| The country is broken 09:05 - Jan 6 with 6366 views | Herbivore |
This is pretty sickening. By the end of today, top executives will have earnt more than most working people in the UK will earn this year. By lunchtime they'll have earnt more than newly qualified teachers and nurses. By the end of Friday they'd earnt more than virtually all cleaners, shop workers, waiting staff, teaching assistants, health care assistants, and carers - the people that keep the world ticking over. This level of inequality is utterly absurd and unjustifiable.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51000217
|  |
| |  |
| The country is broken on 11:44 - Jan 6 with 998 views | itfcjoe |
| The country is broken on 11:39 - Jan 6 by hampstead_blue |
Life's unfair and that's that really.
Some here will want to shout at the sky and those of us who accept it but that won't change owt. |
If everyone always accepted it then most of us would still be basically slaves |  |
| |
| The country is broken on 11:45 - Jan 6 with 988 views | Herbivore |
| The country is broken on 11:44 - Jan 6 by itfcjoe |
If everyone always accepted it then most of us would still be basically slaves |
And being gay would still be against the law. Men would still be allowed to rape their wives and hit their children. But who needs social progress, eh? Not white middle class men, that's for sure. | |
| |
| The country is broken on 11:49 - Jan 6 with 974 views | hampstead_blue |
| The country is broken on 11:44 - Jan 6 by itfcjoe |
If everyone always accepted it then most of us would still be basically slaves |
Not at all. Thankfully we live in a society where you can be a success and enjoy that.
We have to accept that life is unfair and it a fact. The best you can do is crack on make the best of what we've got. |  |
| Assumption is to make an ass out of you and me.
Those who assume they know you, when they don't are just guessing.
Those who assume and insist they know are daft and in denial.
Those who assume, insist, and deny the truth are plain stupid.
Those who assume, insist, deny the truth and tell YOU they know you (when they don't) have an IQ in the range of 35-49.
| | Poll: | Best Blackpool goal |
| |
| The country is broken - No it's not. on 11:50 - Jan 6 with 971 views | eireblue |
| The country is broken - No it's not. on 11:31 - Jan 6 by hampstead_blue |
It's so easy to slam business leaders and compare them to the likes of teachers and other government and blue collar roles.
It is a poor comparison.
How many FTSE 100 CEO's are there? A:100.
How many teachers are there in London? A: Many more.
How long does it take to qualify as a teacher? 3,4 years?
A CEO only get's' the top job after a huge investment in time to a firm.
Are all teachers low paid? No. Head Teachers earn very good salaries indeed and that's just to run one, ONE school. Think if them as a 'local manager'.
They also get final salary pensions, pretty much guaranteed jobs and much more.
It's pretty low rent to make these comparisons time after time.
Please find something more comparable.
Before you all pile in and make wild assumptions, please read the post and answer my point rather than your own.
Thank-you. |
CEO’s don’t necessarily have to work and put in a huge time investment.
CEO’s can also pre-negotiate golden parachutes, that are more generous that a head teachers finally salary. Executives will also get large inducements and golden handshakes that will be larger than a final pension.
The purpose of the comparison isn’t to compare salaries, it is to demonstrate where money is located.
A functioning and successful economy needs to have a flow of money. The more money that is under the control of fewer people, the less amount of money is flowing through the entire economy.
So what would you suggest is a better comparison?
Or do you think trickle down economics works?
Please cite evidence.
Do you think such a large disparity is fine?
If not please propose a solution, that cannot be labelled socialist by a right wing media. |  | | |
| The country is broken on 11:50 - Jan 6 with 972 views | Darth_Koont |
| The country is broken on 11:36 - Jan 6 by brazil1982 |
Footballers earning vast amounts above other non-playing staff.
Actors earning vast amounts over production staff.
Is this fair? |
That's a scarcity issue.
There's no scarcity of senior executives and the judgement on who gets to the very top is massively subjective. Unless we're saying that white men of above average height are inherently better at leading major corporations. |  |
| |
| The country is broken on 11:52 - Jan 6 with 970 views | Steve_M |
| The country is broken on 11:39 - Jan 6 by hampstead_blue |
Life's unfair and that's that really.
Some here will want to shout at the sky and those of us who accept it but that won't change owt. |
Why should people not campaign against things that are unfair? I don't see anyone here complaining about high salaries per se but corporate pay at senior levels seems to be broken here (and even more so in the US) whilst over all productivity has stalled for a decade:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/23/uk-statistic-decade-produc |  |
| |
| The country is broken on 11:53 - Jan 6 with 967 views | itfcjoe |
| The country is broken on 11:49 - Jan 6 by hampstead_blue |
Not at all. Thankfully we live in a society where you can be a success and enjoy that.
We have to accept that life is unfair and it a fact. The best you can do is crack on make the best of what we've got. |
But if everyone had always taken that attitude then there would never have been any social progress | |
| |
| The country is broken on 11:55 - Jan 6 with 959 views | Oxford_Blue |
And you’ll have earned more money than the majority of the world’s population many hundred of millions of whom are very poor and have virtually nothing.
In a system where money is at the heart of it, how do you prevent talented and ambitious and successful people from earning lots of money? If you prevent this, then the incentive often goes or the people leave.
And someone on £200,000 a year who has worked hard and earned it, pays more tax than most people earn in the same year. That is the balance we have. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| The country is broken on 12:00 - Jan 6 with 941 views | eireblue |
| The country is broken on 11:55 - Jan 6 by Oxford_Blue |
And you’ll have earned more money than the majority of the world’s population many hundred of millions of whom are very poor and have virtually nothing.
In a system where money is at the heart of it, how do you prevent talented and ambitious and successful people from earning lots of money? If you prevent this, then the incentive often goes or the people leave.
And someone on £200,000 a year who has worked hard and earned it, pays more tax than most people earn in the same year. That is the balance we have. |
It is quite easy.
Make sure employees have a share of any success in a proportionate way.
That doesn’t stop people being successful. | | | |
| The country is broken on 12:00 - Jan 6 with 939 views | Darth_Koont |
| The country is broken on 11:55 - Jan 6 by Oxford_Blue |
And you’ll have earned more money than the majority of the world’s population many hundred of millions of whom are very poor and have virtually nothing.
In a system where money is at the heart of it, how do you prevent talented and ambitious and successful people from earning lots of money? If you prevent this, then the incentive often goes or the people leave.
And someone on £200,000 a year who has worked hard and earned it, pays more tax than most people earn in the same year. That is the balance we have. |
If it's about rewarding "talented, ambitious and successful" people, why is UK productivity so low? And significantly lower than countries where the top earners don't earn as much and are taxed even more on that?
Maybe more money should be going to the workers and on their incentives? | |
| |
| The country is broken on 12:02 - Jan 6 with 930 views | jeera |
| The country is broken on 12:00 - Jan 6 by eireblue |
It is quite easy.
Make sure employees have a share of any success in a proportionate way.
That doesn’t stop people being successful. |
Quite.
It has to be better for an economy for 'surplus' to be finding its way back into the daily spend cycle than just sitting there in someone's bank account as some vanity measure.
If you earn 200,000 per year, it's hard to see how you require a bonus of any kind. |  |
| |
| The country is broken on 12:05 - Jan 6 with 916 views | noggin |
| The country is broken on 11:49 - Jan 6 by hampstead_blue |
Not at all. Thankfully we live in a society where you can be a success and enjoy that.
We have to accept that life is unfair and it a fact. The best you can do is crack on make the best of what we've got. |
What a horrible attitude you have. |  |
| |
| The country is broken on 12:06 - Jan 6 with 919 views | Herbivore |
| The country is broken on 11:55 - Jan 6 by Oxford_Blue |
And you’ll have earned more money than the majority of the world’s population many hundred of millions of whom are very poor and have virtually nothing.
In a system where money is at the heart of it, how do you prevent talented and ambitious and successful people from earning lots of money? If you prevent this, then the incentive often goes or the people leave.
And someone on £200,000 a year who has worked hard and earned it, pays more tax than most people earn in the same year. That is the balance we have. |
"how do you prevent talented and ambitious and successful people from earning lots of money?"
Easy, employ them in unimportant jobs like teaching and nursing. | |
| |
| The country is broken on 12:09 - Jan 6 with 899 views | eireblue |
| The country is broken on 12:06 - Jan 6 by Herbivore |
"how do you prevent talented and ambitious and successful people from earning lots of money?"
Easy, employ them in unimportant jobs like teaching and nursing. |
 | | | |
| The country is broken on 12:12 - Jan 6 with 882 views | monytowbray |
| The country is broken on 11:27 - Jan 6 by itfcjoe |
Mrs itfcjoe is going back to work as a Later Life Adviser, think she said they have been told there is something like £7 trillion tied up in property by the over 60s and that doesn't include properties with any type of mortgage on them. |
Jesus christ. That’s a fair bit. I hope the prices tank after Brexit. |  |
| |
| The country is broken on 12:13 - Jan 6 with 877 views | monytowbray |
| The country is broken on 11:49 - Jan 6 by hampstead_blue |
Not at all. Thankfully we live in a society where you can be a success and enjoy that.
