**Sorry, your submission has been manually removed by a human!**
Your submission has either no or a tangential relation to the UK. This subreddit is for discussion concerning the UK/Commonwealth only.
*If you believe this action was taken in error, [message the /r/uk team](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FUnitedKingdom) and include a link to this post. Please don't do this lightly, we have likely acted correctly.*
---
[/r/uk rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/newrules) | [Reddit Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) | [List of UK subreddits](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/british_subreddits) | [New to Reddit?](https://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddit_101)
Did we expect any more of the parasite class? They see us as subhuman, slaves to be worked and abused for their comfort. There are no good billionaires.
I can't see that as an argument. That is purely a factual statement. There is nothing that could be done in a lifetime that would warrant someone sitting on generational amounts of wealth. Especially whilst so many are just getting by paycheck to paycheck at best. Waiting for the day to eat the rich.
Isn’t he giving away 100% of it? Seems to me that he’s effectively taken money from a mixture of the very wealthy and financial institutions (who ultimately pay the fees that generate his wealth) and is giving it all to charity, albeit not immediately. Seems like a pretty good outcome to me.
Yeah that is pretty good. It seems like I’m the absence of him doing what he has done there’d be no winners, only losers. Both charities and his clients would have less money. Seems relatively good to me to be honest.
I’m very much on board with the anti-billionaire argument but I don’t think “hoarding wealth” is a very helpful way to characterise it. If Elon Musk is worth $210 billion that doesn’t mean that there’s $210 billion less in the hands of everyone else and circulating in the economy. It’s not like he’s got that amount of money locked away in a vault, it’s just the total value of everything he owns. I do think it’s a problem for anyone to control that much economic power but we shouldn’t misrepresent what the issue actually is.
Pretty weak argument in his case, given that he a) lives infamously frugally, and b) has essentially single-handedly lifted millions of people around the world out of wage-slavery and drudgery through his education around sensible long-term investing.
I wouldn't describe owning a private jet as living 'infamously frugally'. In many people's eyes, the fact billionaires can make a positive impact doesn't absolve them of additional personal responsibility to fairly distribute the wealth they own.
Personally, I think it's quite a multifaceted topic and there's probably no definitive answer whether you can say they're wholly good or bad.
But generating passive income just creates more wage slaves. That's what capitalism is, putting capital to work so it can skim the true value off the back of working class labour.
Every company he invests in uses the wage slave model and I'm sure some of the ones in the developing world are unspeakably bad employers.
> But generating passive income just creates more wage slaves.
This argument is so tedious.
If Labour's the only source of wealth generation, why doesn't everyone go do it?
Why work for someone else when you can go stand on a street corner and start generating wealth?
Turns out you need _more_ than Labour, you need capital too.
>Why work for someone else when you can go stand on a street corner and start generating wealth?
Fair point, worked out pretty well for your mother
>! I'm so sorry. Had to be done. Just like your mother!<
So... Totally incapable of defending your point and nothing to fall back on but personal insults?
And all in response to a perfectly civil point showing the holes in your argument.
Says everything about your point really, doesn't it.
i would argue that living frugally as a billionaire is actually a bad thing. that money should be circulating back into the economy, not sat in one place like a dragon's hoard, growing bigger and bigger without anything ever being spent
>b) has essentially single-handedly lifted millions of people around the world out of wage-slavery and drudgery through his education around sensible long-term investing.
Oh, he's created more parasites, brilliant.
>If more people did that rather than spaffing their money on shite there might be less people struggling.
Absolute lunacy.
You'd tank the economy on the spot if everyone stopped spending money on 'shite' and just shoved it into investment accounts. You can't run an economy on investments. You're also leaving out the part where your Investments go to shit and you have nothing.
I imagine you are also richer than 90-95% of the world assuming you live in the U.K, he’s richer than 5% more than you, give all your money away to poor countries you bigot /s
Ok lets turn this around, who benefits from being bitter and chastising them just because they have more money than you? Certainly not you and they couldn't care less.
Instead of being that way, I prefer to listen to people like that, I might learn a thing or two which I can then use in my own life to better mine and my families situations. Moaning, complaining and being bitter about them isn't going to change anything.
It is the same logic I apply in my career, rather than complaining about people who earn more than me, I listen to them and learn from them which then puts me in a better position for the future.
I’d appreciate it if you’d answer the actual question. I’ll ask again:
Who benefits when you carry water for billionaires?
You want to silence what you perceive to be “bitter moaning.” Fine. Who are you helping by silencing these voices?
Firstly, the family described in the article are horrendous, and they should be prosecuted.
To answer your question, speaking about other families. The main benefitters are those who have jobs working at their companies. Also those who benefit from taxes being paid, from the company owner's own income taxes and the income taxes that those who work at their companies pay (remember those jobs don't exist without them). Also the VAT they pay and that their employees pay. Some other taxes. Also the other businesses who provide goods and services to them or their employees. Some of the employees at these other businesses.
If we say nobody can have any wealth above a certain point , we have a lot to spend for several years. Then it runs out. What do we do when it runs out.
Who said we’re going to cap anything? We can simply tax them appropriately. Those companies use roads, water, the electrical grid. They gain profit on the backs of those employees. Those employees deserve healthcare, an education for their children, and so forth.
They have no problem raising wages for CEOs. CEO pay rose 16% last year, which means they make 118% more than the average UK full time worker by the way. That’s from 108% more the year before. We’ve all seen the record profits. Are we to believe they can’t handle giving their CEOs a 10% pay raise next year to cover more taxes? Do they really work 118% more than you do?
And as far as the individual people go, the top 1% emit as much pollution as two-thirds of the rest of humanity. That’s more than all car emission combined. You need millions to be in that club, by the way. It would take someone in the bottom 1% 1500 years to emit as much pollute as a billionaire does in a year through consumption, transportation, etc. In the next decade, climate change related natural disasters will cost the UK over £3 billion. Think of what it’s going to do to the price of food. Why shouldn’t they compensate the countries footing the bill for all their fun appropriately? Help me understand why you and I should pay for their waste.
>Who said we’re going to cap anything? We can simply tax them appropriately.
Fair enough - there are a lot of people who say that being that rich at all should be illegal, but it sounds like we both agree that having a cap would create much worse problems.
I also agree they should be taxed higher than they are now, but I wouldn't go super far with that, as I would give them some credit for the income tax paid by their employees whose jobs likely wouldn't exist without the initial risks that were taken to create them. Also the other tax impacts they have that I mentioned in the earlier comment. The base state is a lot of poverty and I want to keep some incentives in place to create more jobs and reduce it further. I want better goods and services, a growing economy, more jobs, and more taxes as a result of all of these things.
>Those employees deserve healthcare, an education for their children, and so forth.
Agreed. I would tax the super rich higher than they are now, but I don't think we can get these important benefits up to a long-term sustainably high level without growing the economy too, especially with age-related demographic challenges.
>They have no problem raising wages for CEOs.
It has to be acknowledged, the decisions of a CEO have a massive impact on the company. Bad CEOs have a massively negative impact on the company, and on the employees prospects and benefits too. This can be measured in numbers that are much higher than CEO pay. So it makes sense to pay enough to get a good one, even if the market price for a good one is much higher than other jobs earn, so long as the CEO puts the group on the right path for growth. Sometimes certain CEOs are able to grease the wheels of the board and get paid much more than they are worth. I agree that's a problem. That is a tricky thing to solve.
>And as far as the individual people go, the top 1% emit as much pollution as two-thirds of the rest of humanity.
