Currently no-one should be taking any polling at face value. It is merely one of a range of ways to try to capture public opinion. I certainly do not believe the polls about Corbyn - there is plenty of other evidence to suggest he has a good chance. I do believe it would not be good for Labour if he wins - but I'm a little bit 'Clark Gable' about that eventuality
If she doesn't know what a whippersnapper is (threads passim) it's unlikely she's watched GWTW. She's probably never been on the Romford-Upminster line either. #bucketlist
Persistent rain is forecast for the Birmingham area tomorrow, Thursday and on Saturday which should this prove accurate must mean there is a very good chance of the Third Ashes Test Match at Edgbaston finishing in one of those rare results these days ..... a draw. Betfair's Sportsbook currently offers the best odds of 3.7 or 2.7/1 on such an outcome which looks like cracking value to me, but DYOR. (I hope PtP isn't watching - he doesn't believe in draws and invariably bets against them. One or other of us is going to be wrong this time.)
Which forecast are you looking at, http://www.wunderground.com/q/locid:17729;loctype:25 is showing 5 days of cloud without much time to be lost to rain if any. Interruptions and cloud normally favours bowlers and a result I think anyhow.
It's almost impossible now to have a draw in a UK test match. What with floodlights, the fact that they always look to play the extra time to make up lost ground, and that teams inevitably capitulate in the final innings. And very few batters know how to defend.
Long gone are the days of Dikkie Bird and his light meter, 11 over hours, and Tavare and Boycers scratching around to make 40 runs in a session.
Here are the stats for backing or laying various options "blind" on Betfair (at SP) over the last 7.5 years:
Obviously individual draws can be value, but it's rare.
What's the table the product of? Laying each of which type of match at what amount?
AIUI, a theoretical £100 stake (or liability) on every Test Match on each of the options. NB fav / 2fav / dog include the draw as it's one of the 3 options.
Currently no-one should be taking any polling at face value. It is merely one of a range of ways to try to capture public opinion. I certainly do not believe the polls about Corbyn - there is plenty of other evidence to suggest he has a good chance. I do believe it would not be good for Labour if he wins - but I'm a little bit 'Clark Gable' about that eventuality
If she doesn't know what a whippersnapper is (threads passim) it's unlikely she's watched GWTW. She's probably never been on the Romford-Upminster line either. #bucketlist
Every time The_Apocalypse posts I feel much older than my 22 years...
If Corbyn wins, will that mean Farron has demonstrated the efficacy of prayer and thus proved the existence of God? Quite an accomplishment in his first two months as leader!
Not much difference in policies between Corbyn and Farron. Will be closer than Farron and Kendall/Progress.
Persistent rain is forecast for the Birmingham area tomorrow, Thursday and on Saturday which should this prove accurate must mean there is a very good chance of the Third Ashes Test Match at Edgbaston finishing in one of those rare results these days ..... a draw. Betfair's Sportsbook currently offers the best odds of 3.7 or 2.7/1 on such an outcome which looks like cracking value to me, but DYOR. (I hope PtP isn't watching - he doesn't believe in draws and invariably bets against them. One or other of us is going to be wrong this time.)
Bah, on an early train to Birmingham tomorrow with tickets for Thursday and Friday. I can see rain home in Scotland. Anytime.
Looks like the Scottish LibDems are going to end up with an all male group of MSPs with Alison McInnes being replaced by Mike Rumbles at the top of the NE regional list. Mike holds some very odd views:
Currently no-one should be taking any polling at face value. It is merely one of a range of ways to try to capture public opinion. I certainly do not believe the polls about Corbyn - there is plenty of other evidence to suggest he has a good chance. I do believe it would not be good for Labour if he wins - but I'm a little bit 'Clark Gable' about that eventuality
Win the leadership, and fail to win the General Election is his dream scenario, but might not happen.
Win the leadership and the GE (like Hollande) but fail the economy. Bad news all round
Win the leadership and the GE but fail the economy catastrophically with rioting in the street (like Syriza)
Who does that help?
Or worst case scenario of all, wins the election and starts to actually make the country better again and wrest power from the feckless idle rich.
Yeah, right. Because that has happened so many times in recent history.
Why do you hate the rich so much? They provide us with all of our education and NHS budgets. I get the impression you would be happy to drive the lot of them to Heathrow. Then what?
Err. No. Because their money has been sucked out of the economy in the first place. It didn't appear out of nowhere.
*facepalm*
Has it occurred to you that those who invest and take risks might be key to the generation of wealth?
The ones who are successful pay a lot of tax to fund the services the rest of us rely upon.
Risk-takers and wealth creators deserve all they get - more even. We don't have enough of them in the UK, by a long chalk. We do have plenty of very well paid CEOs and other senior corporate executives who have never started a business in their lives, but who know how to play the game and are duly rewarded for that; and we have out fair share of finance folk who, thanks to QE, have had a remarkably lucrative few years at the expense of the rest of us.
To be fair, SO, some CEOs are wealth creators. But, as you imply, far too many are not and compensation at that level rarely seems to bear any relation to actual performance.
Likewise, finance is necessary to wealth creation, but I do wonder what many in the financial industry really add personally to that process (and hence why they think they are worth their bonuses).
There are some transformative CEOs, but not many. Ditto with people working high up in finance. More often it's connections and being able to play the game that have got people to where they are. Hence the Nice But Dim phenomenon:
Currently no-one should be taking any polling at face value. It is merely one of a range of ways to try to capture public opinion. I certainly do not believe the polls about Corbyn - there is plenty of other evidence to suggest he has a good chance. I do believe it would not be good for Labour if he wins - but I'm a little bit 'Clark Gable' about that eventuality
If she doesn't know what a whippersnapper is (threads passim) it's unlikely she's watched GWTW. She's probably never been on the Romford-Upminster line either. #bucketlist
Every time The_Apocalypse posts I feel much older than my 22 years...
I see that Vladimir Putin has suggested that Sepp Blatter should get a Nobel Prize. Presumably he's thinking of Literature: those books don't cook themselves.
@simonsketch: A third of voters don't vote. Say Jez gets 10 per cent of them out - the young, Trots - and adds them to Labour's rock-bottom 28%? He's PM.
Persistent rain is forecast for the Birmingham area tomorrow, Thursday and on Saturday which should this prove accurate must mean there is a very good chance of the Third Ashes Test Match at Edgbaston finishing in one of those rare results these days ..... a draw. Betfair's Sportsbook currently offers the best odds of 3.7 or 2.7/1 on such an outcome which looks like cracking value to me, but DYOR. (I hope PtP isn't watching - he doesn't believe in draws and invariably bets against them. One or other of us is going to be wrong this time.)
Which forecast are you looking at, http://www.wunderground.com/q/locid:17729;loctype:25 is showing 5 days of cloud without much time to be lost to rain if any. Interruptions and cloud normally favours bowlers and a result I think anyhow.
It's almost impossible now to have a draw in a UK test match. What with floodlights, the fact that they always look to play the extra time to make up lost ground, and that teams inevitably capitulate in the final innings. And very few batters know how to defend.
Long gone are the days of Dikkie Bird and his light meter, 11 over hours, and Tavare and Boycers scratching around to make 40 runs in a session.
Here are the stats for backing or laying various options "blind" on Betfair (at SP) over the last 7.5 years:
Obviously individual draws can be value, but it's rare.
What's the table the product of? Laying each of which type of match at what amount?
AIUI, a theoretical £100 stake (or liability) on every Test Match on each of the options. NB fav / 2fav / dog include the draw as it's one of the 3 options.
Not a very great return then, all things considered.
Do you know if it's every international test? Just England? LV County?
@simonsketch: A third of voters don't vote. Say Jez gets 10 per cent of them out - the young, Trots - and adds them to Labour's rock-bottom 28%? He's PM.
Persistent rain is forecast for the Birmingham area tomorrow, Thursday and on Saturday which should this prove accurate must mean there is a very good chance of the Third Ashes Test Match at Edgbaston finishing in one of those rare results these days ..... a draw. Betfair's Sportsbook currently offers the best odds of 3.7 or 2.7/1 on such an outcome which looks like cracking value to me, but DYOR. (I hope PtP isn't watching - he doesn't believe in draws and invariably bets against them. One or other of us is going to be wrong this time.)
Which forecast are you looking at, http://www.wunderground.com/q/locid:17729;loctype:25 is showing 5 days of cloud without much time to be lost to rain if any. Interruptions and cloud normally favours bowlers and a result I think anyhow.
It's almost impossible now to have a draw in a UK test match. What with floodlights, the fact that they always look to play the extra time to make up lost ground, and that teams inevitably capitulate in the final innings. And very few batters know how to defend.
Long gone are the days of Dikkie Bird and his light meter, 11 over hours, and Tavare and Boycers scratching around to make 40 runs in a session.
Here are the stats for backing or laying various options "blind" on Betfair (at SP) over the last 7.5 years:
Obviously individual draws can be value, but it's rare.
What's the table the product of? Laying each of which type of match at what amount?
AIUI, a theoretical £100 stake (or liability) on every Test Match on each of the options. NB fav / 2fav / dog include the draw as it's one of the 3 options.
Not a very great return then, all things considered.
Do you know if it's every international test? Just England? LV County?
It's every international Test. Laying the draw blind has been a sensational return over the years. It's astonishing that the anomaly has persisted: the working theory is that it's money from the illegal Indian markets flowing back to Betfair - and Indian punters over-rate the draw as it's what they grew up on.
Furthermore, they blame poor people for being poor, they are obsessed by wealth and the trappings of it, they are judgmental and feel that wealth allows them the moral high ground.
