Richard Branson Space Flight

[smurfchops]

He aims to be in suborbital space for four minutes. This will cost approx £434 million. I know it is his money and he can do what he likes with it but I can’t help feeling how this sort of money would pay for new hospitals, new prisons, etc in this country and so much more instead of an idiotic flight which will achieve nothing. What a plonker.

[Hopkirk]

Ah, it makes sense now.

Cheap publicity.

They are selling shares now in Virgin Galactic.

[andy-hughes]

smurfchops - // I know it is his money and he can do what he likes with it but I can’t help feeling how this sort of money would pay for new hospitals, new prisons, etc in this country and so much more instead of an idiotic flight which will achieve nothing. What a plonker. //

Your view is a popular one, and it always surfaces when someone with serious amounts of money chooses to spend it ways that some of us feel is inappropriate.

In answer, I would ask you this question -

At what point do you consider someone wealthy enough that they should be copelled to spend their own money which they have earned through their own efforts, on things that are the government's responsibility to provide, through the taxatation system?

It it if you own you own house? Should you be made to sell it, and rent somewhere, and give the money to homelss people?

If you have a car, should you be made to sell it and use public transport, and put the money towards an ambulance?

Then it gets more tricky doesn't it?

If it's not down to individuals like you and me to give up what we have earned, then why is it up to Sir Richard, simply because his skills and endevours have netted him more money that ours have for us?

When you look at it like that, you can see that he has every right to spend his money as he sees fit - the same as we do.

[pixie374]

He does- we all do. But nce you have more than enough money for yourself, your children, family, grandchildren to live on for the rest of their lives without a change in lifestyle- hopefully, most people would see that as enough. It's obviously taxation that needs to change.

[andy-hughes]

pixie - // He does- we all do. But nce you have more than enough money for yourself, your children, family, grandchildren to live on for the rest of their lives without a change in lifestyle- hopefully, most people would see that as enough. It's obviously taxation that needs to change. //

I see your point - but my argument would be, if you can afford somewhere to live, and access to a computer, and by definition, that is everyone on this site, then we are all in a position to give away a proportion of what we have to others - but we don't, and yet some of us think that wealthy people should.

I belive my point is sound - who decides when 'enough' is 'enough' so that you become morally bound to give the rest of your money away?

[pixie374]

I suspect most people give away a proportion of what they have- and percentage wise, maybe far higher than Branson.
I'm all for earning money and people getting rich working hard or smart... the last thing you want to do is remove inventive or motivation.... but, even i have a limit. We obviously need a much higher tax band for much higher earners. Even giving away to charity, is a choice of the individual- and yet, so many people have nothing. There must be some limit, surely, to what any one family can ever spend?

[andy-hughes]

pixie - // There must be some limit, surely, to what any one family can ever spend? //

I remember Stephen King talking about his wealth, which is multi-millionaire level, and he said that although it was a lot now, when it had been passed down to his children and grandchildren, and down again to their children and grandchildren, it would eventually be spent.

I guess if you look at it like that, he has a point, and he is maybe thinking - I want my family and their families to have the proceeds of my skills, and it's hard to argue with that.

I absolutely understand your generous nature, but sadly I feel it is not shared by the vast majority of humanity, however much or little they may have.

[pixie374]

Other adults can earn their own though. It isn't about rich people- these are different levels.... billionnaires. At the moment, I believe our highest tax band is 45%. Massive to most people- but even 80% tax on a billion, still leaves, what £200 million? I'm sure someone will correct my maths...

[pixie374]

£200,000,000,000.

[jno]

that's £200 billion.

If that's all I have left after the taxman's helped himself, I'll have to economise.

[pixie374]

Well, please do, jno :-). Believe me, I'm far from a socialist- but there is a difference between earnings and sheer greed.

[Hopkirk]

Higher tax bands wouldn't affect Mr Branson. He is a tax exile.

[johnny.5]

"This will cost approx £434 million. I know it is his money and he can do what he likes with it"

so he is spending his money , giving it to people for services ?
making them people richer , who then spend some of their new found wealth making more people richer, who then spend their new found etc. etc ad infinitum
rather than just leaving his money in his bank account just making him and his bank more and more money ?
what is he supposed to do ?

[davebro]

Maybe we should consider where the £434 million has gone? Branson didn't do this by himself - his company has employed many people on good salaries working towards this end. They will have paid tax and distributed their wealth among the wider economy. Isn't that a good thing?