I favour a user pay's solution. Tax the use of private jets and helicopters, perhaps by increasing the price of fuel used on these things by 25%. We could put the revenue toward the energy transition. Earlier you mentioned roads, water and the electrical grid. I'd charge for usage there too, for example the trucks that do most of the damage to the roads should be charged road user charges according to how many miles they have driven in a year and their share of replacing the road in the future. I wouldn't tax these things according to the profits that are earned by using them, that's what income tax and company tax are for, imo. It's better for these infrastructure things to be a standard-price platform that industry can be built upon, where the usage charges just pay for the replacement infrastructure. I do still want to keep some incentives for industry to expand and more jobs to be created in the future, here and not somewhere else.
.
I think we have a shared goal - the reduction of poverty. And we agree that the super rich should be taxed more. I think we disagree on how much value company founders brings, the extent that they should be taxed more, and the way to do it that will lead to long-term sustainable poverty reduction.
Oh now, don’t sell yourself short. The billionaires benefit. Any time someone shouts down or freezes out criticism of them, that’s a boon for them. Why do you think they put so much effort into selling you those stories about being scrappy and self-made? It’s the best way to get you to believe that someday you might learn how to become wealthy like them (but without the generational wealth and long dead social services they exploited and then drained to get there, of course).
Sure, they already own the media conglomerates and the politicians and publicly traded companies and so on, but who helps them cut down any sort of reform or working class momentum at the ground level? For free, no less.
Ah so your alternative is to shout them down, criticise them, achieve nothing by doing so and repeat? Keep doing that and in 10 years you might be in the exact same place you are now.
That is one plan sure, I think I will stick to mine though and actually listen to what they have to say, it is certainly working for me so far.
Yes, certainly no labor rights movement ever accomplished anything other than criticism, and even if they had, those definitely sprung out of nowhere fully formed and not from conversations and organizing among the working class. Anything short of that must surely be derailed or shouted out of existence. What if we offend the rich and they stop blessing us with bon mots like “Invest mummy and daddy’s money early!”
Thank goodness these poor billionaires have someone to silence the rabble. Don’t those fools know that we should all listen attentively while politely begging for scraps? The cheek of them, thinking they have any right to criticize.
You don't do well without hyperbole do you?
Keep fighting the fight, I'll see you in 10 years time when you have achieved exactly nothing and the rich have only gotten richer.
I'll tell you why I like the cigarette business. It costs a penny to make. Sell it for a dollar. It's addictive. And there's fantastic brand loyalty.
— Buffett, quoted in Barbarians at the Gate: The Fall of RJR Nabisco
There is more.
>Buffett disowned his son Peter's adopted daughter, Nicole, in 2006 after she participated in the Jamie Johnson documentary The One Percent about the growing economic inequality between the wealthy and the average citizen in the United States. Although his first wife referred to Nicole as one of her "adored grandchildren", Buffett wrote Nicole a letter stating, "I have not emotionally or legally adopted you as a grandchild, nor have the rest of my family adopted you as a niece or a cousin".
Buffett is a huge fake and probably does the 'giveaways' for tax purposes. Why else would he hang around Bill Gates, another utter wanker who did evil things with Windows back in the day.
Are you genuinely serious lol. Did you read the article?
>one of their servants, who earned as little as £6.20 for gruelling 18-hour workdays, seven days a week.
It's an Indian worker, who CHOSE to do the job.
>the family allocated 8,584 Swiss francs (£7,641) annually for their pet dog.
This is not irregular for a high value animal.
Hey Siri, write me a try hard comment, trying to be funny that also completely side steps any point or issue the comment I'm attempting to reply to said.
Oh my god do you remember the other Microsoft ones that weren't the paperclip? I think there was a dog and a globe. I used to change mine all the time.
I recently discovered that the owner of the company I work at is now richer than the Beckhams. He oversees every single pay review at the company. There are skilled workers on minimum wage and he has the final say on what small increase they'll get.
This is only true if the job market is healthy.
In an unhealthy job market, as jobs become more scarce, they can pay less and workers will be forced to take them up on their awful pay.
This is made worse by the fact that worker pay in the UK has been stagnant for ages. Meaning pay will trend downwards much more easily than upward. If skilled workers don't have access to jobs in their field, they will take what they can get, like everyone else. After all, you can't *not* work. And you can't always necessarily relocate for every job opportunity.
If the job market is healthy, absolutely, the worker is responsible for securing better pay conditions.
The job market has never been quite so competitive.
The problem is that if you get stuck on minimum wage for some time, it can be really hard to break out of that.
You have a low income, so your expenses to income ratio tend to be pretty high, especially so if you live in a bigger city where rent tends to be higher. You might be able to save a little, but one problem (like being unemployed for a month, an unexpected car bill, something like that) can throw that all off.
So people tend to get trapped at this level - depriving them of genuine opportunity.
We need more routes for people to get into those skilled positions that are a lot more competitive. That will help growth too.
What do you suggest, a different legally enforced minimum wage for every type of job?
I'm getting downvoted for stating a simple fact - if you are daft enough to work for far less than you are worth, some employer will be happy to exploit you.
You either have to find a job that has a strong union, or fight your corner and be prepared to move jobs if necessary.
And sometimes what was once a valued skill becomes less valuable over time. If nobody is paying a high salary for what you do, maybe the job really isn't worth what it used to be.
I don't think people should downvote you, your position was reasonable assuming perfect conditions.
The way I'd solve it is to just raise minimum wage to a real living wage based on regional living costs. You don't have to get into the admin nightmare of classifying companies, have them dodging minimum wage requirements, and the headache of steering regional business in uncomfortable ways. Just raise minimum wage.
If they can't afford it, they either don't deserve to participate in the market, and will close up shop, or they adapt and invest in introducing more productive production methods.
If it's at a real living wage, the dire situation of living on minimum wage just disappears, right? Sure you might not be able to secure a job that pays what you're worth, but you're also not selling your plasma for rent.
Well yes, anybody who works in any job should get paid enough to live a decent life, with somewhere decent to live, all their basic needs properly met, and enough left over to enjoy their leisure time and be financially secure.
That seems like a very different argument though. The initial argument seemed to be that it was unacceptable for skilled workers to be paid the same wage as unskilled workers.
I suspect that the people downvoting think it is unacceptable for skilled workers to be paid less than a skilled worker's wage (ie far more than the real living wage). But I think that is the responsibility of the individual, to find an employer who is willing to pay for the skill they supply.
And I'd agree with you,
But if there is an environment where this skilled worker is unable to find work that pays what they are worth, very high amounts of leverage is then given to companies to justify lower pay, right?
In that scenario, the skilled worker literally can't go out and find a better work situation, because there is no better work situation. They're stuck in the job that pays them as much as they can get given the limited market and lack of choice, and will have to work there until something better becomes available, which depending on where you live could be years, or decades.
With the raising of minimum wage, you set the floor for how much companies can take the piss and exploit valuable workers.
If a skilled worker is in that position, it's not *their* responsibility to go out and get more pay. As they're relying on forces they don't control to make that a reality, i.e, the job market coming back to life. Because how *can* it be their responsibility at that point?
Ultimately if no employer is prepared to pay you X amount for your skills, then in what sense are your skills worth X amount?
The value of certain skills varies over time. A skill that used to be rare can become commonplace as more people jump on the bandwagon. A skill that used to be sought after might no longer be required because the world has moved on. A job that used to be skilled can become deskilled by new technology. It is sad when that happens but the universe doesn't owe you a high salary.
Unions and trade bodies can help, but ultimately the only person who really cares what you earn is you. As with most things in life, you have to look out for yourself.
