Lyn should wave the hammer and sickle, and sing workers unite.

A comparison with Western countries and the old poverty for all soviet union should explain even to the most dense why the West needs entrepreneurs, that while accumulating wealth, create thousands of tax paying jobs and themselves pay vast amounts of tax.

Any first year business student knows that this is not a zero sum game where the financial pie is a fixed size. The billionaires increase the pie by more than they take, and the average Aussie is better off with them than without.

The only way to make the world a better more equal place is to tax the rich out of existence.

For too long they have manipulated the democratic system to ensure that they, the 1%, hold most of the wealth. And most of them, even when they have hoards of money they can't spend, just want more and more!

The rich support the war industry and where fossil fuels are concerned, they don't care if Global Warming may end our world as long as their wealth keeps increasing.

Billionaires don't spend a lot of time thinking about the meek and the poor. They are too busy counting their wealth and trying to think of more ways to increase profits and, wait for it, avoid paying any tax.

Jesus said the rich would not enter heaven. So what did they do? They created heaven on earth for themselves: motor yachts, private jets, lavish mansions and tax havens.

No, tax the rich out of existence and use their ill-gotten gains to make life better for everyone.

'Being rich is a bitch' should be the new catch-cry to help us create a better world for everyone.

David G,

I completely agree. One the 1% is taxed out of existence, then we should tax the new 1% that take their place. Keep on doing this over and over until you are the 1% then I'll come for you mate as I'm sure your richer than I. Or don't you care about us meek and poor?

Lyn would be in the top 2% of income earners in the world. She would be the first to protest if some poor Ugandan tried to morlaise about what she did with her money. I am sure Lyn takes plane trips, warms herself with gas and electricity and then expects Gonski and NDIS to be funding the industry she seems to be against. Quoting OxFarm the political animal confirms this observation.

David G - Jesus said the rich would not enter heaven. So what did they do? They created heaven on earth

Whilst your point has merit, it doesn't make sense from a theological perspective, well depending on your particular beliefs anyway. For what its worth, a very substantial school of thought takes the Lords Prayer quite literally, particularly 'Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done ON EARTH', which is taken to mean the kingdom will be here. Furthermore, there are multiple references to no normal human ascending to heaven, not even obvious examples like Moses, Abraham & David. (JC obviously being a special case since he came from there in the first place.

All that aside, yes we most definitely do have a major problem with the rich getting ever richer. Given the present focus on 'greed is good & absolute avarice is even better', at all levels of society, its difficult to imagine our elected officials, most being ex-lawyers as they are, have any will or intention to change the status quo, especially since they rely heavily on big-business support & also expect to get a cushy consultancy job when we finally turf the clowns on the street.

I believe we'll encounter a major financial crash not too far down the track & that will really sort the sheep from the goats. Most if not all the snouts will be out of business since their whole reason for existence will no longer exist. I'm relatively well setup to weather the storm however I am apprehensive about what snouts will turn to ..... highway robbery probably.

Reading about all these rich people been mean and bad is nonsense I think. If the rich people don't exist, then we don't have any work, and without work nobody has wages and pays taxs, and without taxs, then the Government cannot give aid to our poor people.

This stupid stuff written by the misinformed people like Praxidice is just foolish. He thinks every person is corrupt with there heads in the trough. The lady who wrote the article is not right either, but at least she does try hard to explain and support her thoughts, and fools like Praxidice and Shallow Minster, with the latters comments where he calls the writer by implication, a communist with hammer and sickel, is rubbish.

Both of these two people are always insulting others on this forum. I don't know why, really?

The really rich will always be so because they provide something that people obviously desire otherwise they wouldn't part with their money.
The bureaucrats in the Public Service are a totally different kettle of fish. They do not provide, they just take & because there are so many of them prices will always be high so there's enough tax dollars to pay the maggots.
Let's have a referendum on public service pay ceilings & prices will come down naturally.

Individual - The really rich will always be so because they provide something that people obviously desire otherwise they wouldn't part with their money.