They also tend to be right wing because the prospect of giving up any of the trappings of their power base terrifies them. They mostly associate with people of like mind who only confirm their skewed view of the world. They are narcissistic and self obsessed.
If Corbyn wins, will that mean Farron has demonstrated the efficacy of prayer and thus proved the existence of God? Quite an accomplishment in his first two months as leader!
Not much difference in policies between Corbyn and Farron. Will be closer than Farron and Kendall/Progress.
From where you are everybody must look like lefties.
@simonsketch: A third of voters don't vote. Say Jez gets 10 per cent of them out - the young, Trots - and adds them to Labour's rock-bottom 28%? He's PM.
"Rock-bottom" is a false premise there, I think.
And it assumes that Labour remains intact as a party after JC becomes leader.
Currently no-one should be taking any polling at face value. It is merely one of a range of ways to try to capture public opinion. I certainly do not believe the polls about Corbyn - there is plenty of other evidence to suggest he has a good chance. I do believe it would not be good for Labour if he wins - but I'm a little bit 'Clark Gable' about that eventuality
Those who moan on here about wealth creators enjoying the many fruits of their success and passing them on to their family should just read about James Dyson.
First he invented the ball-barrow but it took him from the late 1970s to 1983 to get to market his first commercial vacuum cleaner and til 1986 to get his first US patent. During this time he lived off his wife's salary and also I believe he remortgaged the family home (both of which often lead to divorce). It was not until 1993 that he set up his R&D and factory in Wiltshire but in 2002 was forced by economic reasons to switch manufacturing to Malaysia. He is now a billionaire. So it takes a very long time often to reach financial success notwithstanding the huge financial and personal sacrifices along the way.
There are many aspiring James Dysons in the UK but few get there in the end and many only get a meagre living in the end for all the sacrifices made. So it annoys me immensely when there are cries of Tax The Rich and Get Rid of Them from those who have the comfort of a 9-5 job with up to 35 days holiday plus flexitime and a rewarding pension.
There are very many highly paid people who are not wealth creators. James Dyson deserves every penny he gets. Many other very well paid people in this country have not taken his risks and have benefited hugely from, say, QE. Good luck to them, but let's not pretend they have ever put anything on the line.
I know personally two CEOs of plcs who are well paid but not in the £1m bracket. Usually they leave home by 5am and often do not get back til 10pm - that is if they are not on an overseas trip. Rarely do they get a weekend free completely and holidays are limited to odd long weekends or at the best an odd week at a time. They are doing all they can to create new business and sustain current business - so should they not receive fairly the rewards of their efforts and family's sacrifices? - for often a 90+ hour week?
Looks like the Scottish LibDems are going to end up with an all male group of MSPs with Alison McInnes being replaced by Mike Rumbles at the top of the NE regional list. Mike holds some very odd views:
Well it will let them match their Westminster contingent, a slate entirely consisting of white males. Well done Liberals.
Also worth noting was the previous thread where the Liberals voters were shown to be the most racist out of the LibLabKipCon with nearly double the number being anti-Scottish than any other party.
That YouGov poll is now the second piece of hard evidence that "Fear of SNP" was meaningless to the GE2015 outcome no matter how many times PB Tories repeat it.
Those who moan on here about wealth creators enjoying the many fruits of their success and passing them on to their family should just read about James Dyson.
First he invented the ball-barrow but it took him from the late 1970s to 1983 to get to market his first commercial vacuum cleaner and til 1986 to get his first US patent. During this time he lived off his wife's salary and also I believe he remortgaged the family home (both of which often lead to divorce). It was not until 1993 that he set up his R&D and factory in Wiltshire but in 2002 was forced by economic reasons to switch manufacturing to Malaysia. He is now a billionaire. So it takes a very long time often to reach financial success notwithstanding the huge financial and personal sacrifices along the way.
There are many aspiring James Dysons in the UK but few get there in the end and many only get a meagre living in the end for all the sacrifices made. So it annoys me immensely when there are cries of Tax The Rich and Get Rid of Them from those who have the comfort of a 9-5 job with up to 35 days holiday plus flexitime and a rewarding pension.
There are very many highly paid people who are not wealth creators. James Dyson deserves every penny he gets. Many other very well paid people in this country have not taken his risks and have benefited hugely from, say, QE. Good luck to them, but let's not pretend they have ever put anything on the line.
There was an interesting article in the New Yorker last week relating some what to this. Looking at how successful entrepreneurs are (incorrectly) thought of these wild and big risk takers, verging on gamblers and that often CEO's of big companies are totally risk averse.
It argued that successful entrepreneurs are not wild gamblers, rather they are always looking to leverage opportunities and then build up on a unique position or insight. They are outward looking, where as too many CEO's are totally blinkered and stuck in maintaining the current position of what are massive oil-tanker-esque companies. And despite the idea of paying them in share options to encourage them to seek out new opportunities, it more often than not just means they go safety first to ensure those share options reap some steady reward.
I've seen Citizen Kane about 20x and love it. I even went to Hearst Castle just to see where he lived. http://hearstcastle.org/
Not so keen on GWTW, a bit long. Read the book and that took about a month of saying large chunks of dialogue out loud to work out what the characters Mammy and Prissy were saying. Margaret Mitchell's use of multiple apostrophes to capture the vernacular made my eyes swim.
Currently no-one should be taking any polling at face value. It is merely one of a range of ways to try to capture public opinion. I certainly do not believe the polls about Corbyn - there is plenty of other evidence to suggest he has a good chance. I do believe it would not be good for Labour if he wins - but I'm a little bit 'Clark Gable' about that eventuality
Mr. Price, I've never watched Gone With The Wind, either.
Be fair, Mr. Dancer, you are pretty much unique on these forums - an Englishman who has never been to London. So your world view is shall, we say, eccentric and all the more precious for it.
I've seen Citizen Kane about 20x and love it. I even went to Hearst Castle just to see where he lived. http://hearstcastle.org/
Not so keen on GWTW, a bit long. Read the book and that took about a month of saying large chunks of dialogue out loud to work out what the characters Mammy and Prissy were saying. Margaret Mitchell's use of multiple apostrophes to capture the vernacular made my eyes swim.
Currently no-one should be taking any polling at face value. It is merely one of a range of ways to try to capture public opinion. I certainly do not believe the polls about Corbyn - there is plenty of other evidence to suggest he has a good chance. I do believe it would not be good for Labour if he wins - but I'm a little bit 'Clark Gable' about that eventuality
I haven't either - thanks to popcultural osmosis, I alreayd know how it ends and large amounts of the plot. Same with Citizen Kane.
"No, I don't think I'll kiss you, although you need kissing badly. That's what's wrong with you. You should be kissed and often, and by someone who knows how."
Maybe the only way to stop Corbyn is for both Kendall and either Cooper or Burnham to stand down to leave it as a two horse race between JC and one of those two. That way the problem of non-transferable ballots doesn't come into play, ie. people who forget or can't be bothered to list a second preference.
At which point Labour would convulse with recriminations of a Blairite stitch-up and lots of toys would be thrown from prams as the purist "protest group" segment in Labour decamp en-masse to the Greens or the SWP!
They won't decamp to the SWP.
A lot of the SWP decamped out of the SWP a couple of years ago when the National Committee decided that an allegation of rape against a senior official should be handled in house and not referred to the police.
Lots of shenanigans including a letter to the membership signed by hundreds of people, including quite a number of senior union officials, asking them to support the non-report.
Ridiculous soap opera.
They'll just have to decamp to the Greens and tolerate the Homeopathy apologism and the bacon sandwich ban. If Labour did that it would have helped Little Ted.
Furthermore, they blame poor people for being poor, they are obsessed by wealth and the trappings of it, they are judgmental and feel that wealth allows them the moral high ground.
They also tend to be right wing because the prospect of giving up any of the trappings of their power base terrifies them. They mostly associate with people of like mind who only confirm their skewed view of the world. They are narcissistic and self obsessed.
I have found that they are often too ignorant to have a decent discussion about films or books.
I think this is your prejudice beginning to show...
I said if rich people do work, invariably they work in something that they enjoy which doesn't quite count as work. It counts at doing something one enjoys. I know very well some exceptionally, exceptionally rich people (like people who have private jets rich) who do indeed work very hard- but it is something they want to do. So I cannot really classify that as work,
Work for the majority is something they have to do and ideally would rather not, or would choose to do something different if they could, like rich people do.
As said rich people are either lazy or they spend their time doing something that they like.
Mr. Tyson, without wishing to play a little violin, my current situation could be described as sub-optimal when it comes to finances. But I really enjoy my work.
Obviously I hope it becomes profitable in the near future *cough*buymybooks*cough*, but are you saying if I achieve success it ceases to be work, even though I'll be doing precisely the same activity? But that if I fail to achieve success I'm still working?
Mr. Price, I've never watched Gone With The Wind, either.
Be fair, Mr. Dancer, you are pretty much unique on these forums - an Englishman who has never been to London. So your world view is shall, we say, eccentric and all the more precious for it.
Conversely, I've only visited two railway stations in Yorkshire - Sheffield and Leeds (though also took the tram from Sheffield station to University of Sheffield).
Furthermore, they blame poor people for being poor, they are obsessed by wealth and the trappings of it, they are judgmental and feel that wealth allows them the moral high ground.
They also tend to be right wing because the prospect of giving up any of the trappings of their power base terrifies them. They mostly associate with people of like mind who only confirm their skewed view of the world. They are narcissistic and self obsessed.
I have found that they are often too ignorant to have a decent discussion about films or books.
I think this is your prejudice beginning to show...
As said rich people are either lazy or they spend their time doing something that they like.
No. The ones that you mix with in Umbria or whichever chi chi part of Italy you choose to inhabit for part of the year, live their lives like that. Others do it differently.
