If I won Euromillions, would I suddenly become a 'wealth creator'?
Asking for a friend.
It would depend what you did with the money.
But if that is true, it's true of any rich person.
What if I did a Trump? Set up numerous businesses that went bankrupt, taking other people's money with them? Is that 'wealth creation'?
Wealth creators are the entrepreneurs who takes risks with their own money and provide paid employment for those who work for them. Sometimes things do go wrong.
If I won Euromillions, would I suddenly become a 'wealth creator'?
Asking for a friend.
It would depend what you did with the money.
But if that is true, it's true of any rich person.
What if I did a Trump? Set up numerous businesses that went bankrupt, taking other people's money with them? Is that 'wealth creation'?
Wealth creators are the entrepreneurs who takes risks with their own money and provide paid employment for those who work for them. Sometimes things do go wrong.
That is not entirely false. However this description only applies to small and medium enterprises. It almost never applies to millionaires or multimillionaires and it certainly doesn't apply to billionaires.
Trump is the best example as he constantly risked (and often lost) other people's money.
The people who claim to be wealth creators are almost always ones whose main skill is convincing banks and venture capital to lend them money. Whether they add any actual value to the real economy usually depends on the skills of the people who work for them.
Bamford did not invent the hydrolic system for the JCB. Musk has invented nothing in his life other than several iterations of his personal brand. Bill Gates is a complex one but the big break was buying up a smaller company and repackaging their new operating system QDOS as DOS. Apple got started of the back of technology invented by Xerox.
As I said, the term 'Wealth Creator' is mostly a myth.
Wealth creators are the entrepreneurs who takes risks with their own money and provide paid employment for those who work for them. Sometimes things do go wrong.
If they're taking a risk with their own money they probably don't have enough money spare to move abroad though do they?
While I was a child my parents started a company and there were some months in the first few years when they didn't pay themselves. (We didn't really notice as children beyond not getting as many sweets or toys as other classmates.) Even then, to be honest, it's not as if my parents were doing their employees any more of a favour than their employees were doing them. If my parents were creating any wealth it was because like the other employees they were working, not because they were risking their money.
But when people talk about "wealth creators" that's not who they really mean. They're talking about people who are much more wealthy and who are isolated from risk by limited companies, or who are managers of preexisting companies rather than starting new ones. Do you think they make profits by hiring any more workers or paying the workers they do have any more than they have to?
What they're doing by using the term is trying to convince you that venture capitalists and managers with multiple stock options are doing essentially the same sort of thing and deserve the same respect as people founding and working hard at small firms - and therefore they don't need to pay any more tax.
If I won Euromillions, would I suddenly become a 'wealth creator'?
Asking for a friend.
It would depend what you did with the money.
But if that is true, it's true of any rich person.
What if I did a Trump? Set up numerous businesses that went bankrupt, taking other people's money with them? Is that 'wealth creation'?
Wealth creators are the entrepreneurs who takes risks with their own money and provide paid employment for those who work for them. Sometimes things do go wrong.
That is not entirely false. However this description only applies to small and medium enterprises. It almost never applies to millionaires or multimillionaires and it certainly doesn't apply to billionaires.
Trump is the best example as he constantly risked (and often lost) other people's money.
The people who claim to be wealth creators are almost always ones whose main skill is convincing banks and venture capital to lend them money. Whether they add any actual value to the real economy usually depends on the skills of the people who work for them.
Bamford did not invent the hydrolic system for the JCB. Musk has invented nothing in his life other than several iterations of his personal brand. Bill Gates is a complex one but the big break was buying up a smaller company and repackaging their new operating system QDOS as DOS. Apple got started of the back of technology invented by Xerox.
As I said, the term 'Wealth Creator' is mostly a myth.
Dyson is a much more complex story.
AFZ
I do feel that you could have found a better example than JC Bamford unless you meant a narrow point about billionaire Lord Bamford.
His dad started JCB in a rented garage (lock up rather than petrol station) making hydraulic tipper trailers out of air raid shelter panels and surplus Jeep chassis. Him mucking in with the two men he employed. He did all the welding personally as he was the only one that could weld.
He started that business having been fired from his uncle’s business. Tbh it was a very low overhead business to start with, so although there was family money (his uncle - who had just fired him), the early days of JCB were not dependent on it and everyone (all three, then four, then six of them) had their sleeves rolled right up. Hard work and bloody mindedness built that business from a cottage industry to a global brand.
JCB is only on the second generation now - it’s a shining example of a small business that has boomed in post war Britain. The definition of a SME that hit the big time.
Perhaps *the* example in postwar Britain of a nothing-to-something-massive. First generation was definitely not elsewhere than the factory floor.
But neither he nor his son invented hydraulics so might as well have stayed pure in the lock up garage eh? Or is the real Bamford crime to be Tory donors?
If I won Euromillions, would I suddenly become a 'wealth creator'?
Asking for a friend.
It would depend what you did with the money.
But if that is true, it's true of any rich person.
What if I did a Trump? Set up numerous businesses that went bankrupt, taking other people's money with them? Is that 'wealth creation'?
Wealth creators are the entrepreneurs who takes risks with their own money and provide paid employment for those who work for them. Sometimes things do go wrong.
That is not entirely false. However this description only applies to small and medium enterprises. It almost never applies to millionaires or multimillionaires and it certainly doesn't apply to billionaires.
Trump is the best example as he constantly risked (and often lost) other people's money.
The people who claim to be wealth creators are almost always ones whose main skill is convincing banks and venture capital to lend them money. Whether they add any actual value to the real economy usually depends on the skills of the people who work for them.
Bamford did not invent the hydrolic system for the JCB. Musk has invented nothing in his life other than several iterations of his personal brand. Bill Gates is a complex one but the big break was buying up a smaller company and repackaging their new operating system QDOS as DOS. Apple got started of the back of technology invented by Xerox.
As I said, the term 'Wealth Creator' is mostly a myth.
Dyson is a much more complex story.
AFZ
I do feel that you could have found a better example than JC Bamford unless you meant a narrow point about billionaire Lord Bamford.
His dad started JCB in a rented garage (lock up rather than petrol station) making hydraulic tipper trailers out of air raid shelter panels and surplus Jeep chassis. Him mucking in with the two men he employed. He did all the welding personally as he was the only one that could weld.
He started that business having been fired from his uncle’s business. Tbh it was a very low overhead business to start with, so although there was family money (his uncle - who had just fired him), the early days of JCB were not dependent on it and everyone (all three, then four, then six of them) had their sleeves rolled right up. Hard work and bloody mindedness built that business from a cottage industry to a global brand.
JCB is only on the second generation now - it’s a shining example of a small business that has boomed in post war Britain. The definition of a SME that hit the big time.
Perhaps *the* example in postwar Britain of a nothing-to-something-massive. First generation was definitely not elsewhere than the factory floor.
But neither he nor his son invented hydraulics so might as well have stayed pure in the lock up garage eh? Or is the real Bamford crime to be Tory donors?
If I won Euromillions, would I suddenly become a 'wealth creator'?
Asking for a friend.
It would depend what you did with the money.
But if that is true, it's true of any rich person.
What if I did a Trump? Set up numerous businesses that went bankrupt, taking other people's money with them? Is that 'wealth creation'?
Wealth creators are the entrepreneurs who takes risks with their own money and provide paid employment for those who work for them. Sometimes things do go wrong.
That is not entirely false. However this description only applies to small and medium enterprises. It almost never applies to millionaires or multimillionaires and it certainly doesn't apply to billionaires.
AFZ
Faint praise but I'll take it. I have never had the courage or ability to be an entrepreneur but I do support the employment of my gardener, window cleaner and car mechanic.
And as such are not comparable to the super-rich we've been discussing.
It's not just a difference in kind, either.
You might have discussed the Super rich. I have been discussing entrepreneurs
Sure. But there are entrepreneurs and entrepreneurs.
The ones you've mentioned now just, your window-cleaner, gardener and car mechanic, aren't investing millions in off-shore accounts or concocting elaborate tax evasion schemes.
They might be taking cash in hand ... 😉
But they aren't relevant to this discussion as they won't be among the thousands of millionaires allegedly queueing up to flee the country as a result of Reeves and Starmer's policies.
There are plenty of things that could be said against the current Labour government but I hardly think your gardener, window-cleaner and car mechanic are about to emigrate over it.
And as such are not comparable to the super-rich we've been discussing.
It's not just a difference in kind, either.
You might have discussed the Super rich. I have been discussing entrepreneurs
That is not constructive. You are redefining the term. Ironically, as I said, you are correct in what you're saying but that's not what the term is used for. In the media, as a said "wealth creators" is a myth used to pretend that the uber wealthy are contributing far more to society than they actually are.
To be fair, it's a standard trick of the right. Defending massive tax/legal advantages for big business by pretending it's all about SMEs.
I would totally separate SME tax from corporation tax, if it was up to me. That would make it easier to have differential tax systems and would help the politics too.
I think we have agreed that being very rich does not necessarily make you a 'wealth creator.'
The problem is the term is abused in the press to mean 'rich people'.
I would also suggest that anyone who buys goods and services is, in a sense, a 'wealth creator.' As are those who create public goods, such as education and health. The problem is the right has a very narrow concept of what 'wealth creation' is and, quite frankly, sees most of us as parasites.
Ironically, many of the "wealth creators" are far more parasitical on society than public servants.
Everytime I hear on the news that Labour aren't going to raise taxes on working people I keep wondering about whether that means they'll be taxing the idle rich instead.
In the strictest sense worker create the stuff to create the wealth so they are the wealth creators
Workers do the work but they need someone to create the work.
I assume you used the same logic in your previous line of employment, and daily thanked everyone you arrested as the wealth creators they were.
I’m sure it was Liberal Party policy in 1945 or thereabouts to have massive civil service retraining schemes devised - because they expected the post war settlement would be so effective that most state employees (social workers particularly) would put themselves out of a job within their own working lifetime.
There was a quote along the lines (this was late 1940s) to civil service joiners that ‘most of you, if you’re still working here in the 1970s or early 1980s, should consider that you have failed’ - it’s in Kynaston somewhere I think
Yes but the money is made on the back of the workers. The owner may also be a worker many small business owners do.
If you have a job assembling a low-margin commodity that makes modest profits for its manufacturer, do you think this is a different job from if you assemble some expensive high-profit device?
This reminds me of my father's experience in Norfolk canvassing for Labour in the 70s.
"No, oi always vote Tory; they keep your maarsters rich, an" you got to keep your maarsters rich, otherwoise 'ow are they goin' a pay you a decent wage, boy?"
In the strictest sense worker create the stuff to create the wealth so they are the wealth creators
Workers do the work but they need someone to create the work.
I assume you used the same logic in your previous line of employment, and daily thanked everyone you arrested as the wealth creators they were.
I’m sure it was Liberal Party policy in 1945 or thereabouts to have massive civil service retraining schemes devised - because they expected the post war settlement would be so effective that most state employees (social workers particularly) would put themselves out of a job within their own working lifetime.
A large part of the problem was the settlement being dependent on various forms of inequality and then being dismantled further down the line.
Obviously that wasn't the only issue; and there's a certain naivety in assuming a perfectable human subject, but some kind of optimism of a better way is still preferable to the current TINA miserabilism.
Yes but the money is made on the back of the workers. The owner may also be a worker many small business owners do.
If you have a job assembling a low-margin commodity that makes modest profits for its manufacturer, do you think this is a different job from if you assemble some expensive high-profit device?
That depends on the skill level needed. What ever it is the money is made on the back of the workers.
Workers do the work but they need someone to create the work.
The people who create the work are called "customers".
When I worked at a hotel about 20 years ago, my boss was not a customer.
And he didn't create the work.
The work was created by the customers who paid for you and your fellow employees to provide the services. But they didn't pay you for your services; they paid your boss for your services and your boss paid you some but not all of that money.
Well yes. As @Telford put it, 'Guests paid for the service and the Boss paid me.'
Which wasn't news to me, of course but what I was trying to impress upon him was that the money came from the guests via the boss. It wasn't down to the Boss's largesse. He wasn't running a not-for-profit out of the kindness of his heart.
Sure, he'll have had to stump up money upfront to establish the hotel in the first place and I don’t doubt he worked hard and provided a reasonable service.
Workers do the work but they need someone to create the work.
The people who create the work are called "customers".
When I worked at a hotel about 20 years ago, my boss was not a customer.
And he didn't create the work.
The work was created by the customers who paid for you and your fellow employees to provide the services. But they didn't pay you for your services; they paid your boss for your services and your boss paid you some but not all of that money.
If my boss didn't buy and invest in the hotel, there would be no customers and no staff
Also, the boss (assuming owner rather than just manager) would have only put in a small amount of money to buy the hotel. The vast majority of the investment would have been from a bank, on the assumption that there would be enough paying customers to repay the loans - or that a failed business could be sold off for enough that the bank wouldn't lose to much.
