bet365 boss pays herself £265 MILLION

[dowie]

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.

Why?

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?

More like would they have become billion-dollar companies in some case.

Though yeah that is a factor too for serial entrepreneurs Elon Musk's payout from PayPal was over 100 million - so what is he supposed to do next? You've just capped him from future investment. He can be an employee, sure.. or perhaps overseas a non-profit org or do charity work... but no Tesla, Space X, no funding for OpenAI etc..

Likewise no Gates foundation, no big pledges from Zuckerberg or Buffett.

 

[silvagti]

Though yeah that is a factor too for serial entrepreneurs Elon Musk's payout from PayPal was over 100 million - so what is he supposed to do next? You've just capped him from future investment. He can be an employee, sure.. or perhaps overseas a non-profit org or do charity work... but no Tesla, Space X, no funding for OpenAI etc..

Likewise no Gates foundation, no big pledges from Zuckerberg or Buffett.

I suspect these individuals would still continue working in their fields regardless of their ability to accumulate more wealth.

Depends on whether you think the actions of these foundations and trusts are in the interests of our society and others around the globe? Many would question the aims, goals and agendas of what are effectively privately run companies claiming to be non-profit charities.

I would rather the money be diverted into the hands of a larger group of people with public oversight of what's being done with it.

 

[dowie]

I suspect these individuals would still continue working in their fields regardless of their ability out accumulate more wealth.

Yeah bit merely working in a field doesn't create say Tesla, SpaceX, OpenAI etc... that requires capital.

Elon Musk isn't some great inventor, he value isn't in research etc.. though I guess he's probs make a good developer or manager etc.. but rather his value is as an entrepreneur.

Depends on whether you think the actions of these foundations and trusts are in the interests of our society? Many would questions the aims, goals and agendas of what are effectively privately run companies claiming to be charities.

I would rather the money be diverted to a larger group of people with public oversight of what they're doing.

Well they pay taxes too. If you don't think charities or non-profits should exist either then I think that is a bit silly, we're living in free countries, if people want to tackle particular issues they should be able to - if they have the resources to dedicate towards those issues then all the better tbh...

 

[silvagti]

Yeah bit merely working in a field doesn't create say Tesla, SpaceX, OpenAI etc... that requires capital.

I would rather see that capital raised by forcing people appeal to shareholders, banks, funds or the government rather than an individual having the ability to do that themselves.

Again I suspect all of these companies would still exist even without a single individual having the means to fund them personally.

 

[robfosters]

Capping people’s wealth is a horrendous idea. No one has the right to say how rich another person is allowed to be.

 

[dowie]

I would rather see that capital raised by forcing people appeal to shareholders, banks, funds or the government rather than an individual having the ability to do that themselves.

Again I suspect all of these companies would still exist even without a single individual having the means to fund them personally.

Shareholders of what? I don't know what you mean there. As far as start-ups are concerned shareholders are employees and investors, so what are you proposing to change? You don't want individuals to be able to start businesses?

 

[silvagti]

Shareholders of what? I don't know what you mean there. As far as start-ups are concerned shareholders are employees and investors, so what are you proposing to change? You don't want individuals to be able to start businesses?

Let's say nobody can own more than 100 million worth of assets. Why is that a negative thing for us as a society?

I apprecaite it won't happen because of capital flight from any country/government that suggests but lets say hypothetically every country on the planet agreed to the concept?

 

[dowie]

Let's say nobody can own more than 100 million worth of assets. Why is that a negative thing for us as a society?

Well for a start various businesses wouldn’t exist as per examples given earlier. Also different motivations re: growth. You’d encourage fragmentation or indeed more conservative behaviour towards growth, less risk taking, fewer moonshots etc...

 

[arknor]

Capping people’s wealth is a horrendous idea. No one has the right to say how rich another person is allowed to be.

yea wealth probably isn't the best motivator though as after a point it must not mean a whole lot.

but capping wealth would probably just cause people to go elsewhere, not all countries are going to cap wealth.

if someone has got hundreds of millions sitting idle in a bank doing nothing they should be given an incentive to put it to use but I guess you could argue the banks are putting it to use.

 

[silvagti]

yea wealth probably isn't the best motivator though as after a point it must not mean a whole lot.

but capping wealth would probably just cause people to go elsewhere, not all countries are going to cap wealth.

if someone has got hundreds of millions sitting idle in a bank doing nothing they should be given an incentive to put it to use but I guess you could argue the banks are putting it to use.

That's a good point. I appreciate it won't happen because of capital flight from any country/government that suggests but lets say hypothetically every country on the planet agreed to the concept?

