| The country is broken 09:05 - Jan 6 with 6370 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 - No it's not. on 13:06 - Jan 6 with 611 views | Herbivore |
| The country is broken - No it's not. on 13:01 - Jan 6 by hampstead_blue |
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? |
I'd go for heavily progressive taxation on the obscenely high earners and reinvesting that money in public services. I'd incentivise companies that operate a structure where the pay gap between the lowest and highest earners is below a certain level so that massive disparities in pay aren't encouraged. I'd ensure worker representation on company boards that make decisions about executive pay and incentivise companies that promote ownership by workers. These are some practical suggestions, I'm sure if I thought about it for more than two minutes I could think of plenty more. [Post edited 6 Jan 2020 13:12]
| |
| |
| The country is broken - No it's not. on 13:09 - Jan 6 with 605 views | itfcjoe |
| 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! |
What about comapnies like Thomas Cook, where the CEO took £17m over 4 years as the company went to the dogs? We aren't talking about CEO's earning a few hundred thousand pound a year?
These are the key decision makers, who can bleed companies dry before screwing over all the staff |  |
| |
| The country is broken - No it's not. on 13:11 - Jan 6 with 595 views | monytowbray |
| The country is broken - No it's not. on 13:09 - Jan 6 by itfcjoe |
What about comapnies like Thomas Cook, where the CEO took £17m over 4 years as the company went to the dogs? We aren't talking about CEO's earning a few hundred thousand pound a year?
These are the key decision makers, who can bleed companies dry before screwing over all the staff |
I imagine he’ll go for the old “They earned their right to be rich” myth often peddled out when tax avoidance and wage exploitation is raised with a Tory. |  |
| |
| The country is broken - No it's not. on 13:11 - Jan 6 with 595 views | Herbivore |
| The country is broken - No it's not. on 13:09 - Jan 6 by itfcjoe |
What about comapnies like Thomas Cook, where the CEO took £17m over 4 years as the company went to the dogs? We aren't talking about CEO's earning a few hundred thousand pound a year?
These are the key decision makers, who can bleed companies dry before screwing over all the staff |
Yeah, this article is talking about people who are basically earning £10k per working day. That equates to millions, not hundreds of thousands. | |
| |
| The country is broken on 13:13 - Jan 6 with 585 views | Herbivore |
| The country is broken on 13:05 - Jan 6 by StokieBlue |
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 |
It'd be interesting to see the breakdown of that wealth and how much is in second or multiple homes versus how much is in people's own homes. | |
| |
| The country is broken on 13:14 - Jan 6 with 589 views | Guthrum |
| 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. |
Altho the majority of those people live in places with a cost of living a tiny fraction of that in the UK (or work on a non-monetary, subsistence basis).
The tax argument does not work as long as significant levels of tax avoidance exist among the higher paid (mostly legal and officially sanctioned by successive governments). |  |
| |
| The country is broken on 13:14 - Jan 6 with 585 views | StokieBlue |
| The country is broken on 13:05 - Jan 6 by itfcjoe |
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 dementia tax was widely lamented on here by many Labour supporting posters (as well as Tories) when the Tories proposed it. Given your support for Labour it seems strange you are now happy to go down that road. I don't recall it even being mentioned in the election, in fact more state money was being proposed by Labour for social care.
Would it be aged based? If you are 30 and paid off your house should that money be forced back into the economy as well? How would you force it back into the economy?
Just trying to point out some of the pitfalls of where you are heading.
SB |  |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| The country is broken on 13:18 - Jan 6 with 571 views | eireblue |
| 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! |
Which plebs shouted at you?
Have the courage of your convictions, if you are going to name call, why shy away from specifics?
You can’t grow a small company to a large company, giving away 50% of profits.
In order to get a small company to a large company that can survive, needs growth.
Most of the companies that I have worked for, that have grown and prospered don’t make a profit for the first 5-10 years.
Your head is in the sand.
What you may find is that companies that survive and are successful after 5-10 years can have social programs.
The UK economy has a significant problem with productivity that Tory Chancellors have tried to address.
If you want to grow GDP, and can’t improve productivity in the economy, then you need more people, and hence immigration. Apparently the UK is going to reduce immigration.
UK needs to produce more things, more efficiently, you can’t grow, produce things, become more productive and give away 50% of profit.
What you could do is move stagnant wealth to productive investment.
