Re: Proof the "Trickle Down" effect is a myth? : Thu Jan 23, 2014 3:25 pm  

DaveO wrote:

I don't know how many yachts the owners of Wall Mart have but it has been well documented recently that their workers in the US have had to resort to food banks as has been their low pay. Given what the report says about half the worlds wealth being held by such a tiny minority, of which the Wall Mart owners are part, what more evidence do you need that their wealth isn't trickling down and the trickle down effect is a fantasy invented by the right to justify their continued control of and hoarding of Capital?

What do the owners of Wal-Mart do with the wealth they're hoarding? Is it cash stuffed in a mattress?

Re: Proof the "Trickle Down" effect is a myth? : Thu Jan 23, 2014 3:41 pm  

DaveO wrote:

I don't know how many yachts the owners of Wall Mart have but it has been well documented recently that their workers in the US have had to resort to food banks as has been their low pay. Given what the report says about half the worlds wealth being held by such a tiny minority, of which the Wall Mart owners are part, what more evidence do you need that their wealth isn't trickling down and the trickle down effect is a fantasy invented by the right to justify their continued control of and hoarding of Capital?

In The Wal-Mart Effect, Charles Fishman discovered – to his surprise – that five years after a new Wal-Mart tin box had landed in any area, local poverty levels had increased.

Re: Proof the "Trickle Down" effect is a myth? : Thu Jan 23, 2014 3:47 pm  

Richie wrote:

What do the owners of Wal-Mart do with the wealth they're hoarding? Is it cash stuffed in a mattress?

Pay their employees better – which will boost local and national economies as well.

And change a policy of driving down prices, year on year, with the concomitant effect of driving down quality of goods and/or driving companies out of business or abroad – which again will boost local economies as well as the national economy.

Re: Proof the "Trickle Down" effect is a myth? : Fri Jan 24, 2014 7:41 am  

DaveO wrote:

Why don't you understand the difference between how much a company generates, where it keeps it and what it does with it compared to what Oxfam is complaining about?

The Oxfam report does not adopt the naive position you want to imply.

Of course large corporations generate large amounts of cash. It is what they do with it and where they keep it for tax purposes that is the issue.

As to Apple they have been criticized by numerous economists and analysts for sitting on the cash. They even had one large investor insisting they did a share buy-back so his investment would increase in value.

However, the fact Apple have a large cash reserve and this is frowned upon by many who are fully paid up members of to the capitalist system only lends weight to what Oxfam are saying. It certainly doesn't detract from it and your argument we should all stop using Apple products is pretty childish (mind you I personally only own one Apple product, an Apple TV and that will be being replaced by a non-Apple product soon).

You are deflecting the issue again and that idea won't work anyway as explained previously.

Why have you not answered the question as to why you are more bothered about £1.5bn of benefit fraud than a tax gap of £35bn?

Deflection - coming from an expert here - not one word on BP and the trickle down benefit of the dividends and taxation they pay out!!

I asked you what these companies should do with these monies - not an answer

I asked you how these companies are supposed to pay for business disaster such as a Gulf of Mexico or a downturn in business if they haven't got these cash reserves - just like the banks didn't have sufficient reserves, simple we all suffer.

I answered your question about benefit fraud and tax avoidance about 4 post ago - you like Poloball must struggle with reading. Those who avoid tax do at least employ people and pay dividends so they do may a contribution to society as a whole, benefit fraud only takes from society as a whole - is that simple enough for you to understand?

On the minimum wage you said it would not bring the level up to the agreed living wage - that is not the same as saying give the lower paid a 14% salary increase would increase the incentive to work.

No it is your turn to answer some of the questions - start with the trickle down effect of Mr Gates boat - something you just dodged yet again.

Re: Proof the "Trickle Down" effect is a myth? : Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:24 am  

Sal, talking of "deflection", why do you never answer any questions dealing with the ethics/philosophy of such issues?

You never, for instance, explain why you don't think that a fairer society would be a good thing and should be worked for. You simply dismiss the mere idea.

Or do you believe that it might be a good idea – but it isn't going to happen so why bother trying?