Whilst there is some truth in that, it doesn't take account of the difference between the self-made zillionaire Richard Branson type who provide value for money, and the total parasite public company CEO who produce nothing period.

misanthrope,

Chiding others for insulting each other while calling people fools would make you an oxymoron.

Lyn's article includes gems such as "The so called filthy rich take the lions’ share collectively leaving the majority to scrounge amongst the leavings or to depend on the whim of the largesse of the privileged." and "The few still control the resources that belong to the many".

The communists were trying to paint this as a zero sum game, that the more the rich had, the less the poor had. This is not a concept that carries any weight even in the most socialist of western nations. Similarly most entrepreneurs are not in the resource industry, and the resources they use are ideas, money and people, to which they are entirely entitled.

I have never been rich. I have never been CEO of a large company either.

I have however been CEO of a couple of small companies, & a division of a moderate one, all of which were going broke when I took over.

It was my expertise & savvy that turned each of these entities around, making them viable. I was worth more money, but companies going bankrupt can't pay all that much.

One of these companies offered me a bonus of 1/2% of turnover, above that existing, as an inducement. In 18 months I had turned the company around, & my bonus was about twice my salary. Turnover is a very poor measurement of success, or profitability, but this was now highly profitable.

The board wanted to cut my bonus, & the way they went about it, caused me to quit. Less than 2 years of the new management had the company in receivership. Perhaps they should have doubled my bonus, not cut it.

Big business is no different. Bad management can send it bankrupt, & good management can make big profits. The manager who can make big profits is surely worth some of that profits in return.

There was the recent example of a bad manager who took the company into Aluminum smelting, just before it became a dead loss. He cost his company billions, & lost his job.

Surely the manager who took his company out of aluminum smelting, selling out at just the right time, saving his company billions is worth a couple of million for being so smart, & making his employers so much richer.

I have always found the politics of envy rather disgusting, particularly as practiced by those who do not have a clue.

Hasbeen - have always found the politics of envy rather disgusting

I don't think anyone is suggesting there shouldn't be reward for effort, however surely there must be limits. A million buck salary might well be commensurate with a business earning zillions but nobody on planet earth is worth remotely near ten million, regardless of company profit. There is no way they could spend that in five lifetimes, consequently a desire to be paid that much can only be prompted by avarice. The tens of millions commonly paid to banksters & insurance company executives is nothing less than obscene. Note particularly that my criticisms apply to public company executives, most of whom do stuff-all in proportion to what they get paid. Those who run a private company in which they own the majority of shares (and hence the risk) have every right to pay themselves whatever they like, after all its their money.

Yes praxidice it does seam that it is the managers in some businesses where it would be hard not to make big profits do get over paid.

Banks in Oz are protected to some extent, from themselves, by our more suitable regulations, so easier to run.

Don't forget however, it was bad management at one bank that precipitated the great financial crisis, so management is quite critical in many other banking markets.

If some Manager or CEO manages for a company to make the sort of profit without ripping their customers off then I have no problem if they get the huge Dollars. I do however have a problem with those Airline , Bank & Telecommunication CEO's who fail to provide a reasonable service yet they still get paid huge money.
Branson, Forbes & Gates are simply different as are those Arabs with access to more money than sense.
The most integrity devoid & corrupt are in the Public Service.

individual - Branson, Forbes & Gates are simply different as are those Arabs with access to more money than sense.

DEFINITELY. Branson is the only one of those I've ever come within cooee of and then only at a distance, however I don't think anyone would accuse him of ripping his customers off. He doesn't appear to make a big deal of money and certainly doesn't regard it as his God. I don't recall giving business to any other airline since Virgin got up here & I've never once had reason to complain about price or service. Big Clive isn't quite in the same league as Branson but he's got much the same attitude & personality. I know a few other mega-rich types who are decent people who don't rip off their customers but they are mere tiddlers in terms of net worth by comparison. The people I regard as oxygen bandits are banksters / finance company CEOs, insurance company CEOs, electricity retail CEOs, (big) telco CEOs and of course that scumbag bogtrotter Qantas CEO. Sure the public service ones are bottom-feeders but I'm not aware of any getting away with tens of millions, still I'm open to information about any in that league.

getting away with tens of millions,
praxidice,
when you add up the stuff-ups due to incompetence & their pays & benefits & generals cost to us they'll rival the mega rich on a combined basis AND that is with OUR money.

individual - when you add up the stuff-ups due to incompetence & their pays & benefits & generals cost to us they'll rival the mega rich on a combined basis AND that is with OUR money.