Also, the boss (assuming owner rather than just manager) would have only put in a small amount of money to buy the hotel. The vast majority of the investment would have been from a bank, on the assumption that there would be enough paying customers to repay the loans - or that a failed business could be sold off for enough that the bank wouldn't lose to much.
That sounds to me like the boss is a risk taker, risking his own money
I don't feel any more or less respect for your hotel boss @Telford for probably taking advantage of the safeguards provided by the limited company system.
If he did so he was acting sensibly and with financial probity, not only on his own behalf but on that of his customers and employees.
It's all about context and circumstances. I was a sole-trader for some years. It didn't make sense for me to become a limited company and get into VAT and so on. I never employed anybody but did occasionally buy in services to help with particular projects.
My wife was working so my freelance work was not our sole source of income.
I wasn't going to remortgage my house or take out bank loans to finance something that was never going to be more than a cottage industry I could do from home interspersed with occasional projects where I worked away.
So yes, I was risk averse to that attempt. Had I established that no, this thing had more scope than I'd envisaged and had the potential to take off and become a more complex business, then I might have taken more of a risk - but it would have been a calculated risk with the kind of checks and balances @Doublethink refers to.
Heck, I've known a few entrepreneurs in my time and worked for a number of them, some highly admirable, others less so. The same as people I've worked with in the public sector.
I'm not knocking business. I'm not knocking entrepreneurs. I'm not knocking people who take risks.
There's a synergy here.
People like your boss create opportunities for employment by setting up hotels and other enterprises. People like you who work for them keep those enterprises going.
It's one of these both/and things I get called out for referring to all the time.
Indeed. It really is a both/and thing. As so much of our political/economic realm are. Flourishing private companies depend hugely on the public sector in direct and indirect ways. Profitable, productive companies create jobs, make useful products and servives and pay taxes.
Which is one of the reasons that mythical soundbites like 'wealth creators' are so unhelpful.
Of course, those who put some of their money and a lot of time and effort into a project (like, opening and running a hotel) are both investors and workers. The owners of SMEs (especially at the S end of that) aren't idle, those businesses are a success because of their hard work, and the owners may only be idle if they set up the business 40 years ago and have now retired to leave running the business to others. These people are also not usually rich in the way that the people the media calls "wealth creators" are, they may have income putting them into higher tax bands but not 7 figure sums per year and very rarely even 6 figure sums. Taxes on the very wealthy won't impact them, even a shift to Scottish tax bands will be a small impact on their net income and won't drive them out of the country.
The idle rich, the rentier classes, of parasites on society who just put small amounts of their stolen wealth into other peoples businesses, and then scrape of the wealth created by those who found those businesses and work hard at making them a success, are a different breed of capitalist scum. Those who jet around the world to attend "business leaders conventions" paid for by governments trying to get their dirty money laundered through businesses in their country so that the workers can get a few crumbs from their table, who consider a "hard days work" of a round of golf and a fancy dinner with politicians worth the £100,000+ per day salary they draw. These are the people our governments should be taxing, not accepting gifts from so that they don't have to repay the people who made the riches they're living off.
If my boss didn't buy and invest in the hotel, there would be no customers and no staff
I seriously doubt that your bosses' hotel was such a tourist attraction that it created a demand for hotel rooms where there previously wasn't a demand for hotel rooms.
If your boss hadn't met the demand someone else would have. One of the basic laws of economics is that in a free market supply rises to meet demand.
Sometimes an innovator can create a demand for something for which there was previously no demand. But most people wealthy enough to leave the country are not innovators.
On the Peoples News Channel last night it was revealed that study has calculated that the attack on 'Non Doms' could cost the country over £8 billion a year.
Will Ms Reeves be using the budget to fill this latest black hole
Does it not occur to you that something that styles itself 'The People's News Channel' must by its very nature be worthy of suspicion?
'Populist News Channel' would be more accurate.
Popular news channel would be even more accurate. I merely report these things but the findings of the study should not come as a surprise. I ask again. What is Ms Reeves going to do about it !!!
Comments
That is not entirely false. However this description only applies to small and medium enterprises. It almost never applies to millionaires or multimillionaires and it certainly doesn't apply to billionaires.
Trump is the best example as he constantly risked (and often lost) other people's money.