But behind your stated view of a fairer society as being simply a fact of life, there must be a philosophical basis for the apparently concomitant belief that there's no point trying; one that explains why it is not only impossible to change things, but why one should not try. What is it?

Re: Proof the "Trickle Down" effect is a myth? : Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:50 am  

Mintball wrote:

Very little. Which is rather the point.

Indeed, you said: "As much as you want equality - that will never happen, we are not equal and we do not value all skills similarly."

It's 'utopia'.

And so you see no reason to work to change that? You have no problem with your fellow citizens needing to use foodbanks, for instance?

Are you familiar with the word: 'ethics'? You seem to struggle with the understanding that 'equal' and 'fair' are not synonyms.

What philosophical argument can you give for not thinking that greater fairness would be A Good Thing for all?

You constantly 'deflect' – your introduction of the subject was just such an example.

They're you're "issues".

Mind, it's hilarious and utterly illogical. Apple are the industry standard, as I have previously explained, so in your little world, I should refuse to use the industry standard and find some computer that is über ethical (it probably doesn't exist) and probably lose work in the process, possibly to the extent of then needing to apply for benefits – which would please you no end, because then you could whinge about that.

I live in the world as it exists: 'the real world', so to speak. I do what I can to be as ethical as possible and, for want of a better phrase, to promote ethical issues.

There's very little suggestion from you that you consider ethics to be remotely of any importance other, of course, than when it's those nasty 'scroungers'.

You waited for the police to act?

Tut tut.

There's plenty of research out there suggesting that lack of opportunity and poverty are two factors in increased childbirth. Perhaps there's a reason that the well-to-do and those with good educations and with careers rarely have large numbers of children?

Perhaps, in a 'fairer' model of society, fewer people would be so inclined to have so many children.

That, and proper sex education and, one would hope, a decline in the sort of religiously-inspred attitudes that laud large families and damn contraception, abortion and, often, much in the way of the sort of opportunities for women mentioned fleetingly above.

I am not saying if you feel strongly enough about something you should do what you can to change things. One thing you cannot change is human nature - communism/socialism failed because it tried to impose a system of supposed fairness/level playing field on human nature. You can slag capitalism off - its worst excesses are pretty horrible - but it values are embraced by human nature which craves the opportunity to leap frog fellow citizens at their expense. It would be great if we are born with same intellence, desire to get on, luck, stable upbringing etc. but that is not reality. Life is not fair, it never will be.

You hold much weight to food banks - so exactly how many people in this country are reliant on food banks and how much of their disposable income that they could be spending on food are they spending on things like cigarettes/drugs/gambling.

Are you seriously suggesting that if David Baldacci supplied an article to newspaper written in Word the paper would reject it? You are saying the product you type on is far more important than the words you type - that's an interesting point that has occured to a few of us

Pretty easy to convert Word into Pages/Quark etc. Where I work we print product, the Genesis of which is turning customer's artwork into plates - we can this artwork on a multitude of platforms many of which are not Apple related.

You are confirming that your principles are pretty flexible depending on how they impact you?

Would you agree standards of living are significantly higher than they were 40 years ago? So if that is the case your argument about poverty and increased numbers of single mothers doesn't stack up. Opportunities are there for anyone to progress and their are countless examples of kids from the "Streets" making a huge success of their life - it is about desire, ability and graft. You cannot say its all unfair because others are not prepared to grasp the opportunity.

Re: Proof the "Trickle Down" effect is a myth? : Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:34 am  

