Soldato
Possibly the most I’ll considered post I have ever read on this forum and that takes some doing.
I hope nobody you care about exposes you to the reality of the situation is all I can say.
bet365 boss pays herself £265 MILLION
- Thread starter BoyceyLDN
- Start date
I hope nobody you care about exposes you to the reality of the situation is all I can say.
I wonder how many people gamble regularly (for non-trivial amounts) and *don't* have what an onlooker (non-gambler) might consider an addiction/habit?
My view of these outfits is that they love those sorts of customers. They would be the prime target of advertising, etc. Albeit, like a virus, you don't want to kill your host. You want to keep them alive, but suck as much out of them as possible.
I have no time for the gambling industry. It's hard to make a case for them being anything other than parasites. But there is no doubting the demand for gambling. So what can you do... if people want to lose their money on the roll of a dice, you can't stop them.
My view of these outfits is that they love those sorts of customers. They would be the prime target of advertising, etc. Albeit, like a virus, you don't want to kill your host. You want to keep them alive, but suck as much out of them as possible.
I have no time for the gambling industry. It's hard to make a case for them being anything other than parasites. But there is no doubting the demand for gambling. So what can you do... if people want to lose their money on the roll of a dice, you can't stop them.
Associate
Couldn’t help but draw the comparison with credit card companies who want you up to your limit and making minimum monthly payments forever
Exploiting those with mental illness is more common than you think.
Of those who currently are still smokers, about 40% of that group are people classified as having a mental illness. Massive amounts of help and support is available, yet they continue despite all that.
Caporegime
Are we to consider all alcohol companies parasites too? What about McDonalds and KFC with thei seemingly addictive junk food, or what about game developers like Blizzard, with that shockingly addictive game that has cost people their lives?
I really don’t know why bookies get singled out so much. Hundreds of companies other than bookies feed off weakness, vulnerability and addiction, yet somehow, bookies are seen as the monsters of it all.
Soldato
My sister and a friend of mine since primary school have both been treated for addiction, alcohol and drugs, so I've seen addiction at a daily level. At no point did either person wallow in self pity blaming everyone else for their own life choices but instead used the love and support from myself and others close to them to get help (plenty of which is available literally everywhere) to stop the rot and slowly turn their life about. Neither will ever be free of the grip of their addiction and both have suffered long term health/personal consequences but both are determined not to let themselves slide back, but if they should then we'll be there again for them if they do.
Trying to make yourself out to be "the only person who really cares" in this thread shows a distinct lack of consideration into the experience of others. We both have opinions which are different but both seem to be coming from the right place, supporting those who find themselves to be addicts, we just want to go about it in different ways.
Soldato
Your family and friend were lucky to have a support Network and the courage to reach out for help. Would it have been ok for your local pub or off-licence to bombard your sister with special offers to instantly feed her addiction despite them being able to see the signs that she had a problem? The gambling industry can see the problem gamblers yet continue to target them, in a way none of the other industry’s here do. There are plenty of damaging industries taking advantage of peoples weaknesses and controlling them is essential much like we have done with smoking and yes I include the junk food and booze industries.
Caporegime
No gambling, no booze, no junk food. There’s definitely a touch of the puritanical in your attitude. You’d have got on well with Cromwell.
Soldato
I didn’t say no I said no exploitative, the gambling industry pretends to self regulate while doing next to nothing. Similar the bonkers cheap booze offers and the like, I have no problem with the industries existing but they have shown themselves to be incapable of reform without a regulatory kick!
It's only a "problem" if you lose... "tax on stupidity" etc...
I think there is some truth in what you say regular "gamblers" in a broad sense probably have some addictive aspects, I'm not saying all are full-on degenerates but there is some buzz or satisfaction from winning or indeed (for the better gamblers) being a net winner overall. This just as easily applies to people who like crypto trading or day trading stocks, FX, futures etc... it's all essentially a form of gambling. I'm pretty sure or semi-pro poker players have some addictive aspects, these perhaps develop over time... for plenty of them if they lost they might have just quit though and for others that might have been good they're just casual players (I know a few people in the city who only play poker casually but who could have been good at it). for people who are both good and play regularly (either part or full time) then, let's face it, objectively the game could easily get boring... they're getting some sort of buzz from it, it has a slightly addictive aspect or they'd not bother - the financial rewards don't really justify it outside of the very top players or perhaps poor students without other income.
