I don't agree with the minimum wage and I'll tell you why below. If you disagree with me then by all means I look forward to you convincing me otherwise.

The minimum wage is an idea for an ideal world. In Principle I think its a great idea but in reality I think it does more harm than good.

Our country is hypocritical. We have all these liberal laws to protect workers. It expects business to jump through so much red tape I'm amazed anybody bothers to setup their own business.
But we are where we are and I certainly don't agree with exploitation. However, it seems to me we all turn a blind eye by filling our houses and studios with cheap gear made in China where there are no human rights at all let alone any minimum wages. Why is it acceptable to give our own people these rights while exploiting other people abroad?

The end result is we, as a country, will become less and less competitive and very much on the way down as we see today. Its unsustainable.

When I was 12 I got a job in a pub washing up and was paid £1.50 an hour. By my late teens/early twenties I had another job earning £3 an hour. Now, granted I was living at home but I'd take home over £400 a month and I was paying tax and took no benefits. Was that exploitation? No, it was what it was. If I wanted money I had to earn it and that was the going rate. I was lucky to have a job.

Now jump forward 20 years and I see things from a different angle. I now have my own business. Its just me but recently I was thinking I wouldn't mind taking someone on but I cannot afford to pay the minimum wage. I don't even earn the minimum wage myself FFS! Mind you, my business made the government nearly 20 grand in vat last year yet I get no benefits. The point is, I scrape by, my business is growing and I cost the state/other tax payers nothing but make them more than I earn myself. Am I being exploited by our very own system?

I feel that small businesses should have the right to take on staff at whatever price the market demands, not at some ill thought out PC liberal ideology. If I was 18 in this current climate I would work for a few quid an hour and gain as much experience as I could. I'd look at it as paid work experience.

I know quite a few musicians on the doll. They get their rent paid for and a few other perks and earn cash gigging on the side. They have plenty of money for beer, take-away, dope, strings, etc. They earn more money than I do. But in reality they are leaches. That 20 grand I generated for the Government in Vat is paying for them and the millions of others who sponge. Its wrong.
We cannot afford the perfect world minimum wage and I don't see why I should continue to subsidised the life styles of people who should be working. Let me keep that 20 grand in vat so I can invest it in my business and create a couple of part time jobs. Its not rocket science. Its simple economics.

By the way, I think large companies like Tesco should have a minimum wage. They can afford it but small businesses should have the freedom and be given that competitive advantage.

Is my thinking right or am I misguided?

20 years ago you didn't have buy-to-let landlords pricing so many people out of potential accommodation that even people in work, and earning more than the minimum wage, have to claim housing benefit in order to find somewhere to live in many parts of the country.

So it's OK to earn a pittance if you're lucky enough to live with your parents, but otherwise when even a room in a shared house is £200+ per month*, a studio flat is £350+* and squatting (which was always technically illegal, but a blind eye was often turned) is now fraught with danger of eviction with extreme prejudice.

(* these are real figures being charged in Preston, where I live - and this isn't even a particularly expensive part of the country)

--------------------
Gear List: reverse only.

Quote Dave Gate:

---

20 years ago you didn't have buy-to-let landlords pricing so many people out of potential accommodation that even people in work, and earning more than the minimum wage, have to claim housing benefit in order to find somewhere to live in many parts of the country.

---

I would have thought that the huge jump in buy-to-let the last 10 years has only provided more rental property which in theory should result in lower rents due to supply/demand. But clearly this boom in rents occurred because tax payers were and are picking up the tab. Drop the rental benefits for the masses and rents will soon return to normal market levels. Again, its the tax payer subsidising landlords and tenants. More unsustainable economics.

But that has nothing to do with minimum wage, and everything to do with governments, rightly or wrongly, allowing housing benefit to support buy-to-let.

--------------------
Gear List: reverse only.

The world we were living and working in twenty years ago is radically different in a large number of ways that are directly related to your OP, which tends to question some of the inferences you are making....