There are some transformative CEOs, but not many. Ditto with people working high up in finance. More often it's connections and being able to play the game that have got people to where they are. Hence the Nice But Dim phenomenon:
There was that piece of research published recently in the USA which showed that there was no correlation between the remuneration of CEOs and the performance of their companies. For each of the Dysons (who deserve every penny in my book) there are hundreds of Victor Blanks who get paid millions for performance that is less than good by a long way. These superstar international CEO's who must be paid a fortune otherwise they will go elsewhere are mostly nothing of the sort and if they did clear off and bugger up some other country's companies we would be better off..
How to solve the conundrum is another matter. As we have discussed on here before, the system of corporate governance seems to be the key but, as Mr. Charles has said previously, nobody seems to know how to turn it. I confess I am becoming more and more impatient on this matter and see considerable merit in a radical statutory solution.
Unless the company is owned by the directors or their family then the salary of any director of a limited company should be, by law, be restricted to twenty times the median wage of the company's employees.
I said if rich people do work, invariably they work in something that they enjoy which doesn't quite count as work. It counts at doing something one enjoys. I know very well some exceptionally, exceptionally rich people (like people who have private jets rich) who do indeed work very hard- but it is something they want to do. So I cannot really classify that as work,
Work for the majority is something they have to do and ideally would rather not, or would choose to do something different if they could, like rich people do.
As said rich people are either lazy or they spend their time doing something that they like.
work wəːk/ noun 1. activity involving mental or physical effort done in order to achieve a result. "he was tired after a day's work in the fields" synonyms: labour, toil, exertion, effort, slog, drudgery, the sweat of one's brow; More 2. a task or tasks to be undertaken. "they made sure the work was progressing smoothly" synonyms: tasks, jobs, duties, assignments, commissions, projects; chores "haven't you got any work to do?" verb 1. be engaged in physical or mental activity in order to achieve a result; do work. "an engineer who was working on a design for a more efficient wing" synonyms: toil, labour, exert oneself, slave (away), plod away; More 2. (of a machine or system) function, especially properly or effectively. "his phone doesn't work unless he goes to a high point" synonyms: function, go, run, operate, perform; More
Just because something is enjoyable, does not mean it isn't work (or even hard work).
I'm not rich, and I do work hard. But I also love my job and enjoy the challenges etc. If I were ever to expand my company, employ people and so on to the point where I could be considered rich, would you think any less of me?
@simonsketch: A third of voters don't vote. Say Jez gets 10 per cent of them out - the young, Trots - and adds them to Labour's rock-bottom 28%? He's PM.
That does seem to require the remaining 23% to continue to sit on their arses whilst the prospect of a bat-shit crazy Lefty-loon Govt. hoves into view.... And the 13% who gave UKIP their vote. And that slice of the Labour and LibDem parties who would rather hold their nose and vote Tory rather than see Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn....
Power will fall into their laps if only they are more determinedly Left-wing. Righto.....
Alex Salmond has declared that another referendum on Scottish independence is inevitable. I’ll tell you what’s really inevitable. Alex Salmond will carry on giving endless interviews about independence, for as long as BBC producers in London have to have conversations like the one below.
Producer 1: “Can we interview Salmond again. We had him on last week.”
Producer 2: “What did he say?”
Producer 1: “I don’t know. I can’t remember exactly. I do remember him chortling and laughing at his own jokes, his shoulders moving up and down at the cleverness of his own remarks.”
Producer 2: “Sure. But the substance? Was it something about the inevitability of another Scottish referendum?”
Producer 1: “Yes! That was it.”
Producer 2: “He’s said that before, a lot. No, we can’t have him on again.”
Producer 1: “Look, it’s late July. Even Tim Farron is on holiday. It’s Salmond or Keith Vaz.”
Mr. Tyson, without wishing to play a little violin, my current situation could be described as sub-optimal when it comes to finances. But I really enjoy my work.
Obviously I hope it becomes profitable in the near future *cough*buymybooks*cough*, but are you saying if I achieve success it ceases to be work, even though I'll be doing precisely the same activity? But that if I fail to achieve success I'm still working?
Agree very much. Most people find they have a talent and are good at doing something and make that their career, either self-employed or employed. Most people in the medical profession, education, etc do what they do because they get a reward of satisfaction and achievement from it. However, work is a necessity (for most people) in order to live and only wealthy societies can economically afford to carry the non-workers. Also most people are healthier (both mentally and bodily) if they are actively employed.
As for the super-rich (e.g Hollywood stars and their offspring), we often read of early death brought about by indulging in excesses as a result of boredom
I honestly guffawed at this from Burnham's speech - a man who changes his mind between breakfast and lunch. All he's done is pick up a big placard saying Vote Corbyn. It's entitled Recapturing the Spirit of 45.
“They are sick of politicians speaking in sound bites, sticking to the script and looking like they don’t believe a word they are saying."
Being ethnic minority is not relevant to immigration, but multiculturalism is. Multiculturalism is a philosophy whereby immigrants and their descendants should maintain separate cultures to the country they have immigrated to. The fact that a large number of people don't see their neighbors as really being British is because of the cultural gap between them. The same white working class people that will call one ethnic minority family "immigrants", will refer to another ethnic minority family as "not counting as immigrants" because the second is culturally integrated and the first is not. Even if both are officially British.
Really? I've never been aware of that definition of multiculturalism.
What do you see as being integrated (out of interest)? My family still eat food from the West Indies (although we eat traditionally British food too). I would say my grand-parents, and their descendants have integrated well. I've never been considered, to my knowledge anything but British by my friends, family and neighbours.
multiculturalism [muhl-tee-kuhl-cher-uh-liz-uh m, muhl-tahy-] noun 1. the state or condition of being multicultural. 2. the preservation of different cultures or cultural identities within a unified society, as a state or nation.
So the preservation of difference. Obviously when that occurs within a society that was traditionally monocultural, it means the difference is between immigrant cultures and the host culture. It is often described as being a "tossed salad", to be contrasted with the "melting pot" of cultural integration.
What you seem to be talking about in terms of your family is a melting pot: you eat food from both cultures, and your family has mixed and intermarried with the rest of society to the extent that you and they do not consider any real difference between you. That's integration.
The contrast to that is when you have a situation where different ethnicities go to different schools, live in different neighbourhoods, have different friendship groups, do not intermarry, have their own TV and radio stations, have different national loyalties, use different court systems, are treated differently when applying for jobs, and have different moral frameworks.
How predictable, the not-nice-but-still-dim PB Tories wheel out the 1 in 100 James Dysons of this world as representative of the country's wealthy as opposed to the 99/100 opportunistic rent-seekers, thick-but-entitled inheritors of wealth, sociopathic exploiters of others and well-connected game players. I don't think more than a few percent of the 'left' would begrudge true 'wealth creators' like Dyson getting decent recompense, it's the other 99% feral rich that are the problem, who far from creating wealth, destroy it.
"ut look at several of the most important areas in which it has complete control and the SNP record is a litany of failure and selfish middle-class sanctimony dressed up in pious, progressive pontificating. Even when enormous amounts of power are devolved, as they have been in several slices since 1997, the Nationalist complaint is always that it is not enough. Of course, whining about powers is much easier than reforming the education system to help the poorest and power economic growth."
There are some transformative CEOs, but not many. Ditto with people working high up in finance. More often it's connections and being able to play the game that have got people to where they are. Hence the Nice But Dim phenomenon:
There was that piece of research published recently in the USA which showed that there was no correlation between the remuneration of CEOs and the performance of their companies. For each of the Dysons (who deserve every penny in my book) there are hundreds of Victor Blanks who get paid millions for performance that is less than good by a long way. These superstar international CEO's who must be paid a fortune otherwise they will go elsewhere are mostly nothing of the sort and if they did clear off and bugger up some other country's companies we would be better off..
How to solve the conundrum is another matter. As we have discussed on here before, the system of corporate governance seems to be the key but, as Mr. Charles has said previously, nobody seems to know how to turn it. I confess I am becoming more and more impatient on this matter and see considerable merit in a radical statutory solution.
Unless the company is owned by the directors or their family then the salary of any director of a limited company should be, by law, be restricted to twenty times the median wage of the company's employees.
You would have to include the civil service and public sector in this. Also would their pay be related to their responsibilities and would they all have to do the same hours and have the same holiday allowance?
How predictable, the not-nice-but-still-dim PB Tories wheel out the 1 in 100 James Dysons of this world as representative of the country's wealthy as opposed to the 99/100 opportunistic rent-seekers, thick-but-entitled inheritors of wealth, sociopathic exploiters of others and well-connected game players. I don't think more than a few percent of the 'left' would begrudge true 'wealth creators' like Dyson getting decent recompense, it's the other 99% feral rich that are the problem, who far from creating wealth, destroy it.
Nice of you not to begrudge a "wealth creator" - who do you think pays for Labours core vote - the shirkers and scroungers ?
If that article doesn't get the zoomers sufficiently riled, this is also interesting
From the SNP’s unparalleled 2011 victory and beyond I was wholly committed to independence. My support was intrinsically linked to my sense of self, my Scottish identity.
Of late, however, I have been challenging my concept of Scotland and its people.
How predictable, the not-nice-but-still-dim PB Tories wheel out the 1 in 100 James Dysons of this world as representative of the country's wealthy as opposed to the 99/100 opportunistic rent-seekers, thick-but-entitled inheritors of wealth, sociopathic exploiters of others and well-connected game players. I don't think more than a few percent of the 'left' would begrudge true 'wealth creators' like Dyson getting decent recompense, it's the other 99% feral rich that are the problem, who far from creating wealth, destroy it.