Would that actually have any negative consequences? I know many suggest it would deincentivise the entrepreneurs if they couldn't make more than say 100 million but honestly I just don't believe it. I doubt the likes of Elon, Gates and Bezos are purely at their jobs because of the paycheck and the goal of becoming wealthier.

 

[dowie]

That's a good point. I appreciate it won't happen because of capital flight from any country/government that suggests but lets say hypothetically every country on the planet agreed to the concept?

Then there are still the obvious problems already highlighted that didn't even address the capital flight issue.

 

[Scythe]

I think she should be praised rather than berated, as others have said, she pays full taxes, pays her staff a very competitive rate of pay, hasn’t made redundancies through covid and protected jobs very early on in the pandemic, hasn’t used furlough. If you can tick all of these boxes and still afford to pay yourself such a rate then its okay in my book.

She does put allot of money into the local community as well, my daughters gymnastics club was fully funded by the Denise Coates foundation, she also made a £10 million donation to UHNM NHS trust early in the pandemic, i think she also holds some strong ties with Keele University.

Exactly that, her contribution to the Stoke on Trent community and wider charitable causes are not publicised enough in my opinion. I have numerous family members and friends who work for her personally or for Bet365, and nobody has a bad thing to say about her. She is relatively self made, looks after her staff very well, pays her tax bill (unlike most) and is entitled to be left to enjoy it.

 

[arknor]

That's a good point. I appreciate it won't happen because of capital flight from any country/government that suggests but lets say hypothetically every country on the planet agreed to the concept?

there would likely be a ton of loop holes and people would just hide it in assets.

what exactly is wealth? a persons total networth? how would you even be able to monitor that.

people would be making tax right offs and losing money on the stock market etc on purpose so they could avoid paying gains.

I don't see how it could work in reality

 

[dowie]

The next James Bond makes 100 million off some very successful movies... the fans are hoping for another one but no... a wealth cap comes in, the star actor has already made 100 million, now the studio can't sign him for another movie unless he wants to agree to a non-stop filming schedule (quite tiring as far as acting gigs go as Bond is in literally every scene so the actor playing him doesn't get a day off) completely free of charge.

Your favorite band/artist hits the 100 million cap - why bother with another tiring stadium tour for the fans, why all those nights with limited sleep away from home when they've hit the wealth cap and so can't get paid. They might still love music and put out some stuff on social media for the fun of it, maybe they'll carry on doing some intimate gigs hardly anyone can get to see but I can't see anyone being motivated to do multi-stadium tours around the world completely free of charge.

Ditto to your favorite footballers, F1 drivers etc..

What does anyone actually gain from this wealth cap? Aside form satisfying some jealousy it would seem to just stifle the economy really. When some rock star does a stadium tour it isn't just them earning the big bucks but plenty more jobs reliant on it and various jobs supported at the venues used too.

 

[silvagti]

Do you think these driven professionals at the height of their game and abilities won't do what they're doing because they aren't making any more money? I'd wager virtually all of them would continue as is regardless of the financial incentive. I doubt many of the examples you've highlighted are doing what they are because of the financial incentive alone.

That's my feeling anyway!

What does anyone actually gain from this wealth cap? Aside form satisfying some jealousy it would seem to just stifle the economy really. When some rock star does a stadium tour it isn't just them earning the big bucks but plenty more jobs reliant on it and various jobs supported at the venues used too.

It's not because of jealousy but the impact such a disparity in wealth can have. I'd argue it's unhealthy for the majority of people for so much power/wealth to be concentrated into the hands of a few. It has far wider reaching consequences for society if people don't have a relatively equal level of input into how it's run and a stake in society. I know we can argue that everyone has an equal say in a "democracy" but I think we all agree things don't really work that way.

I'm not against the idea of a meritiocracy and believe that some degree of heirarchby based on competence and ability is fundamental to any society. I accept that with that has to come some level of disparity in wealth and influence.

However, the idea that there should be no limits to the amount wealth an individual can accumulate (and by proxy influence and power they wield over others by virtue of that) is misguided IMO.

 

[arknor]

The next James Bond makes 100 million off some very successful movies... the fans are hoping for another one but no... a wealth cap comes in, the star actor has already made 100 million, now the studio can't sign him for another movie unless he wants to agree to a non-stop filming schedule (quite tiring as far as acting gigs go as Bond is in literally every scene so the actor playing him doesn't get a day off) completely free of charge.

Your favorite band/artist hits the 100 million cap - why bother with another tiring stadium tour for the fans, why all those nights with limited sleep away from home when they've hit the wealth cap and so can't get paid. They might still love music and put out some stuff on social media for the fun of it, maybe they'll carry on doing some intimate gigs hardly anyone can get to see but I can't see anyone being motivated to do multi-stadium tours around the world completely free of charge.

