Would you report it?

[DungBeetle]

No.

Do you think mattress earnings should be capped at £150k per year?

No.  just like I wouldn't cap lottery earnings.

Why would confiscate money from someone who earns it as opposed to someone who gains it via blind luck?  Don't see the logic.

[PokerBroker]

No.

Do you think mattress earnings should be capped at £150k per year?

No.  just like I wouldn't cap lottery earnings.

Why would confiscate money from someone who earns it as opposed to someone who gains it via blind luck?  Don't see the logic.

When have I ever said I would confiscate it? 

[DungBeetle]

Thought you were pro a 150k salary cap from the other thread.  If so that's 100% tax effectively = confiscate.   You'd be preventing people crystallising the true value of their labour in the eyes of an employer via law.  Perhaps I'm confusing you with another poster.

[DungBeetle]

Just checked the other thread and it was you wanting the 150k cap.  Why on earth would you impose a law against someone earning 200k but are quite happy for someone to win 20 million in a lottery?  What is the logic?

[verndog158]

150k cap on a salary? assume thats a troll! maybe youre right, maybe i wouldnt report it, and just claim a rich relative died, or you signed up to an email by a rich Nigerian business man and it actually paid off!!

[PokerBroker]

Just checked the other thread and it was you wanting the 150k cap.  Why on earth would you impose a law against someone earning 200k but are quite happy for someone to win 20 million in a lottery?  What is the logic?

Are you being deliberately obtuse? 

Why would anyone realistically have to earn more than a £150,000 per annum?  And at who's expense are they earning that sort of money? 

If someone decides to purchase a lottery ticket or such like then good luck to them, it wouldn't be for me.  I don't like my chances. 

[verndog158]

Just checked the other thread and it was you wanting the 150k cap.  Why on earth would you impose a law against someone earning 200k but are quite happy for someone to win 20 million in a lottery?  What is the logic?

Are you being deliberately obtuse? 

Why would anyone realistically have to earn more than a £150,000 per annum?  And at who's expense are they earning that sort of money? 

If someone decides to purchase a lottery ticket or such like then good luck to them, it wouldn't be for me.  I don't like my chances. 

i guess the best thing to do then is to take money off the people who work their nuts off for it, then give it to the people who sit on their arses all day and do nothing. i appreciate i might be slightly exaggerating, but in what world is it fair to take money off people who are more skilled/ workig harder and give it to others. maybe im missing the point

[verndog158]

and what about poker winnings? Pro who grinds for a living binks £350k in a WSOP event, and is expected to give 200k back?

[PokerBroker]

Just checked the other thread and it was you wanting the 150k cap.  Why on earth would you impose a law against someone earning 200k but are quite happy for someone to win 20 million in a lottery?  What is the logic?

Are you being deliberately obtuse? 

Why would anyone realistically have to earn more than a £150,000 per annum?  And at who's expense are they earning that sort of money? 

If someone decides to purchase a lottery ticket or such like then good luck to them, it wouldn't be for me.  I don't like my chances. 

i guess the best thing to do then is to take money off the people who work their nuts off for it, then give it to the people who sit on their arses all day and do nothing. i appreciate i might be slightly exaggerating, but in what world is it fair to take money off people who are more skilled/ workig harder and give it to others. maybe im missing the point

Again who said anything about taking money off people who work their nuts off?

I just think a more equal society in which all people are treated well is a far better way of doing things, perhaps that's my lefty mantra - if anyone deserves the mega bucks that are often paid then it should be doctors, nurses, teachers, firemen etc.  

I don't see the need for people to earn obscene amounts of money.  

I would have a proper living wage that encouraged people into work, I would ensure that it was not in someone's best interest to sit on their arse all day and not work.  

The mantra of successive Governments that they are out to look after hard working families is utter bullshit.  The gap between the richest and the poorest is widening all the time.  

What we have just now clearly doesn't work and I am sick of taking lectures from capitalists and neoliberals who seem to think their way is the only way.  

I'm not calling for outright socialism or communism but I think there has to be a better way than the course we are on.  

[PokerBroker]

and what about poker winnings? Pro who grinds for a living binks £350k in a WSOP event, and is expected to give 200k back?

I don't think your getting it or know the background here. 

I said I would support a maximum employed wage of £150,000 - I don't think capping is a bad idea. 

[TightEnd]

The mantra of successive Governments that they are out to look after hard working families is utter bullshit.  The gap between the richest and the poorest is widening all the time. 
. 

no it isn't. i am not digging out the stats but there is plenty to suggest inequality is at its lowest for 20 years.

[rfgqqabc]

The mantra of successive Governments that they are out to look after hard working families is utter bullshit.  The gap between the richest and the poorest is widening all the time.  
.  

no it isn't. i am not digging out the stats but there is plenty to suggest inequality is at its lowest for 20 years.

"In 2010, while the top 10% received 31% of all income, the bottom 10% received just 1%7. In terms of wealth, in 2010 (the latest year for which data is available), 45% of all wealth in the UK was held by the richest 10%. The poorest 10% held only 1%."

https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/how-has-inequality-changed

Lowest in twenty years doesn't mean the situation is good! I would also argue it hasn't lowered particularly in the last ten years but stayed quite flat. Our Gini coefficient has decreased slightly but is still extremely high. I would also add I think inequality between the top 10% and the bottom 10% increases rapidly ever year.

Boorish thread, again ruined by the political thread expanding and someone being criticized for views which are different.

I wouldn't keep the money I don't think. I'm not sure I wouldn't be able to help myself from siphoning off enough to have a good time but I think my life happiness post stealing 20 million probably isn't much better than my current life. I don't value money too highly but I do value my own values. It probably is drug money too so good to avoid any press and freeroll some sort of reward.

[verndog158]

The mantra of successive Governments that they are out to look after hard working families is utter bullshit.  The gap between the richest and the poorest is widening all the time. 
. 

no it isn't. i am not digging out the stats but there is plenty to suggest inequality is at its lowest for 20 years.

"In 2010, while the top 10% received 31% of all income, the bottom 10% received just 1%7. In terms of wealth, in 2010 (the latest year for which data is available), 45% of all wealth in the UK was held by the richest 10%. The poorest 10% held only 1%."

I might be totally wrong here, but wouldnt this be the case across the entire planet? Not much point making a point of it in the UK if its just the standard way the world works

[BorntoBubble]

The mantra of successive Governments that they are out to look after hard working families is utter bullshit.  The gap between the richest and the poorest is widening all the time. 
. 

no it isn't. i am not digging out the stats but there is plenty to suggest inequality is at its lowest for 20 years.

"In 2010, while the top 10% received 31% of all income, the bottom 10% received just 1%7. In terms of wealth, in 2010 (the latest year for which data is available), 45% of all wealth in the UK was held by the richest 10%. The poorest 10% held only 1%."

I might be totally wrong here, but wouldnt this be the case across the entire planet? Not much point making a point of it in the UK if its just the standard way the world works

I dont agree with the socilast view point but i also wouldnt stand by the view "everyone else is doing it so its ok". Being forward thinking surely is the way forward and learning from mistakes from the past.

[BorntoBubble]

and i would keep the money.

Probably move house. Hide the money and slowly use it for everyday items and launder it back into every day life

Claim big gambling wins etc from time to time so people understood why i bought a new TV, car, house.

Probably go to Vegas and enter as many events as possible hoping to bink 100k+ to justify the money also and ignore the losses.