All I can see from you is conformation bias. if 99/100 wealthy people in this country are "opportunistic rent-seekers, thick-but-entitled inheritors of wealth, sociopathic exploiters of others and well-connected game players", then you should have no problem naming some names, coming up with some proof that things are indeed as dire as you say.
There are probably a few odious individuals who are no better than leeches, but calling pretty much every wealth creator in the country an arsehole is just feckin moronic class envy.
How predictable, the not-nice-but-still-dim PB Tories wheel out the 1 in 100 James Dysons of this world as representative of the country's wealthy as opposed to the 99/100 opportunistic rent-seekers, thick-but-entitled inheritors of wealth, sociopathic exploiters of others and well-connected game players. I don't think more than a few percent of the 'left' would begrudge true 'wealth creators' like Dyson getting decent recompense, it's the other 99% feral rich that are the problem, who far from creating wealth, destroy it.
So are you advocating differential taxation depending on what you do? Are you including wealth spenders in this like councils, civil service etc
Furthermore, they blame poor people for being poor, they are obsessed by wealth and the trappings of it, they are judgmental and feel that wealth allows them the moral high ground.
They also tend to be right wing because the prospect of giving up any of the trappings of their power base terrifies them. They mostly associate with people of like mind who only confirm their skewed view of the world. They are narcissistic and self obsessed.
I have found that they are often too ignorant to have a decent discussion about films or books.
I think this is your prejudice beginning to show...
I said if rich people do work, invariably they work in something that they enjoy which doesn't quite count as work. It counts at doing something one enjoys. I know very well some exceptionally, exceptionally rich people (like people who have private jets rich) who do indeed work very hard- but it is something they want to do. So I cannot really classify that as work,
Work for the majority is something they have to do and ideally would rather not, or would choose to do something different if they could, like rich people do.
As said rich people are either lazy or they spend their time doing something that they like.
Your objection to rich people is that they aren't miserable at work?
If that article doesn't get the zoomers sufficiently riled, this is also interesting
Random blogs don't tend to rile anyone, although they seem to excite zoomers like yourself.
Iain Martin is probably the most embarrassing of your quotes. A man so desperate to be considered a journalist it just screams from every self-parody he squeezes from his cheeks.
Are you advocating that you take out what you put in for all people 16-67? So those who currently rely on benefits and are fit for work will in future take out nothing - unless they do community work for food tickets?
Those who moan on here about wealth creators enjoying the many fruits of their success and passing them on to their family should just read about James Dyson.
First he invented the ball-barrow but it took him from the late 1970s to 1983 to get to market his first commercial vacuum cleaner and til 1986 to get his first US patent. During this time he lived off his wife's salary and also I believe he remortgaged the family home (both of which often lead to divorce). It was not until 1993 that he set up his R&D and factory in Wiltshire but in 2002 was forced by economic reasons to switch manufacturing to Malaysia. He is now a billionaire. So it takes a very long time often to reach financial success notwithstanding the huge financial and personal sacrifices along the way.
There are many aspiring James Dysons in the UK but few get there in the end and many only get a meagre living in the end for all the sacrifices made. So it annoys me immensely when there are cries of Tax The Rich and Get Rid of Them from those who have the comfort of a 9-5 job with up to 35 days holiday plus flexitime and a rewarding pension.
There are very many highly paid people who are not wealth creators. James Dyson deserves every penny he gets. Many other very well paid people in this country have not taken his risks and have benefited hugely from, say, QE. Good luck to them, but let's not pretend they have ever put anything on the line.
How predictable, the not-nice-but-still-dim PB Tories wheel out the 1 in 100 James Dysons of this world as representative of the country's wealthy as opposed to the 99/100 opportunistic rent-seekers, thick-but-entitled inheritors of wealth, sociopathic exploiters of others and well-connected game players. I don't think more than a few percent of the 'left' would begrudge true 'wealth creators' like Dyson getting decent recompense, it's the other 99% feral rich that are the problem, who far from creating wealth, destroy it.
Every single person who saves a bit of spare cash in a bank/bond/pension, etc is a wealth creator because this is where most of the funds come from which entrepreneurs like Dyson utilise to work their magic. Every penny of those savings gobbled up by the taxman has therefore to be spent wisely and efficiently otherwise the next Dyson really will 'lose a lot of suction'
If that article doesn't get the zoomers sufficiently riled, this is also interesting
Random blogs don't tend to rile anyone, although they seem to excite zoomers like yourself.
Iain Martin is probably the most embarrassing of your quotes. A man so desperate to be considered a journalist it just screams from every self-parody he squeezes from his cheeks.
"Considered a journalist" - yeah he hasn't amounted to much..
Martin worked as a reporter for the Sunday Times Scotland (1993–97), as political editor of Scotland on Sunday (1997–2000), political editor of The Scotsman (2000–01), deputy editor of Scotland on Sunday (2001), editor of The Scotsman (2001–04), editor of Scotland on Sunday (2004–06), deputy editor of the Sunday Telegraph (2006), and head of comment for the Telegraph Media Group (2008–09).
From 2009 to 2011 he was Deputy Editor of the Wall Street Journal Europe, for which he wrote a blog on politics.[1][2] For a short time he moved to the Daily Mail newspaper in 2011 to write a weekly political column. He now blogs for the Telegraph and contributes a weekly column to The Sunday Telegraph. Martin has contributed to Standpoint magazine and the Financial News. His book Making it Happen: Fred Goodwin, RBS and the Men Who Blew Up the British Economy, on the financial crisis and Fred Goodwin, was published in 2013.
There are some transformative CEOs, but not many. Ditto with people working high up in finance. More often it's connections and being able to play the game that have got people to where they are. Hence the Nice But Dim phenomenon:
There was that piece of research published recently in the USA which showed that there was no correlation between the remuneration of CEOs and the performance of their companies. For each of the Dysons (who deserve every penny in my book) there are hundreds of Victor Blanks who get paid millions for performance that is less than good by a long way. These superstar international CEO's who must be paid a fortune otherwise they will go elsewhere are mostly nothing of the sort and if they did clear off and bugger up some other country's companies we would be better off..
How to solve the conundrum is another matter. As we have discussed on here before, the system of corporate governance seems to be the key but, as Mr. Charles has said previously, nobody seems to know how to turn it. I confess I am becoming more and more impatient on this matter and see considerable merit in a radical statutory solution.
Unless the company is owned by the directors or their family then the salary of any director of a limited company should be, by law, be restricted to twenty times the median wage of the company's employees.
Agreed. Changing the law is likely the only solution to this greed.
@simonsketch: A third of voters don't vote. Say Jez gets 10 per cent of them out - the young, Trots - and adds them to Labour's rock-bottom 28%? He's PM.
"Rock-bottom" is a false premise there, I think.
And it assumes that Labour remains intact as a party after JC becomes leader.
Also...
Labour vote as share of 2015 electorate: 28% + (10% * 50%) = 33% Conservative vote as share of 2015 electorate: 36%.1%
Even for the segment of the population that believes you reduce the debt by increasing the gap between spending and revenue, those numbers do not work.
Mr. Tyson, without wishing to play a little violin, my current situation could be described as sub-optimal when it comes to finances. But I really enjoy my work.
Obviously I hope it becomes profitable in the near future *cough*buymybooks*cough*, but are you saying if I achieve success it ceases to be work, even though I'll be doing precisely the same activity? But that if I fail to achieve success I'm still working?
Agree very much. Most people find they have a talent and are good at doing something and make that their career, either self-employed or employed. Most people in the medical profession, education, etc do what they do because they get a reward of satisfaction and achievement from it. However, work is a necessity (for most people) in order to live and only wealthy societies can economically afford to carry the non-workers. Also most people are healthier (both mentally and bodily) if they are actively employed.
As for the super-rich (e.g Hollywood stars and their offspring), we often read of early death brought about by indulging in excesses as a result of boredom
Mr Tyson's approach is way to broad brush and chippy in any case. There are people (amongst whom I used to number myself) who do a job they actually cordially detest, because it pays well (less than 150k well, but still well) and because that money allows them the leisure to enjoy their non-work time and buy their family the little things in life that they enjoy.
I now live in the third world, I run a property development business that makes me in local terms a lot of money, although broadly the same as my UK income, do I enjoy it ? Not especially, but it uses up sufficiently little of my time that I have the liberty to teach in a local charity school and help some very poor children. I also have several other businesses which make very little money but are either fun or socially useful, none of which I would be able to do if I didn't have the good paying job. Life is complicated, not all rich people, or even semi-rich people enjoy their work, and quite a lot of them actually work quite hard, even if that isn't apparent at their declared place of employment.
How predictable, the not-nice-but-still-dim PB Tories wheel out the 1 in 100 James Dysons of this world as representative of the country's wealthy as opposed to the 99/100 opportunistic rent-seekers, thick-but-entitled inheritors of wealth, sociopathic exploiters of others and well-connected game players. I don't think more than a few percent of the 'left' would begrudge true 'wealth creators' like Dyson getting decent recompense, it's the other 99% feral rich that are the problem, who far from creating wealth, destroy it.
Crack open another Stella. Have you signed on today?
IMHO there needs to be Clear Red Water between Labour and the Blues. What's the point of having two main Tory Parties?
There was very clear water between them at this year's election. Including on the EU, tax, deficit reduction, identity politics, EVEL, tuition fees and labour/energy market/housing regulation.
I hope all the infiltrators and entryists who are paying 3 quid to get a vote in the Labour leadership realise,they can give more than that.You could make it £30,£300,£3000.All donations much needed so please give generously.