Sal Paradise wrote: ... Life is not fair, it never will be... Yes. You keep repeating this. You have also stated that someone who isn't poor themselves shouldn't campaign for a fairer society. Strangely, you've yet to answer, AFAIK, the question of whether that means that, in your opinion, only slaves should have campaigned against slavery. Sal Paradise wrote: You hold much weight to food banks ... I what? Are you drunk so early in the day? Sal Paradise wrote: - so exactly how many people in this country are reliant on food banks and how much of their disposable income that they could be spending on food are they spending on things like cigarettes/drugs/gambling... If you'd been paying any attention at all, this has been discussed, more than once, on here. It has been pointed out, for instance, that you cannot simply walk into a foodbank and grab what you fancy. Checks are done first to ensure that you are in such need. Current figures are between 5-600,000. The prediction is for this to hit the million mark this year Story – it's Sky News, so not something anyone could class as 'left-wing'. And that's without mentioning the Red Cross food parcels and the Save the Children spending. Trying to pretend that need is only a matter of spending on the 'right' things is nothing other than the same sort of sheer nastiness of the likes of the liar IDS and his cronies. I hadn't quite placed you in that bracket before. I hope it's mere delusion on the basis of propaganda. Sal Paradise wrote: Are you seriously suggesting that if David Baldacci supplied an article to newspaper written in Word the paper would reject it? You are saying the product you type on is far more important than the words you type - that's an interesting point that has occured to a few of us Conflating Word and anything other than Apple is revealing. Personally, I would vastly prefer not to use Word, but again, it's industry standard, regardless of it being dross. So I use it because I have little realistic choice in terms of compatibility. And I use it on Macs, because those are the industry standard. Perhaps I should try going into an office next time and refusing to use the computers that are there and telling them that I'll only use something that that they can find that probably doesn't even exist. I can imagine that working well. Sal Paradise wrote: Pretty easy to convert Word into Pages/Quark etc. Where I work we print product, the Genesis of which is turning customer's artwork into plates - we can this artwork on a multitude of platforms many of which are not Apple related. Quark is rather old hat these days. Priced themselves out of the market stupidly and generally replaced by Adobe InDesign – the new industry standard, although whether that will remain the case now they're trying to up charges by only making upgrades available as downloads remains to be seen. Personally, in my work, I use InDesign for page make-up, plus Illustrator, PhotoShop and LightRoom for graphics and photographic work. I suspect that you didn't think that I did anything other than write, did you? Sal Paradise wrote: You are confirming that your principles are pretty flexible depending on how they impact you? At least I have some. According to a brief 2012 report in the Observer, "ethi-tech ... has yet to get going". Story So perhaps I should jack in my work altogether and find another job. One that doesn't use any tech at all. Obviously. Although given that the highest level of tech we used when I started in journalism was typewriters, one can hardly predict what job will be a nice, safe, tech-free zone in a short time in the future, can one? I await with interest your response on ethics. And no, I don't mean a county to the east of London. Sal Paradise wrote: ... it is about desire, ability and graft. You cannot say its all unfair because others are not prepared to grasp the opportunity. So, let's try this old one again: there are as many jobs available as there are people of working age, are there? And those jobs pay a living wage and are full time, are they?

Sal Paradise wrote: ... Life is not fair, it never will be... Yes. You keep repeating this. You have also stated that someone who isn't poor themselves shouldn't campaign for a fairer society. Strangely, you've yet to answer, AFAIK, the question of whether that means that, in your opinion, only slaves should have campaigned against slavery. Sal Paradise wrote: You hold much weight to food banks ... I what? Are you drunk so early in the day? Sal Paradise wrote: - so exactly how many people in this country are reliant on food banks and how much of their disposable income that they could be spending on food are they spending on things like cigarettes/drugs/gambling... If you'd been paying any attention at all, this has been discussed, more than once, on here. It has been pointed out, for instance, that you cannot simply walk into a foodbank and grab what you fancy. Checks are done first to ensure that you are in such need. Current figures are between 5-600,000. The prediction is for this to hit the million mark this year Story – it's Sky News, so not something anyone could class as 'left-wing'. And that's without mentioning the Red Cross food parcels and the Save the Children spending. Trying to pretend that need is only a matter of spending on the 'right' things is nothing other than the same sort of sheer nastiness of the likes of the liar IDS and his cronies. I hadn't quite placed you in that bracket before. I hope it's mere delusion on the basis of propaganda. Sal Paradise wrote: Are you seriously suggesting that if David Baldacci supplied an article to newspaper written in Word the paper would reject it? You are saying the product you type on is far more important than the words you type - that's an interesting point that has occured to a few of us Conflating Word and anything other than Apple is revealing. Personally, I would vastly prefer not to use Word, but again, it's industry standard, regardless of it being dross. So I use it because I have little realistic choice in terms of compatibility. And I use it on Macs, because those are the industry standard. Perhaps I should try going into an office next time and refusing to use the computers that are there and telling them that I'll only use something that that they can find that probably doesn't even exist. I can imagine that working well. Sal Paradise wrote: Pretty easy to convert Word into Pages/Quark etc. Where I work we print product, the Genesis of which is turning customer's artwork into plates - we can this artwork on a multitude of platforms many of which are not Apple related. Quark is rather old hat these days. Priced themselves out of the market stupidly and generally replaced by Adobe InDesign – the new industry standard, although whether that will remain the case now they're trying to up charges by only making upgrades available as downloads remains to be seen. Personally, in my work, I use InDesign for page make-up, plus Illustrator, PhotoShop and LightRoom for graphics and photographic work. I suspect that you didn't think that I did anything other than write, did you? Sal Paradise wrote: You are confirming that your principles are pretty flexible depending on how they impact you? At least I have some. According to a brief 2012 report in the Observer, "ethi-tech ... has yet to get going". Story So perhaps I should jack in my work altogether and find another job. One that doesn't use any tech at all. Obviously. Although given that the highest level of tech we used when I started in journalism was typewriters, one can hardly predict what job will be a nice, safe, tech-free zone in a short time in the future, can one? I await with interest your response on ethics. And no, I don't mean a county to the east of London. Sal Paradise wrote: ... it is about desire, ability and graft. You cannot say its all unfair because others are not prepared to grasp the opportunity. So, let's try this old one again: there are as many jobs available as there are people of working age, are there? And those jobs pay a living wage and are full time, are they?

[DaveO]

Re: Proof the "Trickle Down" effect is a myth? : Fri Jan 24, 2014 10:22 am  

Richie wrote:

What do the owners of Wal-Mart do with the wealth they're hoarding? Is it cash stuffed in a mattress?

Why do you ask? They are mega-rich and make themselves richer by regular share buy backs (as opposed to using this cash to invest in the business) while we see reports of their employees resorting to food banks and suffering from low pay. You don't see anything the slightest bit wrong with this situation?

[DaveO]

Re: Proof the "Trickle Down" effect is a myth? : Fri Jan 24, 2014 11:18 am  

Sal Paradise wrote: Deflection - coming from an expert here - not one word on BP and the trickle down benefit of the dividends and taxation they pay out!! I asked you what these companies should do with these monies - not an answer Your inability to understand the problem is duly noted. Any fool can cherry pick what they believe to be a company they believe to operating in a way consistent with what is deemed good business practice. The Oxfam report is not about such companies. So you bringing up BP or any other company that is not the object of Oxfam's report is irrelevant, IS deflection and DOES NOT counter the argument. I have no idea if BP indulge in the practices Oxfam highlight or not. I doubt you know the answer to that question either which is another reason this line of argument is just stupid. However for the sake of argument lets suppose BP hoard money in tax havens and sit on a cash mountain while at the same time turn a profit and pay dividends. You seem to be suggesting that because they do the latter the former is OK. If so why can't you see the utter stupidity of that position? I asked you how these companies are supposed to pay for business disaster such as a Gulf of Mexico or a downturn in business if they haven't got these cash reserves - just like the banks didn't have sufficient reserves, simple we all suffer. You did and it was and remains a stupid question. Companies like BP do not run on the basis that they expect to be so incompetent they are going to have to stash away enough cash to cover disasters of this magnitude. And guess what? They don't do it. You are suggesting BP expected eventually pollute the Gulf of Mexico or similar at some stage so thought they had better stash enough cash for when they did. That is a completely ludicrous suggestion. I answered your question about benefit fraud and tax avoidance about 4 post ago - you like Poloball must struggle with reading. Those who avoid tax do at least employ people and pay dividends so they do may a contribution to society as a whole, benefit fraud only takes from society as a whole - is that simple enough for you to understand? No you didn't. I asked you why you are more concerned about $1.5bn of benefit fraud compared to the $35bn tax gap. The fact you think "Those who avoid tax do at least employ people and pay dividends so they do may a contribution to society" just hows your ignorance of what the "Tac Gap" is. FYI it includes illegal non-payment of tax. You know how much of the tax gap is down to the hard work of all those helping people avoid tax? £4bn. The break down is here: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/statistics/tax-gaps/mtg-2013.pdf The rest of it is tax the government is due but has not been paid including £5.1bn down to illegal evasion. So lets take out the tax avoided thus removing your rather weak argument those facilitating the avoiding contribute, that leaves us with £31bn of unpaid tax v £1.5bn of benefit fraud. So come on, now you know the tax gap is not all down to avoidance and includes a figure of £5.1bn of tax evasion, answer the question as to why you are so obsessed with benefit fraud in comparison? No it is your turn to answer some of the questions - start with the trickle down effect of Mr Gates boat - something you just dodged yet again. Mr Gates is a philanthropist, as is John Caldwell who I also mentioned. The fact these people exist and behave as they do does not in any way counter the Oxfam report. It isn't about them and why on earth you seem to think Bill Gates philanthropy means all the super rich behave in this way when Oxfam are telling you they don't I have no idea.