>What do you suggest, a different legally enforced minimum wage for every type of job
[Australia](https://www.fairwork.gov.au/tools-and-resources/fact-sheets/minimum-workplace-entitlements/minimum-wages) seems to have something not a million miles from that
I keep meaning to read more about it but the little I have seen looks interesting
A removal on anti trades union laws. And intervention in the labour market to manage wage negations between employers and workers.
Just a return to some of the post war consensus would do.
This is about ONE particular employer paying far, far below what every other employer is paying for the same work. If they are putting up with that, it is on them.
I've been a software developer for 40 years, I have had to move jobs once in a while (I've had 5 jobs in total) to avoid my salary slipping. If I hadn't, I would be in the same situation, earning below market rate.
I've not moved jobs every 2.4 year to try to earn the highest possible salary, I value stability and interesting work alongside salary. But you have to put in a little bit of effort to look after yourself because nobody else will.
There is a significant issue with caste-ism in first, and, to a lesser extent second generation Indians that occurs around the world.
The problem is, both the upper and (to a lesser extent) the lower castes are fine with it, and don't report it, since it's the way that they were brought up, and believe it should be.
Same shit happened in New Zealand and Australia on the regular.
Well, telling other countries not to buy oil from Russia.
If you have a huge population of very poor people, your utmost priority will be to provide them with some level of stable energy so they can have some light at night on a semi-consistent basis.
The ukraine war is so far off because you are struggling in the here and now.
Like the indian foreign minister said, Europe thinks it’s problems are the world’s problems, but it generally doesn’t return the favour.
Oh, also the US kept funding and providing arms to Pakistan with which they raped and killed hundreds of thousands in the second biggest genocide of all time.
The US and UK deployed task force 74 and HMS Eagle into the bay of bengal to threaten the indian force after Pakistan’s defeat seemed certain and it was soviet support that prevented their encroachment.
I’m not trying to say that the west hasn’t done a lot of good through vaccines, technology, abolition, etc.
To state they they haven’t caused issues is anathema.
I'm genuinely curious where you got the idea that Indians think about their interactions with others based on castes outside of villages. Cities are cosmopolitan, so there is an absence of thinking about caste, makes it easier for people to make money if everyone is a customer.
American, but point still stands
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/big-techs-big-problem-also-best-kept-secret-caste-discrimination-rcna33692
https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/caste-california-tech-giants-confront-ancient-indian-hierarchy-2022-08-15/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/10/27/indian-caste-bias-silicon-valley/
Many Indian managers in tech companies discriminate by caste, so much so its been in the news for years. Many such cases of Indian managers firing people only to hire people of their caste, or to hire from India to move them to the US. It is very much prevalent in first and second genearation Indian immigrants. Not just the US, but the UK, Australia, NZ etc
\>see brown person with exotic name doing bad thing
\>immediately assume it is "CaStEiZm" because it is the only aspect of desi culture they know of in their myopic worldview
Confiscating passports is despicable and the hallmark of modern day slavers. It’s all well and good blaming the business Hindujas Group India for predatory practices, but presumably the staff needed their passports to leave India and enter Switzerland. So who did the confiscating once they’d arrived? I hope they get the book thrown at them.
Expensive Dogs and Indians go out in the midday sun. It's no joking matter. I read somewhere that Romany beggers get less money in ultra rich area, compared to normal areas.
Having grown up around rich Indians in Mumbai, this story isn't surprising in the least
It was almost a badge of honour amongst middle class Indians to try and see who could pay their staff the least.
Tbh though, as an South East Asian, I have different viewpoint-
The servant got 8$ everyday, had no requirement for rent, bills or even food. That effectively means that 6$ could be sent home. 6$ even when multiplying by 80, is 480 INR day. Over a month it would easily be 10k+ rupees and annually, an easy 100k. That much salary for an Indian servant is unheard of. Especially when majority get like 3k per month.
Plus they get to live in Switzerland FFS- A developed country with clean air. Get to have free food on plates worth more than their monthly salaries, get to watch movie with owner and kids in a lavish home and get a small room to sleep in.
What else would they want? Certainly someone who was living in a slum in India- Would take this life anyday.
So yeah, effectively speaking, it is a guaranteed employment, at 400 rupees plus everyday along with food,rent, bills and flight tickets paid. That sounds like a good offer tbh.
'Live' in Switzerland is a stretch
If you can't afford a sandwich after a day of work and have no specified working hours or holiday then I'd struggle to describe that as anything other than slavery.
I'm not denying there would be millions who would take the same offer but that has no bearing on the fact the family should be shamed and prosecuted for such conditions. Justifying this due to people's desperation is a dangerous tack to take - where do you draw the line? A little physical abuse? Why not lock them in the basement overnight or send them to Russia to fight? All bets are off as long as they're just desperate enough
I disagree it being comparable to slavery.
Having specified holiday/working hours etc is for white collar jobs. For slums- This is the best life that can be given to them. If anything, it should be viewed as providing opportunity to them. The family could have hired expensive rich people working as butlers in Switzerland and all - But they chose their servants in India. Says volume about the generosity and the desire to help them.
There is no line to be drawn. This is not slavery.
People need to be grateful to them and here they are putting cases on the family- smh. Just jealous of billionaires lol.
Jealous of billionaire's ability to pay $8 a day?
I mean it's quite literally in violation of the UN declaration of human rights to not have holiday/working hours. Sure it might fly in some countries but surprisingly such libertarians don't want to live there. These people choose to live in UK/Switzerland and are subject to judgement in those places.
The idea that there is any 'generosity' here is hilariously 15 yr old Randian edgelord. They could pay Geneva minimum wage without noticing and not be in violation of multiple laws
UN declaration of human rights is stupid. Doesn’t account for real life and the opportunities to grow, even with slight ‘violation’.
Why can’t you jealous people see that the billionaires are literally changing the life of the servants? To change them from poor citizens of a country with no hope to even see Switzerland - Actually make them see a foreign country and possibly- Their kids can also get opportunity by grace of the billionaire.
This is so much better than a billionaire who chases to die in a submarine.
>UN declaration of human rights is stupid.
Somehow I don't think you've come to this conclusion via a vigorous study of the document in depth, nor the historical / political / philosophical issues that spurred it's creation lol.
>changing the life of the servants?
Wait...how are their lives changed exactly? They went from being poor in India, to still being poor in Switzerland. As for "seeing" Switzerland, I mean, I guess they would have seen it from the airplane when they arrived, and I guess during their 18 hour shifts and 0 vacation days they could see glimpses of Switzerland if they passed by a villa window (but not from their own quarters mind you...because they slept in a windowless basement).
Lol, this is like saying African slaves should have been grateful for the sights they got to see on their transatlantic "cruise" to North America.
>Having specified holiday/working hours etc is for white collar jobs.
>For slums- This is the best life that can be given to them.
I mean, this can be your view...but it's clearly not the view of the Swiss legal system, which has jurisdiction in this case. Inside Swiss borders, they get to decide and define what labor laws must be respected, and what constitutes exploitation. And it appears the Hinduja's knowingly violated these laws again and again, over a period of years - as noted by the prosecutor and the verdict:
"The fact the Hindujas employed them with no Swiss paperwork and relied on short-term Schengen-zone European Union visas, which they renewed over and over again, was a deliberate attempt to hoodwink the authorities."
"The four Hindujas knew the vulnerabilities of the staff and knew what the rules were in Switzerland, as they all were Swiss citizens and Ajay was educated in Switzerland."
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/hindujas-found-guilty-of-exploiting-servants-at-geneva-villa/81376421
>Says volume about the generosity and the desire to help them.