There are some transformative CEOs, but not many. Ditto with people working high up in finance. More often it's connections and being able to play the game that have got people to where they are. Hence the Nice But Dim phenomenon:
There was that piece of research published recently in the USA which showed that there was no correlation between the remuneration of CEOs and the performance of their companies. For each of the Dysons (who deserve every penny in my book) there are hundreds of Victor Blanks who get paid millions for performance that is less than good by a long way. These superstar international CEO's who must be paid a fortune otherwise they will go elsewhere are mostly nothing of the sort and if they did clear off and bugger up some other country's companies we would be better off..
How to solve the conundrum is another matter. As we have discussed on here before, the system of corporate governance seems to be the key but, as Mr. Charles has said previously, nobody seems to know how to turn it. I confess I am becoming more and more impatient on this matter and see considerable merit in a radical statutory solution.
Unless the company is owned by the directors or their family then the salary of any director of a limited company should be, by law, be restricted to twenty times the median wage of the company's employees.
Agreed. Changing the law is likely the only solution to this greed.
The problem comes when that well paid board of directors in their boardroom and try to decided which country to relocate their business to. I am sure they are all going to have their companies best interest at heart, but it would be unusual if they didn't spare a small though for the restrictions that would be put on their earnings, and decide to move to Germany (or Malaysia) instead.
@simonsketch: A third of voters don't vote. Say Jez gets 10 per cent of them out - the young, Trots - and adds them to Labour's rock-bottom 28%? He's PM.
"Rock-bottom" is a false premise there, I think.
And it assumes that Labour remains intact as a party after JC becomes leader.
Also...
Labour vote as share of 2015 electorate: 28% + (10% * 50%) = 33% Conservative vote as share of 2015 electorate: 36%.1%
Even for the segment of the population that believes you reduce the debt by increasing the gap between spending and revenue, those numbers do not work.
Labour's vote-share at the GE was 30.4%. Labour went up by 1.4%!
Those who moan on here about wealth creators enjoying the many fruits of their success and passing them on to their family should just read about James Dyson.
First he invented the ball-barrow but it took him from the late 1970s to 1983 to get to market his first commercial vacuum cleaner and til 1986 to get his first US patent. During this time he lived off his wife's salary and also I believe he remortgaged the family home (both of which often lead to divorce). It was not until 1993 that he set up his R&D and factory in Wiltshire but in 2002 was forced by economic reasons to switch manufacturing to Malaysia. He is now a billionaire. So it takes a very long time often to reach financial success notwithstanding the huge financial and personal sacrifices along the way.
There are many aspiring James Dysons in the UK but few get there in the end and many only get a meagre living in the end for all the sacrifices made. So it annoys me immensely when there are cries of Tax The Rich and Get Rid of Them from those who have the comfort of a 9-5 job with up to 35 days holiday plus flexitime and a rewarding pension.
There are very many highly paid people who are not wealth creators. James Dyson deserves every penny he gets. Many other very well paid people in this country have not taken his risks and have benefited hugely from, say, QE. Good luck to them, but let's not pretend they have ever put anything on the line.
How predictable, the not-nice-but-still-dim PB Tories wheel out the 1 in 100 James Dysons of this world as representative of the country's wealthy as opposed to the 99/100 opportunistic rent-seekers, thick-but-entitled inheritors of wealth, sociopathic exploiters of others and well-connected game players. I don't think more than a few percent of the 'left' would begrudge true 'wealth creators' like Dyson getting decent recompense, it's the other 99% feral rich that are the problem, who far from creating wealth, destroy it.
Every single person who saves a bit of spare cash in a bank/bond/pension, etc is a wealth creator because this is where most of the funds come from which entrepreneurs like Dyson utilise to work their magic. Every penny of those savings gobbled up by the taxman has therefore to be spent wisely and efficiently otherwise the next Dyson really will 'lose a lot of suction'
Signed 'a proud saver and wealth creator'.
If all investments were going towards supporting true innovation and invention, you might have a point, but obviously as most don't, you are talking cobblers as usual.
There are some transformative CEOs, but not many. Ditto with people working high up in finance. More often it's connections and being able to play the game that have got people to where they are. Hence the Nice But Dim phenomenon:
There was that piece of research published recently in the USA which showed that there was no correlation between the remuneration of CEOs and the performance of their companies. For each of the Dysons (who deserve every penny in my book) there are hundreds of Victor Blanks who get paid millions for performance that is less than good by a long way. These superstar international CEO's who must be paid a fortune otherwise they will go elsewhere are mostly nothing of the sort and if they did clear off and bugger up some other country's companies we would be better off..
How to solve the conundrum is another matter. As we have discussed on here before, the system of corporate governance seems to be the key but, as Mr. Charles has said previously, nobody seems to know how to turn it. I confess I am becoming more and more impatient on this matter and see considerable merit in a radical statutory solution.
Unless the company is owned by the directors or their family then the salary of any director of a limited company should be, by law, be restricted to twenty times the median wage of the company's employees.
You would have to include the civil service and public sector in this. Also would their pay be related to their responsibilities and would they all have to do the same hours and have the same holiday allowance?
Mr. Financier, You are of course correct and I did intend to mention the public sector "fat cats" in my original post.
My view on the public sector is very simple, having spent most of my life in there. With the exception of the medical profession, the vast majority of people in senior positions are at best mediocre in their abilities to do anything other than play the internal politics of their department/organisation. Therefore I would set a blanket limit on how much a public servant could earn. One hundred thousand pounds per annum would I think more than meet the need to attract people of sufficient talent to run our public services. However, I would make an exception to allow, non-pensionable, bonus payments to those who maintain or improve frontline delivery whilst reducing head-count and costs.
I'm truly APPALLED at that story - the daughter/mother were estranged for years, she explicitly said in her will that she didn't want her daughter to get a penny and to challenge any claim in the courts.
She left her £500k to three charities and now the daughter is getting £164k in the face of her mother's clear desire that she didn't want it.
I hope it's overturned on appeal. If your will is made with sound mind and without coercion it should stand.
Story on the BBC saying a court decision will mean it is much harder to disinherit people in Wills as the judge said it had been harsh and unreasonable. While it presumably washarsh, I feel oddly uncertain about it,restricting what people can do with their money.
You can blame Labour for that as well , apparently based on one of Sunny Jim's acts, Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975
1(1)(c)a child of the deceased; ... that person may apply to the court for an order under section 2 of this Act on the ground that the disposition of the deceased’s estate effected by his will or the law relating to intestacy, or the combination of his will and that law, is not such as to make reasonable financial provision for the applicant.
Personally I feel that having had nothing to do with each other for more than three decades and then making an application on the basis of inadequate financial provision is slightly taking the p155.
There are some transformative CEOs, but not many. Ditto with people working high up in finance. More often it's connections and being able to play the game that have got people to where they are. Hence the Nice But Dim phenomenon:
There was that piece of research published recently in the USA which showed that there was no correlation between the remuneration of CEOs and the performance of their companies. For each of the Dysons (who deserve every penny in my book) there are hundreds of Victor Blanks who get paid millions for performance that is less than good by a long way. These superstar international CEO's who must be paid a fortune otherwise they will go elsewhere are mostly nothing of the sort and if they did clear off and bugger up some other country's companies we would be better off..
How to solve the conundrum is another matter. As we have discussed on here before, the system of corporate governance seems to be the key but, as Mr. Charles has said previously, nobody seems to know how to turn it. I confess I am becoming more and more impatient on this matter and see considerable merit in a radical statutory solution.
Unless the company is owned by the directors or their family then the salary of any director of a limited company should be, by law, be restricted to twenty times the median wage of the company's employees.
Agreed. Changing the law is likely the only solution to this greed.
The problem comes when that well paid board of directors in their boardroom and try to decided which country to relocate their business to. I am sure they are all going to have their companies best interest at heart, but it would be unusual if they didn't spare a small though for the restrictions that would be put on their earnings, and decide to move to Germany (or Malaysia) instead.
But they would have to relocate themselves though, and that would make it more difficult for them to run a business in this country.
This greed is only a recent phenomenon; people at the top never used to be paid these stupid amounts of money.
How predictable, the not-nice-but-still-dim PB Tories wheel out the 1 in 100 James Dysons of this world as representative of the country's wealthy as opposed to the 99/100 opportunistic rent-seekers, thick-but-entitled inheritors of wealth, sociopathic exploiters of others and well-connected game players. I don't think more than a few percent of the 'left' would begrudge true 'wealth creators' like Dyson getting decent recompense, it's the other 99% feral rich that are the problem, who far from creating wealth, destroy it.
Nice of you not to begrudge a "wealth creator" - who do you think pays for Labours core vote - the shirkers and scroungers ?
The hard working taxpayers who deserted Labour at the last election, and will continue to do so when they see Corbyn threatening to take ever more of their hard earned off them to support the feckless layabouts lagering up in the sunshine whilst they trek off to earn a crust.
Every single person who saves a bit of spare cash in a bank/bond/pension, etc is a wealth creator because this is where most of the funds come from which entrepreneurs like Dyson utilise to work their magic. Every penny of those savings gobbled up by the taxman has therefore to be spent wisely and efficiently otherwise the next Dyson really will 'lose a lot of suction'
Signed 'a proud saver and wealth creator'.
If all investments were going towards supporting true innovation and invention, you might have a point, but obviously as most don't, you are talking cobblers as usual.
I suspect he isn't the only shoe mender around here. How exactly is a government supposed to decide which investments are going to support innovation and invention and which are not. You cant start imposing different level of tax based on the possibility that a company might beat a rival to a patent in a few years time because its founder worked hard, compared to another who was lazy but lucky. What you say might be true, but it's virtue signalling cobblers with no political utility what so ever.
