Russell Brand v The Sun

Author
Discussion

Du1point8

21,604 posts

191 months

Thursday 18th December 2014
quotequote all
tangerine_sedge said:
Du1point8 said:
tangerine_sedge said:
But, ignoring all the peripheral arguments, doesn't he have a very good point?

The financial system(*) (through greed, rule breaking and weak governance) caused the financial meltdown, but have gotten away pretty much scot-free, whilst everyone else pays for it? Besides universal hatred, they've still got their fat pensions, bonuses and country houses whilst the weakest in society get squeezed.

(*) I'm aware that 99% of people who work in the financial arena are not at fault, but bad controls and practices instigated by the other 1% is what lead to this.
The people that caused this are not the high end bonus people in their country houses you think they are.

It was the retail arm of the banks that gave out mortgages like sweets to people who couldn't pay (fraudulent falsified pay) and forced to by the government.

This over exposure to those toxic debts/buying of bad banks under government advice in the UK cause the bail outs to most of the retail banks with no investment departments (RBS aside but they are not really active traders).

Yet its those hedge funds and traders that are being persecuted as people like yourself dont want to know and assume all bankers are the same.

How about reading up on the causes and making your own mind up instead of blaming 'bankers' with the same blanket statements of they are all the same?
I said "financial systems", not investment bankers. Some people, somewhere in the "financial system" made some bad(*) choices, yet others are expected to pay for it (including the tarred with the same brush investment types)?

(*) bad for other people, good for them, as they seem to have made money and got away with it.
Again no....

Those people that caused it only have bonuses in hundreds to low thousands, the people did not get away with it and are no longer in banking... Everyone just sees the traders/hedge fund bonuses and thinks that its ok to tax them, not the people that got away with it as they don't work there anymore.

Its just spin gone wild and yet again the city is the cash cow for all the UK problems from here on out, when ever they need a few hundred million to piss up a wall.

If they actually went after the people that caused it, I doubt they would get more than a few million, if that.

Du1point8

21,604 posts

191 months

Thursday 18th December 2014
quotequote all
The Don of Croy said:
For the real meat in the financial meltdown story you need to look at the USA record on lending to bad risk mortgagees and the role played by enthusiasts for 'equality' at any price...the community organisers that applied political pressure to get the gubbermint to force lenders to lend...it all ends in tears (and more money chasing bad loans).

It isn't the full sorry tale, but it did have a mighty big effect.
Wasn't going to bring the US into it as Joe public has a hard enough time thinking that the banks were fined if they did not meet quoters for lending to the public under everyone has a right to own their own home... Fines set by the UK government, not as harsh as the US ones under the same scheme, but bad enough.

Mark Benson

7,498 posts

268 months

Thursday 18th December 2014
quotequote all
hornet said:
turbobloke said:
Either way, given his rants on 'bankers' and tax avoidance, was it OK for RB to finance his moviemaking with £1m raised from a group of City-based investors who will benefit from EIS tax avoidance?

Or is that the H word?
I do wonder how much revenue his YouTube channel generates (for him and Google) and how that squares with his views on tax avoidance? If he wants change, why not support an alternative open source platform?
Stats here: http://www.statsheep.com/russellbrand

I have no idea if they're accurate, but even the lower estimate gets him enough to pay the rent on his London flat....

KareemK

1,110 posts

118 months

Thursday 18th December 2014
quotequote all
hornet said:
turbobloke said:
Either way, given his rants on 'bankers' and tax avoidance, was it OK for RB to finance his moviemaking with £1m raised from a group of City-based investors who will benefit from EIS tax avoidance?

Or is that the H word?
I do wonder how much revenue his YouTube channel generates (for him and Google) and how that squares with his views on tax avoidance? If he wants change, why not support an alternative open source platform?
I'm sorry, does he have a problem with self-generated (earned) wealth?