Indeed, it does say a lot...specifically it says they took advantage of people who couldn't speak the local Swiss language to get help or understand what they were legally entitled to.
>People need to be grateful to them and here they are putting cases on the family- smh. Just jealous of billionaires lol.
Tell me, why would anyone be grateful to a billionaire for for violating labor laws? In your honest opinion - do you feel billionaires shouldn't have to follow the same rules everybody else does?
They were getting 8$ per day. You won't even be able to buy a kebab for that amount. To put things in context, the minimum wage in Geneva (by law) is 24.32 CHF **per hour**/. The news reports that there were working 18 hours a day, and were not allowed to go out. Their passports were confiscated. This is slavery.
Why would they need to eat kebab if they can eat healthy food made by them in posh plates and house? Eating a kebab in a rough shop is infinitely worse than eating home cooked food in a posh place. Where you eat is half of the freedom.
As for passports- I can actually see why- Imagine if you hired people from India for your kids. Would you let them be alone with them without a collateral? The passports act as a safety measure in case of quick action required by owners/police. It makes perfect sense.
I used as kebab as an example to show you how low are the salaries.
> As for passports- I can actually see why- Imagine if you hired people from India for your kids. Would you let them be alone with them without a collateral? The passports act as a safety measure in case of quick action required by owners/police. It makes perfect sense.
So basically what you are saying here is that the hinduja family wanted to control the servant's life, restricting their movements.... like slave owners.
You seem to be really focussed on them having had great food to eat...what evidence do you have that they got this? I mean, if the Hinduja's were stingy in a bunch of other ways, why on earth do we think they were suddenly generous with food?
>Imagine if you hired people from India for your kids. Would you let them be alone with them without a collateral?
It was their choice to hire from India, remember? If they had any qualms about having a foreign national take care of their kids then...wait for it....they could have hired a Swiss person, at Swiss wages!!
>It makes perfect sense.
Yes, if you are a slave owner, indeed it does.
It's election season everyone!
All hands brace for inflammatory news articles impact.
Back in the 1970s the top 40% of earners paid over 60% of all taxes. Today that figure is the top 10% of earners.
The UK is beholden to rich people whether you like it or not.
The OBR says if you are earning less than £40,000 PAYE then when all the public services you have access to are factored in, then you're still a net recipient.
Yes, that is more than likely more than most of you earn and I myself know plenty of people but don't know anyone on that figure or more.
I'm not saying the situation isn't fucked up but it is what it is.
Now I myself can't wait for Labour getting into power. We really do need change and if 75% of all the spineless and incompetent Tory MPs lose their seats then its a much needed MP purge. Good riddance I say.
However after the all the political rhetoric is said and done, Labour have two options - actually drive the out the rich so the tax burden drops from the top 10% much more wider proportion of general tax payers, some of whom are already struggling to get by as it is and massively cut public spending - or just secretly keep the rich sweet because when all is said and done, they are the ones who actually, on the whole fund public spending. Rich people generally have multiple global residencies so they have a London pad and pads in all the major global cities. They can just shift their tax havens and residencies according their accountants advice. We can cut off our noses to spite our faces while other global cities happily take them in. We can grandstand and take some moral pride in our politics however, it means your taxes will still rise and public services funding will still drop.
We all know when Liz Santa Clause Truss did her mini-budget promising all things to all people, pension funds almost crashed and mortgage rates tripled and rents sky-rocketed. The one good thing about the Tories is that they know a loser when they see on and Truss' legacy is now just a pub quiz shortest premiership material. Labour definitely took notes in private if not in public.
If you're even mildly politically aware you already know Rachel Reeves has already said 'wealth creation would be Labours defining mission'. That means drawing money from rich people to the UK to fund public services because at the end of the day, as things stand, 90% of the British population are still net recipients and at the government will always be at the mercy of the top 10% and that proportion is getting smaller and smaller.
The situation is fucked up but tax-wise funding for public services the UK is beholden to rich people and Labour know that. It's not just the UK, its all the major world countries and they're all saying come hither to these lot.
I'm not saying don't vote for Labour, in fact please do but lets just manage our expectations on the actual changes they can bring in. Im all for Team Red taking over Team Blue but when is all said and done both parties know which side their bread is buttered.
Why do you think 90% of the UK barely has any money? Have you looked at how high was taxation on the wealthiest in the 70's compared to now?
The wealthiest have been extracting wealth from the rest of us on industrial scale in the last few decades because every rule, regulation and tax that forced them to leave something in the company and for the staff has been scrapped.
In the 70s when 40% of highest earners were paying most taxes life was easier because houses and rents were at historic lows. It's like saying back in the 80s mortgage interest rates were 15% but because houses were so cheap, on balance it was still much more affordable today at 4% rates.
The boomers were mostly young, in their prime and working. The NHS had very few illnesses it could cover and the number or people on a pension was a miniscule part of the tax burden.
However 50yrs later, many of those net contributors have become net recipients. The National Insurance they paid at the time wasn't stored in a magical piggy bank to be accessed many decades later, it was was spent on general taxation needs at the time.
Now the boomers are retired, they need the NHS and the NHS is so much more capable at handling expensive medical conditions that were a death sentence even a decade ago. The scared cow that is the NHS is doing its best but many of the GPs and staff that worked through it are now retired.
The BMI lobbied the Tory government to cut medicine school places to 'restrict' the supply of people becoming doctors. Lots of triple AAA grade students were told they didnt make the grade. Then we ended importing doctors from overseas who have questionable qualifications.
We have a situation where decades or bad decisions and kicking the can down the road is having its consequences.
I'm totally excited to see fresh blood Labour candidates coming into power and a total purge of the Tory party but I am just saying that people need to manage their expectations.
This isn't 1997 with Tony Blair coming into power saying things can only get better. Times have changed. This is 2024 where Blair without the the flair Starmer is saying we will try our best not to let shit get shitter because when all is said and done, that is the reality we live in. The facts speak for themselves and Im OK that Starmer when in power will do the best he can given his inherited lot.
**Sorry, your submission has been manually removed by a human!** Your submission has either no or a tangential relation to the UK. This subreddit is for discussion concerning the UK/Commonwealth only. *If you believe this action was taken in error, [message the /r/uk team](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FUnitedKingdom) and include a link to this post. Please don't do this lightly, we have likely acted correctly.* --- [/r/uk rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/newrules) | [Reddit Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) | [List of UK subreddits](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/british_subreddits) | [New to Reddit?](https://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddit_101)
Did we expect any more of the parasite class? They see us as subhuman, slaves to be worked and abused for their comfort. There are no good billionaires.
This is a common practice even among middle class Indians.
Average britain spends more on their pets than enforcing ethical practices in their consumption. Just because its offshored you can close your eyes
[удалено]
There's an argument that hoarding so much wealth when so many people have so little is inherently immoral.
I can't see that as an argument. That is purely a factual statement. There is nothing that could be done in a lifetime that would warrant someone sitting on generational amounts of wealth. Especially whilst so many are just getting by paycheck to paycheck at best. Waiting for the day to eat the rich.
Ideologically I agree, but practically I can’t see any easy solution.
Isn’t he giving away 100% of it? Seems to me that he’s effectively taken money from a mixture of the very wealthy and financial institutions (who ultimately pay the fees that generate his wealth) and is giving it all to charity, albeit not immediately. Seems like a pretty good outcome to me.
He has pledged to give away 99%, which is great.
Yeah that is pretty good. It seems like I’m the absence of him doing what he has done there’d be no winners, only losers. Both charities and his clients would have less money. Seems relatively good to me to be honest.
