Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Maths in finance

greedy banker said:
Says someone who wants a 100% tax!
Click to expand...
You asked me what I thought was fair. I don't think it fair for anyone to be rich while there are still poor people in need. I then told you what I thought was possible. As to the supposed brain drain of the 50s-70s, can you give me some figures on that and how it changed in the 80s? During that period, there was, of course, also a considerable brain-influx as skilled immigrants of various kinds settled here. Walk into any hospital to see the effect of this.

Also, you said that the majority of private landlords are btl who are now in trouble. I suspect this is factually incorrect, and the majority of landlords are still doing very well indeed. Figures?
 
littlebabyjesus said:
You asked me what I thought was fair. I don't think it fair for anyone to be rich while there are still poor people in need. I then told you what I thought was possible. As to the supposed brain drain of the 50s-70s, can you give me some figures on that and how it changed in the 80s? During that period, there was, of course, also a considerable brain-influx as skilled immigrants of various kinds settled here. Walk into any hospital to see the effect of this.
Click to expand...

You need to consider the wider picture. It's not enough to say that it's unfair for anyone to be rich while there are still poor people in need - you need to see what the consequences of preventing the rich from getting rich are. And then we see the poor worse off as well.

littlebabyjesus said:
Also, you said that the majority of private landlords are btl who are now in trouble. I suspect this is factually incorrect, and the majority of landlords are still doing very well indeed. Figures?
Click to expand...

Call it a hunch. Note I'm talking about numbers of landlords, not the proportion of housing stock, if you see what I mean?
 
Well problems arise when they start leaving the country to avoid the tax rates. It's easy to look at Scandinavian countries as ideals, but even Sweden only has a population of 9 million spread over 450,000 sq KM (much of which isn't inhabited of course, but does yield resources). UK is 60 million over 250,000 KM sq... I mean London isn't far off the entire population of Sweden and is higher than the population of Norway.

The ultra rich have no right to the amount of money they earn, the way they do it is despicable and a ridiculous violation of trust, but if you start trying to bring them to justice they just wheel in the most heavyweight lawyers they can find, then leave for another country until the tories get back in and they can claim their peerages.
 
greedy banker said:
1. You need to consider the wider picture. It's not enough to say that it's unfair for anyone to be rich while there are still poor people in need - you need to see what the consequences of preventing the rich from getting rich are. And then we see the poor worse off as well.



2. Call it a hunch. Note I'm talking about numbers of landlords, not the proportion of housing stock, if you see what I mean?
Click to expand...
1. You misrepresent me. You asked specifically what I thought was 'fair'. I gave you two figures - fair and possible. I don't agree at all with your assumptions anyway, but that's a wider discussion.

2. Your hunch is worthless without figures.
 
Cid said:
Well problems arise when they start leaving the country to avoid the tax rates. It's easy to look at Scandinavian countries as ideals, but even Sweden only has a population of 9 million spread over 450,000 sq KM (much of which isn't inhabited of course, but does yield resources). UK is 60 million over 250,000 KM sq... I mean London isn't far off the entire population of Sweden and is higher than the population of Norway.

The ultra rich have no right to the amount of money they earn, the way they do it is despicable and a ridiculous violation of trust, but if you start trying to bring them to justice they just wheel in the most heavyweight lawyers they can find, then leave for another country until the tories get back in and they can claim their peerages.
Click to expand...
Let them leave then. If they're avoiding taxes anyway, it's no great loss.
 
I'd be all for confiscating their assets, shoving them in the tower and dropping our current economic system altogether... And tbh that (well not exactly that) is what we should be doing now, it's pretty bloody obvious that continuous growth is impossible.
 
We're talking about the same people who just brought the world economy to its knees through personal greed and professional incompetence. Why, exactly, would we want them to stay in their jobs?
 
littlebabyjesus said:
1. You misrepresent me. You asked specifically what I thought was 'fair'. I gave you two figures - fair and possible. I don't agree at all with your assumptions anyway, but that's a wider discussion.
Click to expand...