Sal Paradise wrote: Deflection - coming from an expert here - not one word on BP and the trickle down benefit of the dividends and taxation they pay out!! I asked you what these companies should do with these monies - not an answer Your inability to understand the problem is duly noted. Any fool can cherry pick what they believe to be a company they believe to operating in a way consistent with what is deemed good business practice. The Oxfam report is not about such companies. So you bringing up BP or any other company that is not the object of Oxfam's report is irrelevant, IS deflection and DOES NOT counter the argument. I have no idea if BP indulge in the practices Oxfam highlight or not. I doubt you know the answer to that question either which is another reason this line of argument is just stupid. However for the sake of argument lets suppose BP hoard money in tax havens and sit on a cash mountain while at the same time turn a profit and pay dividends. You seem to be suggesting that because they do the latter the former is OK. If so why can't you see the utter stupidity of that position? I asked you how these companies are supposed to pay for business disaster such as a Gulf of Mexico or a downturn in business if they haven't got these cash reserves - just like the banks didn't have sufficient reserves, simple we all suffer. You did and it was and remains a stupid question. Companies like BP do not run on the basis that they expect to be so incompetent they are going to have to stash away enough cash to cover disasters of this magnitude. And guess what? They don't do it. You are suggesting BP expected eventually pollute the Gulf of Mexico or similar at some stage so thought they had better stash enough cash for when they did. That is a completely ludicrous suggestion. I answered your question about benefit fraud and tax avoidance about 4 post ago - you like Poloball must struggle with reading. Those who avoid tax do at least employ people and pay dividends so they do may a contribution to society as a whole, benefit fraud only takes from society as a whole - is that simple enough for you to understand? No you didn't. I asked you why you are more concerned about $1.5bn of benefit fraud compared to the $35bn tax gap. The fact you think "Those who avoid tax do at least employ people and pay dividends so they do may a contribution to society" just hows your ignorance of what the "Tac Gap" is. FYI it includes illegal non-payment of tax. You know how much of the tax gap is down to the hard work of all those helping people avoid tax? £4bn. The break down is here: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/statistics/tax-gaps/mtg-2013.pdf The rest of it is tax the government is due but has not been paid including £5.1bn down to illegal evasion. So lets take out the tax avoided thus removing your rather weak argument those facilitating the avoiding contribute, that leaves us with £31bn of unpaid tax v £1.5bn of benefit fraud. So come on, now you know the tax gap is not all down to avoidance and includes a figure of £5.1bn of tax evasion, answer the question as to why you are so obsessed with benefit fraud in comparison? No it is your turn to answer some of the questions - start with the trickle down effect of Mr Gates boat - something you just dodged yet again. Mr Gates is a philanthropist, as is John Caldwell who I also mentioned. The fact these people exist and behave as they do does not in any way counter the Oxfam report. It isn't about them and why on earth you seem to think Bill Gates philanthropy means all the super rich behave in this way when Oxfam are telling you they don't I have no idea.

Re: Proof the "Trickle Down" effect is a myth? : Sat Jan 25, 2014 8:17 am  

DaveO wrote: Your inability to understand the problem is duly noted. Any fool can cherry pick what they believe to be a company they believe to operating in a way consistent with what is deemed good business practice. The Oxfam report is not about such companies. So you bringing up BP or any other company that is not the object of Oxfam's report is irrelevant, IS deflection and DOES NOT counter the argument. I have no idea if BP indulge in the practices Oxfam highlight or not. I doubt you know the answer to that question either which is another reason this line of argument is just stupid. However for the sake of argument lets suppose BP hoard money in tax havens and sit on a cash mountain while at the same time turn a profit and pay dividends. You seem to be suggesting that because they do the latter the former is OK. If so why can't you see the utter stupidity of that position? You did and it was and remains a stupid question. Companies like BP do not run on the basis that they expect to be so incompetent they are going to have to stash away enough cash to cover disasters of this magnitude. And guess what? They don't do it. You are suggesting BP expected eventually pollute the Gulf of Mexico or similar at some stage so thought they had better stash enough cash for when they did. That is a completely ludicrous suggestion. No you didn't. I asked you why you are more concerned about $1.5bn of benefit fraud compared to the $35bn tax gap. The fact you think "Those who avoid tax do at least employ people and pay dividends so they do may a contribution to society" just hows your ignorance of what the "Tac Gap" is. FYI it includes illegal non-payment of tax. You know how much of the tax gap is down to the hard work of all those helping people avoid tax? £4bn. The break down is here: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/statistics/tax-gaps/mtg-2013.pdf The rest of it is tax the government is due but has not been paid including £5.1bn down to illegal evasion. So lets take out the tax avoided thus removing your rather weak argument those facilitating the avoiding contribute, that leaves us with £31bn of unpaid tax v £1.5bn of benefit fraud. So come on, now you know the tax gap is not all down to avoidance and includes a figure of £5.1bn of tax evasion, answer the question as to why you are so obsessed with benefit fraud in comparison? Mr Gates is a philanthropist, as is John Caldwell who I also mentioned. The fact these people exist and behave as they do does not in any way counter the Oxfam report. It isn't about them and why on earth you seem to think Bill Gates philanthropy means all the super rich behave in this way when Oxfam are telling you they don't I have no idea. Bill Gates is one of the very people mentioned in the Oxfam report - If I am not mistaken he is one of the 10 richest people in the world so easily qualifies in their 85. Is that beyond your comprehension. Oxfam can't have it all ways - they can't say having all this wealth in a few hands is an issue but ignore that some these people are making a positive contribution to society by using this wealth in a suitable manner. Did Oxfam calculate how much these individuals contributed to society through donation? It is typical of this type of report it is not balanced it is so one-sided - but typical of the kind of report you jump on!! if non payment of tax is illegal then it needs sorting out and the perpetrators brought to book. Included in the 31bn will be significant losses from business failure - not sure what you do about that? It will also include individuals not declaring excise duty on imported goods again hardly a big business issue. There will also be the interpretation of the law and its ambiguous nature of it. There will be genuine mistakes - tax law is very complicated and we see disputes all the time. Make the laws simpler and more water tight and collect what is legally due and sue anyone who doesn't comply. If I could legally avoid paying tax I would and I do - I have an ISA and I partake in a share save scheme at work both give me tax benefits and I suspect if you were honest so do you. So comparing legal avoidance to what amounts to theft isn't apples and apples. Oil exploration is dangerous do you honestly think BP don't have a disaster recovery plan and the funds available to deal with it - are you really that naive? Years ago I worked for BOC in the gas manufacturing business and they had a sizeable disaster fund to cover such an emergency. The other point I raised was about business performance fluctuation and the need to have funds to support a downturn in the short term - something you overlooked. I am sure you have savings so why shouldn't big business. Businesses are also looking for acquisition opportunities you need availability of cash especially in today's market to do this. I asked and I still haven't had a response what are these companies supposed to do with huge amounts of cash they generate through trading?