Quote WiredUp:

---

I know quite a few musicians on the doll. They get their rent paid for and a few other perks and earn cash gigging on the side. They have plenty of money for beer, take-away, dope, strings, etc. They earn more money than I do. But in reality they are leaches. That 20 grand I generated for the Government in Vat is paying for them and the millions of others who sponge. Its wrong.
We cannot afford the perfect world minimum wage and I don't see why I should continue to subsidised the life styles of people who should be working.

---

Regarding 'should be working', do you agree this would require jobs being there for them to do ?

Quote Gone To Lunch:

---

Quote WiredUp:

---

I know quite a few musicians on the doll. They get their rent paid for and a few other perks and earn cash gigging on the side. They have plenty of money for beer, take-away, dope, strings, etc. They earn more money than I do. But in reality they are leaches. That 20 grand I generated for the Government in Vat is paying for them and the millions of others who sponge. Its wrong.
We cannot afford the perfect world minimum wage and I don't see why I should continue to subsidised the life styles of people who should be working.

---

Regarding 'should be working', do you agree this would require jobs being there for them to do ?

---

Yes and if small business could pay the market rate and not have so much red tape there would be a lot more jobs wouldn't there?
If our manufacturing wasn't undercut by cheap goods from countries who don't have a minimum wages or indeed any employment laws we have wouldn't all the money we spend stay in our economy instead of giving China/others the boom they are currently enjoying?

Quote Gone To Lunch:

---

The world we were living and working in twenty years ago is radically different in a large number of ways that are directly related to your OP, which tends to question some of the inferences you are making....

---

I don't think its really that different at all except that the welfare bill has more than doubled! The same principles remain. You cannot spend more than you make.

So you admit your business is not doing well enough for you to pay yourself more than or even the minimum wage, but you want someone to give their lives to help you for similarly no reward? Sounds like a good deal...

Yep, it is very sad the way - as ever, the exploitation of labor - seemingly the most disposable and least important thing to business - has lead to a race to the bottom with the exporting of manufacturing abroad.

The answer to this cannot be a simple removing of all 'red tape' and the minimum wage in this country can it? You cannot be third world poor in this country - there is no space or the climate to live off the land or be dirt poor. So what you dont want to pay, the government will have to, otherwise all your staff would be homeless. Unless you think kids living at home would supply enough labour in your new 'free market'.

Some people in work have to claim top up benefit, since their minimum wage, probably earned from cleaning the carpets in Barclays, is not enough for them to live near the place of this work. You'r living in cloud cookoo land if you think that if benefit were removed, landlords would LOWER rents for even poorer people!!!

--------------------

£20k in VAT? So that means £120k in invoices? Or £100k + vat.

Your income in £100k. If your overheads and costs are taking £85k then your business structure is the thing that's possibly wrong here. Of course, a fledgling business often doesn't make much/any money but as a side point I think you need to look at how your business is structured and what payments you make. I don't know what it is you do but I'd suggest you are charging too low. Viability is an important concept!

Quote narcoman:

---

£20k in VAT? So that means £120k in invoices? Or £100k + vat.

Your income in £100k. If your overheads and costs are taking £85k then your business structure is the thing that's possibly wrong here. Of course, a fledgling business often doesn't make much/any money but as a side point I think you need to look at how your business is structured and what payments you make. I don't know what it is you do but I'd suggest you are charging too low. Viability is an important concept!

---

You're confusing turnover with gross and net profit. Much of my capital is tied up in stock, indeed I need more stock than I currently carry so this means I have to invest in the business and take the bare minimum for myself.
But as a self employed person there is no 'rent top up' for me. I am entitled to nothing yet I generate more in tax than those who are entitled. Can someone explain to me how that is fair?

Quote WiredUp:

---

Quote narcoman:

---

£20k in VAT? So that means £120k in invoices? Or £100k + vat.

Your income in £100k. If your overheads and costs are taking £85k then your business structure is the thing that's possibly wrong here. Of course, a fledgling business often doesn't make much/any money but as a side point I think you need to look at how your business is structured and what payments you make. I don't know what it is you do but I'd suggest you are charging too low. Viability is an important concept!

---

You're confusing turnover with gross and net profit.

---

Yeah, come on Narco, don't you know even the BASICS of business?

FYI, VAT stands for value added tax.

Quote WiredUp:

---

Quote narcoman:

---

£20k in VAT? So that means £120k in invoices? Or £100k + vat.

Your income in £100k. If your overheads and costs are taking £85k then your business structure is the thing that's possibly wrong here. Of course, a fledgling business often doesn't make much/any money but as a side point I think you need to look at how your business is structured and what payments you make. I don't know what it is you do but I'd suggest you are charging too low. Viability is an important concept!

---

You're confusing turnover with gross and net profit. Much of my capital is tied up in stock, indeed I need more stock than I currently carry so this means I have to invest in the business and take the bare minimum for myself.
But as a self employed person there is no 'rent top up' for me. I am entitled to nothing yet I generate more in tax than those who are entitled. Can someone explain to me how that is fair?

---

I think you may be confusing stock with capital equipment...

Reg

--------------------
Google less; read more!

Quote oui, miss reidy:

---

Quote WiredUp:

---

Quote narcoman:

---

£20k in VAT? So that means £120k in invoices? Or £100k + vat.

Your income in £100k. If your overheads and costs are taking £85k then your business structure is the thing that's possibly wrong here. Of course, a fledgling business often doesn't make much/any money but as a side point I think you need to look at how your business is structured and what payments you make. I don't know what it is you do but I'd suggest you are charging too low. Viability is an important concept!

---

You're confusing turnover with gross and net profit.

---

Yeah, come on Narco, don't you know even the BASICS of business?

FYI, VAT stands for value added tax.

---

...and you appear to be looking around the forum taking contrary views to stuff.

Reg

--------------------
Google less; read more!

We used to have social housing, which was then sold off, so now housing benefit goes to private landlords to provide people on benefits with somewhere to live. It will cost the state more, but it means that someone can make a profit from our taxes. The added bonus with selling off social housing is that people with a mortgage are less inclined to strike or riot when the government does something unpopular. People on benefits still spend money on luxuries and food and that makes money for someone. Benefits were originally conceived to provide a better society, but they are now a tool to take money from tax payers and give it to private companies. As for the minimum wage, I’m not sure reducing our living standards to those of China is a great idea but it depends what kind of society you prefer and whether you’re at the top of the tree or the bottom and whether you run the sweatshop or work in it.

Edited by Soulgreed (22/07/12 12:02 PM)

Quote Soulgreed:

---

We used to have social housing, which was then sold off, so now housing benefit goes to private landlords to provide people on benefits with somewhere to live. It will cost the state more, but it means that someone can make a profit from our taxes. The added bonus with selling off social housing is that people with a mortgage are less inclined to strike or riot when the government does something unpopular. People on benefits still spend money on luxuries and food and that makes money for someone. Benefits were originally conceived to provide a better society, but they are now a tool to take money from tax payers and give it to private companies. As for the minimum wage, I’m not sure reducing our living standards to those of China is a great idea but it depends what kind of society you prefer and whether you’re at the top of the tree or the bottom.

---

Good points Soulgreed. Nobody wants to see us with the living standard of China but I think that is the reality of the way we are heading. I'm not convinced things are going to improve, I see them getting much much worse. According to This "Government's significant budget deficit, which must be financed by borrowing, the national debt is increasing by approximately £121 billion per annum, or around £2.3 billion each week."
If that figure is to be believed I would argue that you can forget minimum wages, pensions, welfare and so on - we can't afford it. That's the reality of what is coming down the line. China is on the way up and we're on the way down. We better start competing fast!

S-h-i-t isn't it

Yeah, it's not looking good to be honest. My worry is that the ones that have been in charge throughout my lifetime, as much as they will protest otherwise, have no interest in improving things because they, their families and their friends, are on the take- things like housing benefit, PFI, personal debt, and even national debt, are money generating schemes for the few.