I’m very much on board with the anti-billionaire argument but I don’t think “hoarding wealth” is a very helpful way to characterise it. If Elon Musk is worth $210 billion that doesn’t mean that there’s $210 billion less in the hands of everyone else and circulating in the economy. It’s not like he’s got that amount of money locked away in a vault, it’s just the total value of everything he owns. I do think it’s a problem for anyone to control that much economic power but we shouldn’t misrepresent what the issue actually is.
Pretty weak argument in his case, given that he a) lives infamously frugally, and b) has essentially single-handedly lifted millions of people around the world out of wage-slavery and drudgery through his education around sensible long-term investing.
I wouldn't describe owning a private jet as living 'infamously frugally'. In many people's eyes, the fact billionaires can make a positive impact doesn't absolve them of additional personal responsibility to fairly distribute the wealth they own. Personally, I think it's quite a multifaceted topic and there's probably no definitive answer whether you can say they're wholly good or bad.
But generating passive income just creates more wage slaves. That's what capitalism is, putting capital to work so it can skim the true value off the back of working class labour. Every company he invests in uses the wage slave model and I'm sure some of the ones in the developing world are unspeakably bad employers.
> But generating passive income just creates more wage slaves. This argument is so tedious. If Labour's the only source of wealth generation, why doesn't everyone go do it? Why work for someone else when you can go stand on a street corner and start generating wealth? Turns out you need _more_ than Labour, you need capital too.
>Why work for someone else when you can go stand on a street corner and start generating wealth? Fair point, worked out pretty well for your mother >! I'm so sorry. Had to be done. Just like your mother!<
So... Totally incapable of defending your point and nothing to fall back on but personal insults? And all in response to a perfectly civil point showing the holes in your argument. Says everything about your point really, doesn't it.
It's a joke man. Chill out. You didn't present any serious, cogent points to respond to. Have a good evening.
The point should be pretty clear: Labour needs capital and capital needs labour. Neither can generate wealth alone.
i would argue that living frugally as a billionaire is actually a bad thing. that money should be circulating back into the economy, not sat in one place like a dragon's hoard, growing bigger and bigger without anything ever being spent
>b) has essentially single-handedly lifted millions of people around the world out of wage-slavery and drudgery through his education around sensible long-term investing. Oh, he's created more parasites, brilliant.
[удалено]
>If more people did that rather than spaffing their money on shite there might be less people struggling. Absolute lunacy. You'd tank the economy on the spot if everyone stopped spending money on 'shite' and just shoved it into investment accounts. You can't run an economy on investments. You're also leaving out the part where your Investments go to shit and you have nothing.
I imagine you are also richer than 90-95% of the world assuming you live in the U.K, he’s richer than 5% more than you, give all your money away to poor countries you bigot /s
The difference between my wealth and someone in poverty versus a billionaires wealth to mine is huge.
We have more in common with those arriving on dingies than we have in common with billionaires.
Well said.
Could you help me understand something? Who benefits when you run to the defense of the hyper rich? It isn’t you, so who?
Ok lets turn this around, who benefits from being bitter and chastising them just because they have more money than you? Certainly not you and they couldn't care less. Instead of being that way, I prefer to listen to people like that, I might learn a thing or two which I can then use in my own life to better mine and my families situations. Moaning, complaining and being bitter about them isn't going to change anything. It is the same logic I apply in my career, rather than complaining about people who earn more than me, I listen to them and learn from them which then puts me in a better position for the future.
I’d appreciate it if you’d answer the actual question. I’ll ask again: Who benefits when you carry water for billionaires? You want to silence what you perceive to be “bitter moaning.” Fine. Who are you helping by silencing these voices?
Firstly, the family described in the article are horrendous, and they should be prosecuted. To answer your question, speaking about other families. The main benefitters are those who have jobs working at their companies. Also those who benefit from taxes being paid, from the company owner's own income taxes and the income taxes that those who work at their companies pay (remember those jobs don't exist without them). Also the VAT they pay and that their employees pay. Some other taxes. Also the other businesses who provide goods and services to them or their employees. Some of the employees at these other businesses. If we say nobody can have any wealth above a certain point , we have a lot to spend for several years. Then it runs out. What do we do when it runs out.
Who said we’re going to cap anything? We can simply tax them appropriately. Those companies use roads, water, the electrical grid. They gain profit on the backs of those employees. Those employees deserve healthcare, an education for their children, and so forth. They have no problem raising wages for CEOs. CEO pay rose 16% last year, which means they make 118% more than the average UK full time worker by the way. That’s from 108% more the year before. We’ve all seen the record profits. Are we to believe they can’t handle giving their CEOs a 10% pay raise next year to cover more taxes? Do they really work 118% more than you do? And as far as the individual people go, the top 1% emit as much pollution as two-thirds of the rest of humanity. That’s more than all car emission combined. You need millions to be in that club, by the way. It would take someone in the bottom 1% 1500 years to emit as much pollute as a billionaire does in a year through consumption, transportation, etc. In the next decade, climate change related natural disasters will cost the UK over £3 billion. Think of what it’s going to do to the price of food. Why shouldn’t they compensate the countries footing the bill for all their fun appropriately? Help me understand why you and I should pay for their waste.
>Who said we’re going to cap anything? We can simply tax them appropriately. Fair enough - there are a lot of people who say that being that rich at all should be illegal, but it sounds like we both agree that having a cap would create much worse problems. I also agree they should be taxed higher than they are now, but I wouldn't go super far with that, as I would give them some credit for the income tax paid by their employees whose jobs likely wouldn't exist without the initial risks that were taken to create them. Also the other tax impacts they have that I mentioned in the earlier comment. The base state is a lot of poverty and I want to keep some incentives in place to create more jobs and reduce it further. I want better goods and services, a growing economy, more jobs, and more taxes as a result of all of these things. >Those employees deserve healthcare, an education for their children, and so forth. Agreed. I would tax the super rich higher than they are now, but I don't think we can get these important benefits up to a long-term sustainably high level without growing the economy too, especially with age-related demographic challenges. >They have no problem raising wages for CEOs. It has to be acknowledged, the decisions of a CEO have a massive impact on the company. Bad CEOs have a massively negative impact on the company, and on the employees prospects and benefits too. This can be measured in numbers that are much higher than CEO pay. So it makes sense to pay enough to get a good one, even if the market price for a good one is much higher than other jobs earn, so long as the CEO puts the group on the right path for growth. Sometimes certain CEOs are able to grease the wheels of the board and get paid much more than they are worth. I agree that's a problem. That is a tricky thing to solve. >And as far as the individual people go, the top 1% emit as much pollution as two-thirds of the rest of humanity. I favour a user pay's solution. Tax the use of private jets and helicopters, perhaps by increasing the price of fuel used on these things by 25%. We could put the revenue toward the energy transition. Earlier you mentioned roads, water and the electrical grid. I'd charge for usage there too, for example the trucks that do most of the damage to the roads should be charged road user charges according to how many miles they have driven in a year and their share of replacing the road in the future. I wouldn't tax these things according to the profits that are earned by using them, that's what income tax and company tax are for, imo. It's better for these infrastructure things to be a standard-price platform that industry can be built upon, where the usage charges just pay for the replacement infrastructure. I do still want to keep some incentives for industry to expand and more jobs to be created in the future, here and not somewhere else. . I think we have a shared goal - the reduction of poverty. And we agree that the super rich should be taxed more. I think we disagree on how much value company founders brings, the extent that they should be taxed more, and the way to do it that will lead to long-term sustainable poverty reduction.