How predictable, the not-nice-but-still-dim PB Tories wheel out the 1 in 100 James Dysons of this world as representative of the country's wealthy as opposed to the 99/100 opportunistic rent-seekers, thick-but-entitled inheritors of wealth, sociopathic exploiters of others and well-connected game players. I don't think more than a few percent of the 'left' would begrudge true 'wealth creators' like Dyson getting decent recompense, it's the other 99% feral rich that are the problem, who far from creating wealth, destroy it.
That's nothing more than blind prejudice on your part.
ople in this country have not taken his risks and have benefited hugely from, say, QE. Good luck to them, but let's not pretend they have ever put anything on the line.
If all investments were going towards supporting true innovation and invention, you might have a point, but obviously as most don't, you are talking cobblers as usual.
"true innovation and invention". You'll be talking about predators and producers next. Who gets to be the arbiter of this "truth"? And does it then determine the amount of tax you levy?
If 99% of wealthy people actively destroy wealth (as you claimed down-thread) then either the remaining 1% are working really hard, or you are the one talking about makers of footwear.
As said rich people are either lazy or they spend their time doing something that they like.
Your objection to rich people is that they aren't miserable at work?
@Casino I'm making an observation not an objection about rich people. There are many poor people and professional people who enjoy work too.
I gave up work a couple of years ago when I was in my early forties. My wife works (very hard sometimes) because she wants to, not because she has to. I'm lazy, she does something she likes- so am speaking here from something of experience.
I bought another house this year- as an investment. It's already gone up about 30k, and people are paying me to live there as it goes up.
Wealth creators- piffle. Most wealthy people are spongers who make more money by leveraging.
I tell you Casino- the cards are so stacked in favour of people with money.
I'm truly APPALLED at that story - the daughter/mother were estranged for years, she explicitly said in her will that she didn't want her daughter to get a penny and to challenge any claim in the courts.
She left her £500k to three charities and now the daughter is getting £164k in the face of her mother's clear desire that she didn't want it.
I hope it's overturned on appeal. If your will is made with sound mind and without coercion it should stand.
Story on the BBC saying a court decision will mean it is much harder to disinherit people in Wills as the judge said it had been harsh and unreasonable. While it presumably washarsh, I feel oddly uncertain about it,restricting what people can do with their money.
You can blame Labour for that as well , apparently based on one of Sunny Jim's acts, Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975
1(1)(c)a child of the deceased; ... that person may apply to the court for an order under section 2 of this Act on the ground that the disposition of the deceased’s estate effected by his will or the law relating to intestacy, or the combination of his will and that law, is not such as to make reasonable financial provision for the applicant.
Personally I feel that having had nothing to do with each other for more than three decades and then making an application on the basis of inadequate financial provision is slightly taking the p155.
How predictable, the not-nice-but-still-dim PB Tories....
You just need to throw a little bait on the waters - and up come the beasts from the cold, dark waters...
We are still in awe of your intellectual self-confidence though. Some might see your postings as the mumblings of a broken loser. But not us. No. We recognise a sage when we hear one... Clearly, your avatar is precisely named.
I'm truly APPALLED at that story - the daughter/mother were estranged for years, she explicitly said in her will that she didn't want her daughter to get a penny and to challenge any claim in the courts.
She left her £500k to three charities and now the daughter is getting £164k in the face of her mother's clear desire that she didn't want it.
I hope it's overturned on appeal. If your will is made with sound mind and without coercion it should stand.
Story on the BBC saying a court decision will mean it is much harder to disinherit people in Wills as the judge said it had been harsh and unreasonable. While it presumably washarsh, I feel oddly uncertain about it,restricting what people can do with their money.
You can blame Labour for that as well , apparently based on one of Sunny Jim's acts, Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975
1(1)(c)a child of the deceased; ... that person may apply to the court for an order under section 2 of this Act on the ground that the disposition of the deceased’s estate effected by his will or the law relating to intestacy, or the combination of his will and that law, is not such as to make reasonable financial provision for the applicant.
Personally I feel that having had nothing to do with each other for more than three decades and then making an application on the basis of inadequate financial provision is slightly taking the p155.
What exactly did that have to do with Sunny Jim?
He was prime minister when that law was enacted.
It's a very large payout even under the law.
I believe figures like £10-£20k are more normal. (I think the fact that she had no link with the charities was important. That won't be the case when the intended beneficiary is another family member.)
I guess it'll just be more common to add a memorandum to your will explaining your decision better.
I hope all the infiltrators and entryists who are paying 3 quid to get a vote in the Labour leadership realise,they can give more than that.You could make it £30,£300,£3000.All donations much needed so please give generously.
The “infiltrators and entryists” can sign up for free if they belong to an organisation affiliated to the Labour Party. I doubt Len’s 50.000 army of Unite members for Corbyn won’t even be contributing to the administration costs to cast their vote..
How predictable, the not-nice-but-still-dim PB Tories....
You just need to throw a little bait on the waters - and up come the beasts from the cold, dark waters...
We are still in awe of your intellectual self-confidence though. Some might see your postings as the mumblings of a broken loser. But not us. No. We recognise a sage when we hear one... Clearly, your avatar is precisely named.
There are some transformative CEOs, but not many. Ditto with people working high up in finance. More often it's connections and being able to play the game that have got people to where they are. Hence the Nice But Dim phenomenon:
There was that piece of research published recently in the USA which showed that there was no correlation between the remuneration of CEOs and the performance of their companies. For each of the Dysons (who deserve every penny in my book) there are hundreds of Victor Blanks who get paid millions for performance that is less than good by a long way. These superstar international CEO's who must be paid a fortune otherwise they will go elsewhere are mostly nothing of the sort and if they did clear off and bugger up some other country's companies we would be better off..
How to solve the conundrum is another matter. As we have discussed on here before, the system of corporate governance seems to be the key but, as Mr. Charles has said previously, nobody seems to know how to turn it. I confess I am becoming more and more impatient on this matter and see considerable merit in a radical statutory solution.
Unless the company is owned by the directors or their family then the salary of any director of a limited company should be, by law, be restricted to twenty times the median wage of the company's employees.
Agreed. Changing the law is likely the only solution to this greed.
The problem comes when that well paid board of directors in their boardroom and try to decided which country to relocate their business to. I am sure they are all going to have their companies best interest at heart, but it would be unusual if they didn't spare a small though for the restrictions that would be put on their earnings, and decide to move to Germany (or Malaysia) instead.
But they would have to relocate themselves though, and that would make it more difficult for them to run a business in this country.
This greed is only a recent phenomenon; people at the top never used to be paid these stupid amounts of money.
I was actually referring to people bringing their businesses to their country from outside, although people moving their businesses away is also a concern. A lot of our biggest companies are very mobile, and not shy of telling politicians about it. Vodafone memorably so. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/4454870/Brown-changes-message-on-mixers.html
The Kraken (/ˈkreɪkən/ or /ˈkrɑːkən/)[1] is a legendary sea monster of large proportions that is said to dwell off the coasts of Norway and Greenland. The legend may have originated from sightings of giant squid that are estimated to grow to 12–15 m (40–50 ft) in length, including the tentacles.[2][3] The sheer size and fearsome appearance attributed to the kraken have made it a common ocean-dwelling monster in various fictional works.
How predictable, the not-nice-but-still-dim PB Tories....
You just need to throw a little bait on the waters - and up come the beasts from the cold, dark waters...
We are still in awe of your intellectual self-confidence though. Some might see your postings as the mumblings of a broken loser. But not us. No. We recognise a sage when we hear one... Clearly, your avatar is precisely named.
How predictable, the not-nice-but-still-dim PB Tories wheel out the 1 in 100 James Dysons of this world as representative of the country's wealthy as opposed to the 99/100 opportunistic rent-seekers, thick-but-entitled inheritors of wealth, sociopathic exploiters of others and well-connected game players. I don't think more than a few percent of the 'left' would begrudge true 'wealth creators' like Dyson getting decent recompense, it's the other 99% feral rich that are the problem, who far from creating wealth, destroy it.
That's nothing more than blind prejudice on your part.
As I said upthread Sean- it's a damn site harder for a rich person to become poor than a poor person to become rich.
Redistribution of wealth, fairness and tackling inequality should be the primary goal of any Govt of any colour that seeks to represent the majority of the people. The rich can take care of themselves. The poor need active Govt.
I hope all the infiltrators and entryists who are paying 3 quid to get a vote in the Labour leadership realise,they can give more than that.You could make it £30,£300,£3000.All donations much needed so please give generously.
I doubt Labour would have gotten more than a couple of hundred Tory entryists, if that, so best hope the hard left infitrators are more generous in their donations
As said rich people are either lazy or they spend their time doing something that they like.
Your objection to rich people is that they aren't miserable at work?
@Casino I'm making an observation not an objection about rich people. There are many poor people and professional people who enjoy work too.
I gave up work a couple of years ago when I was in my early forties. My wife works (very hard sometimes) because she wants to, not because she has to. I'm lazy, she does something she likes- so am speaking here from something of experience.
I bought another house this year- as an investment. It's already gone up about 30k, and people are paying me to live there as it goes up.
Wealth creators- piffle. Most wealthy people are spongers who make more money by leveraging.
I tell you Casino- the cards are so stacked in favour of people with money.
If you feel guilty about your success, why don't you give something back through voluntary or charitable work?
I have no objections to making the deck easier for those who don't have money to get on - in fact, I welcome it - but punishing wealthy/rich people for their success with punitive taxation is going to get us nowhere.