Quote Soulgreed:

---

Yeah, it's not looking good to be honest. My worry is that the ones that have been in charge throughout my lifetime, as much as they will protest otherwise, have no interest in improving things because they, their families and their friends, are on the take- things like housing benefit, PFI, personal debt, and even national debt, are money generating schemes for the few.

---

Indeed, sinking ship..................
How bad will it get before someone with balls, vision and leadership takes the helm?

Rental benefits for the masses? Look again mate, the rental benefits are for the landlords. In case you hadn't noticed they are the ones who get the money.

Quote Nightfly:

---

Rental benefits for the masses? Look again mate, the rental benefits are for the landlords. In case you hadn't noticed they are the ones who get the money.

---

Yes, I know, I mentioned that above. If it was stopped then market forces would dictate a change. Suddenly you would have a situation where landlords would not be guaranteed such large incomes with absolutely no hassle. Rents would drop dramatically back down to what people in that area can afford.

I can see where you're coming from Wiredup, but I'm not sure that removing housing benefit would work like that. Rental prices can only drop so far before they cease to cover the cost of the mortage and building insurance etc. The way they're delivered should certainly change because it's a recipe for corruption. My answer would be social housing and food stamps, take the cash out of the benefits system completely to reduce corruption, but I'm not sure how many votes I'd win...

Never the people struggling on benefits...

Take a look at the REAL PROBLEM HERE :

Quote Soulgreed:

---

I can see where you're coming from Wiredup, but I'm not sure that removing housing benefit would work like that. Rental prices can only drop so far before they cease to cover the cost of the mortage and building insurance etc. The way they're delivered should certainly change because it's a recipe for corruption. My answer would be social housing and food stamps, take the cash out of the benefits system completely to reduce corruption, but I'm not sure how many votes I'd win...

---

I'm with you completely Soulgreed. There should be a safety net for all who fall on hard times. But what we have today is way beyond a safety net.

Quote Gone To Lunch:

---

Never the people struggling on benefits...

Take a look at the REAL PROBLEM HERE :

---

There is curruption at the top and the bottom. Both should be stopped.

Are we talking about the "Market Forces" that don't allow the banks to fail?

Or "Hedge Funds"??

Or are they the Market forces that allowed companies to steal their workers pensions? - so now we don't have any private pension scheme worth having?

Or - the Market Forces that allowed for a mass bubble in the housing market, falsely inflating the prices of homes and feeding cheap, unsustainable credit that was exploited by the banking system (including their own Libor rate) and destroying peoples hard earned savings?

Or is it the Market forces that privatised (and is continuing to privatise) our public services - and made them into commercial money making systems for the few (and incidentally at least 20% more expensive -cause that's the profit margin) and lose their core reason for being (ie public services)

Or is this the Market forces that, when they get caught cheating, lying and stealing go cap in hand to the government and tax payer to bail them out?

What i would like to see

Rent control - save on housing benefit and stop this 'buy to let' bullshit
tax evasion control - I pay taxes - why shouldn't everybody?
minimum wage - there needs to be some control from exploitation.....

....as for the argument for small business - there should be a helping hand from welfare - so that you could 'make up' to minimum wage what you pay - but then - that's already been exploited and used up by big businesses anyway.


can we really trust our world to 'market forces'???

--------------------
http://soundcloud.com/seaapes

The 'Free Market' is the classic paradigm trumpted by capitalists.

I remember John Redwood saying how the world should just be people free to make and sell stuff. How quaint, thats all the world should be -, people freely making and selling thier wares, like a summer fete.

Not free to exploit limited resources and cover the world in your crap.
Not free to exploit people by trying to pay them nothing to do the actual making.
Not free to keep all your money and not give any of it back to help run the society that allows your workforce to actually live in the first place.

Of course the opposite to this - regulation - is trumpeted as a communist dictatorship.

Neat trick.

--------------------

Quote WiredUp:

---

Quote narcoman:

---

£20k in VAT? So that means £120k in invoices? Or £100k + vat.

Your income in £100k. If your overheads and costs are taking £85k then your business structure is the thing that's possibly wrong here. Of course, a fledgling business often doesn't make much/any money but as a side point I think you need to look at how your business is structured and what payments you make. I don't know what it is you do but I'd suggest you are charging too low. Viability is an important concept!

---

You're confusing turnover with gross and net profit. Much of my capital is tied up in stock, indeed I need more stock than I currently carry so this means I have to invest in the business and take the bare minimum for myself.
But as a self employed person there is no 'rent top up' for me. I am entitled to nothing yet I generate more in tax than those who are entitled. Can someone explain to me how that is fair?

---

No. I calculated your income via invoices based on your VAT liability. That's the only way your paying VAT. If you're selling something with that little markup then it may be time to think your way out of it!!

Quote narcoman:

---

Quote WiredUp:

---

Quote narcoman:

---

£20k in VAT? So that means £120k in invoices? Or £100k + vat.

Your income in £100k. If your overheads and costs are taking £85k then your business structure is the thing that's possibly wrong here. Of course, a fledgling business often doesn't make much/any money but as a side point I think you need to look at how your business is structured and what payments you make. I don't know what it is you do but I'd suggest you are charging too low. Viability is an important concept!

---

You're confusing turnover with gross and net profit. Much of my capital is tied up in stock, indeed I need more stock than I currently carry so this means I have to invest in the business and take the bare minimum for myself.
But as a self employed person there is no 'rent top up' for me. I am entitled to nothing yet I generate more in tax than those who are entitled. Can someone explain to me how that is fair?

---

No. I calculated your income via invoices based on your VAT liability. That's the only way your paying VAT. If you're selling something with that little markup then it may be time to think your way out of it!!

---

Yeah, perhaps I'll stop working for a living and jump on the benefits band wagon, I'd certainly be better off financially.
Anyway, you still don't seem to have a grasp of business and the difference between turnover and profit. My margins are quite acceptable for my industry. Why would I want to think my way out of a profitable and growing business? I love my job and I refuse to sponge.

First - sorry if I came across as brusk. Didn't mean to.

Agree about the love of it but was just thinking that if you're turning over £100k but only managing a sub £20k wage then there must be savings to be made. One of the reasons I don't deal in selling is the low margins; it's a dog eat dog environment and is geared around undercutting far too much for my liking!

Suffice to say that if I found an area of our business working at less than 100% margin (or 50% depending upon which way you look at it) i'd be shaking it up !!

It's a little way off the mark, though, to say I don't have a grasp of business!! ...... you drew that conclusion on my criticism (albeit an overly harsh one) of running small margins?

In light of your first post:

I disagree - I'm all for minimum wage. I'm also for higher direct taxation BUT with a higher 0% tax threshold; tax the rich. I certainly feel as a company we're appropriately taxed but as an individual I'd pay more.

All the OP is doing really is moaning about 'spongers'.

Why not just be happy you have a job you love, in an apparently growing and profitable business?

--------------------

I'll go into more detail on this tomorrow, when I've had time to dig into some recent research that I've been doing. But:

China (and India) are in a similar situation to what Britain (and America, and other European and Scandanavian counties) were in a hundred years ago. They are developing economies where the people at the bottom are being exploited, but are slowly and surely gaining more rights and more bargaining power, while the top layer are living it up. In Britain this led to the demise of the wealthy aristocracy between the wars, and the nationalisation of many industries that would otherwise have collapsed due to years of under-investment, after the second world war.

In one of the villages that I have been doing research on a typical worker, who was employed in forestry, earned 3 shillings (36 pence) per day and worked six days per week (probably for between nine and twelve hours depending on the season and the weather). That makes his weekly wage 18 shillings, which equates to an annual income of £46 16 shillings. But the rent on the cottage where he lived, which had been judged as being in fair condition by the surveyor for the Valuation Office Survey in 1912, was 39 shillings per annum (nine pence per week). Taken as a percentage that means that 4.17% of his income was being expended on his accommodation.