DaveO wrote: Your inability to understand the problem is duly noted. Any fool can cherry pick what they believe to be a company they believe to operating in a way consistent with what is deemed good business practice. The Oxfam report is not about such companies. So you bringing up BP or any other company that is not the object of Oxfam's report is irrelevant, IS deflection and DOES NOT counter the argument. I have no idea if BP indulge in the practices Oxfam highlight or not. I doubt you know the answer to that question either which is another reason this line of argument is just stupid. However for the sake of argument lets suppose BP hoard money in tax havens and sit on a cash mountain while at the same time turn a profit and pay dividends. You seem to be suggesting that because they do the latter the former is OK. If so why can't you see the utter stupidity of that position? You did and it was and remains a stupid question. Companies like BP do not run on the basis that they expect to be so incompetent they are going to have to stash away enough cash to cover disasters of this magnitude. And guess what? They don't do it. You are suggesting BP expected eventually pollute the Gulf of Mexico or similar at some stage so thought they had better stash enough cash for when they did. That is a completely ludicrous suggestion. No you didn't. I asked you why you are more concerned about $1.5bn of benefit fraud compared to the $35bn tax gap. The fact you think "Those who avoid tax do at least employ people and pay dividends so they do may a contribution to society" just hows your ignorance of what the "Tac Gap" is. FYI it includes illegal non-payment of tax. You know how much of the tax gap is down to the hard work of all those helping people avoid tax? £4bn. The break down is here: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/statistics/tax-gaps/mtg-2013.pdf The rest of it is tax the government is due but has not been paid including £5.1bn down to illegal evasion. So lets take out the tax avoided thus removing your rather weak argument those facilitating the avoiding contribute, that leaves us with £31bn of unpaid tax v £1.5bn of benefit fraud. So come on, now you know the tax gap is not all down to avoidance and includes a figure of £5.1bn of tax evasion, answer the question as to why you are so obsessed with benefit fraud in comparison? Mr Gates is a philanthropist, as is John Caldwell who I also mentioned. The fact these people exist and behave as they do does not in any way counter the Oxfam report. It isn't about them and why on earth you seem to think Bill Gates philanthropy means all the super rich behave in this way when Oxfam are telling you they don't I have no idea. Bill Gates is one of the very people mentioned in the Oxfam report - If I am not mistaken he is one of the 10 richest people in the world so easily qualifies in their 85. Is that beyond your comprehension. Oxfam can't have it all ways - they can't say having all this wealth in a few hands is an issue but ignore that some these people are making a positive contribution to society by using this wealth in a suitable manner. Did Oxfam calculate how much these individuals contributed to society through donation? It is typical of this type of report it is not balanced it is so one-sided - but typical of the kind of report you jump on!! if non payment of tax is illegal then it needs sorting out and the perpetrators brought to book. Included in the 31bn will be significant losses from business failure - not sure what you do about that? It will also include individuals not declaring excise duty on imported goods again hardly a big business issue. There will also be the interpretation of the law and its ambiguous nature of it. There will be genuine mistakes - tax law is very complicated and we see disputes all the time. Make the laws simpler and more water tight and collect what is legally due and sue anyone who doesn't comply. If I could legally avoid paying tax I would and I do - I have an ISA and I partake in a share save scheme at work both give me tax benefits and I suspect if you were honest so do you. So comparing legal avoidance to what amounts to theft isn't apples and apples. Oil exploration is dangerous do you honestly think BP don't have a disaster recovery plan and the funds available to deal with it - are you really that naive? Years ago I worked for BOC in the gas manufacturing business and they had a sizeable disaster fund to cover such an emergency. The other point I raised was about business performance fluctuation and the need to have funds to support a downturn in the short term - something you overlooked. I am sure you have savings so why shouldn't big business. Businesses are also looking for acquisition opportunities you need availability of cash especially in today's market to do this. I asked and I still haven't had a response what are these companies supposed to do with huge amounts of cash they generate through trading?