Russell Brand

[longballin]

'Ex junkie' in that sentence very judgemental. A recovering drug addict would be a better description and trying to help other addicts. 

[JoG2]

He is an ex junkie, he is a hypocrite and he is a self publicist.

But this does not exclude him from having a view point on this or any other topic. Also the fact that he is highlighting some of the social injustice of this society can only be a good thing, if it resonates with even a few people then it maybe is worth the more unpleasant things.

you're practically a saint

[deiseach]

He is an ex junkie, he is a hypocrite and he is a self publicist.

In what way is he a hypocrite? (He's obviously the first one and I'd agree with the last one. I think he'd probably even agree.)

[Mike Sheehy]

It is not hypocritical to have an ideology that is a little bit out of step with what you practice. For example, you can have legitimate concerns about what corporations pay in tax and still work for a multinational.

However, your personal ideology or political worldview must be proportionate to the way you choose to live your own life. If you work for a multinational and that employment funds your comfortable, affluent western lifestyle and yet you spend every waking hour railing against the greed of said corporations then that is an inconsistency gone too far.

In the case of Brand , he is worth in the region of $15 million and he considers profit to be a "filthy" word.

He is the definition of hypocrisy.

[NAG1]

Settle down lads, he would describe himself and has before as an ex-junkie, no judgement here I think anyone who comes back from that deserves credit.

Since when did I proclaim to be a saint.

My point was that because he was any of the things I described him as doesnt stop him having an opinion. Nor should it. Earlier posts were more or less saying that he shouldnt have an opinion.

[deiseach]

It is not hypocritical to have an ideology that is a little bit out of step with what you practice. For example, you can have legitimate concerns about what corporations pay in tax and still work for a multinational.

However, your personal ideology or political worldview must be proportionate to the way you choose to live your own life. If you work for a multinational and that employment funds your comfortable, affluent western lifestyle and yet you spend every waking hour railing against the greed of said corporations then that is an inconsistency gone too far.

In the case of Brand , he is worth in the region of $15 million and he considers profit to be a "filthy" word.

He is the definition of hypocrisy.

How little would he have to earn before he wouldn't be a hypocrite?

[Mike Sheehy]

It is not hypocritical to have an ideology that is a little bit out of step with what you practice. For example, you can have legitimate concerns about what corporations pay in tax and still work for a multinational.

However, your personal ideology or political worldview must be proportionate to the way you choose to live your own life. If you work for a multinational and that employment funds your comfortable, affluent western lifestyle and yet you spend every waking hour railing against the greed of said corporations then that is an inconsistency gone too far.

In the case of Brand , he is worth in the region of $15 million and he considers profit to be a "filthy" word.

He is the definition of hypocrisy.

How little would he have to earn before he wouldn't be a hypocrite?

Oh, lets say 100k pa. Most people could live quite comfortably on that I think.

[deiseach]

Oh, lets say 100k pa. Most people could live quite comfortably on that I think.

So no one earning (say) 150k pa is allowed argue for greater taxation on incomes or profits without being labelled a hypocrite. Good to know.

[Mike Sheehy]

Oh, lets say 100k pa. Most people could live quite comfortably on that I think.

So no one earning (say) 150k pa is allowed argue for greater taxation on incomes or profits without being labelled a hypocrite. Good to know.

It depends on how strongly you believe in what you are arguing for. A case of putting your money where your mouth is, literally. In the case of Brand he should make an example of himself first before preaching to others. Reducing his income to 100k seems like a reasonable place to start with him.

If he dials back the rhetoric a bit he might be due a raise..lets say 300k.

Seems reasonable...or do you think there should be no proportionate relationship between what a person practices and what they preach  ?

[deiseach]

I don't see why a rich person cannot argue for higher taxes without being labelled a hypocrite. The question is whether he has earned his money honestly and is paying his fair share of taxes. Asking them to reduce their income to some notional amount is so arbitrary as to be meaningless. The comedian Rob Newman doesn't own a car and would probably view anyone who does as an exploiter. If Russell Brand were dumping his money in an offshore account, employing staff on minimum wage, or engaging in domicile chicanery à la U2 then that would be hypocrisy. Maybe he is. I await evidence that he does.

[dferg]

Oh, lets say 100k pa. Most people could live quite comfortably on that I think.

So no one earning (say) 150k pa is allowed argue for greater taxation on incomes or profits without being labelled a hypocrite. Good to know.

It depends on how strongly you believe in what you are arguing for. A case of putting your money where your mouth is, literally. In the case of Brand he should make an example of himself first before preaching to others. Reducing his income to 100k seems like a reasonable place to start with him.

If he dials back the rhetoric a bit he might be due a raise..lets say 300k.

