View Full Version : how much is enough?

tony draper
28th Jul 2011, 18:26
I have a cunning plan for re ajusting the worlds financial problems,no individual person can have more personal wealth than say Ten Million Pounds anything above and beyond that is confiscated national depts repaid with same so no one owes anybody anything and rhe remainder re distributed among the rest of the population,if you think ten million is not enough for a person to live a comfortable life we can raise the bar,after all gentlemen,we are not communists here.

28th Jul 2011, 18:27
Ten million lousy bucks, nope, don't think so. Hell, a new Falcon 7X costs 40 million. :p

28th Jul 2011, 18:47
The problem Tony is that the cost of everything is relative. Whilst I would love the idea of living in a utopia with my family, if everyone has 10 million then a loaf of bread would be 10K, your shopping trip for the month for a trolley of food would be 200K etc etc. If there was a way of getting rid of the banks then we would all be ok. (i mean the big scary economy controlling banks, not your local co-op where you keep your cash safe).

28th Jul 2011, 18:50
Redistribution of wealth for the common good? My my, how full circle we appear to have come ideologically, Mr. Drapes.:E

28th Jul 2011, 18:52
Money is a great motivator for it's various advantages in a material world, but I wonder just how creative people would be if the reward for their efforts had a cap on it ? I'm referring to inventors whose products are used all over the world and the like, though it could be scaled down to everyone.


tony draper
28th Jul 2011, 18:59
I doubt if the redistribution would make everybody a millionaire but you have a point so lets say the surplus is kept by governments and used to help pay pensions health care wars ect.
I have no philosophical objection to anybody getting rich and ten million seems enough for anybody to me,some of these creatures have obscene amounts of personal weath,more than they an possibly spend in ten lifetimes,ergo it should be took off em.

28th Jul 2011, 19:04
have obscene amounts of personal weath,more than they an possibly spend in ten lifetimes

It is clear that you have never seen my wife shop. :{

28th Jul 2011, 19:06
The problem is that someone who has a wealth of, say 150 million, doesn't have that in cash sitting in a bank, or under the bed. It's tied up in factories, hotels and whatnot.

Once you grab the hotel, in order to realise the asset to pay off the government debt you have to sell it to someone. Someone who has, say 150 million to buy it. :hmm:

tony draper
28th Jul 2011, 19:12
No I specifically meant over ten million in immediately realizable wealth,ie cash gold stocks shares ect one shall even let them keep one house to live in no matter how much it is worth but the private Jet has to go, and if they sell the house I want the cash.
Note the way one has subtley changed from we to I.

28th Jul 2011, 19:42
the private Jet has to go

Never traveled around in a private jet then have you. :p

Sadly the fact is, even if you took all the money over ten million that people had, it would not pay for the US Deficit for one year.

That's a sad fact.

tony draper
28th Jul 2011, 19:59
I read on another thread about some obscenly wealthy finger called Soros? and it made me think how much is enough,when I were a lad 75,000 were the pools jackpot,a increadable sum in those days,nowadays? how much is enough?
At my age I doubt if I would live long enough to spend ten million without going totally stupid,but it must be a buggah at say twenty winning a million,it would just give you a taste for money bcause one suspects a twenty year old and his million would soon be parted.

28th Jul 2011, 20:06
Remember that co*k in Norfolk who won 9.5 Million sterling on the lotto and blew the lot in 4 years. Complained at the end that he couldn't understand why he had lost all his friends once his money went :}

tony draper
28th Jul 2011, 20:09
Yer but he was a Forth Dan Black Belt in Chavdom.:uhoh:

28th Jul 2011, 20:13
If I recall Tony he was in fact crowned 'King of the Chavs' by the media. King of something that sounds like bankers more like.

