|
I see that someone had received £5,000.000 from a foreign donor as recently reported. What is the tax position on this?
|
If, as asserted, it's a gift so Farage can afford security then it's not taxable.
Whether gifts or donations at that level, or from that source, have a tendency to corrupt is an altogether different question.
|
I find it amazing how much these rich people seem to have to fritter. Epstein had girls in apartments in London and Paris and flew and trained them across Europe, flew people into his island etc, and associates paid the likes of Fergie and Mandy tens of thousands regularly. I wonder how these payments were made, probably dressed up as a business expense to be set against tax.
I suppose it's all just a matter of scale, i.e. it's pocket money to them, but their wealth is largely fairly "new" and, as I say, I'm always gobsmacked by just how much they seem to have amassed.
|
|
Yip MPs, win their seats and usually within a few years they are then millionaires....
|
>> Yip MPs, win their seats and usually within a few years they are then millionaires....
>>
Is that really true? Do you have anything to support that?
|
>> Is that really true? Do you have anything to support that?
I suspect not.
A few might and a few were, or were on the road to, those sort of riches before election.
Otherwise unless may be they break into some field where they can earn, or at least get paid, that kind of money no. Or maybe, like Starmer, they own a house worth £1m+.
Can't see Hannah Spencer making that kind of money. Or Angela Rayner. Or any other MP wherever they are in the hierarchy.
|
Owning a £1m. house is hardly worth remarking on unless you are the Daily Mail. SKS has a 4 bed town house in Kentish Town that he bought for £650k in 2004 and is now said to be worth £2m.
Ministers seem to do very well when they leave Parliament, they make lots of connections and are perceived to have "access". I should think Rayner, Streeting, Healey etc will be able to earn 6 figure fees if they want to do the 'work' (mostly the networking to get the gigs I suspect) when they are out of office.
Real wealth is £100m+ because with the growth/income on that one can live very nicely without soiling one's hands (or paying much tax).
Just £1bn. is obscene personal wealth. You would expect it to throw off maybe £50 million a year passively, so unless your spending is beyond reckless your wealth will only grow. The best explanation of the difference between a million and a billion, other than mathematically, is that a million seconds is around 12 days. A billion seconds is nearly 32 years.
If more people knew what a billion is there wouldn't be so many ordinary folk on FB defending billionaires. The time is coming when they will have to pay their shares. Median household income for households with 2 adults is £36,700. 50% are worse off than that. How they manage when they have housing costs and children I can't imagine. Half of that would go in rent in most of the SE.
|
I remember it being claimed that Jonathan Gullis became very wealthy in his time as an MP after leaving his school teacher job.
Lots of MPs take up very lucrative consulting and executive board level appointments. Of course there is Boris himself who went from not being able to afford a divorce to being paid 6 figure sums for speeches after he resigned, same for all ex PMs. Look at Blair and Truss! Its a very lucrative business!
|
>> I remember it being claimed that Jonathan Gullis became very wealthy in his time as
>> an MP after leaving his school teacher job.
Gullis is on odd one. Said to be worth up to £5million but as you say he was a school teacher before being elected. Claims to have struggled to find work after losing his seat.
Can't see him as a business consultant or non-exec!!
Ex PMs are a different animal to back benchers. As you say there's a speaking circuit ready and waiting.
Quite how Truss is wanted there I don't know but she says so much guff that there's a novelty value.
|
>> Gullis is on odd one.
You can say that again.
|
>>
>>
>> Quite how Truss is wanted there I don't know but she says so much guff
>> that there's a novelty value.
>>
Comedy value. If you find her Youtube content she's hilarious...without meaning to be.
|
<< Is that really true? Do you have anything to support that? >>
Probably not, makes a possible conspiracy theory though. Could it possibly apply to the likes of Ms Rayner and her ilk ?
|
Argument over obscene personal wealth (say £1bn+) is not simply moral. The outcome has material economic implications.
Redisdribute £1bn equally to 50m UK adults would give each £20 (yes - twenty). Even several £bn and better targetting would be trivial. Mostly increases short term spending by a small amount.
Leave the wealth with the extremely wealthy and you have a pool of capital for investment in new technologies, products, infrastructure etc etc which can generate long term growth. Itb does need supportive government policies.
The extent to which this improves the lot of all in society is debatable, but the moral alternative demonstrably delivers little of lasting value.
Relying upon government to take swift, decisive, risky, innovative, commercial, investment decisions on our behalf is not remotely a solution - they are simply incapable.