We have to accept that life is unfair and it a fact. The best you can do is crack on make the best of what we've got. |
okay tory boomer. | |
| |
| The country is broken on 12:14 - Jan 6 with 873 views | monytowbray |
| The country is broken on 12:05 - Jan 6 by noggin |
What a horrible attitude you have. |
He’s the kind of person I’d walk away from mid conversation in a pub. | |
| |
| The country is broken on 12:26 - Jan 6 with 859 views | StokieBlue |
| The country is broken on 11:27 - Jan 6 by itfcjoe |
Mrs itfcjoe is going back to work as a Later Life Adviser, think she said they have been told there is something like £7 trillion tied up in property by the over 60s and that doesn't include properties with any type of mortgage on them. |
What can you do about that though?
It's not really their fault that the value of their assets has risen over time but obviously it's not great for people at an earlier stage of life looking to get ahead.
It's a problematic catch 22.
SB |  |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| The country is broken on 12:29 - Jan 6 with 847 views | footers |
| The country is broken on 12:26 - Jan 6 by StokieBlue |
What can you do about that though?
It's not really their fault that the value of their assets has risen over time but obviously it's not great for people at an earlier stage of life looking to get ahead.
It's a problematic catch 22.
SB |
And great business for equity 'release' companies presumably. You could see many people going down that route later in life.
A serious house building project is long overdue in this country. Fortunately our chum Boris says he'll get round to it soon. Here's hoping. |  |
| |
| The country is broken on 12:53 - Jan 6 with 823 views | Herbivore |
| The country is broken on 12:26 - Jan 6 by StokieBlue |
What can you do about that though?
It's not really their fault that the value of their assets has risen over time but obviously it's not great for people at an earlier stage of life looking to get ahead.
It's a problematic catch 22.
SB |
Have heavily progressive taxation on additional home ownership would be one solution. Lots of people were able to use the massive equity in their homes to buy second or even multiple homes, which then restricts housing stock and continues to drive prices up. Tax multiple home ownership more heavily and use the money to build affordable housing. Those who can't afford the tax on multiple homes can sell and pocket the money, that still ends with more properties coming on the market and reducing the supply/demand imbalance. | |
| |
| The country is broken - No it's not. on 12:56 - Jan 6 with 816 views | hampstead_blue |
| The country is broken - No it's not. on 11:50 - Jan 6 by eireblue |
CEO’s don’t necessarily have to work and put in a huge time investment.
CEO’s can also pre-negotiate golden parachutes, that are more generous that a head teachers finally salary. Executives will also get large inducements and golden handshakes that will be larger than a final pension.
The purpose of the comparison isn’t to compare salaries, it is to demonstrate where money is located.
A functioning and successful economy needs to have a flow of money. The more money that is under the control of fewer people, the less amount of money is flowing through the entire economy.
So what would you suggest is a better comparison?
Or do you think trickle down economics works?
Please cite evidence.
Do you think such a large disparity is fine?
If not please propose a solution, that cannot be labelled socialist by a right wing media. |
Firstly I do not believe in trickle down, said it many times.
The comparisons about pension and package negotiation prove the point that putting a CEO against a teacher is a bad comparison.
CEO's and teachers etc cannot be compared. My post explains why. TEachers are simply local deliverers of a service, a CEO could runs a global conglomerate with multiple income and currency streams.
Our economy is a success. There will always be a disparity with flows of money. Equalising or flattening pay gaps won't work. You drag talent into the wrong places and the money then stops flowing when the economy fails.
I can't see the point of the OP and why it's seen as such a bad thing? Of course many will rage against success and wealth. Let them.
A solution to what people see as a problem?
You know, I'm reasonably comfortable with CEO's pay.
One thing I would do is to work on the business models of Social Enterprises. A 'for profit' model which invests >50% of profits/revenue into a Social cause.
Make that main stream for SME's. Big tax breaks. Make Gov property available for incubators and small office spaces.
I'd work on that. In 5 or 10 years you'll have an economic sector delivering real social change. CEO's make a fair wage, the market wage I might add as it's not a charity. Staff get paid the market rates. Firms pay their taxes because they are getting big tax breaks to take on risk.