Oh, ok. A curious idea of fairness, but whatever!
littlebabyjesus said:
2. Your hunch is worthless without figures.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but if anything it supports your point more, the get rich quick morons are always the greediest!
 
I'm perfectly serious about booting out the ultra-rich, btw. If you look around the world for the countries with the highest numbers of billionaires, the results are quite surprising. They're not to be found in the countries with advanced social welfare and high overall standards of living. They are found in places like the USA, Russia, Mexico or Brazil, where there is appalling inequality and those at the bottom have a very low standard of living. Being an attractive place for the ultra rich is a bad thing, not good.
 
Cid said:
I'd be all for confiscating their assets, shoving them in the tower and dropping our current economic system altogether... And tbh that (well not exactly that) is what we should be doing now, it's pretty bloody obvious that continuous growth is impossible.
Click to expand...

Continuous life is impossible too. Should we just nuke the entire planet and be done with it?
 
ymu said:
We're talking about the same people who just brought the world economy to its knees through personal greed and professional incompetence. Why, exactly, would we want them to stay in their jobs?
Click to expand...

Fucked if I know - I see these bailouts as socialism for the rich.
 
greedy banker said:
Continuous life is impossible too. Should we just nuke the entire planet and be done with it?
Click to expand...

No, but that seems to be what you're suggesting... Makes very little difference if you do it over a hundred years by bleeding the planet dry or over 100 seconds by annihilating everything in a gigantic inferno.
 
Cid said:
No, but that seems to be what you're suggesting... Makes very little difference if you do it over a hundred years by bleeding the planet dry or over 100 seconds by annihilating everything in a gigantic inferno.
Click to expand...

I haven't suggest anything I think, other than halting progress is probably a bad idea :)
 
You're the third person to have called me firky. I am not firky. I do not know firky. I had never heard of firky until yesterday.
 
ymu said:
Thievery? What thievery? :confused:
Click to expand...
Where the proceeds of growth are sucked up by bankers through fractional reserve lending, perhaps?

What he/she probably means is that progressive tax rates linking ability to pay to the rate paid are theft.
 
greedy banker said:
All tax (and indeed all property) is theft, the only question is whether the theft is justified.
Click to expand...
That's a bit juvenile. Tax pays for stuff like educating the future workforce and maintaining a modern communications infrastructure. Asking the people who benefit the most to contribute proportionately to the cost of maintaining the economic infrastructure is hardly theft, whatever childish hyperbole you come up with. At the moment they pay proportionately less in tax than those on minimum wage, which seems a tad inappropriate.

The graph below might help. Virtually all the economic growth in the last 30 years has ended up in the pockets of the richest 1%. I'm sure the rich love it, but we all pay (in more ways than one) for the economic infrastructure that makes this growth possible. There's this thing called democracy and if we ever get it, we'd be insane to allow this to continue.

aftertaxinc2000.gif
 
Of course it's theft, whether or not it is justified is another debate.

As for this 1% thingy - don't forget 0.01% of humans have probably contributed 99.99% to where we are today.

Regressive taxation is a massive problem though, I'll give you that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PTK
The Concept of “Forgiveness” Employed by Nominal Christians in Contemporary European and North American Culture
2
Replies
59
Views
1K
Flavour
Flavour
Kate Sharpley
Decades in the Struggle: Interviewing older anarchists
Replies
7
Views
398
Dom Traynor
Dom Traynor
dessiato
Why not a female pope? Is it just misogyny?
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
212
Views
6K
Humberto
Humberto
Elpenor
The 2025 Trump Regime - what historical comparisons can be made and what context can it be placed in
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
Kaka Tim
Kaka Tim
danny la rouge
The meaning of “conservative” in US media
2
Replies
44
Views
2K
krtek a houby
krtek a houby
Back
Top Bottom