Shamima Begum

comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 13 seconds ago
Recent examples include Dyson. Ah yeah the fella that advocated Brexit but left the country as soon as the real effects were realised.

Good example.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

So he’s a poor example of someone migrating due to tax purposes because he voted for Brexit?

Got you

BREXIT FOOKING BRITAIN eh?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Well Dyson have outright stated that the move wasn't for tax reasons (although it wouldn't be a stretch to say they would say this).

Interestingly the decisions came shortly after the EU and Singapore announced a free trade agreement (and after Brexit when the UK was likely to leave rhe free trade of the EU) and the difference in corporation tax is only 2%.

There are plenty of other countries with lower tax than Singapore so if it was purely a tax decision, why did he wait so long to move and why did he not move it to somewhere even lower?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I suppose there has to be a tipping balance and for every individual that fulcrum may well be placed anywhere along the rule.

I’d be far better off moving abroad but it isn’t worth it for the quality of life I enjoy. That could change of course
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sure, and it is possible that Dyson moved for tax reasons, but it seems unlikely to me that this was the sole or even primary purpose. The links that Singapore held with rhe rest of Asia, and then subsequently the EU almost certainly had some impact.

Thanks for sharing the harvard paper. I'm interested in having a look
----------------------------------------------------------------------

You’re very welcome. Made me look a lot more closely

comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 20 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 minutes ago
If you are defining ultra rich as the top 1% then you would be way off the mark.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The top 1% who own the majority of wealth, land and assets in this country aren’t the ‘ultra rich’. One example is the Duke of Westminster, billions in the bank and owns half of London. Purely by accident of birth. Not ultra rich apparently.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Calm down. As stated the data reference was to income tax payers. Income of £160k is enough to get you in that top 1%. If you want to believe that is the definition of 'ultra rich' then, er, fair enough.

DoW? Certainly ultra rich. No idea what he declares his income as right enough.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Again you replied to the comment re ‘ultra rich’

If those earning £160k are in the top 1% doesn’t that tell you something about the society we live in. That much puts you in the top percentile.

Are the ‘ultra rich’ in the top 1% of earners, yes they are. My point still stands IMO, the fact aspiration and success to you are linked to wealth is the reason we’re in this mess. Then the fact of people being shiite scared to ask the rich to pay their way, in case they run off or whatever, exacerbates it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mate you clearly have a bee in your bonnet that I didn't explicitly say financial aspiration - my bad, naughty step etc.

Do people find success wtf that is in other ways? Absolutely.

There, we happy?

Oh, no, you have an issue with £160k pa putting you into the top 1%. What number would you like it to be?

Floor is all yours.

“ Oh, no, you have an issue with £160k pa putting you into the top 1%. What number would you like it to be”

Na I said that’s a low bar to be counted in the top 1 percentile of earners. This means 99% of workers earn less than £160k pa. Isn’t that a sad state of affairs.

You 99%, £160k is the best you can hope for whilst we 1% stash millions away as best we can. Oh and good luck at the food bank.

comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 27 minutes ago
“ Oh, no, you have an issue with £160k pa putting you into the top 1%. What number would you like it to be”

Na I said that’s a low bar to be counted in the top 1 percentile of earners. This means 99% of workers earn less than £160k pa. Isn’t that a sad state of affairs.

You 99%, £160k is the best you can hope for whilst we 1% stash millions away as best we can. Oh and good luck at the food bank.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So no number then?
Not even a reference to a country that has got it right?
Just a general rant about perceived inequality.
Ah well.

comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 29 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 27 minutes ago
“ Oh, no, you have an issue with £160k pa putting you into the top 1%. What number would you like it to be”

Na I said that’s a low bar to be counted in the top 1 percentile of earners. This means 99% of workers earn less than £160k pa. Isn’t that a sad state of affairs.

You 99%, £160k is the best you can hope for whilst we 1% stash millions away as best we can. Oh and good luck at the food bank.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So no number then?
Not even a reference to a country that has got it right?
Just a general rant about perceived inequality.
Ah well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Perceived.

The Scandinavian counties get it a lot more right than we do, 70/80% tax on energy company profits have built up over a trillion euros for their governments.

There’s a difference between being “ultra rich” and having an income (salary) that is in the top 1% of salaries.

comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 32 minutes ago
There’s a difference between being “ultra rich” and having an income (salary) that is in the top 1% of salaries.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

What is ultra rich? £1bn+?

That would be brilliant.

comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 2 hours, 5 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 32 minutes ago
There’s a difference between being “ultra rich” and having an income (salary) that is in the top 1% of salaries.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

What is ultra rich? £1bn+?

That would be brilliant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've seen popular definitions from the US that it equates to $2m pa income and $30m assets.

Right, you have to pump one of them. Piers Morgan or the Begum lassy? None isn't an option. Which one?

Funny how everything is a handout except generational wealth.