No one is exempt from the impacts of the economic downturn. The issue is that there are some who are better prepared for it than others, and those who are not will complain/blame more than those are are. The top earners in this country still pay the largest amount of tax, ironically to fund those who work the least - and those benefactors still turn around, moan/blame/criticize and slap them in the face! Where's the 'fairness' in that? <opensanothercanofworms>
To open your can of worms and start fishing them out: "No one is exempt from the impacts of the economic downturn". Not really true. If you still have your well-paying job and a mortgage, it isn't so bad. Interest rates have fallen and your mortgage is probably cheaper. You're still earning plenty of cash. You don't have much to worry about. I assume that all those who can afford new Ducatis aren't doing so badly, or they wouldn't be buying them. "The top earners in this country still pay the largest amount of tax, ironically to fund those who work the least - and those benefactors still turn around, moan/blame/criticize and slap them in the face! Where's the 'fairness' in that?" They pay more, because they can afford to pay more. Life for everyone is like running a small business. You have costs that you can't avoid: food, lodging, gas and leccy bills etc. If you meet all those costs and have money left over, you save or blow it in discretionary spending. For plenty of people, there is nothing left over. For plenty of others, they can barely meet the costs. You are basically "rich" if you earn enough to meet all your costs without worrying about them, and still have cash left over to do with as you choose. You may have to pay more in tax, but it only reduces your pile for feathering your nest. Some of the tax is meant to help those who can afford feathers and are just happy to have a nest. It is completely facile to think that the poor are to blame for being poor. Not everyone is lucky enough to be rich. Of course, many of the well-off do deserve it, as they have worked hard. But it's a bit poor to assume that the non-rich don't work hard. And plenty of them aren't that bright. Is that their fault? The extreme right-wing view is basically I'm alright jack, keep your hands off my stack. The extreme left-wing view is, so long as there are poor people, no one deserves to be rich. Somewhere in the middle seems to be where social democracy is meant to take us. There will always be people who abuse the system at both ends. Legislation is meant to make that more difficult, and it should be directed as much to social security spongers as gravy-train-riding fat cats.
Who blamed the poor for being poor? The VAST majority of wealthy people have worked very hard, harder than most, to do well for themselves. The dilemma we have is a popular socialist thinking that everyone is entitled to the same. No, everyone is entitled to the same opportunity to do well for themselves. And it is a harsh fact of life that not everyone has the same ability, but they do have the same opportunity to make of their lives what they will. Some choose to depend more on the 'fat cats' through social security etc rather than get off their arses and work. Modest paid work is still honorable and honest work and many have a terrific attitude to life, rich in life yet financially modest. Not everyone is financially rich, and more need to accept this and stop the envious/jealous talk of blaming others for their financial status. We're all in the shit in this country.
I was right with you until, 'We're all in the shit in this country.', when clearly we're not. It is simply wrong to describe individuals with net worth measure in millions as being in the shit.
That may as be Sparepants but its the likes of use that pay, the middle incomers . The poor will always be poor and get handouts with no further charges ,the rich will get their waivers or let offs , why to keep them sweet or they'll fook off elsewhere. It's the middle income bracket which'll pay the cost ,how fair is that.
Correct me if I'm wrong from reading up on the capping it's to be put in place to make sure the tax payer doesn't have to bail the banks out again. The worry is the financial circle in London that makes all this money will take off to other shores and make money in other parts of the world. It's a pity all the money made wasn't put back into savers pockets in the form of interest that could go to some way of keeping people spending or investing. I realise you have to speculate to accumulate but a lot of ordinary earners put money into accounts and hope that the banks look after that wisely That should now mean looking after the tax payer investments with capping for security surely.
So, there must be some sort of divide between the very rich and the poor. Naturally. And the divide is mostly due to hard work or great ability, or both, compared to lazy attitude or poor aptitude, or both. Fine, all is well. Really, I mean that. This divide, what should it be in terms of rewards? What's an acceptable range of values? Owning a prestige car or motorbike vs owning an old clunker? Owning your own fleet of cars vs having to take the bus? Owning your own jet or yacht vs having to walk everywhere? Owning your own island vs living in a run-down bedsit? Are all of these acceptable? Is there no value to the idea that somewhere in there, there is a sustainable middle ground? Is there really no moral difference between the statements, "I'm rich, I own a Mercedes" and "I'm rich, I own a Mercedes and a Porsche and a Bentley and a Ferrari and ..."
I think the logic is that in the past bankers have been incentivised to take large risks and indulge in some dodgy practices to meet targets to make large bonuses. Whether capping bonuses will eliminate that incentive remains to be seen. The reality is that it is more likely just political posturing and appealing to the bash a banker crowd. The banks have been gambling with savers money to make large profits, usually on one way bets, to enrich themselves. This is where the term 'casino banking' comes from. Then when it all goes pear shaped they have to be bailed out because the damage that would be caused by them failing could be catastrophic to the larger economy. The solution is to put a firewall between highstreet and investment (casino) banks so that ordinary depositors funds are not at risk. This is how it used to be before the financial services industry successfully lobied governments in the USA and the UK allow casino banking.
Speaking for myself, I don't resent anyone for being rich per se. I don't resent those who earn wealth by working hard, or making a great contribution to society; I don't resent those who earn wealth by writing books or singing songs which a lot of people buy; I don't resent those who inherit wealth (or at least no more so than people who inherit beauty, brains, or good health); and I don't resent those who bought a winning lottery ticket. The ones I really, really do resent are those who have gained wealth by theft, fraud, deceit, and sharp practice. The financial sector has quite a lot of those, and nearly all of them are not only not in prison - they are still rich, still in employment, and still resisting attempts to curb their dishonesty. That I resent! If anyone thinks that makes me "left wing", so be it.
There is much in what you say, but unfortunately, Northern Rock (for example) was not a casino bank, but a high street bank. The firewall you propose would not, in that case, have made any difference to its insolvency. Such a firewall would be an improvement in some circumstances, but it's a long way from being (or even enabling) a general solution. Sorry about that.
