«134567

Comments

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,797
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    They create wealth for themselves. Typically Quaker industrialists invested in housing, public parks, sanitation, libraries. That's where the idea of 'trickle-down' came from but we haven't heard that concept mentioned for some years. Nowadays private wealth goes off-shore including wealth that is 'created' by not paying tax honestly. Fiddling while Europe collapses. Check out RT for full explanation of how Europe is being asset stripped.

    Profit accrued by eg. selling a 'product' at one price to one person and at another price to someone else does not create wealth it merely shifts wealth away from people who end up with the bad deal - usually the suckers who aren't wise to the game, sometimes also known as honest people but more often labelled as gullible = caveat emptor.

    The only thing that creates wealth is labour. Even a good idea or innovation is useless without someone to action it.
  • B-29B-29 Posts: 2,291
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    wappaho wrote: »
    They create wealth for themselves. Typically Quaker industrialists invested in housing, public parks, sanitation, libraries. That's where the idea of 'trickle-down' came from but we haven't heard that concept mentioned for some years. Nowadays private wealth goes off-shore including wealth that is 'created' by not paying tax honestly. Fiddling while Europe collapses. Check out RT for full explanation of how Europe is being asset stripped.

    Profit accrued by eg. selling a 'product' at one price to one person and at another price to someone else does not create wealth it merely shifts wealth away from people who end up with the bad deal - usually the suckers who aren't wise to the game, sometimes also known as honest people but more often labelled as gullible = caveat emptor.

    The only thing that creates wealth is labour. Even a good idea or innovation is useless without someone to action it.
    If labour creates wealth and by that i hope you don't mean the political party , then Communism should be the dominant system , plenty of labour as all had jobs , oh hang on , it is'nt.:rolleyes:
    Wealth creators get rich , they employ others , simples.
  • TassiumTassium Posts: 31,639
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Maybe one in a million people do something that we can clearly see (after the fact) has made a significant contribution to the nations wealth.

    But the vast majority of "the wealthy" are taking advantage of work that others have done. They are creating nothing, they are exploiting. Often only possible because of tax-payer funded infra-structure and the various laws that allow this.


    While it would be nice to reward the one-in-a-million, it shouldn't be done in such a way that also benefits the run-of-the-mill.

    The honours system seems the best mechanism for this rather than across-the-board tax cuts for everyone who just happen to be rich.
  • TassiumTassium Posts: 31,639
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Name those wealth creators Mr Osborne (or anyone else around these parts)

    Let's see this get specific. We can then assess the concept more clearly.

    I'll go first... Richard Branson
  • StykerStyker Posts: 49,789
    Forum Member
    Not in the sense Conservative/Republican politicians talk about them.

    They tend to be rich people who will hang onto their wealth come what may, where is the evidence they invest it so much that they create jobs?

    George W Bush lowered taxes for the richest americans the most when he got elected and took office in 2001 and those tax cuts have reamined to this day. Did they stop America going into the dot com recession of the early noughties? Did they stop America going into the current recession(s)? How many jobs did they create once those taxes where lowered?

    Same thing here. Osborne keeps on cutting corporation taxes and didn't increase Employers NI, did they create more jobs off those tax cuts?

    Osborne last week blamed a lack of corporation tax revenue coming in for his latest extra borrowing too! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 9,720
    Forum Member
    Producers create wealth. Consumers recycle wealth.

    We along with most of the western world are now a nation of consumers, therefore we don't create wealth. There is only debt.

    Labeling wealthy people "wealth creators" is just a clever way of buttering them up before extracting more tax from their wallets.
  • AneechikAneechik Posts: 20,208
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    When he's talking about "wealthy people", he's not talking about wealthy people per se, because someone who has a lot of money in the bank won't pay tax on it. The only wealthy people that will be affected by taxation are the ones with a large income, and by and large most people with large incomes aren't people going to work 9-5 for a salary, they're people running busineses, and if the income is large it stands to reason they're probably also employing people.
  • Drunken ScouserDrunken Scouser Posts: 2,645
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Not really. The real wealth creators in this country are the doughty proletariat who spend their hard-earned cash in shops etc, sending the money flowing through the economy and create jobs.
  • LyricalisLyricalis Posts: 57,958
    Forum Member
    OK, lets try a little experiment. How about those hugely important and idolised 'wealth creators' go on strike for a week. Now the next week everyone else go on strike. Which week do you think will be the most difficult?
  • PrestonAlPrestonAl Posts: 10,342
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Some do, others just inherited it.

    Personally I find it deployable that people would want to steal their wealth through taxing them. Perhaps we should lower taxes, thus freeing people up to spend their wealth easier without the government getting their dirty mitts on it.
  • ShaunIOWShaunIOW Posts: 11,319
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Wealth creators only generally create wealth for themselves and their mates normally off of the hard work or misfortune of others or by syphoning public money into the private sector.
  • GreatGodPanGreatGodPan Posts: 53,186
    Forum Member
    wappaho wrote: »
    They create wealth for themselves. Typically Quaker industrialists invested in housing, public parks, sanitation, libraries. That's where the idea of 'trickle-down' came from but we haven't heard that concept mentioned for some years. Nowadays private wealth goes off-shore including wealth that is 'created' by not paying tax honestly. Fiddling while Europe collapses. Check out RT for full explanation of how Europe is being asset stripped.