Yes that is very true. I was only thinking in terms of salaries, however as you have noted, there is far more to the story. If normal companies law applied, we'd have a whole new industry building 'big houses' to incarcarate them.

I'd dearly love to see an independent (ie most definitely not one prepared by bloodsucking parasites or their cronies) review of what has-been parasites cost us, not only politicians but also governors / governors generals. At the rate we are going, most of the GDP will soon be devoted to supporting those bottom-feeding slimeballs.

Entrepreneurs are essential to our economy and our society. We can argue about whether they should pay more or less tax, but taxing them to oblivion would be utterly counter-productive.

Australia does not seem to have the tradition of philanthropy on the part of the rich that has long been the case in the USA. I wonder if our emphasis on redistribition being a role of the state, not a duty on individuals, encourages a view that we should keep as much of our wealth as we can stop government from getting.

Praxidice, bottom-feeding slimeballs is a good start on our mission to make being rich an obscenity because for each millionaire there are hundreds of ripped-off poor people.

We have to change the current view of insatiable moneygrubbers as the cream of our society. They should be seen for what they are: anal retentive misers, insatiably greedy bloodsuckers, and soullessly avaricious poltroons.

The rich should be put in the stocks and pelted with garbage until they repent!

David G

Whilst I agree with most of your post, I do believe there is a case for reward for incentive and / or initiative. For example I have no issue with self-made zillionaires like Richard Branson making mega-squillions because (a) he has provided a very tangible benefit to customers (b) he hasn't as far as I'm aware, ripped off anyone, least of all his employees and (c) from what I've seen of him in person he doesn't carry on like money is the great god that so many squillionaires do.

I do however put snouts (lawyers / barristers, banksters, finance CEOs, insurance CEOs, energy company CEOs, local authority CEOs & for that matter the vast majority of public company CEOs in a totally different category. Insatiable money-grubbers is far too kind a description for these bottom-feeding slimeballs. As you so rightly note, there needs to be a quantum move away from the prevailing 'if greed is good then avarice is better'

praxidice,
Ditto ! like the CEO & EO's of a council of 7000 constituents on 300 G + benefits & 200 G + benefits and the show is being run into the ground faster than if they tried to run it into the ground deliberately.
Most Govt Departments have huge overheads in remote area to attract bureaucrats no-one wants because they never leave anything except a dysfunctional show, they're the ones that need reigning in, they cost us too much in money & too much in social dysfunction.

avarice
praxidice,
Cheers for making me aware of that word, it really sums up our bureaucrats perfectly.

individual

I believe avarice dates from old French circa 1250 - 1300 and was derived from the latin avaritia. The concept of all-consuming greed to the point of rapaciousness is ancient, it was for example mentioned in the Ten Commandments (ancient hebrew word was chamad, translated covet) some five thousand years back but the roots are probably much older. It was also described as one of the Seven Deadly Sins by Pope Gregory around the sixth century. Lawyers have commonly been the subject and given the number of those leeches in contemporary politics, its hardly surprising the traits carried over.

I put this comment here because there is no article dealing with the most important issue in Australia: the leadership, or lack thereof, of the current Government!

Surely Graham, there is a need to have an open thread where we, your readers and commenters, can talk or make points about what is relevant to the Australian scene rather than relying on the fact that someone has dealt with it.

Here we have the situation regarding Gillard where she puts her imagined importance ahead of that of her party and the country. No current article deals with this!

Let's put OLO on the map! Give your readers the opportunity to comment on current affairs rather than what articles your gaggle of contributors happen to think is important!