I think 25 mil is enough :) (Sterling! not Dollars)

28th Jul 2011, 20:17
At my age I doubt if I would live long enough to spend ten million without going totally stupid

Och that's just lack of imagination and spending too much time on PPRuNe!:p

28th Jul 2011, 20:58
One read a few years ago (perhaps 10) that in the UK to have 'enough' was deemed to be 8million, that is clear of any liens or aliens :} and with that amount you could live a very nice life using the compounding interest. Anything less was not enough due to the logistics of that kind of lifestyle and anything over the magic amount brought ever diminishing happiness as the trappings created stress that reduced happiness, such as worrying about the properties/cars/girlfriends all over the planet. I wouldn't mind testing the theory though :hmm:


28th Jul 2011, 21:13
Fer Gawd's sake! The UK is one of the most heavily taxed countries in the World and you are proposing more taxes. :ugh:

The average working stiff has around half his/her pay deducted at source in one form of tax or another. What is left is taxed everytime he/she spends any of it on anything (just about). When they die the state confiscates a huge proportion. All this to pay for the 25% of the UK workers who are direct dependents of the State and the layer upon layer of government with their collective snouts in the trough.

Reduce all taxes by 80%, government expenditure not to exceed tax revenue, abolish death duties.

28th Jul 2011, 21:21
Dependent is an adjective. Dependant is a noun. There is a big difference between the two when in your capacity as an expat, you are decrying the state of the country.

sea oxen
28th Jul 2011, 21:25

I think I love you.

I live in the humblest home of a very nice street. My neighbours are far wealthier than I.

What gives you the right to think that I might benefit from their, or anyone else's wealth without doing something for it?

I call that theft.

I'd always thought you'd prefer people who grafted, rather than shafted, for a living.


tony draper
28th Jul 2011, 21:44
Would I like to see fingers like Murdock or Soros or Fred the Shred the rest of those arseole bankers who have grown immensly rich on what amount to fraud shafted? of course I would, anyway I would thought that the possibility finishing up ten million would be enough incentive for any man to graft for,one would allow that no further taxes would be paid on the ten million these people have left.
Mebee I have been watching hat Keiser bloke on RT to much:E
Remember you cant take it with you.
We once had a interesting thread where someone opined that inheritance was wrong and that no one should be allowed to inherit wealth or property land ect, grew quite heated that one did.

28th Jul 2011, 21:46
Remember you cant take it with you.


However, I should decide who gets to have it not the bloody State!

tony draper
28th Jul 2011, 21:53
Hmmm, wonder if it would be legal for you to convert all your wealth into cash,(assuming you had any) put it in a heap and burn it.
That would piss orf your kin all right.

28th Jul 2011, 21:55
Dependent is an adjective. Dependant is a noun. There is a big difference between the two when in your capacity as an expat, you are decrying the state of the country.

One apologises for one's imperfect use of English.

Not quite sure what you are implying about me decrying the state of the country in my capacity as an expat.

Is there some implication that, as I have chosen to live abroad for the most part, I have no right to my opinions on the state of the country?

29th Jul 2011, 15:56
One is reminded of the lines from Gilbert and Sullivan

'When every blessed thing you hold
Is made of silver or of gold,
You long for simple pewter.'


'When everyone is somebody
Then no one is anybody'.

30th Jul 2011, 03:23
The letter below is currently doing the rounds down under. Maybe we should give this a try!

Dear Ms. Gillard,

Please find below our suggestion for fixing Australia 's economy.

Instead of giving billions of dollars to banks that will squander the
money on lavish parties and unearned bonuses, use the following plan.

You can call it the Patriotic Retirement Plan:

There are about 10 million people over 50 in the work force.

Pay them $1 million each severance for early retirement with the
following stipulations:

1) They MUST retire.
Ten million job openings - unemployment fixed

2) They MUST buy a new Australian car.
Ten million cars ordered - Car Industry fixed

3) They MUST either buy a house or pay off their mortgage -
Housing Crisis fixed

4) They MUST send their kids to school/college/university -
Crime rate fixed

5) They MUST buy $100 WORTH of alcohol/tobacco a week .....
and there's your money back in duty/tax etc

6) Instead of stuffing around with the carbon emissions trading scheme
that makes us pay for the major polluters, tell the greedy bastards to
reduce their pollution emissions by 75% within 5 years or we shut them down.

