Reply to: How to drive firms away from the UK

[vetran]

I never said that most philanthropists weren't capitalists. I agreed they were, but that this was a stupid point to make, which proves nothing. It's pretty clear most philanthropists must be capitalists, because those are in general the people who have the money! Only a minority of millionaires are aristocracy or lottery winners

One could argue that most of the would-be philanthropists never get noticed because their philanthropic tendencies lead to them never being rich in the first place. Many of the most famous philanthropists made that decision after getting rich... to the point that money has no meaning in the likes of Gates, Buffet et al. For them, philanthropy doesn't materially affect their lifestyle one jot; 1% of their wealth would still leave them ridiculously wealthy.

I would imagine most of them wake up one day and realise money isn't everything and want to help.

some companies see charitable work as good business, others do it because its right and some others just abuse it

[SueEllen]

4. Perhaps a crafty way of reducing the amount paid to military reservists for their weekends charging about in tanks on Salisbury Plain

This^^^

I know some big firms (and not so big ones) who do allow their employees to have a couple of hours a week to an afternoon off every 2 weeks to do some volunteering as it makes the company look good. The time given has to be to a registered charity or to the firm's charity of the year. This is how you get telephone operators for the TV charityathons.

Anyone above admin levels tends to make the time up so the companies actually don't lose out. Obviously reservists can't easily do this.

I worked for a firm years ago who when they realised other firms were doing this told us to mention we worked for them in any volunteering we did so they could get the publicity, but refused to give anyone extra time off or be more flexible to help them do the volunteering.....

[d000hg]

I never said that most philanthropists weren't capitalists. I agreed they were, but that this was a stupid point to make, which proves nothing. It's pretty clear most philanthropists must be capitalists, because those are in general the people who have the money! Only a minority of millionaires are aristocracy or lottery winners

One could argue that most of the would-be philanthropists never get noticed because their philanthropic tendencies lead to them never being rich in the first place. Many of the most famous philanthropists made that decision after getting rich... to the point that money has no meaning in the likes of Gates, Buffet et al. For them, philanthropy doesn't materially affect their lifestyle one jot; 1% of their wealth would still leave them ridiculously wealthy.

[Flashman]

A few possibilities, off the top of my head

1. It's an EU directive, or aimed at covering an imminent directive increasing annual leave entitlements

(Any time the Government stubbornly press ahead with some misguided or barking mad policy apparently at odds with their general outlook, you can be fairly sure the EU is behind it. The Government is often reluctant to admit this as it shows how utterly impotent they are to do otherwise.)

2. It's a lame attempt to woo wavering left wing liberals, who might consider voting Tory if they thought Tories are now nice enough.

3. Cameron feels he has to accommodate some bossy underling with a bee in their bonnet about this, and threatening to defect to UKIP or something if he doesn't accede to their wishes.

4. Perhaps a crafty way of reducing the amount paid to military reservists for their weekends charging about in tanks on Salisbury Plain

It sounds like the policy was thought up over a coffee break. Probably one of Samantha Cameron's bright ideas.

[vetran]

You're piling one ridiculous comparison on top of another.

Most rich people are not inheriting lefties. - True but some are and few of those are noted philanthropists.

Most rich people are capitalists. Most rich people are not notable philanthropists at all, but statistically most of those that are will be capitalists. - YES!

Your logic just doesn't hold up. Trying to say you found a tiny number of philanthropic capitalists and a tiny number of selfish lottery winners (there are so few lottery winners at all) is manipulating statistics like a tabloid journalist. - no its not I said most philanthropists are capitalists, you suggested that was rubbish.

in text

[d000hg]

balderdash.

You're piling one ridiculous comparison on top of another.

Most rich people are not inheriting lefties. Most rich people are capitalists. Most rich people are not notable philanthropists at all, but statistically most of those are will be capitalists.

Your logic just doesn't hold up. Trying to say you found a tiny number of philanthropic capitalists and a tiny number of selfish lottery winners (there are so few lottery winners at all) is manipulating statistics like a tabloid journalist.

