bet365 boss pays herself £265 MILLION

Pudney said:
Shares and options aren't taxed at a lower rate.

Perhaps you meant dividends and gains? But on "acquisition" the shares and options are employment income.
Click to expand...

Yes, apologies I meant dividends as she actually owns the company. Although I expect most of her true wealth is tied up in the value of bet365 and it isn’t really ‘real’ until it’s sold as it’s privately held.

I expect the tax treatment of shares and options varies significantly around the world though as it’s very common else where.
 
fez said:
Thats quite the extrapolation :p

You're right. Unbridled capitalism is the only way and if you even stopped a tiny bit of the money funnelling to the richest few the whole system would collapse and we would be joining the queues for the gruel lines.

The mind boggles how you read what I have said and decided that I want communism.

Are you secretly Donald Trump?
Click to expand...

Maybe just stick to the sub reddits where everyone agrees with you because they're equally as uninformed
 
Roar87 said:
Maybe just stick to the sub reddits where everyone agrees with you because they're equally as uninformed
Click to expand...

In fairness you seem to have built up a picture of the other poster based on nothing and then attacked his desire for communism. There is nothing wrong with regulation in a capitalist economy, and is certainly not a bad thing in certain circumstances. Accusing someone who advocates for some form of regulation that it obviously means they are against personal ownership and wants assets redistributed to the state is.... bizarre.
 
Roar87 said:
I think the main issue is that you some how feel entitled to other peoples property, fundamentally you don't agree with the ownership of private property, you think someone who owns a company should be forced to give their assets to the state for redistribution if they are too successful by your arbitrary definition.
Click to expand...

In terms of money you've described how the tax system works :D

Your issue is that you think the owners of private companies earning a lot of money are greedy and selfish and want to keep it for themselves,
Click to expand...

The rich keep getting richer while everyone else lags behind, how is that not greedy and selfish?

what you don't realise is that if you take that money and give it to the people in government to redistribute, you will also have people at the top of government with the exact same mindset, so they'll find ways of enriching themselves as we've seen in numerous governments across history.
Click to expand...

This is happening in our current system to the detriment of society. The difference is that you can vote them out, give it to big businesses and there's not much ordinary people can do about it.

You think that everyone just needs a certain amount of money and poverty goes away
Click to expand...

Relative poverty reduces when income is more fairly distributed, that's very basic economics.

but you don't realise you need to actually have products on shelves for people to purchase, otherwise money is useless, and for that you need to encourage private business to invest and grow and compete. You don't even realise you're trying to argue for Communism because you haven't thought that far ahead, and you don't even understand the problems with Communism because like I said in my first post you don't understand basic economics, but also history.
Click to expand...

Like all online arguments the answer lies somewhere between the two, swapping one extreme for another is daft.

You think the Tories were bad with their PPE money? Yet you want to give people worse than them massive amounts of money, how do you think that plays out long term? I'll tell you, extremely ******* bad. Stop typing rubbish.
Click to expand...

They gave that money to your 'efficient' private businesses and look how that turned out for us.
 
squerble said:
So it's only worth starting a company if you can make millions in personal salary? If your lowest paid employee is on a £18k salary, you'd still be taking £180k home yourself. How is that not enough?

If you all think that businesses would run away if the upper salary was capped then all you're doing is proving that businesses are in it for nothing but greed and obscene salaries. Companies would still make profits :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

These people have taken the risks, borrowed from everybody, remortgaged their homes and you want them capped :) They deserve everything they get and especially if they've formed companies that employ 100s and 1000s of staff.
 
squerble said:
If I were running the country, I'd cap the top person's income at 10x their lowest employee's salary. And that 10x is on all incomes, including dividends etc etc.

I'm sure I'll get called all sorts for this, but I'd rather this than allowing wild salaries that amount to nothing other than greed for CEOs that continue to widen the gap.
Click to expand...

Bear in mind I expect other owners/bosses may get similar income, but the difference been they take it via lower tax means, at least she is declaring this income and paying the appropriate tax.
 
squerble said:
So it's only worth starting a company if you can make millions in personal salary? If your lowest paid employee is on a £18k salary, you'd still be taking £180k home yourself. How is that not enough?

If you all think that businesses would run away if the upper salary was capped then all you're doing is proving that businesses are in it for nothing but greed and obscene salaries. Companies would still make profits :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

So lets say I buy a business worth £1bn. I'm only allowed to make £180k a year from it?

Or in your world are businesses not allowed to be worth more than a few million?
 
muon said:
Or in your world are businesses not allowed to be worth more than a few million?
Click to expand...

Hypothetically that wouldn't be possible anyway. Some of the products we sell at work can be several million. If a customer is placing a large order and with mission critical support contracts to go with it, that's easily many millions of dollars profit from a single order.
 
It saddens me, the amount of greed in this world. I don't understand the mindset of someone that earns multi millions, to think they require more, more, more. Why can they not be content with life once they have a decent property and life style and still spare money in the bank?

I would love to see a cap and stricter control and taxing of the rich. The gap keeps widening.
 
jaybee said:
It saddens me, the amount of greed in this world. I don't understand the mindset of someone that earns multi millions, to think they require more, more, more. Why can they not be content with life once they have a decent property and life style and still spare money in the bank?