To put this into perspective the poverty campaigner B. Seebohm Rowntree, writing in 1913, but basing his calculations on 1912 prices, estimated that if a worker earned less than 20 shillings per week then he and his family were living in poverty. But that was based on them paying a rent of £4 per annum on their home, which was considerably more than the person I was discussing was paying. But Rowntree's poverty calculations were based on that level of income and rent in relation to supporting a man, his wife, and three children.

Today, in relative terms, a single person on minimum wage would be lucky to find any form of legal accommodation for between a third and a half of their net income in many parts of the country. And, support a family on it? No chance!

--------------------
Gear List: reverse only.

Edited by Dave Gate (22/07/12 10:25 PM)

Quote WiredUp:

---

I don't agree with the minimum wage and I'll tell you why below. If you disagree with me then by all means I look forward to you convincing me otherwise.

The minimum wage is an idea for an ideal world. In Principle I think its a great idea but in reality I think it does more harm than good.
..
Is my thinking right or am I misguided?

---

You are misguided.

Quote narcoman:

---

First - sorry if I came across as brusk. Didn't mean to.

Agree about the love of it but was just thinking that if you're turning over £100k but only managing a sub £20k wage then there must be savings to be made. One of the reasons I don't deal in selling is the low margins; it's a dog eat dog environment and is geared around undercutting far too much for my liking!

Suffice to say that if I found an area of our business working at less than 100% margin (or 50% depending upon which way you look at it) i'd be shaking it up !!

It's a little way off the mark, though, to say I don't have a grasp of business!! ...... you drew that conclusion on my criticism (albeit an overly harsh one) of running small margins?

In light of your first post:

I disagree - I'm all for minimum wage. I'm also for higher direct taxation BUT with a higher 0% tax threshold; tax the rich. I certainly feel as a company we're appropriately taxed but as an individual I'd pay more.

---

Fair enough. You're right about it being dog eat dog but I'm keeping my head above the water and I enjoy my work, best of all I answer only to myself. I consider myself lucky.

Quote Chaconne:

---

All the OP is doing really is moaning about 'spongers'.

Why not just be happy you have a job you love, in an apparently growing and profitable business?

---

You're right too. Yesterday, when I started this, I guess I just needed to let off some steam but I stand by what I said, the system is broken and its only going to get worse IMO.

Quote WiredUp:

---

Quote Gone To Lunch:

---

Never the people struggling on benefits...

Take a look at the REAL PROBLEM HERE :

---

There is curruption at the top and the bottom. Both should be stopped.

---

The corruption at the top is of such magnitude that wrongdoings at the bottom are irrelevant.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jul/21/offshore-wealth-global-econ omy-tax-havens

Society allows people who have become multimillionaires by bankrupting the banks to keep their wealth, and uses taxes to clean up the financial mess they have created. Meanwhile a teenagers who post facebook messages about the riots get 2 years in prison, those with disabilities are demonised and poor families are having their living allowance cut.

Why? Greed and aspiration. Too many people dream of being millionaires. They are respected and admired today, even if they have used immoral means to obtain their riches. The disabled and the poor? Let them rot, let them suffer more than they do already.

Quote johnny h:

---

Quote WiredUp:

---

Quote Gone To Lunch:

---

Never the people struggling on benefits...

Take a look at the REAL PROBLEM HERE :

---

There is curruption at the top and the bottom. Both should be stopped.

---

The corruption at the top is of such magnitude that wrongdoings at the bottom are irrelevant.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jul/21/offshore-wealth-global-econ omy-tax-havens

Society allows people who have become multimillionaires by bankrupting the banks to keep their wealth, and uses taxes to clean up the financial mess they have created. Meanwhile a teenagers who post facebook messages about the riots get 2 years in prison, those with disabilities are demonised and poor families are having their living allowance cut.

Why? Greed and aspiration. Too many people dream of being millionaires. They are respected and admired today, even if they have used immoral means to obtain their riches. The disabled and the poor? Let them rot, let them suffer more than they do already.