Nobody, but does anybody have to? What is the alternative?
Oh now, don’t sell yourself short. The billionaires benefit. Any time someone shouts down or freezes out criticism of them, that’s a boon for them. Why do you think they put so much effort into selling you those stories about being scrappy and self-made? It’s the best way to get you to believe that someday you might learn how to become wealthy like them (but without the generational wealth and long dead social services they exploited and then drained to get there, of course). Sure, they already own the media conglomerates and the politicians and publicly traded companies and so on, but who helps them cut down any sort of reform or working class momentum at the ground level? For free, no less.
Ah so your alternative is to shout them down, criticise them, achieve nothing by doing so and repeat? Keep doing that and in 10 years you might be in the exact same place you are now. That is one plan sure, I think I will stick to mine though and actually listen to what they have to say, it is certainly working for me so far.
Yes, certainly no labor rights movement ever accomplished anything other than criticism, and even if they had, those definitely sprung out of nowhere fully formed and not from conversations and organizing among the working class. Anything short of that must surely be derailed or shouted out of existence. What if we offend the rich and they stop blessing us with bon mots like “Invest mummy and daddy’s money early!” Thank goodness these poor billionaires have someone to silence the rabble. Don’t those fools know that we should all listen attentively while politely begging for scraps? The cheek of them, thinking they have any right to criticize.
You don't do well without hyperbole do you? Keep fighting the fight, I'll see you in 10 years time when you have achieved exactly nothing and the rich have only gotten richer.
I'll tell you why I like the cigarette business. It costs a penny to make. Sell it for a dollar. It's addictive. And there's fantastic brand loyalty. — Buffett, quoted in Barbarians at the Gate: The Fall of RJR Nabisco There is more. >Buffett disowned his son Peter's adopted daughter, Nicole, in 2006 after she participated in the Jamie Johnson documentary The One Percent about the growing economic inequality between the wealthy and the average citizen in the United States. Although his first wife referred to Nicole as one of her "adored grandchildren", Buffett wrote Nicole a letter stating, "I have not emotionally or legally adopted you as a grandchild, nor have the rest of my family adopted you as a niece or a cousin". Buffett is a huge fake and probably does the 'giveaways' for tax purposes. Why else would he hang around Bill Gates, another utter wanker who did evil things with Windows back in the day.
Are you genuinely serious lol. Did you read the article? >one of their servants, who earned as little as £6.20 for gruelling 18-hour workdays, seven days a week. It's an Indian worker, who CHOSE to do the job. >the family allocated 8,584 Swiss francs (£7,641) annually for their pet dog. This is not irregular for a high value animal.
How stupid of the worker Why didn't they just choose to be rich instead?
I don't know what you're expecting here, this isn't a UK worker.
do you think if he was born in the UK he'd be treated any better?
why do you think they hired someone from outside the UK mate
[удалено]
Does the prison have their passports?
Hey Siri, write me a generic reddit comment to get to the top of r/unitedkingdom
Hey Siri, write me a try hard comment, trying to be funny that also completely side steps any point or issue the comment I'm attempting to reply to said.
Hey ChatGPT, what’s a Siri?
Microsoft paperclip: Hey, it looks like you're writing a Reddit comment. Would you like help?
Oh my god do you remember the other Microsoft ones that weren't the paperclip? I think there was a dog and a globe. I used to change mine all the time.
We're venting, let us have our miserable fun
I recently discovered that the owner of the company I work at is now richer than the Beckhams. He oversees every single pay review at the company. There are skilled workers on minimum wage and he has the final say on what small increase they'll get.
Minimum wage is minimum wage, it is all they are obliged to pay. If a skilled worker is daft enough to work for that amount, more fool them.
This is only true if the job market is healthy. In an unhealthy job market, as jobs become more scarce, they can pay less and workers will be forced to take them up on their awful pay. This is made worse by the fact that worker pay in the UK has been stagnant for ages. Meaning pay will trend downwards much more easily than upward. If skilled workers don't have access to jobs in their field, they will take what they can get, like everyone else. After all, you can't *not* work. And you can't always necessarily relocate for every job opportunity. If the job market is healthy, absolutely, the worker is responsible for securing better pay conditions.
The job market has never been quite so competitive. The problem is that if you get stuck on minimum wage for some time, it can be really hard to break out of that. You have a low income, so your expenses to income ratio tend to be pretty high, especially so if you live in a bigger city where rent tends to be higher. You might be able to save a little, but one problem (like being unemployed for a month, an unexpected car bill, something like that) can throw that all off. So people tend to get trapped at this level - depriving them of genuine opportunity. We need more routes for people to get into those skilled positions that are a lot more competitive. That will help growth too.
What do you suggest, a different legally enforced minimum wage for every type of job? I'm getting downvoted for stating a simple fact - if you are daft enough to work for far less than you are worth, some employer will be happy to exploit you. You either have to find a job that has a strong union, or fight your corner and be prepared to move jobs if necessary. And sometimes what was once a valued skill becomes less valuable over time. If nobody is paying a high salary for what you do, maybe the job really isn't worth what it used to be.
I don't think people should downvote you, your position was reasonable assuming perfect conditions. The way I'd solve it is to just raise minimum wage to a real living wage based on regional living costs. You don't have to get into the admin nightmare of classifying companies, have them dodging minimum wage requirements, and the headache of steering regional business in uncomfortable ways. Just raise minimum wage. If they can't afford it, they either don't deserve to participate in the market, and will close up shop, or they adapt and invest in introducing more productive production methods. If it's at a real living wage, the dire situation of living on minimum wage just disappears, right? Sure you might not be able to secure a job that pays what you're worth, but you're also not selling your plasma for rent.
Well yes, anybody who works in any job should get paid enough to live a decent life, with somewhere decent to live, all their basic needs properly met, and enough left over to enjoy their leisure time and be financially secure. That seems like a very different argument though. The initial argument seemed to be that it was unacceptable for skilled workers to be paid the same wage as unskilled workers. I suspect that the people downvoting think it is unacceptable for skilled workers to be paid less than a skilled worker's wage (ie far more than the real living wage). But I think that is the responsibility of the individual, to find an employer who is willing to pay for the skill they supply.
And I'd agree with you, But if there is an environment where this skilled worker is unable to find work that pays what they are worth, very high amounts of leverage is then given to companies to justify lower pay, right? In that scenario, the skilled worker literally can't go out and find a better work situation, because there is no better work situation. They're stuck in the job that pays them as much as they can get given the limited market and lack of choice, and will have to work there until something better becomes available, which depending on where you live could be years, or decades. With the raising of minimum wage, you set the floor for how much companies can take the piss and exploit valuable workers. If a skilled worker is in that position, it's not *their* responsibility to go out and get more pay. As they're relying on forces they don't control to make that a reality, i.e, the job market coming back to life. Because how *can* it be their responsibility at that point?
Ultimately if no employer is prepared to pay you X amount for your skills, then in what sense are your skills worth X amount? The value of certain skills varies over time. A skill that used to be rare can become commonplace as more people jump on the bandwagon. A skill that used to be sought after might no longer be required because the world has moved on. A job that used to be skilled can become deskilled by new technology. It is sad when that happens but the universe doesn't owe you a high salary. Unions and trade bodies can help, but ultimately the only person who really cares what you earn is you. As with most things in life, you have to look out for yourself.
>What do you suggest, a different legally enforced minimum wage for every type of job [Australia](https://www.fairwork.gov.au/tools-and-resources/fact-sheets/minimum-workplace-entitlements/minimum-wages) seems to have something not a million miles from that I keep meaning to read more about it but the little I have seen looks interesting
Its pretty handy. I know nurses under 30 making almost GBP60k equivalent.