Ditto to your favorite footballers, F1 drivers etc..

What does anyone actually gain from this wealth cap? Aside form satisfying some jealousy it would seem to just stifle the economy really. When some rock star does a stadium tour it isn't just them earning the big bucks but plenty more jobs reliant on it and various jobs supported at the venues used too.

I'm not for it but it would be way higher than 100million.

like a few billion, then the person would be forced to spread the wealth around his employees or instead pay 100% taxes on anything over it.

I mean it could work but it would be in so limited scenarios anyway there's not enough people rich enough that it would make a difference and anything low like 500million would probably do way more harm than good

 

[robfosters]

Do you think these driven professionals at the height of their game and abilities won't do what they're doing because they aren't making any more money? I'd wager virtually all of them would continue as is regardless of the financial incentive. I doubt many of the examples you've highlighted are doing what they are because of the financial incentive alone.

That's my feeling anyway!



It's not because of jealousy but the impact such a disparity in wealth can have. I'd argue it's unhealthy for the majority of people for so much power/wealth to be concentrated into the hands of a few. It has far wider reaching consequences for society if people don't have a relatively equal level of input into how it's run and a stake in society. I know we can argue that everyone has an equal say in a "democracy" but I think we all agree things don't really work that way.

I'm not against the idea of a meritiocracy and believe that some degree of heirarchby based on competence and ability is fundamental to any society. I accept that with that has to come some level of disparity in wealth and influence.

However, the idea that there should be no limits to the amount wealth an individual can accumulate (and by proxy influence and power they wield over others by virtue of that) is misguided IMO.

Do you think these driven professionals at the height of their game and abilities won't do what they're doing because they aren't making any more money? I'd wager virtually all of them would continue as is regardless of the financial incentive. I doubt many of the examples you've highlighted are doing what they are because of the financial incentive alone.

That's my feeling anyway!



It's not because of jealousy but the impact such a disparity in wealth can have. I'd argue it's unhealthy for the majority of people for so much power/wealth to be concentrated into the hands of a few. It has far wider reaching consequences for society if people don't have a relatively equal level of input into how it's run and a stake in society. I know we can argue that everyone has an equal say in a "democracy" but I think we all agree things don't really work that way.

I'm not against the idea of a meritiocracy and believe that some degree of heirarchby based on competence and ability is fundamental to any society. I accept that with that has to come some level of disparity in wealth and influence.

However, the idea that there should be no limits to the amount wealth an individual can accumulate (and by proxy influence and power they wield over others by virtue of that) is misguided IMO.

yes, footballers don’t do it for money. That’s why they demand of and blackmail clubs into paying them hundreds of thousands a week.

 

[silvagti]

yes, footballers don’t do it for money. That’s why they demand of and blackmail clubs into paying them hundreds of thousands a week.

Again, I'm not suggesting limiting how much these footballers or anyone else can earn. I'm suggesting limiting how much they can be worth which is a cap unlikely to affect many footballers or musicians.

 

[Roar87]

Do you think these driven professionals at the height of their game and abilities won't do what they're doing because they aren't making any more money? I'd wager virtually all of them would continue as is regardless of the financial incentive. I doubt many of the examples you've highlighted are doing what they are because of the financial incentive alone.

That's my feeling anyway!

It's not because of jealousy but the impact such a disparity in wealth can have. I'd argue it's unhealthy for the majority of people for so much power/wealth to be concentrated into the hands of a few. It has far wider reaching consequences for society if people don't have a relatively equal level of input into how it's run and a stake in society. I know we can argue that everyone has an equal say in a "democracy" but I think we all agree things don't really work that way.

I'm not against the idea of a meritiocracy and believe that some degree of heirarchby based on competence and ability is fundamental to any society. I accept that with that has to come some level of disparity in wealth and influence.

However, the idea that there should be no limits to the amount wealth an individual can accumulate (and by proxy influence and power they wield over others by virtue of that) is misguided IMO.

People who make posts like this just have a fundamental lack of understanding on economics. The only valid issue is wealth being able to influence people in government, but the solution to that isn't a cap on wealth, it's probably to pay the people in government market rate for running a country in line with the type of money people earn for running large companies so they don't all go looking for money on the side.

 

[Trusty]

I'm not for it but it would be way higher than 100million.

like a few billion, then the person would be forced to spread the wealth around his employees or instead pay 100% taxes on anything over it.

That person would just stop working, they would go enjoy their wealth. So you end up with someone who is an extremely productive member of society not contributing, the fallout is less economic activity essentially. Why have those responsibilities over thousands of employees when they could be enjoying their freetime.

Also, people who have that amount of money don't have it sitting in cash, 0.1% might be in cash. The rest is in stocks and shares, business interests, mutual funds etc etc