Oakey

27,524 posts

215 months

Thursday 18th December 2014
quotequote all
KareemK said:
I'm sorry, does he have a problem with self-generated (earned) wealth?
I think the point is him earning money through Google, you know, one of those mega corporations accused of tax avoidance.

bodhi

10,334 posts

228 months

Thursday 18th December 2014
quotequote all
Oakey said:
I think the point is him earning money through Google, you know, one of those mega corporations accused of tax avoidance.
Most of his works, including his latest book slating the tax avoiding corporates, are also available on Amazon.

hornet

6,333 posts

249 months

Thursday 18th December 2014
quotequote all
Oakey said:
KareemK said:
I'm sorry, does he have a problem with self-generated (earned) wealth?
I think the point is him earning money through Google, you know, one of those mega corporations accused of tax avoidance.
I'm glad somebody understood. Didn't think it was that obscure a point?

For all that he is earning revenue through his YouTube channel, at the same time he is earning revenue for Google, who are in turn channeling that revenue into low tax regimes through clever corporate structuring. That activity is one of the "aggressive capitalism" issues Brand has been vocal about, so I was just wondering how he has reconciled the two positions?

Were Google to meet demands (including Brand's) to pay their "fair share" of tax in the UK, his YouTube revenues would decrease by virtue of Google having a smaller post-tax pot to distribute. In theory, it should be possible to calculate the difference between current "tax avoided" revenues and ideal "fair share" revenues. As a "fair share" campaigner, Brand could make the gesture of offering this difference to HMRC as the amount he believes they have been denied, but I somehow doubt he is. He's demanding revolution whilst contributing to and benefitting from the very system he is demanding we replace.


KareemK

1,110 posts

118 months

Thursday 18th December 2014
quotequote all
hornet said:
Oakey said:
KareemK said:
I'm sorry, does he have a problem with self-generated (earned) wealth?
I think the point is him earning money through Google, you know, one of those mega corporations accused of tax avoidance.
I'm glad somebody understood. Didn't think it was that obscure a point?

For all that he is earning revenue through his YouTube channel, at the same time he is earning revenue for Google, who are in turn channeling that revenue into low tax regimes through clever corporate structuring. That activity is one of the "aggressive capitalism" issues Brand has been vocal about, so I was just wondering how he has reconciled the two positions?

Were Google to meet demands (including Brand's) to pay their "fair share" of tax in the UK, his YouTube revenues would decrease by virtue of Google having a smaller post-tax pot to distribute. In theory, it should be possible to calculate the difference between current "tax avoided" revenues and ideal "fair share" revenues. As a "fair share" campaigner, Brand could make the gesture of offering this difference to HMRC as the amount he believes they have been denied, but I somehow doubt he is. He's demanding revolution whilst contributing to and benefitting from the very system he is demanding we replace.
Somebody understood but its not you.

Should he also not buy his food at Tesco who, after all, have reported some very dubious numbers in their accounts?

You could expand that point out to cover a thousand similar arguments.

You could even flip it on its head:

If you do shop at Tesco or use google then clearly by your definition you're standing up for/promoting Tax Avoidance.

It's a nonsense argument.

What really matters is if you yourself are partaking in shady practices, got any evidence on that and you *MIGHT* have a point.

waterwonder

995 posts

175 months

Thursday 18th December 2014
quotequote all
KareemK said:
Somebody understood but its not you.

Should he also not buy his food at Tesco who, after all, have reported some very dubious numbers in their accounts?

You could expand that point out to cover a thousand similar arguments.

You could even flip it on its head:

If you do shop at Tesco or use google then clearly by your definition you're standing up for/promoting Tax Avoidance.

It's a nonsense argument.

What really matters is if you yourself are partaking in shady practices, got any evidence on that and you *MIGHT* have a point.
Ah I get it now. It is ok to benefit from "shady practices" as long as you're one step removed from the action.

fk me!

turbobloke

103,748 posts

259 months

Thursday 18th December 2014
quotequote all
KareemK said:
hornet said:
Oakey said:
KareemK said:
I'm sorry, does he have a problem with self-generated (earned) wealth?
I think the point is him earning money through Google, you know, one of those mega corporations accused of tax avoidance.
I'm glad somebody understood. Didn't think it was that obscure a point?