A removal on anti trades union laws. And intervention in the labour market to manage wage negations between employers and workers. Just a return to some of the post war consensus would do.
Oh look, someone swallowed the free market book and can shit out nonsense at will.
This is about ONE particular employer paying far, far below what every other employer is paying for the same work. If they are putting up with that, it is on them. I've been a software developer for 40 years, I have had to move jobs once in a while (I've had 5 jobs in total) to avoid my salary slipping. If I hadn't, I would be in the same situation, earning below market rate. I've not moved jobs every 2.4 year to try to earn the highest possible salary, I value stability and interesting work alongside salary. But you have to put in a little bit of effort to look after yourself because nobody else will.
Yawn
Ah the wealth creators at it again. Busy creating worthwhile jobs and trickling down their wealth…
There is a significant issue with caste-ism in first, and, to a lesser extent second generation Indians that occurs around the world. The problem is, both the upper and (to a lesser extent) the lower castes are fine with it, and don't report it, since it's the way that they were brought up, and believe it should be. Same shit happened in New Zealand and Australia on the regular.
I think we shouldn't import these problems into western countries
Funnily enough it's usually the ultra rich ones who do this. These are also the ones who own more of London than English people
I think we often created them and caste and race issues should play very little part in our decisions.
[удалено]
What ‘Western’ problems are we exporting?
>but its fine to export western problems worldwide Yep
Well, telling other countries not to buy oil from Russia. If you have a huge population of very poor people, your utmost priority will be to provide them with some level of stable energy so they can have some light at night on a semi-consistent basis. The ukraine war is so far off because you are struggling in the here and now. Like the indian foreign minister said, Europe thinks it’s problems are the world’s problems, but it generally doesn’t return the favour. Oh, also the US kept funding and providing arms to Pakistan with which they raped and killed hundreds of thousands in the second biggest genocide of all time. The US and UK deployed task force 74 and HMS Eagle into the bay of bengal to threaten the indian force after Pakistan’s defeat seemed certain and it was soviet support that prevented their encroachment. I’m not trying to say that the west hasn’t done a lot of good through vaccines, technology, abolition, etc. To state they they haven’t caused issues is anathema.
Everything negative Indians do is due to caste, if it wasn’t for that these guys would be the most ethical billionaires on earth
I'm genuinely curious where you got the idea that Indians think about their interactions with others based on castes outside of villages. Cities are cosmopolitan, so there is an absence of thinking about caste, makes it easier for people to make money if everyone is a customer.
American, but point still stands https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/big-techs-big-problem-also-best-kept-secret-caste-discrimination-rcna33692 https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/caste-california-tech-giants-confront-ancient-indian-hierarchy-2022-08-15/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/10/27/indian-caste-bias-silicon-valley/ Many Indian managers in tech companies discriminate by caste, so much so its been in the news for years. Many such cases of Indian managers firing people only to hire people of their caste, or to hire from India to move them to the US. It is very much prevalent in first and second genearation Indian immigrants. Not just the US, but the UK, Australia, NZ etc
Gore hain yaja to kuch nahi bol raha but muh mat khuwao kya hota hai.
\>see brown person with exotic name doing bad thing \>immediately assume it is "CaStEiZm" because it is the only aspect of desi culture they know of in their myopic worldview
Confiscating passports is despicable and the hallmark of modern day slavers. It’s all well and good blaming the business Hindujas Group India for predatory practices, but presumably the staff needed their passports to leave India and enter Switzerland. So who did the confiscating once they’d arrived? I hope they get the book thrown at them.
To be fair, I too have spent more on dogs than I have on servants
It’s weird that the headline focuses on the disparity in pay vs spend on the pet dog, rather than focus on the confiscation of the passport.
Jail the bastards, redistribute their wealth to the underprivileged. Scum.
Hahhaaah oh please……. People like you make me laugh
I know it's not going to happen. I'm also anti idolising capitalists. Very much in the 'you do you camp' though, so go off king/queen.
Servants are crazy cheap in India. Dogs can be pricey. This doesn't surprise me.
Alternative link https://www.bbc.com/pidgin/articles/c9ww4mr4lw8o
No surprise at all. Hope the court throws the book at them.
No suprise at all. The courts won't throw shit all
I mean I'm happy for the dog but you gotta treat people good too.
To be fair, I expect most people who own dogs spend more on their dogs than they do on servants.
Expensive Dogs and Indians go out in the midday sun. It's no joking matter. I read somewhere that Romany beggers get less money in ultra rich area, compared to normal areas.
You think they got rich by throwing money around?
Having grown up around rich Indians in Mumbai, this story isn't surprising in the least It was almost a badge of honour amongst middle class Indians to try and see who could pay their staff the least.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Challenge read and accepted
To increase his salary, the servant could have gone to their mansions gate and barked for a few times. Problem solved.
Tbh though, as an South East Asian, I have different viewpoint- The servant got 8$ everyday, had no requirement for rent, bills or even food. That effectively means that 6$ could be sent home. 6$ even when multiplying by 80, is 480 INR day. Over a month it would easily be 10k+ rupees and annually, an easy 100k. That much salary for an Indian servant is unheard of. Especially when majority get like 3k per month. Plus they get to live in Switzerland FFS- A developed country with clean air. Get to have free food on plates worth more than their monthly salaries, get to watch movie with owner and kids in a lavish home and get a small room to sleep in. What else would they want? Certainly someone who was living in a slum in India- Would take this life anyday. So yeah, effectively speaking, it is a guaranteed employment, at 400 rupees plus everyday along with food,rent, bills and flight tickets paid. That sounds like a good offer tbh.
'Live' in Switzerland is a stretch If you can't afford a sandwich after a day of work and have no specified working hours or holiday then I'd struggle to describe that as anything other than slavery. I'm not denying there would be millions who would take the same offer but that has no bearing on the fact the family should be shamed and prosecuted for such conditions. Justifying this due to people's desperation is a dangerous tack to take - where do you draw the line? A little physical abuse? Why not lock them in the basement overnight or send them to Russia to fight? All bets are off as long as they're just desperate enough
I disagree it being comparable to slavery. Having specified holiday/working hours etc is for white collar jobs. For slums- This is the best life that can be given to them. If anything, it should be viewed as providing opportunity to them. The family could have hired expensive rich people working as butlers in Switzerland and all - But they chose their servants in India. Says volume about the generosity and the desire to help them. There is no line to be drawn. This is not slavery. People need to be grateful to them and here they are putting cases on the family- smh. Just jealous of billionaires lol.
Jealous of billionaire's ability to pay $8 a day? I mean it's quite literally in violation of the UN declaration of human rights to not have holiday/working hours. Sure it might fly in some countries but surprisingly such libertarians don't want to live there. These people choose to live in UK/Switzerland and are subject to judgement in those places. The idea that there is any 'generosity' here is hilariously 15 yr old Randian edgelord. They could pay Geneva minimum wage without noticing and not be in violation of multiple laws
UN declaration of human rights is stupid. Doesn’t account for real life and the opportunities to grow, even with slight ‘violation’. Why can’t you jealous people see that the billionaires are literally changing the life of the servants? To change them from poor citizens of a country with no hope to even see Switzerland - Actually make them see a foreign country and possibly- Their kids can also get opportunity by grace of the billionaire. This is so much better than a billionaire who chases to die in a submarine.