---

Not all rich people are bad corrupt criminals. There's a real witch hunt at the moment for anyone who has money. Many of them started poor and through hard work and vision they made their money. I admire these people. On the other hand, many of them had wealth handed to them and some got lucky and cheated the corrupt system. Personally I don't buy all this tax the rich stuff, its as bad as the rich saying let the poor rot. I think there should be one tax rate. 20% of one million is a lot more than 20% of 20 thousand. It all levels out. Certainly corruption is the biggest stain on our past and future but we all let it happen, rich and poor. The recent banking swindle occurred because we let it. If a million people withdrew their money from their bank accounts and stopped paying their mortgage those in power would wake up but that won't happen because things are clearly not bad enough.....yet!

I pity the excessively wealthy, they are trapped in an addiction, trapped like junkies with no way out and no way back. When your god is money then you really are ffucked.

It's the difference between "money is the root of all evil" and "love of money is the root of all evil". money is essential in today's world, but many of us have a warped idea of how much we need to be "happy". Studies have shown that beyond a relatively low figure - about £55k in today's money, extra wealth brings very little real joy. There'll always be people driven to make more and more, and if that's in ethically sound businesses I have no problem with that. Unfortunately there are some who reason that if a thousand pounds in nice, then a million quid is a thousand times nicer. Not much you can do about that.

I guess many of on this forum are quite happy because we do what we love, even if it's not full time. And easy to imagine, if you're struggling to keep your family fed and housed, that more money is the only answer. And however little tax you pay, if evading some leaves you more cash,well there's the edge of a nasty cliff if ever I saw one.

Quote WiredUp:

---

Quote johnny h:

---

Quote WiredUp:

---

Quote Gone To Lunch:

---

Never the people struggling on benefits...

Take a look at the REAL PROBLEM HERE :

---

There is curruption at the top and the bottom. Both should be stopped.

---

The corruption at the top is of such magnitude that wrongdoings at the bottom are irrelevant.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jul/21/offshore-wealth-global-econ omy-tax-havens

Society allows people who have become multimillionaires by bankrupting the banks to keep their wealth, and uses taxes to clean up the financial mess they have created. Meanwhile a teenagers who post facebook messages about the riots get 2 years in prison, those with disabilities are demonised and poor families are having their living allowance cut.

Why? Greed and aspiration. Too many people dream of being millionaires. They are respected and admired today, even if they have used immoral means to obtain their riches. The disabled and the poor? Let them rot, let them suffer more than they do already.

---

Not all rich people are bad corrupt criminals. There's a real witch hunt at the moment for anyone who has money. Many of them started poor and through hard work and vision they made their money. I admire these people. On the other hand, many of them had wealth handed to them and some got lucky and cheated the corrupt system. Personally I don't buy all this tax the rich stuff, its as bad as the rich saying let the poor rot. I think there should be one tax rate. 20% of one million is a lot more than 20% of 20 thousand. It all levels out. Certainly corruption is the biggest stain on our past and future but we all let it happen, rich and poor. The recent banking swindle occurred because we let it. If a million people withdrew their money from their bank accounts and stopped paying their mortgage those in power would wake up but that won't happen because things are clearly not bad enough.....yet!

---

Your response completely proves my point. If you had bothered to click on the link you will have read its all about tax evasion. On a scale "larger than the entire American economy"! 21 trillion dollars. Can you even comprehend how big a number that is?

But no, you "admire" these people, so you bend over and cough up your taxes to bail out the banks while moaning your head off that people on minimum wage and benefits should, although they are already the poorest people in society, be pushed further into poverty.

Quote ow:

---

I pity the excessively wealthy, they are trapped in an addiction, trapped like junkies with no way out and no way back. When your god is money then you really are ffucked.

---

I agree with this. Good example - why does someone like Simon Cowell feel the need to come up with even more TV series? There is an element of greed gone mad. IT'd be better for the country and overall economy if those sort of enterprises move to the side to let the next sensation step forward. Better for employment, better for investment.