Defining Greed

Cannon_Fodder

For every high salary that has been "earnt", there are hundreds of thousands of goods and services that are 1p, 10p, £1, £10, dearer than they need to be.

£100,000 is enough for a household to live very well.

Earning more than that is costing each of us, 1p, 10p, £1, £10, every time we make a purchase.

Thereby creating greater need for everyone to earn more, which means asking more of their customers, and so the cycle is perpetuated.

Chasing our tails for money, to what end?

I guess greed is inherent in humans.

dandy-candy

I don't think it's the "greedy" angle that bothers me with high earners, more what they spend it on. I have to say whenever I read about bankers going to celebrity chefs restaurants and blowing 100k on a fancy lunch it really irritates me because I think why not go buy an baby incubator or dialysis machine for your nearest hospital or something? I know it's their money and not my place to preach, but they're damn lucky to earn those sort of wages and when people read about them wasting it on crap they think of them badly, where as if they spent it out helping the community we would really admire them.

Generali

botchjob wrote: »

what a dumb poll

What an unhelpful post!

You should explain and try to move the discussion on. If you don't like the thread, ignore it. If you don't like me, put me on ignore!

Dithering_Dad

Generali wrote: »

What an unhelpful post!

You should explain and try to move the discussion on. If you don't like the thread, ignore it. If you don't like me, put me on ignore!

I think we're the only 2 people who seem to use the Ignore facility, Gen. Everyone else seems content to read the tripe that these idiot write. I saw one of your posts a few months back where you let us in on the Ignore button and who was on your list and I thought it was a great idea that I unashamedly copied.

I have 7 people on my ever-growing Ignore List (or 'Idiot List' as I like to call it) and it really cuts down the drivel on a thread and allows me to go directly to the more interesting and enlightening posts. I say 7 'people' but I suspect at least 2 of the usernames are operated by one individual...

How many idiots do you have on your Ignore list now?

Generali

Dithering_Dad wrote: »

I think we're the only 2 people who seem to use the Ignore facility, Gen. Everyone else seems content to read the tripe that these idiot write. I saw one of your posts a few months back where you let us in on the Ignore button and who was on your list and I thought it was a great idea that I unashamedly copied.

I have 7 people on my ever-growing Ignore List (or 'Idiot List' as I like to call it) and it really cuts down the drivel on a thread and allows me to go directly to the more interesting and enlightening posts. I say 7 'people' but I suspect at least 2 of the usernames are operated by one individual...

How many idiots do you have on your Ignore list now?

I have 9. I take people off again though - most usually because I was grumpy when I put them on there and later reconsidered. The best thing about putting people on ignore is that they can't PM you.

Perhaps people use more than one username (the near mythical Bruno for example), perhaps not. I guess they probably do. The internet is good for a lot of things but it's a pain in the whatsit too.

kennyboy66_2

I know one person who earns more that £180k (not much more), who is the FD of a plc.

I would not consider him remotely greedy, however I do worry that society is becoming more and more unequal and getting worse because of that. For all the dynamism of the USA, it life seems like a miserable grind there for people on minimum wage, no healthcare and 2 weeks holiday a year.

As an aside, I found the Labour manifesto from 1992 last night tidying up.
Committed to scapping the ceiling on NI contributions and increasing top rate tax to 50% for earners above £40k. The effective of both of these changes would have meant a marginal top rate of "tax" of 60%. It seems a lifetime away - thankfully.

Dithering_Dad

Generali wrote: »

I have 9. I take people off again though - most usually because I was grumpy when I put them on there and later reconsidered. The best thing about putting people on ignore is that they can't PM you.

Perhaps people use more than one username (the near mythical Bruno for example), perhaps not. I guess they probably do. The internet is good for a lot of things but it's a pain in the whatsit too.

9! lol, at the rate we are going (and the rate the decent posters are leaving), we'll only be able to see each other's posts on MSE. :rotfl:

I sometimes have a peep at some of the people on my Ignore list, and I did remove one person who was a plonker when he first joined, but then settled in and started making decent posts. I also have one who was so obnoxious that he was made PPR - I really should take him off my list.

You can never be 100% sure of whether people are using a username as a 'flag of convenience', but it would explain why certain posters only log on about 12 times per year and then just post abusive one-liners. I mean, what's the point? There is also the odd situation where a 'newbie' seems to know all the dealings of the forum from years ago, despite joining just that week and the way that some posters get into arguments and then four or five 'newbies' suddenly appear and take up their case. Perhaps I'm just paranoid or an old cynic (or both).

Conrad

Greed = those that hoarde masses of wealth, whilst many have little.

The very worst offenders are not the city fat cats, but those that give the impression they are caring sharing types;

STING - hoardes £250m
P McCartney hoardes £850m
G Michael £300m
B Elton £50m - SOCIALIST!!

Then there are the many that tell us they are redistributive such as Shirley Williams, Tony Ben, Poly Toignbee who hoarde a few million in wealth.

Why do we laugh along when these gluttons display themselves on Parki?

The fact they do some chartit work does not compensate for the huge wealth these gluttons hoarde at the expense of others.

Why does no one else feel like me on this?
Long before the crunch we labelled City types fat cats, but these mega hoarders above get away without critiscsm

MAX NET WORTH LIMIT SHOULD BE £5M
MAX INCOME LIMIT £500K

Jonbvn

Greed = Hariet [STRIKE]Haridan[/STRIKE]Harperson.
100k expenses for staying with sister. Yeah right.:mad:

chewmylegoff

dopester wrote: »

I guess you blame Jimmy Hill for it all - and want to go back to the times footballers, playing in front of tens of thousands of supporters, got relatively very little pay despite being the most important part of the business... and could have quite bleak retirement-financial prospects, save for when a testimonial match actually really meant something good. :rolleyes:

no - as i said if someone wants to pay him that much money, i don't care about it. i just think his own comments on the matter make it clear that he is principally driven by greed. i only really care about the national team, i just wish the players gave more of a toss about that.

Cole.. yes.. sort of agree, because Arsenal's calculations were more on market-force valuation instead of the Russian's wealth. The money in the game.. I'd rather the lions share go to the best players in the top league, from the revenue of SKY subscribers, overseas TV rights, and near full stadiums.

We'll see if the business model holds out though. Do you give cheaper tickets when your stadium is full? Difficult for a business to make such decisions.. when your out to compete, and to compete you need to maximise revenue.

i'd rather see the lions share go to the players too - however the whole thing has got rather silly, many football clubs aren't run as businesses, they are just toys of the super wealthy. if the super wealthy want to redistribute their wealth to some idiots who are good at kicking a round ball then fair play to them, but the fans of the clubs ultimately suffer as prices are ramped to try to recover some of the massive outlay, and TV prices continue to increase. the fascinating decision to force SKY to let setanta into the market in order to benefit the consumer resulted in the consumer having to pay another £10 to watch the same thing. brilliant.

i personally believe that football has become the equivalent of a bubble. the money flows are unrealistic, and the whole thing will come crashing down sooner or later, leaving the clubs bankrupt. only one of the top clubs - arsenal - is a viable business. the increasing debts of most of the clubs, exacerbated by the huge wages and bonuses paid to their players are surely analogous to the situation the banks found themselves in - massively geared balance sheets, spuriously valued assets...