Everyone should have organic vegan food and cycle everywhere.
Soldato
I’m with @robfosters here, pretty much all companies prey on people's insecurities, weaknesses and addictions. The only difference is how acute and how immediate the downsides are.
There's no reason anyone in this world needs that much money. Ideally everyone would have a salary cap of £1m a year. I know the world is unfair so that won't ever happen
But then she would just get the money in dividends? The money has to go somewhere.
I don't why this makes the news. She and her family own the company.
I'm actually amazed her pay is being done like this as there is a 45% tax on everything above £150k. Dividends will be much more tax efficient. She could also go live in a tax haven, she doesn't need to work, just take the dividends.
In a serious note I suppose my feelings about it isn't that I'm concerned that she paid herself a large amount of money. It's more a question of what she does with that money.
I knew many will say "she's earned it and it not for a country/government to take it from her or dictate that" however I think most people would agree that too much power/wealth/influence concentrated in the hands of a small group of people isn't healthy for wider society.
I'm not in favour of limiting salaries but It's always struck me as odd that we have no upper limit of how much wealth and assets a single individual can hold in their name? I think we'd all acknowledge that monopolies are bad for society yet there's nothing similar to the mergers/monopolies commission for individual people?
I knew many will say "she's earned it and it not for a country/government to take it from her or dictate that" however I think most people would agree that too much power/wealth/influence concentrated in the hands of a small group of people isn't healthy for wider society.
I'm not in favour of limiting salaries but It's always struck me as odd that we have no upper limit of how much wealth and assets a single individual can hold in their name? I think we'd all acknowledge that monopolies are bad for society yet there's nothing similar to the mergers/monopolies commission for individual people?
There's no reason anyone in this world needs that much money. Ideally everyone would have a salary cap of £1m a year. I know the world is unfair so that won't ever happen
Then the money would be split with her brother and father via dividends... ironically you've just given a very pro-capitalist/pro shareholder position.
Do you know who else shares your view? Donald Trump!
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-idUSKCN0RD0PA20150913
Of course he's against fat executive pay, he's a business owner/investor and would love a higher portion of the profits himself.
Similar arguments re: footballer salaries - "OMG they paid him how many millions, there should be a salary cap" etc.. so essentially instead of rewarding the multi-millionaire footballers you'd end up rewarding the centimilionaire and billionaire owners/chairmen!
In this case the Bet365 CEO is also an owner and taking a less tax-efficient route to being paid a big chunk of the profits, it is quite commendable really. You'd generally not get an employee without an ownership stake given a payout of this magnitude tbh... aside from rare occasions where they've negotiated some deal involving a split of profits in their contract.
This to me if why the question needs to be framed around how much 'wealth and assets' an individual has rather than how much they earn.
If course that's still a challenging thing to establish as much of people wealth will be held in company stocks/shares by proxy.
I don't see why it needs to be a question - why limit potential success of entrepreneurs etc...
I'm all for taxing them heavily when it comes to passing on that wealth etc.. but I don't see much point in preventing people from getting rich.
Yeh sounds silly to be capping anything. Just make sure they are taxed fairly. Someone earning a high salary is being taxed a lot already (like this woman, well that's my guess).
Need to focus on the other loopholes where people are taking income not via a salary.
Need to focus on the other loopholes where people are taking income not via a salary.
I think there comes a level where too much wealth/influence in the hands of an individual or a small group is bad for wider society.
Would the entrepreneurs who created these billion dollar companies/products not have created them if their individual persons wealth was restricted to say 100 million pounds or another nominal number?
Plus in this specific situation I think most would agree the services bet365 are providing aren't particularly positive for our society generally?
feels like if you are more near your limit and get fees your more likely to be offered more credit.
if you pay on time, avoid fees etc it's like they want to get rid of you because your level of risk tolerance and stupidity is too low