For all that he is earning revenue through his YouTube channel, at the same time he is earning revenue for Google, who are in turn channeling that revenue into low tax regimes through clever corporate structuring. That activity is one of the "aggressive capitalism" issues Brand has been vocal about, so I was just wondering how he has reconciled the two positions?

Were Google to meet demands (including Brand's) to pay their "fair share" of tax in the UK, his YouTube revenues would decrease by virtue of Google having a smaller post-tax pot to distribute. In theory, it should be possible to calculate the difference between current "tax avoided" revenues and ideal "fair share" revenues. As a "fair share" campaigner, Brand could make the gesture of offering this difference to HMRC as the amount he believes they have been denied, but I somehow doubt he is. He's demanding revolution whilst contributing to and benefitting from the very system he is demanding we replace.
Somebody understood but its not you.

Should he also not buy his food at Tesco who, after all, have reported some very dubious numbers in their accounts?
Was it a tax avoidance strategy?

KareemK said:
You could expand that point out to cover a thousand similar arguments.
Not so, only those where Brand has been vocal in criticising some aspect of the operation, otherwise the H word wouldn't apply.

KareemK said:
You could even flip it on its head:

If you do shop at Tesco or use google then clearly by your definition you're standing up for/promoting Tax Avoidance.
The H word would only apply if such a person was on YouTube and TV interviews and in all the papers hammering on about it. That's the implication of the H word. If people aren't vocally condemning Google and Amazon (etc) operations in terms of tax avoidance then the H word doesn't apply.

KareemK said:
It's a nonsense argument.
You're the one offering it.

Others are indicating what looks suspiciously like hypocrisy by sticking to the issues that Brand criticises yet apparently fails to exclude from the way he does business.



Oakey

27,524 posts

215 months

Thursday 18th December 2014
quotequote all
KareemK said:
Somebody understood but its not you.

Should he also not buy his food at Tesco who, after all, have reported some very dubious numbers in their accounts?

You could expand that point out to cover a thousand similar arguments.

You could even flip it on its head:

If you do shop at Tesco or use google then clearly by your definition you're standing up for/promoting Tax Avoidance.

It's a nonsense argument.

What really matters is if you yourself are partaking in shady practices, got any evidence on that and you *MIGHT* have a point.
Well done, maybe you're finally getting it. Those speaking against Brand most likely don't give a st about the practises of Google and Amazon and the like, hence why they're happy to keep using them. If they were being vocal against those companies whilst using them you'd have a point.

Randy Winkman

16,021 posts

188 months

Thursday 18th December 2014
quotequote all
Some people would't be happy unless he lived in a cave and only ate flies. He lives in the real world though, doesn't he?

allergictocheese

1,290 posts

112 months

Thursday 18th December 2014
quotequote all
Randy Winkman said:
Some people would't be happy unless he lived in a cave and only ate flies. He lives in the real world though, doesn't he?
I thought he lived in a world where he criticises the very people who've made him high profile enough to have a profile.

If Brand wants to suggest big money is unethical, he should avoid TV, film and media work, which is generally funded by it and partakes of every tax swing in the park.

Derek Smith

45,514 posts

247 months

Thursday 18th December 2014
quotequote all
bodhi said:
So he's ignored most of the points made by Jo and gone for his standard "Hang the Bankers" rant. Can't say I'm shocked.
Jo main criticisms came under four headings. The main one, according to him, was that his food was cold. Brand has offered to buy the chap a meal to replace it. As Brand pointed out, and Jo agreed, bank staff closed the doors. Brand did not want the doors closed.

He also criticised having to pay for public service broadcasting. I'm not sure that's something that Brand has ever said anything about, but I accept he said nothing about it in his reply.

Thirdly, Brand stood too close to him. This was not addressed by Brand other than to apologise generally.

The fourth point that Jo raised was the cost of the bankers' behaviour. He seemed to suggest that everything evened out because the government will be able to sell off RBS at a profit. Brand's response to this was uncritical of the chap's belief but he concentrated on the fact that prosecutions of those who cost this country, and other countries, dear were noticeable by their absence.