Conclusion - a vibrant growing economy needs wealthy entrepreneurs willing and able to take risk, with open legal frameworks and limited funding constraints
|
|
I guess you need to add in to this, was it moral that the entrepreneurs got to have £1bn in the first place?
|
>> I guess you need to add in to this, was it moral that the entrepreneurs
>> got to have £1bn in the first place?
Whether economics has, or should have, anything to do with morality is a philosophical debate.
There are many in sport, music, film etc who have amassed fortunes through an ability to kick a ball, smile to camera etc etc. Ultimately inconsequential talents that may give pleasures to those watching.
Some very wealthy voluntarily give huge amounts to relief of diease, poverty, inequality etc. They are to be applauded for their generosity - but it is only possible due to the wealth they have accumulated from business. sport, music etc in the first place.
|
For me it's when there is blatant over charging for goods that clearly aren't worth the price - maybe in the music and sports industry where T shirts or team kit has a massive price compared to the actual cost to produce - they do it just because they can, the whole ethos of 'you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours' must lead to the general price of things going up leading to margins being bigger than they probably need to be.
|
>> For me it's when there is blatant over charging for goods that clearly aren't worth the price - maybe in the music and sports industry where T shirts or team kit has a massive price compared to the actual cost to produce ... >>
Absolutely. I think the football bandwagon must have steadily eased the acceptance of inflation by making grotesque weekly 'salaries' tolerated by the gullible fan community, who seem to accept the idea of young (mostly men, but the women are catching up) being paid anything up to 1000 times as much as they get, for enjoying themselves kicking a ball about (very skilfully, admittedly, but so what ?). Not only that, it provides an outlet for tribal warfare which the cops must try to restrain ....
|
>> >> For me it's when there is blatant over charging for goods that clearly aren't
>> worth the price - maybe in the music and sports industry where T shirts or
>> team kit has a massive price compared to the actual cost to produce ... >>
>>
>>
>> Absolutely. I think the football bandwagon must have steadily eased the acceptance of inflation by
>> making grotesque weekly 'salaries' tolerated by the gullible fan community, who seem to accept the
>> idea of young (mostly men, but the women are catching up) being paid anything up
>> to 1000 times as much as they get, for enjoying themselves kicking a ball about
>> (very skilfully, admittedly, but so what ?). Not only that, it provides an outlet for
>> tribal warfare which the cops must try to restrain ....
It is WE (the general public) who HAVE THE CHOICE whether to pay grossly inflated prices for branded goods or the inconsequential. This is entirely separate to the unacceptable exploitation of the weak for that which is an essential.
Most have aspired to more money (not at professional footballer level) and may have changed jobs, worked harder, etc for a better car, house, holiday etc. The difference is in the scale of aspiration, not the morality of having more than many around the world may ever have.
Film - can't remember which one - rich businessman wants to bed an attractive woman.
- "will you sleep with me for $1000" - "absolutely not!"
- "will you sleep with me $10,000" - "what sort of woman do you think I am"
- "will you sleep with me for $1,000,000" - "well ..............."
- "so we are just agreeing the price" (nothing to do with morality)
If you don't like it - don't pay. Otherwise don't complain.
Last edited by: Terry on Sat 2 May 26 at 12:48
|
I'm sure they are grateful for your support. No we don't need billionaires.
The idea that investment requires huge hoarding of wealth by a few individuals is just wrong.
|
>> I'm sure they are grateful for your support. No we don't need billionaires.
>>
>> The idea that investment requires huge hoarding of wealth by a few individuals is just
>> wrong.
Today there is an alternative - it's called crowd funding.
All the folk benefitting from the redistribution of billionaire wealth can sign up for £10, £50, $100. £500, £1000 and fund the new big ideas - new airliners, EV factories, AI server farms, third rrunways, wind turbine farms etc etc etc.
Good luck with that!!!
|
“The idea that investment requires huge hoarding of wealth by a few individuals is just wrong.”
Well it would be but do individuals actually horde their wealth. I rather think they invest it into other ventures to make even more money.
Is a million people putting £1,000 each in a cash ISA better for the economy than a billionaire investing a billion pounds in various major industrial projects?