There are some transformative CEOs, but not many. Ditto with people working high up in finance. More often it's connections and being able to play the game that have got people to where they are. Hence the Nice But Dim phenomenon:
There was that piece of research published recently in the USA which showed that there was no correlation between the remuneration of CEOs and the performance of their companies. For each of the Dysons (who deserve every penny in my book) there are hundreds of Victor Blanks who get paid millions for performance that is less than good by a long way. These superstar international CEO's who must be paid a fortune otherwise they will go elsewhere are mostly nothing of the sort and if they did clear off and bugger up some other country's companies we would be better off..
How to solve the conundrum is another matter. As we have discussed on here before, the system of corporate governance seems to be the key but, as Mr. Charles has said previously, nobody seems to know how to turn it. I confess I am becoming more and more impatient on this matter and see considerable merit in a radical statutory solution.
Unless the company is owned by the directors or their family then the salary of any director of a limited company should be, by law, be restricted to twenty times the median wage of the company's employees.
Agreed. Changing the law is likely the only solution to this greed.
The problem comes when that well paid board of directors in their boardroom and try to decided which country to relocate their business to. I am sure they are all going to have their companies best interest at heart, but it would be unusual if they didn't spare a small though for the restrictions that would be put on their earnings, and decide to move to Germany (or Malaysia) instead.
If such a move is in accordance with the expressed will of the shareholders then off to foreign climes the business will go, regardless of the remuneration package of the directors. It happens now, so no change.
If, however, the directors recommend such a move and it would be to the detriment of the shareholders then they would be in breach of their duties and commit an offence in law for which they are liable to punishment. Furthermore if the directors of a company would recommend such a move for their own benefit then they are just crooks and should not be in a position of influence at any salary.
How predictable, the not-nice-but-still-dim PB Tories wheel out the 1 in 100 James Dysons of this world as representative of the country's wealthy as opposed to the 99/100 opportunistic rent-seekers, thick-but-entitled inheritors of wealth, sociopathic exploiters of others and well-connected game players. I don't think more than a few percent of the 'left' would begrudge true 'wealth creators' like Dyson getting decent recompense, it's the other 99% feral rich that are the problem, who far from creating wealth, destroy it.
That's nothing more than blind prejudice on your part.
As I said upthread Sean- it's a damn site harder for a rich person to become poor than a poor person to become rich.
Redistribution of wealth, fairness and tackling inequality should be the primary goal of any Govt of any colour that seeks to represent the majority of the people. The rich can take care of themselves. The poor need active Govt.
All very noble I'm sure. Only problem is that you need money to do all those grand things The government needs to ensure that wealthy poeple, wealth creators and net contributors to the exchequer stay here paying as much as possible to fund these worthy causes.
Making demons of the people you need to fund your angels isn't going to end well, is it?
Redistribution of wealth, fairness and tackling inequality should be the primary goal of any Govt of any colour that seeks to represent the majority of the people. The rich can take care of themselves. The poor need active Govt.
100% wrong. CREATION of wealth should be the primary goal of any Govt of any colour that seeks to better the lives of the majority of people. That the Left cannot sign up to this notion is their worst failing. They seem to hate that New Labour's success was based on this very principle.
There was that piece of research published recently in the USA which showed that there was no correlation between the remuneration of CEOs and the performance of their companies. For each of the Dysons (who deserve every penny in my book) there are hundreds of Victor Blanks who get paid millions for performance that is less than good by a long way. These superstar international CEO's who must be paid a fortune otherwise they will go elsewhere are mostly nothing of the sort and if they did clear off and bugger up some other country's companies we would be better off..
If there's a correlation between CEO remuneration and company performance it should really be a negative one, because it can't be fun running a shitty company in badly-performing market, so you need to pay good people more to get them to take on the job.
How to solve the conundrum is another matter. As we have discussed on here before, the system of corporate governance seems to be the key but, as Mr. Charles has said previously, nobody seems to know how to turn it. I confess I am becoming more and more impatient on this matter and see considerable merit in a radical statutory solution.
Unless the company is owned by the directors or their family then the salary of any director of a limited company should be, by law, be restricted to twenty times the median wage of the company's employees.
Great, so they'll outsource all the low-paid jobs.
Agreed. Changing the law is likely the only solution to this greed.
The problem comes when that well paid board of directors in their boardroom and try to decided which country to relocate their business to. I am sure they are all going to have their companies best interest at heart, but it would be unusual if they didn't spare a small though for the restrictions that would be put on their earnings, and decide to move to Germany (or Malaysia) instead.
If such a move is in accordance with the expressed will of the shareholders then off to foreign climes the business will go, regardless of the remuneration package of the directors. It happens now, so no change.
If, however, the directors recommend such a move and it would be to the detriment of the shareholders then they would be in breach of their duties and commit an offence in law for which they are liable to punishment. Furthermore if the directors of a company would recommend such a move for their own benefit then they are just crooks and should not be in a position of influence at any salary.
And if shareholders collectively start to feel that they wont be able to get directors of the calibre (real or perceived) that they deserve under the sort of pay regime you propose, and so request their various businesses go somewhere else ?
Reading the comments here, one can't help feeling that a summer break and an opportunity to get some perspective would do a numbet of people a great deal of good.
How predictable, the not-nice-but-still-dim PB Tories wheel out the 1 in 100 James Dysons of this world as representative of the country's wealthy as opposed to the 99/100 opportunistic rent-seekers, thick-but-entitled inheritors of wealth, sociopathic exploiters of others and well-connected game players. I don't think more than a few percent of the 'left' would begrudge true 'wealth creators' like Dyson getting decent recompense, it's the other 99% feral rich that are the problem, who far from creating wealth, destroy it.
That's nothing more than blind prejudice on your part.
As I said upthread Sean- it's a damn site harder for a rich person to become poor than a poor person to become rich.
Redistribution of wealth, fairness and tackling inequality should be the primary goal of any Govt of any colour that seeks to represent the majority of the people. The rich can take care of themselves. The poor need active Govt.
All very noble I'm sure. Only problem is that you need money to do all those grand things The government needs to ensure that wealthy poeple, wealth creators and net contributors to the exchequer stay here paying as much as possible to fund these worthy causes.
Making demons of the people you need to fund your angels isn't going to end well, is it?
Tyson would squeal like a stuck pig if any government attempted to confiscate one of his investment properties, for the greater good of course.
I'm truly APPALLED at that story - the daughter/mother were estranged for years, she explicitly said in her will that she didn't want her daughter to get a penny and to challenge any claim in the courts.
She left her £500k to three charities and now the daughter is getting £164k in the face of her mother's clear desire that she didn't want it.
I hope it's overturned on appeal. If your will is made with sound mind and without coercion it should stand.
Story on the BBC saying a court decision will mean it is much harder to disinherit people in Wills as the judge said it had been harsh and unreasonable. While it presumably washarsh, I feel oddly uncertain about it,restricting what people can do with their money.
You can blame Labour for that as well , apparently based on one of Sunny Jim's acts, Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975
1(1)(c)a child of the deceased; ... that person may apply to the court for an order under section 2 of this Act on the ground that the disposition of the deceased’s estate effected by his will or the law relating to intestacy, or the combination of his will and that law, is not such as to make reasonable financial provision for the applicant.
Personally I feel that having had nothing to do with each other for more than three decades and then making an application on the basis of inadequate financial provision is slightly taking the p155.
What exactly did that have to do with Sunny Jim?
He was prime minister when that law was enacted.
No he was not. Callaghan became Prime Minister in April 1976.
Comments
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Unit_222103_at_Oakham.JPG
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Unit_222008_at_Melton_Mowbray.JPG
does that mean that everyone, regardless of job, is paid the same...
[edit: sorry, read tweet as "compulsory equal pay [for] adults not audits!]
http://www.thenational.scot/news/libdems-slammed-after-their-solitary-female-msp-alison-mcinnes-is-replaced-at-top-of-list-by-anti-feminist.5689
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3174961/The-Triumph-Tim-Nice-Dim-Report-says-posh-stupid-children-end-earning-poor-gifted.html
Do you know if it's every international test? Just England? LV County?
It'd boost my household income slightly - but the expenditure would go up over and above the increase I fear
Also worth noting was the previous thread where the Liberals voters were shown to be the most racist out of the LibLabKipCon with nearly double the number being anti-Scottish than any other party.
That YouGov poll is now the second piece of hard evidence that "Fear of SNP" was meaningless to the GE2015 outcome no matter how many times PB Tories repeat it.
It argued that successful entrepreneurs are not wild gamblers, rather they are always looking to leverage opportunities and then build up on a unique position or insight. They are outward looking, where as too many CEO's are totally blinkered and stuck in maintaining the current position of what are massive oil-tanker-esque companies. And despite the idea of paying them in share options to encourage them to seek out new opportunities, it more often than not just means they go safety first to ensure those share options reap some steady reward.
Not so keen on GWTW, a bit long. Read the book and that took about a month of saying large chunks of dialogue out loud to work out what the characters Mammy and Prissy were saying. Margaret Mitchell's use of multiple apostrophes to capture the vernacular made my eyes swim.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/27/when-crossword-clues-clash-with-the-guardian-style-guide
A lot of the SWP decamped out of the SWP a couple of years ago when the National Committee decided that an allegation of rape against a senior official should be handled in house and not referred to the police.
Lots of shenanigans including a letter to the membership signed by hundreds of people, including quite a number of senior union officials, asking them to support the non-report.
Ridiculous soap opera.
They'll just have to decamp to the Greens and tolerate the Homeopathy apologism and the bacon sandwich ban. If Labour did that it would have helped Little Ted.
Work for the majority is something they have to do and ideally would rather not, or would choose to do something different if they could, like rich people do.
As said rich people are either lazy or they spend their time doing something that they like.
Next the Guardianistas will demanding Scramble tournament rules are amended to not allow certain words.
Obviously I hope it becomes profitable in the near future *cough*buymybooks*cough*, but are you saying if I achieve success it ceases to be work, even though I'll be doing precisely the same activity? But that if I fail to achieve success I'm still working?
How to solve the conundrum is another matter. As we have discussed on here before, the system of corporate governance seems to be the key but, as Mr. Charles has said previously, nobody seems to know how to turn it. I confess I am becoming more and more impatient on this matter and see considerable merit in a radical statutory solution.
Unless the company is owned by the directors or their family then the salary of any director of a limited company should be, by law, be restricted to twenty times the median wage of the company's employees.
wəːk/
noun
1.
activity involving mental or physical effort done in order to achieve a result.
"he was tired after a day's work in the fields"
synonyms: labour, toil, exertion, effort, slog, drudgery, the sweat of one's brow; More
2.
a task or tasks to be undertaken.
"they made sure the work was progressing smoothly"
synonyms: tasks, jobs, duties, assignments, commissions, projects; chores
"haven't you got any work to do?"
verb
1.
be engaged in physical or mental activity in order to achieve a result; do work.
"an engineer who was working on a design for a more efficient wing"
synonyms: toil, labour, exert oneself, slave (away), plod away; More
2.
(of a machine or system) function, especially properly or effectively.
"his phone doesn't work unless he goes to a high point"
synonyms: function, go, run, operate, perform; More
Just because something is enjoyable, does not mean it isn't work (or even hard work).
I'm not rich, and I do work hard. But I also love my job and enjoy the challenges etc.
If I were ever to expand my company, employ people and so on to the point where I could be considered rich, would you think any less of me?
Power will fall into their laps if only they are more determinedly Left-wing. Righto.....
As for the super-rich (e.g Hollywood stars and their offspring), we often read of early death brought about by indulging in excesses as a result of boredom
“They are sick of politicians speaking in sound bites, sticking to the script and looking like they don’t believe a word they are saying."
[muhl-tee-kuhl-cher-uh-liz-uh m, muhl-tahy-]
noun
1. the state or condition of being multicultural.
2. the preservation of different cultures or cultural identities within a unified society, as a state or nation.
So the preservation of difference. Obviously when that occurs within a society that was traditionally monocultural, it means the difference is between immigrant cultures and the host culture. It is often described as being a "tossed salad", to be contrasted with the "melting pot" of cultural integration.
What you seem to be talking about in terms of your family is a melting pot: you eat food from both cultures, and your family has mixed and intermarried with the rest of society to the extent that you and they do not consider any real difference between you. That's integration.
The contrast to that is when you have a situation where different ethnicities go to different schools, live in different neighbourhoods, have different friendship groups, do not intermarry, have their own TV and radio stations, have different national loyalties, use different court systems, are treated differently when applying for jobs, and have different moral frameworks.
I don't think more than a few percent of the 'left' would begrudge true 'wealth creators' like Dyson getting decent recompense, it's the other 99% feral rich that are the problem, who far from creating wealth, destroy it.
http://www.capx.co/salmond-and-sturgeon-need-a-diversion-from-their-terrible-record-running-scotland/
"ut look at several of the most important areas in which it has complete control and the SNP record is a litany of failure and selfish middle-class sanctimony dressed up in pious, progressive pontificating. Even when enormous amounts of power are devolved, as they have been in several slices since 1997, the Nationalist complaint is always that it is not enough. Of course, whining about powers is much easier than reforming the education system to help the poorest and power economic growth."
if 99/100 wealthy people in this country are "opportunistic rent-seekers, thick-but-entitled inheritors of wealth, sociopathic exploiters of others and well-connected game players", then you should have no problem naming some names, coming up with some proof that things are indeed as dire as you say.
There are probably a few odious individuals who are no better than leeches, but calling pretty much every wealth creator in the country an arsehole is just feckin moronic class envy.
Iain Martin is probably the most embarrassing of your quotes. A man so desperate to be considered a journalist it just screams from every self-parody he squeezes from his cheeks.
Are you advocating that you take out what you put in for all people 16-67? So those who currently rely on benefits and are fit for work will in future take out nothing - unless they do community work for food tickets?
Signed 'a proud saver and wealth creator'.
Martin worked as a reporter for the Sunday Times Scotland (1993–97), as political editor of Scotland on Sunday (1997–2000), political editor of The Scotsman (2000–01), deputy editor of Scotland on Sunday (2001), editor of The Scotsman (2001–04), editor of Scotland on Sunday (2004–06), deputy editor of the Sunday Telegraph (2006), and head of comment for the Telegraph Media Group (2008–09).
From 2009 to 2011 he was Deputy Editor of the Wall Street Journal Europe, for which he wrote a blog on politics.[1][2] For a short time he moved to the Daily Mail newspaper in 2011 to write a weekly political column. He now blogs for the Telegraph and contributes a weekly column to The Sunday Telegraph. Martin has contributed to Standpoint magazine and the Financial News. His book Making it Happen: Fred Goodwin, RBS and the Men Who Blew Up the British Economy, on the financial crisis and Fred Goodwin, was published in 2013.
Agreed. Changing the law is likely the only solution to this greed.
Labour vote as share of 2015 electorate: 28% + (10% * 50%) = 33%
Conservative vote as share of 2015 electorate: 36%.1%
Even for the segment of the population that believes you reduce the debt by increasing the gap between spending and revenue, those numbers do not work.
I now live in the third world, I run a property development business that makes me in local terms a lot of money, although broadly the same as my UK income, do I enjoy it ? Not especially, but it uses up sufficiently little of my time that I have the liberty to teach in a local charity school and help some very poor children. I also have several other businesses which make very little money but are either fun or socially useful, none of which I would be able to do if I didn't have the good paying job. Life is complicated, not all rich people, or even semi-rich people enjoy their work, and quite a lot of them actually work quite hard, even if that isn't apparent at their declared place of employment.
Sad really
Corbyn wants it to be a Pacific ocean.
Zooooooooooooooooooom..
The official title is the Nat onal
My view on the public sector is very simple, having spent most of my life in there. With the exception of the medical profession, the vast majority of people in senior positions are at best mediocre in their abilities to do anything other than play the internal politics of their department/organisation. Therefore I would set a blanket limit on how much a public servant could earn. One hundred thousand pounds per annum would I think more than meet the need to attract people of sufficient talent to run our public services. However, I would make an exception to allow, non-pensionable, bonus payments to those who maintain or improve frontline delivery whilst reducing head-count and costs.
What exactly did that have to do with Sunny Jim?
But they would have to relocate themselves though, and that would make it more difficult for them to run a business in this country.
This greed is only a recent phenomenon; people at the top never used to be paid these stupid amounts of money.
Who gets to be the arbiter of this "truth"? And does it then determine the amount of tax you levy?
If 99% of wealthy people actively destroy wealth (as you claimed down-thread) then either the remaining 1% are working really hard, or you are the one talking about makers of footwear.
@JoeWatts_: Here's a picture of, well... https://t.co/l1HjvaYZHk
You have been warned
As said rich people are either lazy or they spend their time doing something that they like.
Your objection to rich people is that they aren't miserable at work?
@Casino
I'm making an observation not an objection about rich people. There are many poor people and professional people who enjoy work too.
I gave up work a couple of years ago when I was in my early forties. My wife works (very hard sometimes) because she wants to, not because she has to. I'm lazy, she does something she likes- so am speaking here from something of experience.
I bought another house this year- as an investment. It's already gone up about 30k, and people are paying me to live there as it goes up.
Wealth creators- piffle. Most wealthy people are spongers who make more money by leveraging.
I tell you Casino- the cards are so stacked in favour of people with money.
He was prime minister when that law was enacted.
We are still in awe of your intellectual self-confidence though. Some might see your postings as the mumblings of a broken loser. But not us. No. We recognise a sage when we hear one... Clearly, your avatar is precisely named.
It's a very large payout even under the law.
I believe figures like £10-£20k are more normal. (I think the fact that she had no link with the charities was important. That won't be the case when the intended beneficiary is another family member.)
I guess it'll just be more common to add a memorandum to your will explaining your decision better.
http://www.labour.org.uk/w/labour-party-supporters
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/4454870/Brown-changes-message-on-mixers.html
Redistribution of wealth, fairness and tackling inequality should be the primary goal of any Govt of any colour that seeks to represent the majority of the people. The rich can take care of themselves. The poor need active Govt.
@Casino
I'm making an observation not an objection about rich people. There are many poor people and professional people who enjoy work too.
I gave up work a couple of years ago when I was in my early forties. My wife works (very hard sometimes) because she wants to, not because she has to. I'm lazy, she does something she likes- so am speaking here from something of experience.
I bought another house this year- as an investment. It's already gone up about 30k, and people are paying me to live there as it goes up.
Wealth creators- piffle. Most wealthy people are spongers who make more money by leveraging.
I tell you Casino- the cards are so stacked in favour of people with money.
If you feel guilty about your success, why don't you give something back through voluntary or charitable work?
I have no objections to making the deck easier for those who don't have money to get on - in fact, I welcome it - but punishing wealthy/rich people for their success with punitive taxation is going to get us nowhere.
If, however, the directors recommend such a move and it would be to the detriment of the shareholders then they would be in breach of their duties and commit an offence in law for which they are liable to punishment. Furthermore if the directors of a company would recommend such a move for their own benefit then they are just crooks and should not be in a position of influence at any salary.
Only problem is that you need money to do all those grand things The government needs to ensure that wealthy poeple, wealth creators and net contributors to the exchequer stay here paying as much as possible to fund these worthy causes.
Making demons of the people you need to fund your angels isn't going to end well, is it?
No he was not. Callaghan became Prime Minister in April 1976.