By the way, giving away 50% of company profits, using taxation as a vehicle to support this = Socialist.
If you wanted a Government that supported social enterprises, using taxation to support small start-ups that were also beneficial for the wider community, you were advocating for the wrong party.
You should have read the manifestos with a bit more care. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| The country is broken on 13:19 - Jan 6 with 564 views | brazil1982 |
| The country is broken on 12:02 - Jan 6 by jeera |
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. |
So, if I am correct, your opinion is that nobody should be paid more than £200k per year? (or needs to be). |  | | |
| The country is broken on 13:20 - Jan 6 with 560 views | StokieBlue |
| The country is broken on 13:13 - Jan 6 by Herbivore |
It'd be interesting to see the breakdown of that wealth and how much is in second or multiple homes versus how much is in people's own homes. |
Good question.
A quick Google (other search engines are available) has turned up this from last June:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jun/15/second-homes-now-worth-nearly-1
It states that the value of 2nd (or more) homes is 941tn so about 13% of the value tied up in property. That would mean that in 87% of cases the wealth would be in their primary family property.
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| The country is broken on 13:22 - Jan 6 with 552 views | Herbivore |
That's still a hell of a lot tied up in multiple homes, so a good place to start in terms of releasing some of the wealth. | |
| |
| The country is broken on 13:27 - Jan 6 with 534 views | StokieBlue |
| The country is broken on 13:22 - Jan 6 by Herbivore |
That's still a hell of a lot tied up in multiple homes, so a good place to start in terms of releasing some of the wealth. |
Yes, ~28% of GDP so certainly something worth looking at and taxing.
It's more the policies along the lines of what Joe is implying that I think would have issues.
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| The country is broken on 13:27 - Jan 6 with 534 views | itfcjoe |
| The country is broken on 13:14 - Jan 6 by StokieBlue |
The dementia tax was widely lamented on here by many Labour supporting posters (as well as Tories) when the Tories proposed it. Given your support for Labour it seems strange you are now happy to go down that road. I don't recall it even being mentioned in the election, in fact more state money was being proposed by Labour for social care.
Would it be aged based? If you are 30 and paid off your house should that money be forced back into the economy as well? How would you force it back into the economy?
Just trying to point out some of the pitfalls of where you are heading.
SB |
I'd only asked for the details of what the dementia tax were, I couldn't place it or be bothered to look it up properly.
I think equity release is generally a good thing and should be encouraged, a lot of people don't want to, or can't afford to downsize effectively so best to try and get this money out and working for everyone.
I'm not talking about a forced thing to release the money, just that it should be made easier - and also if people have serious money tied up in their property it doesn't seem right if they then become burdens of the state - to what extent I've not really thought about | |
| |
| The country is broken - No it's not. on 13:33 - Jan 6 with 517 views | hampstead_blue |
| The country is broken - No it's not. on 13:09 - Jan 6 by itfcjoe |
What about comapnies like Thomas Cook, where the CEO took £17m over 4 years as the company went to the dogs? We aren't talking about CEO's earning a few hundred thousand pound a year?
These are the key decision makers, who can bleed companies dry before screwing over all the staff |
I agree that there are those who bleed firms dry.
However, that's what shareholders are for. They have to hold their feet to the fire and make sure the company is well run.
I'd ask why the larger shareholders allowed such large capital outflows. They can also agitate to change the board. |  |
| 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 13:37 - Jan 6 with 506 views | hampstead_blue |
| The country is broken - No it's not. on 13:06 - Jan 6 by Herbivore |
I'd go for heavily progressive taxation on the obscenely high earners and reinvesting that money in public services. I'd incentivise companies that operate a structure where the pay gap between the lowest and highest earners is below a certain level so that massive disparities in pay aren't encouraged. I'd ensure worker representation on company boards that make decisions about executive pay and incentivise companies that promote ownership by workers. These are some practical suggestions, I'm sure if I thought about it for more than two minutes I could think of plenty more. [Post edited 6 Jan 2020 13:12]
|
I think fair tax is great but one of the problems with the left is the emotion and hatred behind the policy. You use words 'obscenely high earners' when the reality is 'successful people'.
I think there can be more done to close the pay gap but it's got to be on merit and not just for the sake of it.
