The place where everyone hangs out, chats, gossips, and argues
#401478
chrysostom wrote:so giving more money to everyone helps?

ever thought that the top earners deserve their massive wage?

also you neatly avoided the main point - if a person started a business that somehow turned over more then 200k in a year, they would have to stop their business. it's simply not faesable in the slightest.


I don't see how it doesn't in my example.

Not for a minute do I think Chris is worth more than 200k a year, but 200 was only an arbitrary number. Consider for a moment (if i've got my sums wrong shoot me) a person on minimum wage, working 24 hours a day for 80 years would only make a bit over £4 million. I'm just an advocate of some sort of parity.

And I didn't mean to avoid the point, I first asked for clarification and then attempted to answer what I thought you meant. If a sole-trader is fortunate to start a business that turns enough of a profit to enable him to pay a 200k salary thats good. If the firm earns enough to pay the owner a 300k salary I suggest he not be allowed to pay that extra 100k to himself. That he employ someone else or reinvesting in the firm etc. There always be around the 200k cap with company perks, or putting loved ones on the payroll etc but i've literally only put a few minutes thought into.

As a suggestion to the people who apparently actually manage to live off 10k a year, maybe write a book on how you manage it. Or sell your story to someone who could write about it. I'm just as suprised as Chris if not more, and I want to know how you manage it. You might also be able to make some money spreading your knowledge.
#401479
if everyone gets more money, money becomes worth less, meaning they need even more.

you're also saying that there should be a cap on how successful an individual is allowed to be - or that they should have to manipulate the system to get what they have earned themselves, when they shouldn't.

putting a cap on ambition wouldn't help anything.
#401482
chrysostom wrote:if everyone gets more money, money becomes worth less, meaning they need even more.

you're also saying that there should be a cap on how successful an individual is allowed to be - or that they should have to manipulate the system to get what they have earned themselves, when they shouldn't.

putting a cap on ambition wouldn't help anything.


I'm not bashing people who make alot of money, but I do believe there is such a thing as -too- much money for one person.

Roman Abramovich took five friends out to lunch in New York. The bill?

Image
#401490
English Bob wrote:
chrysostom wrote:if everyone gets more money, money becomes worth less, meaning they need even more.

you're also saying that there should be a cap on how successful an individual is allowed to be - or that they should have to manipulate the system to get what they have earned themselves, when they shouldn't.

putting a cap on ambition wouldn't help anything.


I'm not bashing people who make alot of money, but I do believe there is such a thing as -too- much money for one person.

Roman Abramovich took five friends out to lunch in New York. The bill?

Image

it always makes me laugh that rich people waste their money so easily
#401494
chrysostom wrote:if everyone gets more money, money becomes worth less, meaning they need even more.

you're also saying that there should be a cap on how successful an individual is allowed to be - or that they should have to manipulate the system to get what they have earned themselves, when they shouldn't.

putting a cap on ambition wouldn't help anything.


I'm not suggesting more money is printed, just that the distribution of it change. That won't make it worthless as a currency. If you measure success in financial terms then sucks be to you. However if a wage cap were put in place I guess the rich list would have to become the top 100 largest employers or something for the ambitious. I know i've not put a lot of thought into my plan but if you want to critic it you could at least give it longer than it takes to type the crap you're coming up with. My suggestion was only an admission that my idea while on the surface may seem drastic, i don't think its a million miles away from the system we have now.
#401542
One story in the news I loved was about the super-rich in Germany. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8321967.stm

Basically a group of the super-rich in Germany have asked the government to institute a 5% 'wealth tax' for people with obscene amounts of cash. They claim they have more money than they need, and if the tax was enacted, it could generate £91 billion in two years. This money could then be spent on social and healthcare etc.

Brilliant idea if you ask me, and nice to see some selfless rich people actually saying they have too much cash :D
#401543
There's apparently a strike threat in the Spanish Football League (La Liga) because they're talking about bringing in a tax hike for the high paid superstars over there. The league say it will risk the players leaving for cheaper countries.

Come on Gordon, get the richest league in the world taxed already you cretin!
#401853
With the current exchange rate- tha's about $16.5k- you could live here on that, but just. You would absolutely have to have a roomie or something. Rent on an average 1 bedroom apt is about $500/mo. and there isn't any real public transportation, so you have to have a car, so there is insurance, gas, and repairs- better make it a shopping cart with a weedwacker engine, or your broke....

Gotta try that rich thing out, sounds like a blast.
#401860
Munki Bhoy wrote:There's apparently a strike threat in the Spanish Football League (La Liga) because they're talking about bringing in a tax hike for the high paid superstars over there. The league say it will risk the players leaving for cheaper countries.

Come on Gordon, get the richest league in the world taxed already you cretin!


the stars in spain claim executive status and use a loophole to pay 22% of their wage in taxes - which is why the spanish clubs can offer lower wages than the english clubs, whereas the teams in england have to pay over 50% - forcing the clubs to fork out more to pay the player the same wage.
#402065
cupboardie wrote:CHRIS IS RIGHT! (for the south of england)

£10,000 is £735 a month take home.

I earn £17,000, live in watford and can't afford even a bedsit! The very cheapest is £600 inc utilities and council tax.


the fact remains that he didn't originally specify he was talking about living in London. He did later ask whether Aled meant in London, but his instinctive reaction came out before the area of the country they were referring to had been mentioned.
#402122
I bought a 500ml bottle of Coke in Tesco the other week for 50p. The woman at the till was as surprised as me.
#402128
I'd be surprised too - how can you drink that stuff?
#500587
With the living wage increasing, it immediately made me think about this comment that Chris made ages ago, especially as the London living wage has just been raised to the equivalent of £18,300 pa (with the rest of the UK being raised to £15,900)

Funny that comments about not being able to live on £10,000 per year caused a stir when the London living wage at that time was £15,500pa (can't find details of a national living wage before 2011).

Friday is up, and platinum: https://archive.org/d[…]