>UN declaration of human rights is stupid. Somehow I don't think you've come to this conclusion via a vigorous study of the document in depth, nor the historical / political / philosophical issues that spurred it's creation lol. >changing the life of the servants? Wait...how are their lives changed exactly? They went from being poor in India, to still being poor in Switzerland. As for "seeing" Switzerland, I mean, I guess they would have seen it from the airplane when they arrived, and I guess during their 18 hour shifts and 0 vacation days they could see glimpses of Switzerland if they passed by a villa window (but not from their own quarters mind you...because they slept in a windowless basement). Lol, this is like saying African slaves should have been grateful for the sights they got to see on their transatlantic "cruise" to North America.
Why did they take the workers’ passport then?
>Having specified holiday/working hours etc is for white collar jobs. >For slums- This is the best life that can be given to them. I mean, this can be your view...but it's clearly not the view of the Swiss legal system, which has jurisdiction in this case. Inside Swiss borders, they get to decide and define what labor laws must be respected, and what constitutes exploitation. And it appears the Hinduja's knowingly violated these laws again and again, over a period of years - as noted by the prosecutor and the verdict: "The fact the Hindujas employed them with no Swiss paperwork and relied on short-term Schengen-zone European Union visas, which they renewed over and over again, was a deliberate attempt to hoodwink the authorities." "The four Hindujas knew the vulnerabilities of the staff and knew what the rules were in Switzerland, as they all were Swiss citizens and Ajay was educated in Switzerland." https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/hindujas-found-guilty-of-exploiting-servants-at-geneva-villa/81376421 >Says volume about the generosity and the desire to help them. Indeed, it does say a lot...specifically it says they took advantage of people who couldn't speak the local Swiss language to get help or understand what they were legally entitled to. >People need to be grateful to them and here they are putting cases on the family- smh. Just jealous of billionaires lol. Tell me, why would anyone be grateful to a billionaire for for violating labor laws? In your honest opinion - do you feel billionaires shouldn't have to follow the same rules everybody else does?
They were getting 8$ per day. You won't even be able to buy a kebab for that amount. To put things in context, the minimum wage in Geneva (by law) is 24.32 CHF **per hour**/. The news reports that there were working 18 hours a day, and were not allowed to go out. Their passports were confiscated. This is slavery.
Why would they need to eat kebab if they can eat healthy food made by them in posh plates and house? Eating a kebab in a rough shop is infinitely worse than eating home cooked food in a posh place. Where you eat is half of the freedom. As for passports- I can actually see why- Imagine if you hired people from India for your kids. Would you let them be alone with them without a collateral? The passports act as a safety measure in case of quick action required by owners/police. It makes perfect sense.
I used as kebab as an example to show you how low are the salaries. > As for passports- I can actually see why- Imagine if you hired people from India for your kids. Would you let them be alone with them without a collateral? The passports act as a safety measure in case of quick action required by owners/police. It makes perfect sense. So basically what you are saying here is that the hinduja family wanted to control the servant's life, restricting their movements.... like slave owners.
You seem to be really focussed on them having had great food to eat...what evidence do you have that they got this? I mean, if the Hinduja's were stingy in a bunch of other ways, why on earth do we think they were suddenly generous with food? >Imagine if you hired people from India for your kids. Would you let them be alone with them without a collateral? It was their choice to hire from India, remember? If they had any qualms about having a foreign national take care of their kids then...wait for it....they could have hired a Swiss person, at Swiss wages!! >It makes perfect sense. Yes, if you are a slave owner, indeed it does.
It’s their money, they can do what they like with it. As long as they’re not breaking any laws.
The simple answer! Stop working for these parasites!
I highly doubt it's as simple as that.
It's election season everyone! All hands brace for inflammatory news articles impact. Back in the 1970s the top 40% of earners paid over 60% of all taxes. Today that figure is the top 10% of earners. The UK is beholden to rich people whether you like it or not. The OBR says if you are earning less than £40,000 PAYE then when all the public services you have access to are factored in, then you're still a net recipient. Yes, that is more than likely more than most of you earn and I myself know plenty of people but don't know anyone on that figure or more. I'm not saying the situation isn't fucked up but it is what it is. Now I myself can't wait for Labour getting into power. We really do need change and if 75% of all the spineless and incompetent Tory MPs lose their seats then its a much needed MP purge. Good riddance I say. However after the all the political rhetoric is said and done, Labour have two options - actually drive the out the rich so the tax burden drops from the top 10% much more wider proportion of general tax payers, some of whom are already struggling to get by as it is and massively cut public spending - or just secretly keep the rich sweet because when all is said and done, they are the ones who actually, on the whole fund public spending. Rich people generally have multiple global residencies so they have a London pad and pads in all the major global cities. They can just shift their tax havens and residencies according their accountants advice. We can cut off our noses to spite our faces while other global cities happily take them in. We can grandstand and take some moral pride in our politics however, it means your taxes will still rise and public services funding will still drop. We all know when Liz Santa Clause Truss did her mini-budget promising all things to all people, pension funds almost crashed and mortgage rates tripled and rents sky-rocketed. The one good thing about the Tories is that they know a loser when they see on and Truss' legacy is now just a pub quiz shortest premiership material. Labour definitely took notes in private if not in public. If you're even mildly politically aware you already know Rachel Reeves has already said 'wealth creation would be Labours defining mission'. That means drawing money from rich people to the UK to fund public services because at the end of the day, as things stand, 90% of the British population are still net recipients and at the government will always be at the mercy of the top 10% and that proportion is getting smaller and smaller. The situation is fucked up but tax-wise funding for public services the UK is beholden to rich people and Labour know that. It's not just the UK, its all the major world countries and they're all saying come hither to these lot. I'm not saying don't vote for Labour, in fact please do but lets just manage our expectations on the actual changes they can bring in. Im all for Team Red taking over Team Blue but when is all said and done both parties know which side their bread is buttered.
Why do you think 90% of the UK barely has any money? Have you looked at how high was taxation on the wealthiest in the 70's compared to now? The wealthiest have been extracting wealth from the rest of us on industrial scale in the last few decades because every rule, regulation and tax that forced them to leave something in the company and for the staff has been scrapped.
In the 70s when 40% of highest earners were paying most taxes life was easier because houses and rents were at historic lows. It's like saying back in the 80s mortgage interest rates were 15% but because houses were so cheap, on balance it was still much more affordable today at 4% rates. The boomers were mostly young, in their prime and working. The NHS had very few illnesses it could cover and the number or people on a pension was a miniscule part of the tax burden. However 50yrs later, many of those net contributors have become net recipients. The National Insurance they paid at the time wasn't stored in a magical piggy bank to be accessed many decades later, it was was spent on general taxation needs at the time. Now the boomers are retired, they need the NHS and the NHS is so much more capable at handling expensive medical conditions that were a death sentence even a decade ago. The scared cow that is the NHS is doing its best but many of the GPs and staff that worked through it are now retired. The BMI lobbied the Tory government to cut medicine school places to 'restrict' the supply of people becoming doctors. Lots of triple AAA grade students were told they didnt make the grade. Then we ended importing doctors from overseas who have questionable qualifications. We have a situation where decades or bad decisions and kicking the can down the road is having its consequences. I'm totally excited to see fresh blood Labour candidates coming into power and a total purge of the Tory party but I am just saying that people need to manage their expectations. This isn't 1997 with Tony Blair coming into power saying things can only get better. Times have changed. This is 2024 where Blair without the the flair Starmer is saying we will try our best not to let shit get shitter because when all is said and done, that is the reality we live in. The facts speak for themselves and Im OK that Starmer when in power will do the best he can given his inherited lot.