You have to strike a balance. We know that the UK electorate don't like the tax and forced repatriation of assets proposed by Labour and were rejected. | |
| 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 13:43 - Jan 6 with 493 views | Herbivore |
| The country is broken - No it's not. on 13:37 - Jan 6 by hampstead_blue |
I think fair tax is great but one of the problems with the left is the emotion and hatred behind the policy. You use words 'obscenely high earners' when the reality is 'successful people'.
I think there can be more done to close the pay gap but it's got to be on merit and not just for the sake of it.
You have to strike a balance. We know that the UK electorate don't like the tax and forced repatriation of assets proposed by Labour and were rejected. |
Most of Labour's policies were relatively popular, Corbyn and their stance on Brexit were not: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tactical-voting-blog/labour-manif
Your use of the term "successful people" is as if not more problematic than the term "obscenely high earners". As has been pointed out, many obscenely high earners aren't actually successful and pull in millions of pounds a year as their businesses fail. Many successful people don't earn much money. Would you say a highly competent teacher who gets high pass rates from their class is a "successful person"? I would, and they don't earn much. So your equating "successful people" with people who earn a very large sum of money is really not adequate. | |
| |
| The country is broken - No it's not. on 13:43 - Jan 6 with 491 views | itfcjoe |
| The country is broken - No it's not. on 13:33 - Jan 6 by hampstead_blue |
I agree that there are those who bleed firms dry.
However, that's what shareholders are for. They have to hold their feet to the fire and make sure the company is well run.
I'd ask why the larger shareholders allowed such large capital outflows. They can also agitate to change the board. |
Because they were getting their dividends | |
| |
| The country is broken on 13:45 - Jan 6 with 487 views | baltimore_suey |
This is just the norm. It doesnt matter how much big bosses earn, as someone has to be in charge you know. THis is just natural. You've gotta have an incentive to work |  | | |
| The country is broken - No it's not. on 14:01 - Jan 6 with 464 views | hampstead_blue |
| The country is broken - No it's not. on 13:43 - Jan 6 by Herbivore |
Most of Labour's policies were relatively popular, Corbyn and their stance on Brexit were not: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tactical-voting-blog/labour-manif
Your use of the term "successful people" is as if not more problematic than the term "obscenely high earners". As has been pointed out, many obscenely high earners aren't actually successful and pull in millions of pounds a year as their businesses fail. Many successful people don't earn much money. Would you say a highly competent teacher who gets high pass rates from their class is a "successful person"? I would, and they don't earn much. So your equating "successful people" with people who earn a very large sum of money is really not adequate. |
'Success' can be used in loads of contexts. I've used it as those who've got themselves great compensation packages.
There are plenty of utterly crap teachers as well. Problem is that it's hard to fire them as they have a job for life pretty much. | |
| 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 14:02 - Jan 6 with 462 views | eireblue |
| The country is broken - No it's not. on 13:33 - Jan 6 by hampstead_blue |
I agree that there are those who bleed firms dry.
However, that's what shareholders are for. They have to hold their feet to the fire and make sure the company is well run.
I'd ask why the larger shareholders allowed such large capital outflows. They can also agitate to change the board. |
You are confusing, don’t understand or are avoiding mentioning of the responsibilities of the board of directors.
The board of directors do what you have suggested.
Shareholders just get to vote on major decisions, and membership of the board. CEO renumeration is rarely decided by Shareholders. How would Shareholders do that when a new CEO is employed and the package is negotiated?
That is part of the problem with the UK plc, is the relationship between directors and CEOs and how enumeration is calculated.
Even in the US there have been proposals by NASDAQ that board members that determine CEO pay should be completely independent of the company. | | | |
| The country is broken - No it's not. on 14:05 - Jan 6 with 459 views | Herbivore |
| The country is broken - No it's not. on 14:01 - Jan 6 by hampstead_blue |
'Success' can be used in loads of contexts. I've used it as those who've got themselves great compensation packages.
There are plenty of utterly crap teachers as well. Problem is that it's hard to fire them as they have a job for life pretty much. |
Your definition of success is incredibly narrow. It makes Paul Lambert a successful manager, for example, but does not necessarily make a research scientist who finds a cure for cancer successful.
Your second paragraph just highlights a number of your prejudices and doesn't address my point abut your poor definition of a successful person. [Post edited 6 Jan 2020 14:13]
| |
| |
| The country is broken on 14:09 - