The Pandora Papers.

[Milkfloat]

I mean what does he think as he reclines on a pile of treasure Smaug would envy, and reads of the £20 a week cut to to the UC income of the poorest and most vulnerable: "Not unless you make me."?

I imagine that Amazon has a 'code of conduct' related to tax, to make it clear to all parties; including shareholders that they will pay whatever tax the country the are in oblige them to pay. I know my company has this and large numbers of other big companies. I also imagine that it should not be easy from a shareholder point of view to turn around and start 'throwing profit' away by 'overpaying' tax. It may well in fact be illegal in many countries. The companies are playing by the rules of the game, just not the spirit. I believe that worldwide governments need to tighten up and legislate for companies to pay more tax for the situation to change significantly. Perhaps consumers can put pressure on companies to also abide by the spirit of the rules as a company like Rolls Royce claims it does.

Now his personal wealth - that is a different matter. Him splurging his money on a ridiculous travel jaunt to space is a bit distasteful and I think he could be a little bit more like Bill Gates, but then again Bill Gates could be doing a lot more.

 

[mudsticks]

I imagine that Amazon has a 'code of conduct' related to tax, to make it clear to all parties; including shareholders that they will pay whatever tax the country the are in oblige them to pay. I know my company has this and large numbers of other big companies. I also imagine that it should not be easy from a shareholder point of view to turn around and start 'throwing profit' away by 'overpaying' tax. It may well in fact be illegal in many countries. The companies are playing by the rules of the game, just not the spirit. I believe that worldwide governments need to tighten up and legislate for companies to pay more tax for the situation to change significantly. Perhaps consumers can put pressure on companies to also abide by the spirit of the rules as a company like Rolls Royce claims it does.

Now his personal wealth - that is a different matter. Him splurging his money on a ridiculous travel jaunt to space is a bit distasteful and I think he could be a little bit more like Bill Gates, but then again Bill Gates could be doing a lot more.

Bill Gates and that lot trouble me deeply too though.

They have more fiscal clout in small countries than those countries themselves have.

And he can steer things along the lines of his own personal vision.

Which doesn't seem right.

Ok maybe no one objects to a few wells for desperate villagers being sunk, or schools for girls, but when he's directing whole agricultural systems, promoting GM , which is coporstely owned, and doing the whole 'white saviour' thing without very much if any oversight, it brings up a lot of contentious issues.

Basically we need global governance, and tax systems where no one individual gets to have disproportionately that much power or influence...

 

[Rusty Nails]

Basically we need global governance, and tax systems where no one individual gets to have disproportionately that much power or influence...

And the big problem is we will never, ever get all that.

Other than a national or international revolution, which is not going to happen in anyone on this forum's lifetime, we will have to get by trying to improve what we have incrementally and making the best of what we have.

I don't believe that is defeatist but, rather, a pragmatic acceptance of human imperfection and frailty.

 

[Craig the cyclist]

Basically we need global governance, and tax systems where no one individual gets to have disproportionately that much power or influence...

What a brilliantly great idea.

Who would be in charge of it all?

 

[mudsticks]

What a brilliantly great idea.

Who would be in charge of it all?

Well there's all sorts of international agreements on all sorts of things .

With oversight from all sorts of bodies such as the UN, the IMF, world Bank , etc etc.

I don't know how it would work, and I'm sure it wouldn't be perfect ,but I'm sure more could be done.

I'm sure it wasn't intended , but you might like to know your response has a tinge of sarcasm to it.

 

[mudsticks]

And the big problem is we will never, ever get all that.

Other than a national or international revolution, which is not going to happen in anyone on this forum's lifetime, we will have to get by trying to improve what we have incrementally and making the best of what we have.

I don't believe that is defeatist but, rather, a pragmatic acceptance of human imperfection and frailty.

Yes for sure, I'm not expecting this to happen overnight, or fully ever .

I also live in, and accept that this is a world of imperfection, and fragility.

But recognising that these excesses, being allowed cause problems and that we need to address them would be a start.

Rather than suggesting that immense wealth, and power of a few individuals, is acceptable, or even to be applauded.

I'm not saying there wouldn't be or even shouldn't be some people more affluent than others.

I know that drives some people.

But that so many should be going without the basics for survival, while others exploit them, and massively enrich themselves just isn't right.

 

[BoldonLad]

And the big problem is we will never, ever get all that.

Other than a national or international revolution, which is not going to happen in anyone on this forum's lifetime, we will have to get by trying to improve what we have incrementally and making the best of what we have.

I don't believe that is defeatist but, rather, a pragmatic acceptance of human imperfection and frailty.

We cannot even achieve this on a National level, never mind a Global Level!

I am not aware of any Country which has ever even come close to achieving this.

Not suggesting we should not strive for it.

 

[mudsticks]

We cannot even achieve this on a National level, never mind a Global Level!

I am not aware of any Country which has ever even come close to achieving this.

Not suggesting we should not strive for it.

Well even suggesting that we should strive for it is a start.

Many countries have a more progressive tax system that say we in the UK or the US does.



However, many people still see nothing wrong in certain individuals holding immense wealth and using it to gain disproportionate power.

Or even see it as something to applaud, or aspire to.

 

[BoldonLad]

Well even suggesting that we should strive for it is a start.

Many countries have a more progressive tax system that say we in the UK or the US does.



However, many people still see nothing wrong in certain individuals holding immense wealth and using it to gain disproportionate power.

Or even see it as something to applaud, or aspire to.

To be clear, which bit do you disagree with?, is it the immense wealth or the disproportionate power ?

I think a definition of "immense wealth" and "disproportionate power" would be needed, unless, everyone had the same wealth and power?

But, for sure, greater equality is a great objective.

 

[mudsticks]

Possession, acquisition, and retention of immense wealth such as Gates and Bezos..and probs the next 1k richest after them, which gives them immense power, obviously.

They have the ear of governments, and can affect planetary , and human wellbeing in a way that is undemocratic, and unjust.

Greater equality isn't even seen as an aspiration in many circles.

Exploitive capitalism actively wants, and needs there to be a large pool of under resourced people, and even poor countries, to extract wealth and resources from .

For example oil corps exploit the resources of less well off nations, but there is no guarantee that the poorest people living in those nations will benefit.

We can, even as individuals in richer nations choose to divest from exploitative companies.
Not use ama3on etc etc .

And remember to say why.

 

[BoldonLad]

Possession, acquisition, and retention of immense wealth such as Gates and Bezos..and probs the next 1k richest after them, which gives them immense power, obviously.

They have the ear of governments, and can affect planetary , and human wellbeing in a way that is undemocratic, and unjust.

Greater equality isn't even seen as an aspiration in many circles.

Exploitive capitalism actively wants, and needs there to be a large pool of under resourced people, and even poor countries, to extract wealth and resources from .

For example oil corps exploit the resources of less well off nations, but there is no guarantee that the poorest people living in those nations will benefit.

We can, even as individuals in richer nations choose to divest from exploitative companies.
Not use ama3on etc etc .

And remember to say why.

So, to be clear, the answer was "both"?

And, "immense wealth" is anything more than the wealth of the 1002nd richest person in the world (at present) ?

 

[mudsticks]

So, to be clear, the answer was "both"?

And, "immense wealth" is anything more than the wealth of the 1002nd richest person in the world (at present) ?

You know perfectly well what I'm saying, I picked 1k out of the air .

But yes both, immense wealth leads to disproportionately greater power, that's basic economics yes.??

Anyway, I'm going to an event next month where all this will be a hot topic im sure.

Global experts gathered etc etc

I'll see if I can have a chat with a few experts on it all.

I'll let you know if I glean any useful intel

 

[BoldonLad]

You know perfectly well what I'm saying, I picked 1k out of the air .

But yes both, immense wealth leads to disproportionately greater power, that's basic economics yes.??

Anyway, I'm going to an event next month where all this will be a hot topic im sure.

Global experts gathered etc etc

I'll see if I can have a chat with a few experts on it all.

I'll let you know if I glean any useful intel

Sorry to disappoint, but, no, I don't know perfectly well what you are saying, or, indeed what most others on here are saying. It is all very well for us to make statements about "equality", "the poor", "the wealthy" etc etc, but, I suspect we all have slightly (or even not so slightly) different views on what we mean by these terms.