It can't get any easier than that!

P.S. If more money is needed, have all members of parliament pay back
their falsely claimed expenses and second home allowances

If you think this would work, please forward to everyone you know. If
not, please disregard.

30th Jul 2011, 03:33
^^^ You got my vote.:D

30th Jul 2011, 05:19
Each one of us has access, at various times, to greater or lesser amounts of financial resources, along with other resources - such as youth, education, weapons, etc. that may be convertible into financials. Typically one uses their available resources first to satisfy the necessary and then the optional needs and obligations one may have. If further resources then are still available, they may saved or invested for future earning power, or may be applied to ones caprices for consuming one or many of the delights always on offer somewhere in the economic universe. This last category encompasses the marginal-propensity-to-consume regieme where the tax-collector, the banker, the broker and the babe in booth 12 normally seek to ply their trade.

Generally the consensus in developed nations seems to be that folks with a high MPTC are fair game for high-to-confiscatory taxation, if necessary, but also may-should be manipulated through public policy to invest in socially (or politically) constructive purposes and thus to retain capital and be taxed only on some fraction of proceeds from same. What has followed from this premise is that the US tax Code (the laws and regs) is presently some 68,000 pages of fine print. And that is without the case law that really defines how things work -- maybe 10,000x greater in extent.

A respected academic economist (who was popular in DC in the era of Pres. Reagan) Mr. Arthur Laffer, has very recently pulbished an article reporting that the cost (on the Govt. side) of collecting income tax from individuals in the USA is (frm memeory) some $430 billion - which nets out to about 1/3 of the net collections. Figuring that a similar amount (though it is probably in fact rather greater) is spent on the taxpayer side for deciphering and complying with all those rules and regs, then the net spendable value of all the personal income tax collections in the USA is running at about 30% of the payer's cost for the collection process. Not a good way to do business, maybe? Accountants and lawyers likely grab half the cost of preparing-collecting, and bureaucrats the rest. This is a bountiful franchise that such folks will not easily relinquish.

What I really started to write about is this: for some people, large amounts of money are simply a tool - for accomplishing one or another commercial or technical or social result not directly connected with personal satisfaction or pleasure. One can certainly argue that this constitutes a kind of ego-trip, but since the application of the funds is for investment (that tends to create growth, employment, and ongoing enterprise) rather than for consumption, a reasonable person can argue that it is entirely proper for such persons to possess and use large sums of money without it all being taxed away for social welfare and road-paving.

Through chance and circumstance I have come to know a fair number of persons who set out to be entrepreneurs, gambled their time and all or more than all their resources to create some sort of venture, eventually after failures and s+-etbacks accumulated some very substantial wealth, and then took a deep breath or two and attempted to do the same thing again, but with higher goals and larger risks involved - the chances for failure comparable or greater than before, and with more noughts on the sums at risk. Once one has this bug, it is hard to escape it.

Often the only time such folks yield to a temptation for consumption is when a spouse - with an inherently different sense of values - demands living "up to" some imaginary bar for affluent posturing.

So, the point one struggles to put forth is that there are some people for whom significant, even spectacular, wealth is for itself neither a great joy nor a burden, but simply another kind of tool in the kit, by which to accomplish results and purposes that quite often lead to greater opportunity and improved circumstances for significant numbers of people in the general populace. Because some things that want to be done cannot be accopmplished without such persons in the loop, individually ready to stake their whole pile to assure continuity and success in times of business stress and when standing uncomfortably near the risk of total failure, they have value and should not be taxed to extinction in the name of social equity or any similar do-good fiction.

30th Jul 2011, 05:42
All of which leads one to the conclusion Arcniz, that you must be geting paid by the word.;)

30th Jul 2011, 06:16
...paid by the word

Oh, would that it were so, Para! Or even paid to shut-up. That were the path to Easy Street, one might imagine.