The people who claim to be wealth creators are almost always ones whose main skill is convincing banks and venture capital to lend them money. Whether they add any actual value to the real economy usually depends on the skills of the people who work for them.
Bamford did not invent the hydrolic system for the JCB. Musk has invented nothing in his life other than several iterations of his personal brand. Bill Gates is a complex one but the big break was buying up a smaller company and repackaging their new operating system QDOS as DOS. Apple got started of the back of technology invented by Xerox.
As I said, the term 'Wealth Creator' is mostly a myth.
Dyson is a much more complex story.
AFZ
While I was a child my parents started a company and there were some months in the first few years when they didn't pay themselves. (We didn't really notice as children beyond not getting as many sweets or toys as other classmates.) Even then, to be honest, it's not as if my parents were doing their employees any more of a favour than their employees were doing them. If my parents were creating any wealth it was because like the other employees they were working, not because they were risking their money.
But when people talk about "wealth creators" that's not who they really mean. They're talking about people who are much more wealthy and who are isolated from risk by limited companies, or who are managers of preexisting companies rather than starting new ones. Do you think they make profits by hiring any more workers or paying the workers they do have any more than they have to?
What they're doing by using the term is trying to convince you that venture capitalists and managers with multiple stock options are doing essentially the same sort of thing and deserve the same respect as people founding and working hard at small firms - and therefore they don't need to pay any more tax.
I do feel that you could have found a better example than JC Bamford unless you meant a narrow point about billionaire Lord Bamford.
His dad started JCB in a rented garage (lock up rather than petrol station) making hydraulic tipper trailers out of air raid shelter panels and surplus Jeep chassis. Him mucking in with the two men he employed. He did all the welding personally as he was the only one that could weld.
He started that business having been fired from his uncle’s business. Tbh it was a very low overhead business to start with, so although there was family money (his uncle - who had just fired him), the early days of JCB were not dependent on it and everyone (all three, then four, then six of them) had their sleeves rolled right up. Hard work and bloody mindedness built that business from a cottage industry to a global brand.
JCB is only on the second generation now - it’s a shining example of a small business that has boomed in post war Britain. The definition of a SME that hit the big time.
Perhaps *the* example in postwar Britain of a nothing-to-something-massive. First generation was definitely not elsewhere than the factory floor.
But neither he nor his son invented hydraulics so might as well have stayed pure in the lock up garage eh? Or is the real Bamford crime to be Tory donors?
I love it. Although we should eat the rich.
Faint praise but I'll take it. I have never had the courage or ability to be an entrepreneur but I do support the employment of my gardener, window cleaner and car mechanic.
That's right.
It's not just a difference in kind, either.
You might have discussed the Super rich. I have been discussing entrepreneurs
Fair enough. Bad example. I misremembered the early history. It really doesn't make the point I want to make.
Sure. But there are entrepreneurs and entrepreneurs.
The ones you've mentioned now just, your window-cleaner, gardener and car mechanic, aren't investing millions in off-shore accounts or concocting elaborate tax evasion schemes.
They might be taking cash in hand ... 😉
But they aren't relevant to this discussion as they won't be among the thousands of millionaires allegedly queueing up to flee the country as a result of Reeves and Starmer's policies.
There are plenty of things that could be said against the current Labour government but I hardly think your gardener, window-cleaner and car mechanic are about to emigrate over it.
That is not constructive. You are redefining the term. Ironically, as I said, you are correct in what you're saying but that's not what the term is used for. In the media, as a said "wealth creators" is a myth used to pretend that the uber wealthy are contributing far more to society than they actually are.
To be fair, it's a standard trick of the right. Defending massive tax/legal advantages for big business by pretending it's all about SMEs.
I would totally separate SME tax from corporation tax, if it was up to me. That would make it easier to have differential tax systems and would help the politics too.
The problem is the term is abused in the press to mean 'rich people'.
I would also suggest that anyone who buys goods and services is, in a sense, a 'wealth creator.' As are those who create public goods, such as education and health. The problem is the right has a very narrow concept of what 'wealth creation' is and, quite frankly, sees most of us as parasites.
Everytime I hear on the news that Labour aren't going to raise taxes on working people I keep wondering about whether that means they'll be taxing the idle rich instead.
Yes but the money is made on the back of the workers. The owner may also be a worker many small business owners do.
I assume you used the same logic in your previous line of employment, and daily thanked everyone you arrested as the wealth creators they were.