I would love to see a cap and stricter control and taxing of the rich. The gap keeps widening.
Click to expand...

That's exactly not the mindset of wealthy people.

I'm interested in what you think of those individuals who are extremely wealthy, yet donate vast amounts of their wealth to charitable causes.
 
jaybee said:
It saddens me, the amount of greed in this world. I don't understand the mindset of someone that earns multi millions, to think they require more, more, more. Why can they not be content with life once they have a decent property and life style and still spare money in the bank?

I would love to see a cap and stricter control and taxing of the rich. The gap keeps widening.
Click to expand...
But it’s her company. How can you cap someone who actually owns the company, you have no right to.
 
Semple said:
That's exactly not the mindset of wealthy people.

I'm interested in what you think of those individuals who are extremely wealthy, yet donate vast amounts of their wealth to charitable causes.
Click to expand...

Admirable, but we shouldn't be relying on individual kindness. If they're able to give so much away, they're able to contribute significantly more tax.
 
squerble said:
If I were running the country, I'd cap the top person's income at 10x their lowest employee's salary. And that 10x is on all incomes, including dividends etc etc.

I'm sure I'll get called all sorts for this, but I'd rather this than allowing wild salaries that amount to nothing other than greed for CEOs that continue to widen the gap.
Click to expand...
That's the Dutch system isn't it or similar?
 
hurfdurf said:
Most of this is paid for publicity and often just a way to avoid tax.
Click to expand...

I think this is nonsense - have you got anything to back it up here? She pays herself via a regular salary/paying full income tax rather than via dividends even.

People often come out with "it's a tax write-off" or stuff like that re: wealthy donations but the same tax writeoff is available to anyone (you can literally tick a gift aid box when making a donation to charity), you're still donating the money, you don't have any financial gain from it, it just means the money given isn't subject to tax.
 
squerble said:
If I were running the country, I'd cap the top person's income at 10x their lowest employee's salary. And that 10x is on all incomes, including dividends etc etc.
Click to expand...

So the MD/CEO of some small boutique asset management firm or a private bank with a few highly paid employees, who contributes relatively little, can still earn millions but the boss of any sort of manufacturing firm or supermarket etc.. is capped/penalised...

I'm not sure you've thought this through, it's not clear how it benefits anyone or what you're trying to achieve other than just a bit of envy politics.

squerble said:
So it's only worth starting a company if you can make millions in personal salary? If your lowest paid employee is on a £18k salary, you'd still be taking £180k home yourself. How is that not enough?

If you all think that businesses would run away if the upper salary was capped then all you're doing is proving that businesses are in it for nothing but greed and obscene salaries. Companies would still make profits :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

How is that even close to enough for a successful business and who are you to say what they should pay themselves? You're free to go and set up your own business and only pay yourself 180k and presumably give away most of it too to your employees.

I mean people in the US are earning sums like that at tech companies not long after leaving university, it could maybe buy you a modest family home on the outskirts of London these days - it's quite easy to see how that's not "enough" for someone who has built a big successful company.

Should the pay of actors and pop stars be limited too - supposing some mega-famous pop star goes on a world tour one year, travels around the globe playing massive stadiums barely taking a break, each stadium show nets them millions... with your logic they should only pay themselves £180k at the end of that year? Who gets to keep the millions? The shareholders of their recording company? Ther managing agents? Should they let the people who own the stadiums keep 99% of the proceeds and basically put their life on hold to gig for free around the world to tens of thousands in each location?

They're probably paying their dance crew and touring musicians that sort of amount or even more for a big tour.

Taylor Swift is a multimillionaire, her 1989 tour for example took 7 months and grossed $250 million.

What incentive would she have to tour if she only earned £180k for it? She's already worth millions...

Back in the real world lots of people want to see her perform and so are happy to pay for it, if you're angry at others giving their money to an individual or business out of their own free choice then that's a "you" problem.
 
muon said:
Awesome if I donate everything I earn to charity, I will avoid tax. Great outcome for me.
Click to expand...

Tell me you don’t understand tax write offs without telling me 101 right there.


dowie said:
I think this is nonsense - have you got anything to back it up here? She pays herself via a regular salary/paying full income tax rather than via dividends even.

People often come out with "it's a tax write-off" or stuff like that re: wealthy donations but the same tax writeoff is available to anyone (you can literally tick a gift aid box when making a donation to charity), you're still donating the money, you don't have any financial gain from it, it just means the money given isn't subject to tax.
Click to expand...

https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/philanthropy-is-a-pr-scam-says-ceo-who-raised-his-workers-minimum-pay-to-70-000-11614033587

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17664893.amp

[URL]https://amp.ft.com/content/5127854d-1bb5-3521-adc4-cdcf224b64d8[/URL]

[URL]https://theapeiron.co.uk/are-the-rich-gaslighting-us-when-they-donate-billions-to-charity-fc414c654607[/URL]

Time and time again we will hear about how wealthy people are giving their children very little inheritance, or loads of money to a charity or foundation… only to learn the foundation is ran by their children. It’s a scam.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom