Russell Brand

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

An outcome less likely than winning the lottery. But definitely nothing to do with luck. Anyone could do it, if only they could be bothered.

No not everyone can do it - that's the whole point! You cannot engineer society so that everyone is successful because not everyone has the attributes required.

[russell]

Black Businessman in Remote South African Village Becomes Millionaire

An outcome less likely than winning the lottery. But definitely nothing to do with luck. Anyone could do it, if only they could be bothered.

Posting success stories like this only proves my point, very rare. But Im sure there are many people in these places who have the same drive as Branson etc.

I am sure you agree that the probability of becoming a millionaire in a remote African vs London or Silicon Valley are not the same?

[doodab]

Ok, so what changes would you propose to ensure that people valued the efforts of their fellow man?

I think government needs to look at influencing ways in which the rewards for effort are initially distributed, and they need to give people without wealth more opportunity to accumulate it. I think a lot of that could be done by allowing people to keep more of their pay packet to begin with, so personally I'm in favour of raising the tax threshold much further, and "personalising" the tax threshold depending on whether people have kids or support their partner or other dependants (elderly parents say), so that no one is taxed until they are earning a living wage (which obviously depends on circumstance), and then having a flat rate income tax. This would likely be quite high, around 45% or more, although ultimately that depends on government spending. I'd also tax capital gains at the same rate as income, because it shouldn't matter whether you're using capital or labour to produce value and it certainly shouldn't favour capital if the intention is to "reward hard work".

I'd also get rid of the capital gains tax free allowance. At the moment that basically means that those with capital to invest get twice the tax free allowance of those who don't.

I would generally look at rebalancing the way human effort and financial capital are rewarded in a given endeavour. So, for example I'd look at things like giving shareholders or directors tax credits based on the proportion of a companies workforce that didn't receive benefits. Basically incentivise them to pay people properly rather than relying on the tax system to make up the shortfall.

Hands are tied somewhat on the other side (reducing the inherent value of capital) by the inability of governments to balance their books, as their need to borrow means there is a non-zero "risk free" interest rate. But I would look at ways of tackling the inherent non-linearities in the current setup.

[Mich the Tester]

I am sure you agree that the probability of becoming a millionaire in a remote African vs London or Silicon Valley are not the same?

Not the same, no, but rather problematic comparisons. You also mustn't assume that people living in those different places have an equal desire to become millionaires.

[DodgyAgent]

I am sure you agree that the probability of becoming a millionaire in a remote African vs London or Silicon Valley are not the same?

That may be true. The opportunities in the Western world are greater, but the motivation to break out of poverty is probably stronger. The key is to give everyone the education, sport and every tool possible to enable each and every human being to have the confidence to go for it whether they wish to follow it or not.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

"When Sugar ........"

"Richard Branson ....."

All these people had the ideas, took the risks and found the money to follow their ambitions and I am sure they would all say that they had help along the way and maybe wouldn't have had such great success without good people behind them but the businesses wouldn't exist without them

The point being they weren't all their personal risks. Since you did a copy and paste from Branson's Wiki page here are a couple of bits you missed -
"Branson's mother, Eve, re-mortgaged the family home to help pay the settlement.[10]"
"The name "Virgin" was suggested by one of Branson's early employees"
"Branson in 1972 launched the record label Virgin Records with Nik Powell"

To be clear, I don't have a problem with the success of these people - but they don't operate in a vacuum. Sometimes people who can ill-afford it get made redundant as a result of the "risks" taken by people at the top, so it's heads I will tails you lose for the so-called risk takers.

As others have observed, for every Branson and Sugar, there's a homeless Mum somewhere still paying their debts, too.

The rewards for some are way out of step with the value of a single contribution and in comparison with the failure to pay a living wage for all the employees.

[russell]

Not the same, no, but rather problematic comparisons. You also mustn't assume that people living in those different places have an equal desire to become millionaires.

I think the desire for more money is fairly universal.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

That may be true. The opportunities in the Western world are greater, but the motivation to break out of poverty is probably stronger. The key is to give everyone the education, sport and every tool possible to enable each and every human being to have the confidence to go for it whether they wish to follow it or not.

Sport?

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

I would generally look at rebalancing the way human effort and financial capital are rewarded in a given endeavour. So, for example I'd look at things like giving shareholders or directors tax credits based on the proportion of a companies workforce that didn't receive benefits. Basically incentivise them to pay people properly rather than relying on the tax system to make up the shortfall.

Hands are tied somewhat on the other side (reducing the inherent value of capital) by the inability of governments to balance their books, as their need to borrow means there is a non-zero "risk free" interest rate. But I would look at ways of tackling the inherent non-linearities in the current setup.

That is actually a really good idea - unfortunately you still haven't defined a 'living wage' which is what you said people would have to have (and it would vary according to their circumstances) in order not to have to rely on benefits.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

The point being they weren't all their personal risks. Since you did a copy and paste from Branson's Wiki page here are a couple of bits you missed -
"Branson's mother, Eve, re-mortgaged the family home to help pay the settlement.[10]"
"The name "Virgin" was suggested by one of Branson's early employees"
"Branson in 1972 launched the record label Virgin Records with Nik Powell"

To be clear, I don't have a problem with the success of these people - but they don't operate in a vacuum. Sometimes people who can ill-afford it get made redundant as a result of the "risks" taken by people at the top, so it's heads I will tails you lose for the so-called risk takers.

As others have observed, for every Branson and Sugar, there's a homeless Mum somewhere still paying their debts, too.

The rewards for some are way out of step with the value of a single contribution and in comparison with the failure to pay a living wage for all the employees.

As I have just said to Doodab - define 'living wage'