Oil Multimillionaire - cancer - NHS giving

[Paul Waine]

Article in Times Magazine (Saturday):

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ian- ... e8e80762a0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hoping the share - link works.

In short: - Very wealthy oil trader - throat cancer (4 times) - giving millions to NHS so that many others can benefit from proton beam therapy which got rid of his cancer on the 4th occasion (he had to go to Switzerland for his treatment). He's also a Tory donor - having previously been founder member of SDP - believes in climate change and lots, and lots of other stuff - and a remain supporter.

I'm sure one or two will find it interesting - maybe even informative.

[Steve1956]

What's being a remain supporter got to do with it?

[Hipper]

I'd say this story, and the general idea of philanthropy of the rich, is proof that there needs to be higher taxes for the ultra wealthy so that our elected representatives can spend the money on things we deem important. The health and well being of all of us should not be at the whim of a few kindly rich people.

[CoolClaret]

I'd say this story, and the general idea of philanthropy of the rich, is proof that there needs to be higher taxes for the ultra wealthy so that our elected representatives can spend the money on things we deem important. The health and well being of all of us should not be at the whim of a few kindly rich people.

Do you think you'd even have these level of riches if there was a super high tax rate? Is 45% over 150K not good enough?
Also, what makes you think that thr government will spend it efficiently? There's hardly evidence to say that they will...

The philanthropy of say Bill Gates is unprecedented, that wouldn't have happened if he was taxed 80% or something daft... A few more bombs would have probably been made no doubt.

[gtclaret]

There is no need to increase the rate of tax for the super rich, just make sure they pay taxes. If we had a standard rate of 25% including NI which would mean a tax cut for all, But closed tax loopholes and made sure everyone pays, there would be enough money to pay for the needs of the people and reduce the £1.8trn debt we have

[Hipper]

Of course there is a need to increase the collection of tax from the ultra rich. It's just plain immoral that someone (even someone who has earned there pile by his own talents - Elton John for example) should have so much when others have little, or suffer because of state shortage of funds.

How it's done is perhaps more difficult but the principle is correct.

As for the state spending it wisely, I'd prefer the choices of our government then some business man who may or most likely may not do anything for the rest of us - except throw us a few crumbs now and then.

[No Ney Never]

Of course there is a need to increase the collection of tax from the ultra rich. It's just plain immoral that someone (even someone who has earned there pile by his own talents - Elton John for example) should have so much when others have little, or suffer because of state shortage of funds.

How it's done is perhaps more difficult but the principle is correct.

As for the state spending it wisely, I'd prefer the choices of our government then some business man who may or most likely may not do anything for the rest of us - except throw us a few crumbs now and then.

I don't agree. I'm just a 'normal' working man, but why should someone be taxed at a higher percentage than everyone else just because they earn more?
25% of 100,00 plus grand is more tax paid than 25% of 20,000. All this 40% above a certain threshold is taking the p1ss in my opinion. Why should someone subsidise your lifestyle? Are you happy to subside the lifestyle of those on the dole who pay f#ckall? It's the same thing.
What's the point in being financially successful if you have it all taken away in tax?

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Of course there is a need to increase the collection of tax from the ultra rich. It's just plain immoral that someone (even someone who has earned there pile by his own talents - Elton John for example) should have so much when others have little, or suffer because of state shortage of funds.

How it's done is perhaps more difficult but the principle is correct.

As for the state spending it wisely, I'd prefer the choices of our government then some business man who may or most likely may not do anything for the rest of us - except throw us a few crumbs now and then.

Taxing more isn't the answer, ensuring it's paid/collected is the real issue.
Massive corporations moving claiming their head offices are in places like Luxembourg etc and that they make very little money in other countries is utter rubbish.

If we had better tax laws, then we wouldn't need to keep upping the taxes of individuals.

[Paul Waine]

Of course there is a need to increase the collection of tax from the ultra rich. It's just plain immoral that someone (even someone who has earned there pile by his own talents - Elton John for example) should have so much when others have little, or suffer because of state shortage of funds.

How it's done is perhaps more difficult but the principle is correct.

As for the state spending it wisely, I'd prefer the choices of our government then some business man who may or most likely may not do anything for the rest of us - except throw us a few crumbs now and then.

Hi Hipper, all this guy is doing is putting at least £16 million to fund proton beam therapy at Christies in Manchester - and probably cancer treatment centres in London and Birmingham. For whatever reason, the government and the NHS has not set themselves up to provide this treatment - even though it's available in many European cancer centres.

Does it make a difference if you earn your money from music, sport of business?

[Hipper]

I'm not criticising this individual. What he's doing is pretty noble. My point is why is it necessary in the first place? The implication in the article is partly that NHS lack of funds mean we have not got this proton beam facility in the UK. Hence if more taxes were raised this noble act would not be necessary. Nor am I differentiating how individuals arrive at their wealth, including inheritance.

My starting point is morality.

We have on the whole thrown off the yokes of religion and servitude, but now we are penalised by lack of money. Money equates to effort, talent.... and luck. I'm not denying that effort and to some extent talent should not be rewarded, but within reason. If someone has billions and someone else nothing there's something wrong, and it's not necessarily with that someone who has nothing.