[vetran]

Yes but most filthy capitalists are not philanthropists so that's a meaningless point, especially considering that you generally can't be a philanthropist unless you got rich by BEING a filthy capitalist.

Your argument is like saying drug dealing isn't bad if some of them gave some of their drug money to charity. Not that I'm anti-capitalism, your argument is just bad

balderdash.

Plenty of lifelong lefties have played the system or inherited cash yet not put a penny back. Millibrain senior for instance. Lottery winners every week yet how many charitable foundations do they set up?

Equating capitalism to drug dealing is frankly trotskist tosh.

My point was that many rich individuals from capitalist families set up the organisations that made our society much better. Many organisations we would think of as 'filthy' or at least ruthlessly efficient capitalists contribute generously to charity. Wallmart for instance.


America's Most Generous Companies - Forbes

Zuck tops the polls personally.

Gates & Buffet have done great things.

despite what you might think all of these have obtained their money without selling 'baggies' on street corners to addicted schoolkids.

Give me a company that creates jobs and observes the law over some some dope smoking marxist who will languish in politics or the beeb any day.

[BrilloPad]

And look how well their economy is doing.

Without very low corporate tax rates they would be doing much worse.

[d000hg]

you know most western philanthropists were filthy capitalists?

Yes but most filthy capitalists are not philanthropists so that's a meaningless point, especially considering that you generally can't be a philanthropist unless you got rich by BEING a filthy capitalist.

Your argument is like saying drug dealing isn't bad if some of them gave some of their drug money to charity. Not that I'm anti-capitalism, your argument is just bad

[woohoo]

Indeed. I meant a reduction in tax rate. How about to Ireland level?

I think our tax rate along with tax credits for the working are helping companies enough.

[Ticktock]

A few possibilities, off the top of my head

1. It's an EU directive, or aimed at covering an imminent directive increasing annual leave entitlements

(Any time the Government stubbornly press ahead with some misguided or barking mad policy apparently at odds with their general outlook, you can be fairly sure the EU is behind it. The Government is often reluctant to admit this as it shows how utterly impotent they are to do otherwise.)

2. It's a lame attempt to woo wavering left wing liberals, who might consider voting Tory if they thought Tories are now nice enough.

3. Cameron feels he has to accommodate some bossy underling with a bee in their bonnet about this, and threatening to defect to UKIP or something if he doesn't accede to their wishes.

4. Perhaps a crafty way of reducing the amount paid to military reservists for their weekends charging about in tanks on Salisbury Plain

5. Since he tried to introduce the concept of "The big community" this is something he actually believes in and is trying to support.

Why is everyone such a cynic?

[OwlHoot]

Don't understand this one at all. It's a typical Labour policy so why it's come from the Tories is beyound me.

A few possibilities, off the top of my head

1. It's an EU directive, or aimed at covering an imminent directive increasing annual leave entitlements

(Any time the Government stubbornly press ahead with some misguided or barking mad policy apparently at odds with their general outlook, you can be fairly sure the EU is behind it. The Government is often reluctant to admit this as it shows how utterly impotent they are to do otherwise.)

2. It's a lame attempt to woo wavering left wing liberals, who might consider voting Tory if they thought Tories are now nice enough.

3. Cameron feels he has to accommodate some bossy underling with a bee in their bonnet about this, and threatening to defect to UKIP or something if he doesn't accede to their wishes.

4. Perhaps a crafty way of reducing the amount paid to military reservists for their weekends charging about in tanks on Salisbury Plain

[vetran]

you know most western philanthropists were filthy capitalists?

Top 10 London Social Philanthropists | Londonist

indeed even Dirty Des counts.

All this left=good right=bad rubbish is just that.

[SueEllen]

And look how well their economy is doing.

Nothing wrong with your young people leaving....

[d000hg]

Relative to most countries yes. Relative to Ireland?

And look how well their economy is doing.