2020 before covid started.  Obviously if the report dates from the low point of the markets when covid had cost the world (notional) billions, you would expect a report showing how much of that wealth was lost by the rich compared with the poor.  But I don't see that report.

[ozleicester]

12 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Do they say when in 2020 this period dates from?  The fairest report would date from January 2020 before covid started.  Obviously if the report dates from the low point of the markets when covid had cost the world (notional) billions, you would expect a report showing how much of that wealth was lost by the rich compared with the poor.  But I don't see that report.

https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/ten-richest-men-double-their-fortunes-pandemic-while-incomes-99-percent-humanity

Billionaires’ wealth has risen more since COVID-19 began than it has in the last 14 years. At $5 trillion dollars, this is the biggest surge in billionaire wealth since records began.

The world’s ten richest men more than doubled their fortunes from $700 billion to $1.5 trillion —at a rate of $15,000 per second or $1.3 billion a day— during the first two years of a pandemic that has seen the incomes of 99 percent of humanity fall and over 160 million more people forced into poverty. 

Edited 17 January 2023 by ozleicester

[dsr-burnley]

17 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/ten-richest-men-double-their-fortunes-pandemic-while-incomes-99-percent-humanity

Billionaires’ wealth has risen more since COVID-19 began than it has in the last 14 years. At $5 trillion dollars, this is the biggest surge in billionaire wealth since records began.

The world’s ten richest men more than doubled their fortunes from $700 billion to $1.5 trillion —at a rate of $15,000 per second or $1.3 billion a day— during the first two years of a pandemic that has seen the incomes of 99 percent of humanity fall and over 160 million more people forced into poverty. 

Look on the bright side - Elon Musk, at least, has done something with his fortune to reduce inequality!

[grobyfox1990]

30 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

What do you mean, no-one's suggesting that?  Ozleicester suggested it.  That's what we were talking about.  He said 5% annual wealth tax would raise $29 billion in Australia, I disagreed.  Why are you sticking your oar in if you haven't even read the discussion?

Of course i'm sticking my oar in, its an online football forum, the whole point is sticking your oar in, and i'm in Teams calls all morning!!! Do you honesty think a 5% wealth tax would ensure billionaires pay more in tax then they receive in annualised income? Taking into account the usual offsets apparent with a wealth tax.

 

This is a very simple conspiracy theory, there is no evidence for what you are suggesting, I work offshore!

[LiberalFox]

We already have a wealth tax, it's called inflation. 

[kenny]

24 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Look on the bright side - Elon Musk, at least, has done something with his fortune to reduce inequality!

And the vast majority of us supported Bezos by using Amazon every day to stuff to relieve the boredom....

 

I suspect that Bill Gates did ok by the expansive use of MS Teams by businesses too.

 

 

[Lako42]

On 17/01/2023 at 12:30, LiberalFox said:

We already have a wealth tax, it's called inflation. 

Hitting the Richest in the world real hard.....

[ozleicester]

On 17/01/2023 at 19:29, dsr-burnley said:

What do you mean, no-one's suggesting that?  Ozleicester suggested it.  That's what we were talking about.  He said 5% annual wealth tax would raise $29 billion in Australia, I disagreed.  Why are you sticking your oar in if you haven't even read the discussion?

5% ON BILLIONAIRES!

do you have any clue just how much a billion dollars is?

 

Gina Reinhart has a net worth of TWENTY SIX BILLION Dollars

Edited 18 January 2023 by ozleicester

[Lako42]

3 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

5% ON BILLIONAIRES!

do you have any clue just how much a billion dollars is?

1 million seconds is about 11 days. 1 billion seconds is about 31.5 years

[ozleicester]

3 minutes ago, Lako42 said:

1 million seconds is about 11 days. 1 billion seconds is about 31.5 years

No one needs that much money and no one should have that much money

 

[LiberalFox]

I don't see how that would be practical. Would it apply to only assets considered 'Australian'? Or would it be triggered by some value estimate of a person's global assets? I see the emotional argument, but surely it's just that? 

[fox_up_north]

I've long thought that there should just be a salary cap for people. We say it should happen for footballers and pay bands for doctors/ teachers/ nurses. Why not just that?

 

Nobody needs £5 million and they certainly don't need £200 million. If it was me - anything over £10 million just goes back into society.

 

Fuch your greed. 

[fox_up_north]

Just did some quick maths. This is 1 billion

1,000,000,000

 

If you spent £10,000 per day, it would take you 100,000 days to spend it all.

 

100,000 ÷ 365 = 273 years to spend "just" 1 billion, if you spent 10 grand a day. 

 

Please, someone explain to me why Gates/ Musk/ etc need that much money. 

[Trumpet]

16 minutes ago, fox_up_north said:

Just did some quick maths. This is 1 billion

1,000,000,000

 

If you spent £10,000 per day, it would take you 100,000 days to spend it all.

 

100,000 ÷ 365 = 273 years to spend "just" 1 billion, if you spent 10 grand a day. 

 

Please, someone explain to me why Gates/ Musk/ etc need that much money. 

I’m not going to defend or claim that anyone needs that amount of money, but it could easily be spent if you look at how they spend their cash. Could buy a yacht for a few hundred million. It’s all relative.

[Izzy]

1 hour ago, fox_up_north said:

Just did some quick maths. This is 1 billion

1,000,000,000

 

If you spent £10,000 per day, it would take you 100,000 days to spend it all.

 

100,000 ÷ 365 = 273 years to spend "just" 1 billion, if you spent 10 grand a day. 

 

Please, someone explain to me why Gates/ Musk/ etc need that much money. 

They clearly don't need that much money but tbf to Gates, he's already given around $50 billion to charity and plans to give 'virtually all' of his wealth away.

 

Not sure about Musk/Bezos etc. (I guess they're more interested in spending it on space exploration and living on Mars)

[leicsmac]

15 minutes ago, Izzy said:

They clearly don't need that much money but tbf to Gates, he's already given around $50 billion to charity and plans to give 'virtually all' of his wealth away.

 

Not sure about Musk/Bezos etc. (I guess they're more interested in spending it on space exploration and living on Mars)

I can see this argument, but speaking personally if they were singularly interested in this then they would be there already. Or at the very least, a mission would be about ready to start now.

 

The total cost of the programs that got the US from nothing to the Moon inside a decade fifty years ago cost about 250 billon dollars in today's money. Compared to that, SpaceX and Blue Origin are behind on both spending and timeline - and judging by the wealth of both companies and their personal backers I would say that such spending would be (likely) possible for them, if they chose to.

[1884Man]

May I remind some of you the owners of LCFC are Billionaires. Lol. 

It's time for a general election.