I’m sure it was Liberal Party policy in 1945 or thereabouts to have massive civil service retraining schemes devised - because they expected the post war settlement would be so effective that most state employees (social workers particularly) would put themselves out of a job within their own working lifetime.
If you have a job assembling a low-margin commodity that makes modest profits for its manufacturer, do you think this is a different job from if you assemble some expensive high-profit device?
When I worked at a hotel about 20 years ago, my boss was not a customer.
That employment was not all about arrests.
My Boss of course.
"No, oi always vote Tory; they keep your maarsters rich, an" you got to keep your maarsters rich, otherwoise 'ow are they goin' a pay you a decent wage, boy?"
Guests paid for the service and the Boss paid me.
A large part of the problem was the settlement being dependent on various forms of inequality and then being dismantled further down the line.
Obviously that wasn't the only issue; and there's a certain naivety in assuming a perfectable human subject, but some kind of optimism of a better way is still preferable to the current TINA miserabilism.
That depends on the skill level needed. What ever it is the money is made on the back of the workers.
The work was created by the customers who paid for you and your fellow employees to provide the services. But they didn't pay you for your services; they paid your boss for your services and your boss paid you some but not all of that money.
Which wasn't news to me, of course but what I was trying to impress upon him was that the money came from the guests via the boss. It wasn't down to the Boss's largesse. He wasn't running a not-for-profit out of the kindness of his heart.
Sure, he'll have had to stump up money upfront to establish the hotel in the first place and I don’t doubt he worked hard and provided a reasonable service.
But he wasn't running a charity.
If my boss didn't buy and invest in the hotel, there would be no customers and no staff
That sounds to me like the boss is a risk taker, risking his own money
What really pisses people off though - is things like this.
I don't feel any more or less respect for your hotel boss @Telford for probably taking advantage of the safeguards provided by the limited company system.
If he did so he was acting sensibly and with financial probity, not only on his own behalf but on that of his customers and employees.
It's all about context and circumstances. I was a sole-trader for some years. It didn't make sense for me to become a limited company and get into VAT and so on. I never employed anybody but did occasionally buy in services to help with particular projects.
My wife was working so my freelance work was not our sole source of income.
I wasn't going to remortgage my house or take out bank loans to finance something that was never going to be more than a cottage industry I could do from home interspersed with occasional projects where I worked away.
So yes, I was risk averse to that attempt. Had I established that no, this thing had more scope than I'd envisaged and had the potential to take off and become a more complex business, then I might have taken more of a risk - but it would have been a calculated risk with the kind of checks and balances @Doublethink refers to.
Heck, I've known a few entrepreneurs in my time and worked for a number of them, some highly admirable, others less so. The same as people I've worked with in the public sector.
I'm not knocking business. I'm not knocking entrepreneurs. I'm not knocking people who take risks.
There's a synergy here.
People like your boss create opportunities for employment by setting up hotels and other enterprises. People like you who work for them keep those enterprises going.
It's one of these both/and things I get called out for referring to all the time.
Which is one of the reasons that mythical soundbites like 'wealth creators' are so unhelpful.
AFZ
The idle rich, the rentier classes, of parasites on society who just put small amounts of their stolen wealth into other peoples businesses, and then scrape of the wealth created by those who found those businesses and work hard at making them a success, are a different breed of capitalist scum. Those who jet around the world to attend "business leaders conventions" paid for by governments trying to get their dirty money laundered through businesses in their country so that the workers can get a few crumbs from their table, who consider a "hard days work" of a round of golf and a fancy dinner with politicians worth the £100,000+ per day salary they draw. These are the people our governments should be taxing, not accepting gifts from so that they don't have to repay the people who made the riches they're living off.
If your boss hadn't met the demand someone else would have. One of the basic laws of economics is that in a free market supply rises to meet demand.
Sometimes an innovator can create a demand for something for which there was previously no demand. But most people wealthy enough to leave the country are not innovators.
Will Ms Reeves be using the budget to fill this latest black hole
Does it not occur to you that something that styles itself 'The People's News Channel' must by its very nature be worthy of suspicion?
'Populist News Channel' would be more accurate.
Also, it's owned by a hedge-fund manager. So it's going to want the government to leave 'Non Doms' alone.
You may have been a good copper but I doubt you'd have made a good detective. 😉
The clue is in the title. Anything that claims to be 'The People's Channel' is going to be anything but.