Seems reasonable...or do you think there should be no proportionate relationship between what a person practices and what they preach  ?

http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2014/oct/11/russell-brand-revolution-alienation-despair

He received a six-figure advance for Revolution, but insists he won't be keeping it. "I'm going to get a property in east London and set up a coffee and juice bar to be run by people in recovery from addiction." So he's going to give away his money? "No. I'm no longer interested in making money. And the money I get, I'm going to use for good. We need systemic change, not charity. I won't be in charge. They'll vote for how they want to run it."

Is he loaded? "Yeah!" How much is he worth? "I don't know, but I could probably never be poor again. When I see stuff in the paper like, 'Oh, he's worth £20m quid', I ain't worth that much. I don't know what I've done with my money. I've sorted my parents out, but all the money now, I'm going to use it for social enterprises..."

[Mike Sheehy]

I don't see why a rich person cannot argue for higher taxes without being labelled a hypocrite. The question is whether he has earned his money honestly and is paying his fair share of taxes. Asking them to reduce their income to some notional amount is so arbitrary as to be meaningless. The comedian Rob Newman doesn't own a car and would probably view anyone who does as an exploiter. If Russell Brand were dumping his money in an offshore account, employing staff on minimum wage, or engaging in domicile chicanery à la U2 then that would be hypocrisy. Maybe he is. I await evidence that he does.

He goes a bit further than simply calling for higher taxes...also there have been question marks about some of his financial dealings, specifically, wrt tax avoidance schemes.
https://www.accountancylive.com/bank-basher-russell-brand-raises-film-finance-city

[Mike Sheehy]

Oh, lets say 100k pa. Most people could live quite comfortably on that I think.

So no one earning (say) 150k pa is allowed argue for greater taxation on incomes or profits without being labelled a hypocrite. Good to know.

It depends on how strongly you believe in what you are arguing for. A case of putting your money where your mouth is, literally. In the case of Brand he should make an example of himself first before preaching to others. Reducing his income to 100k seems like a reasonable place to start with him.

If he dials back the rhetoric a bit he might be due a raise..lets say 300k.

Seems reasonable...or do you think there should be no proportionate relationship between what a person practices and what they preach  ?

http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2014/oct/11/russell-brand-revolution-alienation-despair

He received a six-figure advance for Revolution, but insists he won't be keeping it. "I'm going to get a property in east London and set up a coffee and juice bar to be run by people in recovery from addiction." So he's going to give away his money? "No. I'm no longer interested in making money. And the money I get, I'm going to use for good. We need systemic change, not charity. I won't be in charge. They'll vote for how they want to run it."

Is he loaded? "Yeah!" How much is he worth? "I don't know, but I could probably never be poor again. When I see stuff in the paper like, 'Oh, he's worth £20m quid', I ain't worth that much. I don't know what I've done with my money. I've sorted my parents out, but all the money now, I'm going to use it for social enterprises..."

Really ? Sounds like someone with something to hide.

If he wont say how much he is worth then how can we tell if "all the money" is actually used for social enterprises ?

[seafoid]

Oh, lets say 100k pa. Most people could live quite comfortably on that I think.

So no one earning (say) 150k pa is allowed argue for greater taxation on incomes or profits without being labelled a hypocrite. Good to know.

It depends on how strongly you believe in what you are arguing for. A case of putting your money where your mouth is, literally. In the case of Brand he should make an example of himself first before preaching to others. Reducing his income to 100k seems like a reasonable place to start with him.

If he dials back the rhetoric a bit he might be due a raise..lets say 300k.

Seems reasonable...or do you think there should be no proportionate relationship between what a person practices and what they preach  ?

http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2014/oct/11/russell-brand-revolution-alienation-despair

He received a six-figure advance for Revolution, but insists he won't be keeping it. "I'm going to get a property in east London and set up a coffee and juice bar to be run by people in recovery from addiction." So he's going to give away his money? "No. I'm no longer interested in making money. And the money I get, I'm going to use for good. We need systemic change, not charity. I won't be in charge. They'll vote for how they want to run it."

Is he loaded? "Yeah!" How much is he worth? "I don't know, but I could probably never be poor again. When I see stuff in the paper like, 'Oh, he's worth £20m quid', I ain't worth that much. I don't know what I've done with my money. I've sorted my parents out, but all the money now, I'm going to use it for social enterprises..."

Really ? Sounds like someone with something to hide.

If he wont say how much he is worth then how can we tell if "all the money" is actually used for social enterprises ?

why do the Kochs need all that money , Mike? Aren't they hypocrites ?

[Mike Sheehy]

I'm sure they don't need all that money but I don't recall them describing profit as filthy so, no, they would not be hypocrites on this issue.