    Profit accrued by eg. selling a 'product' at one price to one person and at another price to someone else does not create wealth it merely shifts wealth away from people who end up with the bad deal - usually the suckers who aren't wise to the game, sometimes also known as honest people but more often labelled as gullible = caveat emptor.

    The only thing that creates wealth is labour. Even a good idea or innovation is useless without someone to action it.

    Amen to that.
  • Grabid RanniesGrabid Rannies Posts: 4,588
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I'm too thick to know if there's a correlative difference between millions of people having thousands of pounds and thousands of people having millions of pounds. What would the effect on the economy be for example if there were a mandatory weekly £1 'workforce lottery tax' deducted from wages, with £1,000,000 each being awarded per week to 40 (or whatever the correct corresponding unit would be to the current workforce in millions) random workers?
  • valkayvalkay Posts: 15,726
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Those wealth creators who run businesses which employ people and pay business taxes should have a lower wealth tax than obscenely paid footballers, show biz types and bankers bonuses, who should pay punitive taxes.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 5,186
    Forum Member
    That's not the correct experiment to do.

    One week the wealth creators go abroad, along with their companies - noone is in a job, less tax collected, less consumer spending, economy stagnates, people live on less. No substitute available.

    The next week, the workers go on strike, or go on holiday abroad - they all get fired and replaced.

    But the outcome is that both are important, it's just that there's no substitute for one, but there is for the other.
  • GreatGodPanGreatGodPan Posts: 53,186
    Forum Member
    valkay wrote: »
    Those wealth creators who run businesses which employ people and pay business taxes should have a lower wealth tax than obscenely paid footballers, show biz types and bankers bonuses, who should pay punitive taxes.

    It is those employees who are the wealth creators - investors in a company need do absolutely nothing.

    Their capital invested is increased by the labour of the workers of the company in question - thus to speak of an investor "creating wealth" is spurious.
  • CharnhamCharnham Posts: 61,332
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    whilst it is true that business provides jobs, it is not fair to say that those jobs are wealth creating, if you in a part time job or just an underpaid job where, you dont earn enough to pay reasonable bills, then that is hardly wealth creation.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 9,720
    Forum Member
    It is those employees who are the wealth creators - investors in a company need do absolutely nothing.

    Their capital invested is increased by the labour of the workers of the company in question - thus to speak of an investor "creating wealth" is spurious.

    What if 80% of the workforce were replaced by robots? Who 'creates' wealth then?
  • LyricalisLyricalis Posts: 57,958
    Forum Member
    Meilie wrote: »
    What if 80% of the workforce were replaced by robots? Who 'creates' wealth then?

    Well unless you exterminate that 80% the 'wealth creators' better have some guardbots for protection.
  • Biffo the BearBiffo the Bear Posts: 25,859
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    This argument based around a simplistic definition of 'rich people = wealth creator' absolutely does my head in.

    There is as much difference between a pauper and a millionaire as there is a self-made millionaire who employs thousands of people and a millionaire through inheritance with everything hidden in off-shore accounts.

    To lump them all together is a fallacy.
  • bobcarbobcar Posts: 19,424
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    PrestonAl wrote: »
    Some do, others just inherited it.

    Personally I find it deployable that people would want to steal their wealth through taxing them. Perhaps we should lower taxes, thus freeing people up to spend their wealth easier without the government getting their dirty mitts on it.

    I'd love to hear your ideas about how we pay for the health service, police, roads etc without taxes.:D
  • trevgotrevgo Posts: 28,241
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Nothing like a question like this to flush out the resentful envious. It is possible to be the latter without being the former.

    Some wealthy people create more wealth, others don't. Ian Callum will be a wealthy man, and he certainly creates. He designs JLR cars the world wants to buy. 80% are exported, and thousands of well paid workers are employed to build them. The exchequer does very well out of it, even though it is foreign owned.

    The inherited wealth and old money crowd create very little.

    Hollande is about to do the same in France, so we will see what effect it has.
  • bobcarbobcar Posts: 19,424
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    This argument based around a simplistic definition of 'rich people = wealth creator' absolutely does my head in.

    There is as much difference between a pauper and a millionaire as there is a self-made millionaire who employs thousands of people and a millionaire through inheritance with everything hidden in off-shore accounts.

    To lump them all together is a fallacy.

    Yes and someone who opens a factory and employs thousands of people is very different to someone who gambles on shares or exchange rates - the latter is just a parasite.
  • GreatGodPanGreatGodPan Posts: 53,186
    Forum Member
    trevgo wrote: »
    Nothing like a question like this to flush out the resentful envious. It is possible to be the latter without being the former.

    Some wealthy people create more wealth, others don't. Ian Callum will be a wealthy man, and he certainly creates. He designs JLR cars the world wants to buy. 80% are exported, and thousands of well paid workers are employed to build them. The exchequer does very well out of it, even though it is foreign owned.

    The inherited wealth and old money crowd create very little.

    Hollande is about to do the same in France, so we will see what effect it has.

    So the workers create his wealth for him.

    Agreed?
  • CharlotteswebCharlottesweb Posts: 18,680
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The irony of course, is the vast majority of employers in this country , if one uses the thought that giving people jobs and paying them for it is creating wealth , are not themselves what you would call wealthy.

    The average business owner in this country employs around 10 people (88% of UK companies employ 10 or less, 98% employ 50 or less) , and has as much need to go to work every day to pay the mortgage, car loan and all the rest as the people they employ.
Sign In or Register to comment.