A couple of little examples, these both happened during an extended family discussion on how "the Government should make life more fair":

1. Everyone agreed that "ordinary people" (not said, but, implied, like themselves) should pay less in taxes, and, "the rich" (you know, those "other people") should pay more.

2. One brother-in-law (who had worked his whole life (age 15 - 65, in lower paid shipyard and factory jobs, now retired on State Pension). His wife has not had a career, since they married and had a family, now drawing State Pension. Living in a Council House. He was of the opinion that no-one should earn more than £40,000pa, since that (and I quote), "was enough for anyone".

3. A sister-in-law ( a lifetime lower ranking Civil Servant, Clerical Officer, now retired with State Pension and Civil Service Pension. Husband now retired, with State Pension, and a couple of "works pensions" from previous employers, during his working life, he was a skilled Mechanical Engineer, working in a factory. Living in their own home, no mortgage. Also, they had two properties (mortgage free), which they rent out. No way did sister-in-law see herself as "better off", she was most definitely "poor", or, at worst "ordinary".

Whilst all could agree that Bill Gates or (say) a Premier League Footballer were "rich", when it came down to drawing a few lines, to begin the "progressive taxation" then, it all became very murky, because, everyone thought, the line should start above them.

Now, perhaps, I have a greedy, self-centred extended family (they are mostly -in-laws, so, could be ), or, perhaps, getting consensus on all of this "equality" might not be quite as straight forward as us uttering a few sound bites on CC forum.

 

[mudsticks]

Sorry to disappoint, but, no, I don't know perfectly well what you are saying, or, indeed what most others on here are saying. It is all very well for us to make statements about "equality", "the poor", "the wealthy" etc etc, but, I suspect we all have slightly (or even not so slightly) different views on what we mean by these terms.

A couple of little examples, these both happened during an extended family discussion on how "the Government should make life more fair":

1. Everyone agreed that "ordinary people" (not said, but, implied, like themselves) should pay less in taxes, and, "the rich" (you know, those "other people") should pay more.

2. One brother-in-law (who had worked his whole life (age 15 - 65, in lower paid shipyard and factory jobs, now retired on State Pension). His wife has not had a career, since they married and had a family, now drawing State Pension. Living in a Council House. He was of the opinion that no-one should earn more than £40,000pa, since that (and I quote), "was enough for anyone".

3. A sister-in-law ( a lifetime lower ranking Civil Servant, Clerical Officer, now retired with State Pension and Civil Service Pension. Husband now retired, with State Pension, and a couple of "works pensions" from previous employers, during his working life, he was a skilled Mechanical Engineer, working in a factory. Living in their own home, no mortgage. Also, they had two properties (mortgage free), which they rent out. No way did sister-in-law see herself as "better off", she was most definitely "poor", or, at worst "ordinary".

Whilst all could agree that Bill Gates or (say) a Premier League Footballer were "rich", when it came down to drawing a few lines, to begin the "progressive taxation" then, it all became very murky, because, everyone thought, the line should start above them.

Now, perhaps, I have a greedy, self-centred extended family (they are mostly -in-laws, so, could be ), or, perhaps, getting consensus on all of this "equality" might not be quite as straight forward as us uttering a few sound bites on CC forum.

Sure .

All of that.

But let's face it it's only a sub forum on a cycling forum , so it's not like we have to get all the precise details thrashed out.

We don't actually get to affect any of this apart from a bit of lobbying and voting.

But I think we all know what dire poverty looks like, and we know what it does to people.

Same with immense wealth.

 

[BoldonLad]

Sure .

All of that.

But let's face it it's only a sub forum on a cycling forum , so it's not like we have to get all the precise details thrashed out.

We don't actually get to affect any of this apart from a bit of lobbying and voting.

But I think we all know what dire poverty looks like, and we know what it does to people.

Same with immense wealth.

True, but, we are also a subset of "the people" (not necessarily representative, I grant you), or the fabled "person on a Clapham omnibus".

If we don't/cannot agree, how can we lobby and vote?

If we don't change things democratically, how are we going to achieve it? Revolution may be attractive on paper, but, does always work out to the advantage of "the little people".