World Recession not affecting the richest?

[Webbo]

They are also protected by the current legal system. As an example, I was recently sued for half a million dollars damages by a crooked former boss. The case had no basis in reality, and was purely brought out of spite. Nonetheless, once you're sucked in you have to defend it with "the legal process" which involves months of "discovery" and various other rorts designed to make lawyers a packet. So after nine stressful months, and about $100,000 in legal fees, I settled out of court. To go to the supreme court (here in Australia) and defend the case would have cost a further $100,000 minimum, with no guarantee of a successful result or that the plaintiff wouldn't just back down at a suitable moment. Needless to say, the plaintiff was a wealthy man and could easily bear the cost of lawyers and barristers.

Most western legal systems are designed for the rich by the rich. Unless you're wealthy and can afford to go the distance, you haven't a prayer of getting justice in a civil case. Further, there's no hope of the system ever being changed to something cheaper and fairer (like they have in Germany) because the laws are designed by lawyers who have no wish to lose their gravy train. Politicians also have no interest in change, because many are former lawyers themselves.

Quite simply, outrageous.

We have the opposite over here with no win no fee lawyers. Ordinary people are suing companies/insurance companies over the slightest wrong, often fictitious wrongs, just to earn compensation, at no financial risk to themselves. These companies usually settle out of court because it's cheaper.

[ACF]

The Ikea guy obviously got divorced.

[OzFox]

We have the opposite over here with no win no fee lawyers. Ordinary people are suing companies/insurance companies over the slightest wrong, often fictitious wrongs, just to earn compensation, at no financial risk to themselves. These companies usually settle out of court because it's cheaper.

They don't always sue big companies. We had a case here in Sydney where a group of flat owners went to a no win/no fee lawyer and sued an old man who lived next door to their block. The claim was that he had sprayed DDT or something in his garden, causing them to have headaches/vomiting/long term illness etc etc. Totally bogus case but by the time they dropped it, the little old man had spent 200 grand defending himself with no way of re-couping it. His life savings gone.

The more I look into the legal profession, the more angry I get. No wonder people hate lawyers.

[dave the caveman]

Well being in a country with progressive income tax does colour my view somewhat. Now I'm not saying that the people that navigate the capitalistic system should get 'punished', but socio-economic equality does eliminate or at least reduce many societal issues. My girlfriend told me the other day about a summary report about research on income equality vis-a-vis anticipated and experienced happiness that showed people are happier when they have similar income. That's not communism, that's social democracy and wholly justifiable.

My main gripe initially though was with the rich people, billionaires if you like, that have not earned their money (I'll use a fuzzy word for lack of better) 'fairly' and some people on here, including yourself, saying that anyone could become such a wealthy person if one had the given abilities. (By the way, how would you define those abilities?)

I'd like to use an analogy with a footballer like Inzaghi. There's no arguing that he was/is successful at the very highest stage too. But how many times has he not made us scream out in disgust with his dives or the 'illegal' goals he has gotten through the manipulation of the offside rule? Without a doubt there are more skillful footballers playing in Italy that will never achieve that kind of success. Could be because they weren't at the right clubs when young, they didn't have the right connections, were ill the day the Milan scout visited or because they didn't have that, let's say, cheating streak Inzaghi has. Point is there are so many insurmountable or unforeseeable objects preventing regular Joe getting rich even if he had a magic billionaire idea. The odd success story is extraordinary and can by no means be applied as a rule.

Nassim Taleb in his book Fooled by Randomness makes the point that if you had a group of several million investers, as is the true of the real world, and directed them to throw money completely randomly at stocks, then probability dictates that someone, somewhere amongst the millions is going to end up looking like Warren Buffett.

Luck is almost everything. But on a practical level, if we're going to start adjusting income or tax for luck then where does it end? Having been born into one of the richest and most stable countries on earth, each of us is already hugely lucky, tremendously lucky, 'odd success story' kind of lucky. So with that in mind maybe Reynard can answer his own question, "Why should someone benefit more than you solely based on the luck of birth?"

On a seperate point I'd like Reynard to tell me what he thinks of this, with regards to the "glass ceiling".

In terms of people not making money fairly, well that's a fault of the system and you can't realistically expect our inherently greedy species not to take full advantage of these kind of opportunities. Unsavoury actions they may be, but without them we'd still be living in caves.

[Webbo]

The more I look into the legal profession, the more angry I get. No wonder people hate lawyers.

There's a tune we can all dance to.

[OzFox]

Unsavoury actions they may be, but without them we'd still be living in caves.

I assume you're not greedy and unsavoury then, being a caveman and all that?

[Zingari]

There's a tune we can all dance to.

it's not the lawyers that are totally at fault though , it's the stupidity and ambiguity of many of the laws .i'm fairly sure many of them get as frustrated as the rest of us .

ok , maybe they, as a body , should be doing more to correct this .

skinnydipper seems a nice guy , maybe he can do summat

[Webbo]

it's not the lawyers that are totally at fault though , it's the stupidity and ambiguity of many of the laws .i'm fairly sure many of them get as frustrated as the rest of us .

ok , maybe they, as a body , should be doing more to correct this .

skinnydipper seems a nice guy , maybe he can do summat

I agree, there are cowboys in every profession.

It's just that every body else was blaming and hating total strangers and I felt a bit left out.

[OzFox]

it's not the lawyers that are totally at fault though , it's the stupidity and ambiguity of many of the laws .i'm fairly sure many of them get as frustrated as the rest of us .

ok , maybe they, as a body , should be doing more to correct this .

skinnydipper seems a nice guy , maybe he can do summat

The laws have been set by lawyers. Generations of 'em.

If you were a lawyer, would you change a system that allows you to charge $30-50 for opening an email, photocopying documents or sending faxes? A system where you actually delegate that work to an office clerk earning less than $30 an hour, while you rake in your $400-500 an hour? They are (largely) unaccountable for what they charge.

Lucky for me, the lawyers I used seemed fairly honest. I shudder to think what can happen with a bent one.

[Zingari]

I agree, there are cowboys in every profession.

It's just that every body else was blaming and hating total strangers and I felt a bit left out.

I blame strangers for everything

them and the scapegoats

[Zingari]

The laws have been set by lawyers. Generations of 'em.

If you were a lawyer, would you change a system that allows you to charge $30-50 for opening an email, photocopying documents or sending faxes? A system where you actually delegate that work to an office clerk earning less than $30 an hour, while you rake in your $400-500 an hour? They are (largely) unaccountable for what they charge.

Lucky for me, the lawyers I used seemed fairly honest. I shudder to think what can happen with a bent one.

you make a good point there

turkeys won't vote for early christmas

[Thracian]

There's a tune we can all dance to.

100%.

[Finnegan]

This chap was definitely affected...

... I mean there's massive chunks missing.

[Zingari]

A billionaire Indian businessman is said to be ready to offer Newcastle United owner Mike Ashley £200m for the club.

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Exclusive-A-billionaire-Indian-business-man-is-ready-to-offer-Mike-Ashley-200-million-plus-to-takeover-Newcastle-article713116.html

surely he can find better ways of wasting money

[Trav Le Bleu]

A billionaire Indian businessman is said to be ready to offer Newcastle United owner Mike Ashley £200m for the club.

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Exclusive-A-billionaire-Indian-business-man-is-ready-to-offer-Mike-Ashley-200-million-plus-to-takeover-Newcastle-article713116.html

surely he can find better ways of wasting money

This is exactly what I'm saying.

£50 should surely be enough for this kind of purchase!

[Zingari]

This is exactly what I'm saying.

£50 should surely be enough for this kind of purchase!

yes Trav , they're taking advantage of him cuz he's foreign

the dirty evil geordie bastrads

[Trav Le Bleu]

yes Trav , they're taking advantage of him cuz he's foreign

the dirty evil geordie bastrads

but... surely they're both foreign?

[FoxyPV]

====

I wasn't born into a class and don't look at people in terms of class/money/status but in terms of what they are in themselves. A cleaner can impress/earn my respect me as easily as a lawyer and a nurse as easily as a knight of the realm and I've met them all.

If you've got some masterplan for righting the financial wrongs of our world I'm all ears but you've seen how easily Trav's theory fell apart, just as mentioned in George Orwell's 1984. Everyone was equal when he first spoke. But then he didn't sound too happy about the woman batterers yet assuming they'd get penalised it's a case of some being more equal than others straight away which is exactly what happens in practice as you can see in any communist country.

So what next Reynard? Are you saying that someone shouldn't inherit wealth? That you shouldn't be able to do your damndest to give your kids a good start in life just because someone who doesn't give a shit about their kids decides to spend his life and money backing horses? Where's the fairness in that?

What's your solution?

If you wouldn't fan the flames of envy and class discrimination? How would you preside over a truly fair administration?

Thrac - I'm glad you are so noble when it comes to people (especially your native working class) but where you come from dictates where you are going (on that note perceived traditional female employment roles pay far far less than their male counterparts but that's a dfifferent argument ). Unfortunately what I want to see happy would take generations and a complete change our political, economic and cultural system. It would require people to take responsibility for their actions and allow the state to act as the support net and provide everyone with all the necessary services. I also would like everyone to work because regardless of how soul destroying some work can be it is still better to work and earn. (unrealistic, I know.)

You should be able to give your kids the best start you possibly can but for those that haven't been given that, why should they suffer unduly due to the choices of their parents? This is were being able to help, educate and assist those will work wonders but it would require massive investment (which is not going to happen). By looking after your population rather than enduring you will (hopefully) embue them with a sense of worth which not only increases their productivity but beneftits society as a whole.

Point out where I have said that you shouldn't make money and where the rich should be disinherited.

There's no class envy here Thrac just a levelling of the playing field.

Nassim Taleb in his book Fooled by Randomness makes the point that if you had a group of several million investers, as is the true of the real world, and directed them to throw money completely randomly at stocks, then probability dictates that someone, somewhere amongst the millions is going to end up looking like Warren Buffett.

Luck is almost everything. But on a practical level, if we're going to start adjusting income or tax for luck then where does it end? Having been born into one of the richest and most stable countries on earth, each of us is already hugely lucky, tremendously lucky, 'odd success story' kind of lucky. So with that in mind maybe Reynard can answer his own question, "Why should someone benefit more than you solely based on the luck of birth?"

On a seperate point I'd like Reynard to tell me what he thinks of this, with regards to the "glass ceiling".

In terms of people not making money fairly, well that's a fault of the system and you can't realistically expect our inherently greedy species not to take full advantage of these kind of opportunities. Unsavoury actions they may be, but without them we'd still be living in caves.

I don't think we should benefit solely on this basis of birth and it is up to those that have benefitted to try and help those that haven't by implementing structural changes that help those that have not received the help we have had.

It's good news to hear although statistics can hide a multitude of sins e.g There are no public schools in Northern Ireland but it routinely achieves some of the highest A levels grades year on year off. All these students will appear in the stats as going to state schools. The glass ceiling does not pertain to education but to the limits set on someone's career by their background. This can be overcome but if they do so it will more than likely occur by working much harder and being much luckier than those from better backgrounds.

We are not an inherently greedy species, we have been socialised this way by living within a capitalist system that encourages this type of behaviour and it's the system I abhorr.

[dave the caveman]

I don't think we should benefit solely on this basis of birth and it is up to those that have benefitted to try and help those that haven't by implementing structural changes that help those that have not received the help we have had.

Worst cop out ever. Take money from the rich man, but when it's your turn to pass it down, suddenly its all about 'structural change'. Let me guess, that doesn't involve you actually doing anything? Structural change is to be implemented by other people, right? Governments and such. Because that's their job. Meanwhile you'll just slowly back out of the room, quietly hoping noone has noticed that you still have the rich man's money.

[FoxyPV]

Worst cop out ever. Take money from the rich man, but when it's your turn to pass it down, suddenly its all about 'structural change'. Let me guess, that doesn't involve you actually doing anything? Structural change is to be implemented by other people, right? Governments and such. Because that's their job. Meanwhile you'll just slowly back out of the room, quietly hoping noone has noticed that you still have the rich man's money.

I don't see how it is a cop out. You asked me what I would do, I've told you. I can't implement the kind of changes that I wish to see without actually leading the country myself (I assumed the question implied this). Everyone will be paying for what I would like to see and I wouldn't be taking any more money off the rich that is actually be taken now - 50% is a fair enough tax rate. The only change to the tax system I would be to tighten up the laws around it to reduce the amount lost to tax avoidance/ mitigation.

[Jon the Hat]

I don't see how it is a cop out. You asked me what I would do, I've told you. I can't implement the kind of changes that I wish to see without actually leading the country myself (I assumed the question implied this). Everyone will be paying for what I would like to see and I wouldn't be taking any more money off the rich that is actually be taken now - 50% is a fair enough tax rate. The only change to the tax system I would be to tighten up the laws around it to reduce the amount lost to tax avoidance/ mitigation.

So in fact you would have to lead the world? Because companies mitigate their tax exposure by locating activities in countries which are favourable tax wise. The UK is competing with other countries globally to keep business here.

[kevin01]

The recession is not affect able for richest person it is just for poor people....

[Thracian]

Thrac - I'm glad you are so noble when it comes to people (especially your native working class) but where you come from dictates where you are going (on that note perceived traditional female employment roles pay far far less than their male counterparts but that's a dfifferent argument ). Unfortunately what I want to see happy would take generations and a complete change our political, economic and cultural system. It would require people to take responsibility for their actions and allow the state to act as the support net and provide everyone with all the necessary services. I also would like everyone to work because regardless of how soul destroying some work can be it is still better to work and earn. (unrealistic, I know.)

You should be able to give your kids the best start you possibly can but for those that haven't been given that, why should they suffer unduly due to the choices of their parents? This is were being able to help, educate and assist those will work wonders but it would require massive investment (which is not going to happen). By looking after your population rather than enduring you will (hopefully) embue them with a sense of worth which not only increases their productivity but beneftits society as a whole.

Point out where I have said that you shouldn't make money and where the rich should be disinherited.

There's no class envy here Thrac just a levelling of the playing field.

I don't think we should benefit solely on this basis of birth and it is up to those that have benefitted to try and help those that haven't by implementing structural changes that help those that have not received the help we have had.

It's good news to hear although statistics can hide a multitude of sins e.g There are no public schools in Northern Ireland but it routinely achieves some of the highest A levels grades year on year off. All these students will appear in the stats as going to state schools. The glass ceiling does not pertain to education but to the limits set on someone's career by their background. This can be overcome but if they do so it will more than likely occur by working much harder and being much luckier than those from better backgrounds.

We are not an inherently greedy species, we have been socialised this way by living within a capitalist system that encourages this type of behaviour and it's the system I abhorr.

The playing field isn't level and never will be. Some people will happily parachute out of aircraft, others will refuse even to fly.

Parents, far more than any Government are the people with responsibility for their children (whether they take it or not) and I'm damned if a responsible set of parents should be penalised because others are irresponsible and that goes for individuals too.

But if you're advocating better, more specific and more focused education I'm all for it. But I'd want my schools full of teachers who have shown themselves to be achievers and people who can bring the best out of people rather than raving politicals, many of them hellbent on imposing their Marxist attitudes. Because the problem with teachers is that so many of them passionately believe they're right when they're demonstrably wrong.

One wrote to me only two days ago complaining about America and saying "what other country forces others in the world to sell them their natural resources against the will of the people. Well I don't know about the will of the people but I do know that China, for instance, is gobbling up the natural resources of Africa both on and offshore. And if any teacher could fail to know that when making the sort of comment she made then the Good Lord knows how many more mistakes she'll make...professionally and politically.

Indeed she is so strong politically outside the classroom, devoting hours each day to her campaigning, that I really have no idea how she can possibly be dedicated to getting the best from herself as a teacher. The rigidness of her campaigning closes her mind and offers no time for the endless learning she needs to do to be the best she can be for her pupils.