That's my change.
The big firms will buy them as part of the CSR and sustainability piece. They may even incubate and fund them as well.
In my mind that's decent option. Better than some plebs shouting at me for disagreeing with wealth! | |
| Assumption is to make an ass out of you and me.
Those who assume they know you, when they don't are just guessing.
Those who assume and insist they know are daft and in denial.
Those who assume, insist, and deny the truth are plain stupid.
Those who assume, insist, deny the truth and tell YOU they know you (when they don't) have an IQ in the range of 35-49.
| | Poll: | Best Blackpool goal |
| |
| The country is broken - No it's not. on 12:59 - Jan 6 with 810 views | Herbivore |
| The country is broken - No it's not. on 12:56 - Jan 6 by hampstead_blue |
Firstly I do not believe in trickle down, said it many times.
The comparisons about pension and package negotiation prove the point that putting a CEO against a teacher is a bad comparison.
CEO's and teachers etc cannot be compared. My post explains why. TEachers are simply local deliverers of a service, a CEO could runs a global conglomerate with multiple income and currency streams.
Our economy is a success. There will always be a disparity with flows of money. Equalising or flattening pay gaps won't work. You drag talent into the wrong places and the money then stops flowing when the economy fails.
I can't see the point of the OP and why it's seen as such a bad thing? Of course many will rage against success and wealth. Let them.
A solution to what people see as a problem?
You know, I'm reasonably comfortable with CEO's pay.
One thing I would do is to work on the business models of Social Enterprises. A 'for profit' model which invests >50% of profits/revenue into a Social cause.
Make that main stream for SME's. Big tax breaks. Make Gov property available for incubators and small office spaces.
I'd work on that. In 5 or 10 years you'll have an economic sector delivering real social change. CEO's make a fair wage, the market wage I might add as it's not a charity. Staff get paid the market rates. Firms pay their taxes because they are getting big tax breaks to take on risk.
That's my change.
The big firms will buy them as part of the CSR and sustainability piece. They may even incubate and fund them as well.
In my mind that's decent option. Better than some plebs shouting at me for disagreeing with wealth! |
You really do talk utter b0llocks and we've already established in a previous thread that you do in fact believe in trickle down economics, you just don't realise it. | |
| |
| The country is broken - No it's not. on 13:01 - Jan 6 with 806 views | hampstead_blue |
| The country is broken - No it's not. on 12:59 - Jan 6 by Herbivore |
You really do talk utter b0llocks and we've already established in a previous thread that you do in fact believe in trickle down economics, you just don't realise it. |
Shut up.
How many times do you need to read it.......
Oh, apart from throwing cr$$ around, please do share your solution or are you just going to shout at the wall all day? | |
| Assumption is to make an ass out of you and me.
Those who assume they know you, when they don't are just guessing.
Those who assume and insist they know are daft and in denial.
Those who assume, insist, and deny the truth are plain stupid.
Those who assume, insist, deny the truth and tell YOU they know you (when they don't) have an IQ in the range of 35-49.
| | Poll: | Best Blackpool goal |
| |
| The country is broken on 13:05 - Jan 6 with 794 views | itfcjoe |
| The country is broken on 12:26 - Jan 6 by StokieBlue |
What can you do about that though?
It's not really their fault that the value of their assets has risen over time but obviously it's not great for people at an earlier stage of life looking to get ahead.
It's a problematic catch 22.
SB |
I think the key is to get that money out and back into the economy.
Also what were the details of the so called dementia tax? Seems wrong for so much to be tied up and yet the state bearing the burden for social care etc | |
| |
| The country is broken on 13:05 - Jan 6 with 794 views | StokieBlue |
| The country is broken on 12:53 - Jan 6 by Herbivore |
Have heavily progressive taxation on additional home ownership would be one solution. Lots of people were able to use the massive equity in their homes to buy second or even multiple homes, which then restricts housing stock and continues to drive prices up. Tax multiple home ownership more heavily and use the money to build affordable housing. Those who can't afford the tax on multiple homes can sell and pocket the money, that still ends with more properties coming on the market and reducing the supply/demand imbalance. |
No problem at all with heavy tax on second homes, it would certainly be a sensible move to free up some housing stock and if you can afford a second home you can afford the tax on it.
I was more thinking about the issue that the majority of that wealth is likely held within their family home and I'm not sure I like the ideas which have previously been floated about a reoccurring tax on the value of those homes.
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