I suppose there was a final point, raised by Jo, about Brand. He seemed upset that Brand was richer than he was. This was not picked up by Brand but from my reading - which I admit might be wrong - he had a deprived childhood but made his fortune legally and on the back of his own efforts. My personal opinion is that such people deserve more respect for their efforts than those who inherit money and influence. I sometimes think that if I had had the ability to earn that sort of money, I might have gone for it. If this puts me out of the norm, or makes me into a hypocrite, then that's me.

I'm no fan of Brand. I've enjoyed some of his performances, but he is variable, too much so for me to pay to watch him. i saw Bruce Forsythe once and I am certain that old Brucie was much better value for money than Brand would ever be, but the Essex lad has had his moments.

However, I felt the tone of his letter showed a degree of restraint and subtlety. He addressed most of the points raised by Jo, including the one that Jo suggested was the most important one to him.

TTwiggy

11,500 posts

203 months

Thursday 18th December 2014
quotequote all
Du1point8 said:
Its going to be easier to ask you this instead, as Im not getting into a long boring discussion about who defaulted, who didn't and you coming back and saying its not the victims fault they lied, still the banks, blah, blah, blah...

Simply put, do you think its fair that traders and hedge funds being penalised for some other persons screw up, by way of stealing their hard earned money under the guise of they are bankers, so its their fault?

If so why? They were not involved in retail side that effectively blew up and was the crisis.
I think you've got me pegged wrong. I have two close friends in investment banking and I understand that difference between what they do and what the retail side does. I am not a 'burn the bankers' advocate.

I only sought to address your assertion that the crisis was caused - in part - by mortgagees defaulting on their loans, as I do not believe that to be true (at least not in this country).


Randy Winkman

16,021 posts

188 months

Thursday 18th December 2014
quotequote all
TTwiggy said:
I think you've got me pegged wrong. I have two close friends in investment banking and I understand that difference between what they do and what the retail side does. I am not a 'burn the bankers' advocate.

I only sought to address your assertion that the crisis was caused - in part - by mortgagees defaulting on their loans, as I do not believe that to be true (at least not in this country).
And whether they did or didn't, it's not their role to run banks or the country.

dandarez

13,246 posts

282 months

Thursday 18th December 2014
quotequote all
bodhi said:
Oakey said:
I think the point is him earning money through Google, you know, one of those mega corporations accused of tax avoidance.
Most of his works, including his latest book slating the tax avoiding corporates, are also available on Amazon.
Exactly, and his 20 quid Revolution pot-boiler is at £6.99 already, so amazon can't be paying much more than 2 quid a copy, if that.

A remainder title from the start, it'll be in the bargain, £1, and 99p shops in the New Year.
Perhaps someone should start a 1p shop, and fill the shelves.

Ha ha.
It's the No. 1 Bestseller on Amazon ...in Performing Arts for Young Adults

TTwiggy

11,500 posts

203 months

Thursday 18th December 2014
quotequote all
Randy Winkman said:
And whether they did or didn't, it's not their role to run banks or the country.
Indeed. As I said, it's victim blaming at best.

sidicks

25,218 posts

220 months

Thursday 18th December 2014
quotequote all
TTwiggy said:
Indeed. As I said, it's victim blaming at best.
Was it the government's job to tell banks who they must lend to?

mybrainhurts

90,809 posts

254 months

Thursday 18th December 2014
quotequote all
KareemK said:
mybrainhurts said:
Oakey said:
KareemK said:
It was dire. Only the Brandophobes will applaud.
Do you give yourself a little pat on the back every time you type that?
I do believe he has a little orgasm...
As opposed to the large jizz fest that goes on over an old 80's picture of Mrs T in your house.
Recovery fail...

Whilst hero worship is anathema to me, comparing a great person to an ego-obsessed, confused, adolescent, ill mannered mind in a middle-aged body is like comparing a thoroughbred racehorse and a hyperactive gibbon.

A pointless exercise.