The money has to be earnt first...so not having the millionaire around means less income for the country, not having the benefit claimant around means more as although they do pay 17.5% vat, when 100% of that money came from the countries coffers, it doesn't make up for it.
Sponsored Links
Not having a millionaire does not mean that the country earns less wealth. Millionaires more often have created or inhererited a position where they can profit from the efforts of others.
for example, if he is a company owner or shareholder, it is someone else that is doing the work and creating the wealth. Someone else can own the shares or the company with no impact to the community.
If he is Geoffrey Archer or Lord Black, then having him out of circulation will do nothing but good.
If he is a footballer or other entertainer, his loss will not reduce national wealth.
If he is a drug-dealer, loan-shark or slum landlord, his death will not reduce national wealth.
On the other hand if he is an inventor or trader, there might be a pause until the gap is filled.
for example, if he is a company owner or shareholder, it is someone else that is doing the work and creating the wealth. Someone else can own the shares or the company with no impact to the community.
If he is Geoffrey Archer or Lord Black, then having him out of circulation will do nothing but good.
If he is a footballer or other entertainer, his loss will not reduce national wealth.
If he is a drug-dealer, loan-shark or slum landlord, his death will not reduce national wealth.
On the other hand if he is an inventor or trader, there might be a pause until the gap is filled.
- Joined
- 24 Aug 2009
- Messages
- 2,664
- Reaction score
- 281
- Country
@JohnD
You really do seem to have a very big problem with some people profiting from others - or giving them work as it is more usually known.
Would you prefer that employing anybody was banned and all employees were told to make their money themselves ?
You really do seem to have a very big problem with some people profiting from others - or giving them work as it is more usually known.
Would you prefer that employing anybody was banned and all employees were told to make their money themselves ?
D
Deleted member 105431
Yet more crap from a very sad old man.
Would you please name my alleged alter ego's and I have nothing to hide from HMRC, can you say the same I wonder?
Your obviously a bit simple as less than 1% of my posts are about BG, I suggest you start an adult learning course to brush up your skills.
Sponsored Links
J
Johnmelad502
Dear Penfold46
I meant this the General discussion Forum.
£5 000 000 000 a small amount of money?
You are retarded.
D
Deleted member 105431
Penfold46 is a copycat poster, its not me believe it or not I really don't care.
N
namsag
Dangermouth so why have you not answered that you where posting under a different name when banned or does that make you out to be the liar you obviously are.
Touched a raw nerve have we fannybaws.
Anyone that reads the drivel you put will see its a fixation with BG
Touched a raw nerve have we fannybaws.
Anyone that reads the drivel you put will see its a fixation with BG
no, you are wrong, I only have a big problem with prosperous swindlers evading their taxes.
I was giving an example of why we should not be grateful to a criminal, just because he is a millionaire.
You're not that good with economics are you.
OK lets tackle the footballer thing. English footballer gets paid millions. How much tax does he pay? ££££
No footballer... How much tax does that no existent footballer pay ?? 0
Money is taxed when it changes hands, therefore without someone earning money or providing a service for someone else in order to get money, it sits in one place and isn't taxed. If someone earns millions, they pay a lot of tax. If someone earns less, they pay less tax.
you are falling into the foolish trap of thinking that if one footballer stops playing (e.g. he is sent to prison for tax evasion) then his place stays empty; the team carries on with ten players; the ticket price is cut by 9% and the money he would have earned disappears.
In fact, the world carries on perfectly well without him, and national wealth is not reduced.
Your point that "If someone earns millions, they pay a lot of tax. If someone earns less, they pay less tax." should be true, it only fails when some swinder evades the tax he should be paying, which is a point I have already made. In which case, the swindler is a crook who deserves no sympathy.
In fact, the world carries on perfectly well without him, and national wealth is not reduced.
Your point that "If someone earns millions, they pay a lot of tax. If someone earns less, they pay less tax." should be true, it only fails when some swinder evades the tax he should be paying, which is a point I have already made. In which case, the swindler is a crook who deserves no sympathy.
OK, say that guy is sent to prison for tax evasion, does that automatically make someone else worth their wage? Or will they play a player they were already paying? or will they sign up someone else? From another team (who is already paying tax)?
You obviously haven't thought about this,.
You obviously haven't thought about this,.
either
(a) they will carry on playing with a 10-man team and reduce the wages bill
or
(b) they will reshuffle and have another star player and end up paying about the same number of players about the same amount
my money's on (b)
As I said, the world carries on perfectly well without him, and national wealth is not reduced.
Do you really think that in some way national wealth is reduced?
you obviously haven't thought about this very well
Would you agree that "If someone earns millions, they pay a lot of tax. If someone earns less, they pay less tax." should be true, it only fails when some swinder evades the tax he should be paying, which is a point I have already made. In which case, the swindler is a crook who deserves no sympathy?
(a) they will carry on playing with a 10-man team and reduce the wages bill
or
(b) they will reshuffle and have another star player and end up paying about the same number of players about the same amount
my money's on (b)
As I said, the world carries on perfectly well without him, and national wealth is not reduced.
Do you really think that in some way national wealth is reduced?
you obviously haven't thought about this very well
Would you agree that "If someone earns millions, they pay a lot of tax. If someone earns less, they pay less tax." should be true, it only fails when some swinder evades the tax he should be paying, which is a point I have already made. In which case, the swindler is a crook who deserves no sympathy?
Sponsored Links
Similar threads
