Sharing wealth...

[Vidar]

Not everyone is in a position to save, doing so on a low income or while on benefits is extrememly difficult if not impossible and very unlikely to save any significant amount of money. So I understand how the potential lure of getting a cash lump sum up front even if you end up no better off over all is still attractive. £5,000 now to me for example would mean a decent new family car (second hand), several repair works sorted that need carrying out and to pay off my remaining debts to the solicitors from the latest round of court proceedings involving my kids.

Yes, long term I'd be no better off but if I came up lucky early on a £10 a month loan with zero interest would be far less costly than what I'm paying out now... so its understandable, its a lot easier to save money or get good apr rates on credit when you've a job that allows you to save.

 

[sports_brah]

time value of money dictates the first bunch are making a fair bit more than the 2nd...

Eg if you had started this 41 years ago (500 months), then the "prize" of £500 won now, would have been worth £3245 for the first few winners based on just the RPI.

 

[HungryHippos]

Not everyone is in a position to save, doing so on a low income or while on benefits is extrememly difficult if not impossible and very unlikely to save any significant amount of money. So I understand how the potential lure of getting a cash lump sum up front even if you end up no better off over all is still attractive. £5,000 now to me for example would mean a decent new family car (second hand), several repair works sorted that need carrying out and to pay off my remaining debts to the solicitors from the latest round of court proceedings involving my kids.

Yes, long term I'd be no better off but if I came up lucky early on a £10 a month loan with zero interest would be far less costly than what I'm paying out now... so its understandable, its a lot easier to save money or get good apr rates on credit when you've a job that allows you to save.

OK but you say it's hard to save etc as it is, but if you put in £10 a month and then you are unlucky enough to be the very last winner for 42 years, then you will just be losing £10 a month for 42 years before you see anything. Saving made even harder!

 

[a66as]

This stuff actually goes on in south asian communities, i dont know how it works exactly but its something like 30 people (for example) pay £100 a month into it and when someone needs the money they can take it out but they will have to keep paying the £100 a month untill they have paid back what they took out. Its like an interest free loan

 

[Psycho Sonny]

This stuff actually goes on in south asian communities, i dont know how it works exactly but its something like 30 people (for example) pay £100 a month into it and when someone needs the money they can take it out but they will have to keep paying the £100 a month untill they have paid back what they took out. Its like an interest free loan

alternatively you could just stick £100 a month into a savings account. if you need cash quickly you could always ask friends/family for a loan. then pay them back @ £100 per month instead?

these schemes have zero upside for anybody apart from those who get paid out at the start and are in desperate need of cash. if you don't need a lump sum or have a desperate need for a wad of cash then there are only downsides.

stick the £100 a month into a 5% savings account

 

[Skidder]

aka the lottery?

No....a lottery. As in creating a(n illegal) lottery where you have OK odds of winning but also a chance of losing is far more compelling than pointlessly shifting money around while relying on trust for others to continue with it.

 

[Vidar]

OK but you say it's hard to save etc as it is, but if you put in £10 a month and then you are unlucky enough to be the very last winner for 42 years, then you will just be losing £10 a month for 42 years before you see anything. Saving made even harder!

I agree entirely but you need to understand that its the potential to be an early winner that is what would swing people to this... I agree it is bad money management when you look at it properly but its that "I could win" gamble, £10 a month in a savings account isn't going to give you a lump sum amount anytime soon and can always be spent on small things that come up. I for one personally find it very hard to save. I'm on a fairly okay wage at the moment, hours have gone up slightly so I'm on about £275 a week and thats nothing compared to what most of you seem to be on. At the end of every week, whatever spare money I've got left goes in my savings account. Sometimes thats £10, sometimes its £20 etc etc so slowly but surely my savings start building up. That is until an unexpected bill or two hits and that £300 saved over a few months becomes £220, or £170 and so and so on. It's heart breaking but necessary. And unfortunately not everyone has family or friends they can rely on for loans etc so at the risk of throwing £2.50 a week away for the chance to get a garuanteed £5k at some point doesn't seem so bad and still has better odds than winning the national lottery, if you look at it that way.

£5k - £10k to me in a lump sum at some point down the line would be almost life changing if used correctly. However I'm not likely to join one of these schemes if one came along.