What is good for individuals is not necessarily what is good overall for the economy and vice versa
|
|
I'm pretty sure that most "billionaires" are adept at investing other people's money. ;-)
|
>> I'm pretty sure that most "billionaires" are adept at investing other people's money. ;-)
>>
Exactly.
|
|
Why do you call it “other people money”. Did James Dyson, the Bamford family, J k Rowling for example steal their money?
|
Patently there are some "family firms" that have internalised investment, Dyson being notable (though I certainly wouldn't want to present him as a role-model). JCB is, I believe, primarily held by the family, who are rather more philanthropic.
JK Rowling I would say is a slightly different case (in making money from largely her own (artistic) efforts.
But, you will note, I didn't say "all billionaires".
|
"Is a million people putting £1,000 each in a cash ISA better for the economy than a billionaire investing a billion pounds in various major industrial projects?"
And what do you think happens to all those cash ISAs? - The banks are investing the money, some of which may end up in major industrial projects.
|
What is investment? Me buying shares in Barclays is an investment for me but doesn't affect Barclays, the money goes to whoever owned the shares. If I buy a house to rent out, does that create wealth? Or does it just push up house prices. If I buy shares in an investment trust that purchase residential property to let, ditto. If I invest in the the US, does it benefit Britain? Even putting money in a bank means they will lend money to people to buy houses so the money trickles down not as fair wages or food healthcare but as loans so that the borrowers can pay me interest and make themselves poorer. But they need somewhere to live.
The investment case for the UK is pretty weak and part of that is that consumers are struggling. Half of all retail purchases are by the top 10%. We can't raise enough tax to look after our infrastructure, health and social.care. The wealth gap has increases markedly since the 1980s, and the people at the bottom are basically never any better off because that's how a market economy works.
If more billionaires was a good thing, should not things have improved?
I am not envious. I'm not proposing sharing it out as a dividend and I'm insulted by the implication that I am. I don't need more money, as far as I'm concerned money is only a problem if I run out.
As for entrepreneuring. Most of them are clever enough to borrow nearly all of their capital. The risk is with the lenders now. Thames Water's debt is £20 billion, the equity has effectively been written off.
|
|
If you tnink we have too many billionaires do you think there should be a cap on the amount of wealth that a person can legally acquire?
|
>> If you tnink we have too many billionaires do you think there should be a
>> cap on the amount of wealth that a person can legally acquire?
>>
No, the issue is to tackle inequality which I don't think is good for anybody. Not even the very wealthy. It will.only get worse.
|
|
Inequality of what precisely? Wealth, income, opportunity? Do you want to lessen it or eliminate it?
|
>> Inequality of what precisely? Wealth, income, opportunity? Do you want to lessen it or eliminate
>> it?
>>
I think most people would consider a redundant in all three to be a pretty good thing. Of course there's the tricky problem of how to do it, it's the old politicians conundrum i know what i want to do but don't know how to get there.
The majority of the voting for trump, reform, greens and brexit is really down to people not having enough cash in their wallets. People vote for the system until it doesn't work for them and they vote for something else.
Manatee's stat about consumer spending is related to the US, www.marketplace.org/story/2025/09/17/top-10-of-earners-make-up-half-of-us-retail-spending
I don't think it's so pronounced in the uk though but still really top heavy.
|
<< the issue is to tackle inequality which I don't think is good for anybody. Not even the very wealthy. It will.only get worse. >>
Most political attempts to impose or enforce inequality have been notable failures, i think you will agree ? Human nature being what it is, there are always some who take advantage, often the political leaders.
Last edited by: Andrew-T on Sat 2 May 26 at 23:30
|
Capitalism moves the money to the capitalist. It's mechanical. All that's needed is the right level of redistribution, the obvious method being taxation and public expenditure.
The idea that Conservatives, Reform and Americans have is that the state should be as small as possible. This is where it goes wrong.
A government that is always striving to reduce taxes is basically saying it will do as little for society as possible, when ita job should be to do as much as it can.
Given a choice between richer billionaires and decent infrastructure, libraries, parks, social and health care, I'd prioritise the services.
We had better libraries and more of them in the 1960s than we do now.
Tax to GDP is at a historic high of 37-38% but this is still much lower than say the Nordics, France, Germany. All places I'd far rather live in than the US at 25%.
The USA is a nasty oppressive oligarchy where billionaires pay for the politicians who will cut their taxes while like the UK around.10% live in deep poverty although at least in the UK they get healthcare.
Redistribution is not charity. Society as a whole enables the supposedly self made rich to accumulate their extreme wealth but they can't and don't make it on their ok own.
|
" Political" or not donations. - Bromptonaut
