|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2019 23:57:08 GMT
It's almost like she could give back a lot more whilst still earning billions. How many 'Billions' do you think she should give away? A Stoke girl starts a company from nearly nothing in a portacabin and then provides jobs for hundreds of people in Stoke on Trent who are paid a decent wage, who then keeps the company within the UK (unlike other major UK gambling companies) and pays millions in taxes to support the less fortunate in society and then also contributes millions to charity. She's a credit to the City. No point me answering, you've made up your mind.
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Dec 20, 2019 1:09:45 GMT
she'd perhaps be a little less well off IF her company hadn't have banned ME after I won 6 consecutive bets with them!
|
|
|
Post by clarkeda on Dec 20, 2019 8:27:17 GMT
So what is the answer? When a company reaches a limit of say £1,000,000 profit should they be forced to stop trading? Apparently the billionaires of this world can solve the world food shortages at a stroke. But what about the leaders of some of these famine stricken nations? The very reason for the famine in their countries, is their own thievery. So you ask the billionaires to subsidise these corrupt leaders. and make them richer?
I don't know. But I refuse to laud a woman for giving a measly fraction of her billions to charity and paying her taxes legally. I don't think billionaires should exist until we solve the bottom end of society. Solving the bottom end of society won’t happen, some people can’t/ won’t be helped. Say you wave a magic want and everything is sorted, but the person who you just saved from homelessness still doesn’t have a job and can’t/won’t pay rent. What happens then? Your idea in principle is great, but in reality won’t work because as the adage goes ‘nothing as unreliable as people’.
|
|
|
Post by fazza90 on Dec 20, 2019 8:54:19 GMT
Can't blame her for being the best in an unfair system and as many have already said, she choses to keep her company in our city & chooses to pay all the tax which many many billionairs & corporations choose not to, they choose to go offshore. Well done Denise for that.
|
|
|
Post by onefatcopper on Dec 20, 2019 12:21:39 GMT
Sure thing. Money magics out of nowhere because of people like Coates. She takes money from customers. So what is the answer?
When a company reaches a limit of say £1,000,000 profit should they be forced to stop trading? Apparently the billionaires of this world can solve the world food shortages at a stroke. But what about the leaders of some of these famine stricken nations? The very reason for the famine in their countries, is their own thievery. So you ask the billionaires to subsidise these corrupt leaders. and make them richer?
The vast majority of famine in third world countries is caused by overpopulation, and a common denominator is the Catholic Church and it’s stance on contraception !
|
|
|
Post by nott1 on Dec 20, 2019 15:03:13 GMT
she'd perhaps be a little less well off IF her company hadn't have banned ME after I won 6 consecutive bets with them! If that's the only reason for banning you it's immoral and should be illegal!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2019 15:29:54 GMT
I don't know. But I refuse to laud a woman for giving a measly fraction of her billions to charity and paying her taxes legally. I don't think billionaires should exist until we solve the bottom end of society. Solving the bottom end of society won’t happen, some people can’t/ won’t be helped. Say you wave a magic want and everything is sorted, but the person who you just saved from homelessness still doesn’t have a job and can’t/won’t pay rent. What happens then? Your idea in principle is great, but in reality won’t work because as the adage goes ‘nothing as unreliable as people’. Ah may as well not bother then. If we can't completely, 100% solve it, then why bother trying at all. I'm sure *some* people can't be helped. But many homeless and in poverty simply need a leg up to get on their way. Read the book 'Utopia for Realists', the section on charity is fantastic, in particular a section on trials done for homeless in London. A few homeless in London were given lump sums of a few thousand pounds, and within 12 months, all were either renting and working or in rehab. Their first purchases were not the drugs/alcohol you'd expect, but things like hearing aids, glasses, new shoes etc. Also worked in Africa, a charity (can't remember the name) simply chooses people over there and gives them a few hundred pounds. They almost all began entrepreneurial businesses, one bought a moped and tripled his weekly wages ferrying people across town. This would be much easier if 1% of the world's people didn't own offer 45% of the planet's wealth.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2019 15:36:07 GMT
So what is the answer? When a company reaches a limit of say £1,000,000 profit should they be forced to stop trading? Apparently the billionaires of this world can solve the world food shortages at a stroke. But what about the leaders of some of these famine stricken nations? The very reason for the famine in their countries, is their own thievery. So you ask the billionaires to subsidise these corrupt leaders. and make them richer?
The vast majority of famine in third world countries is caused by overpopulation, and a common denominator is the Catholic Church and it’s stance on contraception ! That is just utter, utter rubbish. Developing countries have high birth rates, but they do not have overpopulation. There is plenty to go around. 'Over the last 20 years, world food production has risen steadily at over 2% a year, while the rate of global population growth has dropped to 1.14% a year. Population is not outstripping food supply. People are too poor to buy the food that is available. “We’re seeing more people hungry and at greater numbers than before,” said World Hunger Program’s executive director Josette Sheeran. “There is food on the shelves but people are priced out of the market.”
|
|
|
Post by scfc75 on Dec 20, 2019 15:51:26 GMT
I don't know. But I refuse to laud a woman for giving a measly fraction of her billions to charity and paying her taxes legally. I don't think billionaires should exist until we solve the bottom end of society. Solving the bottom end of society won’t happen, some people can’t/ won’t be helped. Say you wave a magic want and everything is sorted, but the person who you just saved from homelessness still doesn’t have a job and can’t/won’t pay rent. What happens then? Your idea in principle is great, but in reality won’t work because as the adage goes ‘nothing as unreliable as people’. There is a misconception in certain circles that poor people are poor, because rich people are rich. It just isn’t true. Whilst we can all do our part (it isn’t exclusively down to the so called ‘rich’ to do so), sadly there will never be a true end to poverty because money isn’t the only variable in a very complex and long standing problem.
|
|
|
Post by clarkeda on Dec 20, 2019 17:04:26 GMT
Solving the bottom end of society won’t happen, some people can’t/ won’t be helped. Say you wave a magic want and everything is sorted, but the person who you just saved from homelessness still doesn’t have a job and can’t/won’t pay rent. What happens then? Your idea in principle is great, but in reality won’t work because as the adage goes ‘nothing as unreliable as people’. There is a misconception in certain circles that poor people are poor, because rich people are rich. It just isn’t true. Whilst we can all do our part (it isn’t exclusively down to the so called ‘rich’ to do so), sadly there will never be a true end to poverty because money isn’t the only variable in a very complex and long standing problem. I agree, I was just playing devil’s advocate. Something needs to be done, what that ‘something’ is I have no idea.
|
|
|
Post by Miles Offside on Dec 20, 2019 18:25:27 GMT
I believe that any Society that rewards someone who owns a betting company about 10,000 times more than a surgeon or doctor is pretty fucked up. And people who somehow think it's OK are either very dim or mentally ill "Society" didn't reward her! She built a business, employed, 4000 local people, paid corporation tax and well over 100 million in personal taxes. Unfortunately she isn't a doctor or a surgeon but her existence doesn't mean that there are less doctors or surgeons. The only correlation made is the salary but the tax paid is the same. If she retired tomorrow there wouldn't be more doctors or surgeons so I have to question who is dim or mentally ill. Some sense, at last. I doubt any of her critics could achieve what she has.
|
|