 

[norm]

A better idea is an OCUK stocks and shares fund. People buy in whatever they can afford. Whatever profit made they get a return, can cash out whenever.

 

[The_Abyss]

That's a collective investment scheme.

 

[4K8KW10]

This thread is somewhat fresh, so up:

"Virgin Group founder Richard Branson is part of the growing circle of elite business players questioning wealth disparity in the world today.

Amid heated debate about whether the rich should be more highly taxed, the billionaire philanthropist weighed in with his own view during the Milken Institute Summit in Abu Dhabi this week.

"We have to try and do everything we can to lift the vast majority of people up, when for the last few years the vast majority have not seen their living standards improve," Branson told an audience on Tuesday evening.

"I don't think we should throw out capitalism. But for those of us who are fortunate to have made wealth, we have a responsibility to throw that out there and tackle some of the great problems. If we don't do that, then we deserve to have very heavy taxes leveled on us.""

Richard Branson: World's wealthiest 'deserve heavy taxes' if they fail to make capitalism more inclusive https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/13/ric...t-deserve-taxes-if-not-helping-inclusion.html

 

[Rroff]

This thread is somewhat fresh, so up:

"Virgin Group founder Richard Branson is part of the growing circle of elite business players questioning wealth disparity in the world today.

Amid heated debate about whether the rich should be more highly taxed, the billionaire philanthropist weighed in with his own view during the Milken Institute Summit in Abu Dhabi this week.

"We have to try and do everything we can to lift the vast majority of people up, when for the last few years the vast majority have not seen their living standards improve," Branson told an audience on Tuesday evening.

"I don't think we should throw out capitalism. But for those of us who are fortunate to have made wealth, we have a responsibility to throw that out there and tackle some of the great problems. If we don't do that, then we deserve to have very heavy taxes leveled on us.""

Richard Branson: World's wealthiest 'deserve heavy taxes' if they fail to make capitalism more inclusive https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/13/ric...t-deserve-taxes-if-not-helping-inclusion.html

The solution isn't really indiscriminate (high) tax on the rich and similar ideas though that might appeal to those who look to those better off enviously - it is one of those things that you can chuck any amount of money at and not solve the problem. What needs to be done is better facilitation of opportunity, development of philanthropy - something that seems to largely be dying on its feet in this day and age if you look at some of the institutions that were setup towards that end for instance many nowadays are self serving with only a fraction of their potential being used for philanthropic ends. Like Melinda Gates was saying recently there are countries that leverage huge amount of tax from their rich without accomplishing half as much from those better off in their society as some countries that are taxing at a much lower level.

 

[taB]

I've paid Ace Modder £220 so far and not won yet.

 

[Mason-]

This thread is somewhat fresh, so up:

"Virgin Group founder Richard Branson is part of the growing circle of elite business players questioning wealth disparity in the world today.

Amid heated debate about whether the rich should be more highly taxed, the billionaire philanthropist weighed in with his own view during the Milken Institute Summit in Abu Dhabi this week.

"We have to try and do everything we can to lift the vast majority of people up, when for the last few years the vast majority have not seen their living standards improve," Branson told an audience on Tuesday evening.

"I don't think we should throw out capitalism. But for those of us who are fortunate to have made wealth, we have a responsibility to throw that out there and tackle some of the great problems. If we don't do that, then we deserve to have very heavy taxes leveled on us.""

Richard Branson: World's wealthiest 'deserve heavy taxes' if they fail to make capitalism more inclusive https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/13/ric...t-deserve-taxes-if-not-helping-inclusion.html

Anyone like this who chimes in with "I'd happily pay more tax" or something similar.

Just tell them to, quite literally, put their money where their mouth is, and do so: https://www.dmo.gov.uk/responsibili...eous-accounts/donations-and-bequests-account/

You've been allowed to voluntarily pay extra tax/gift to the government for years. People were urged to after WW1. Either pay more tax or shut up.

And do a lot of people do it? No. https://www.ft.com/content/4b3e6db0-e57a-11e7-8b99-0191e45377ec

It's all just a publicity stunt "Look at me, I'm an obscenely rich person who's campaigning for higher taxes on obscenely rich people, I'm one of the people!". Pay extra tax then.

 

[4K8KW10]

They have to increase the salaries, starting with the big, wealthy corporations (Google, Amazon, Facebook, all the companies partners of these, Microsoft, intel, nvidia, automotive makers, etc) - the salaries starting with the cleaners, administrators, management has already got very high salaries.

"Today, he pointed out, "the top one-tenth of 1 percent of the population's net worth is equal to the bottom 90 percent combined. In other words, a big giant wealth gap." If he were president, he said, "I think that you have to call that a national emergency."

A recent Federal Reserve survey found that 40 percent of Americans couldn't come up with $400 in case of an emergency. And a 2019 report by Oxfam revealed that 26 people now own the same wealth as the poorest half of the world.

This is a shock

The wealth is literally sucked from the population into the hands of a few, like a giant vacuum cleaner.

 

[Pudney]

Anyone like this who chimes in with "I'd happily pay more tax" or something similar.

Just tell them to, quite literally, put their money where their mouth is, and do so: https://www.dmo.gov.uk/responsibili...eous-accounts/donations-and-bequests-account/

You've been allowed to voluntarily pay extra tax/gift to the government for years. People were urged to after WW1. Either pay more tax or shut up.

And do a lot of people do it? No. https://www.ft.com/content/4b3e6db0-e57a-11e7-8b99-0191e45377ec

It's all just a publicity stunt "Look at me, I'm an obscenely rich person who's campaigning for higher taxes on obscenely rich people, I'm one of the people!". Pay extra tax then.

That is a bit different to paying extra tax. That is a way to contribute to the reduction of the national debt. It doesn't actually go into the overall funds to be spent as the government would like. So if you want to pay extra tax to support the NHS or similar this wouldn't actually achieve your goal.

 

[Mason-]

That is a bit different to paying extra tax. That is a way to contribute to the reduction of the national debt. It doesn't actually go into the overall funds to be spent as the government would like. So if you want to pay extra tax to support the NHS or similar this wouldn't actually achieve your goal.

You can send a cheque to HMRC and state specifically what department you want it to go towards.

Richard Branson, or you, or anyone else could send a cheque for £X with a letter saying I want this to go towards the NHS.

 

[4K8KW10]

You can send a cheque to HMRC and state specifically what department you want it to go towards.

Richard Branson, or you, or anyone else could send a cheque for £X with a letter saying I want this to go towards the NHS.

Yes and no.
This issue shouldn't be lowered to an individual responsibility because individuals, even be them the most wealthy person, are too weak to change the bad practices alone.
There should be a public response, new written laws, new ways of how people think, etc, etc.

Right now, Richard Branson looks like one white swallow that won't bring the spring.

 

[Mason-]

Yes and no.
This issue shouldn't be lowered to an individual responsibility because individuals, even be them the most wealthy person, are too weak to change the bad practices alone.

I disagree, what's the stat on the top X% of workers contribute the Y% of all taxation stat? Richard Branson could donate loads of money to the government and ask for it to be ringfenced to the NHS. So could a lot of rich people, they don't do it though. Instead they campaign for a new tax enforced in law and meanwhile they'll stash a load of money in overseas tax havens. This is purely a publicity stunt to make it seem like he gives a ****. When in reality he doesn't, because if he did he'd just do voluntary taxation.

If all the people in the country who agreed income tax should be raised and that say "I'd happily pay more tax" actually willingly gave more tax, I wonder how much of a difference it would make.

 

[Wizzfizz]

It's not a pyramid scheme. More like over time everyone gets £5,000 at some point but over time they end up giving £5,000, so my concern is it's a bit zero sum.



The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil.

Totally different statement.

You talk a little ballistic.

 

[dowie]

Well if we want to redistribute the wealth of billionaires etc.. then perhaps cracking down on off shore tax havens and looking at how we can further address the issues with trusts set up to avoid IHT etc.. might help.

If people want to make wealth within their lifetime then I'm all for that, the likes of Branson etc.. have created wealth, employment for thousands of people. The accumulated wealth he has made shouldn't then turn into some dynastic wealth that gets passed down generations adding to the divide. Granted for non-aristocrats it is often split among children at each generation but still, making sure people's estates are actually are liable to pay IHT when they pass on ought to help significantly with the divide.

There is absolutely no reason why one person and their male heirs should say perpetually own most of Mayfair for example, with IHT at 40% they ought to have built up a big cash amount within their lifetime to pay off the government or they'd best sell off some of that land.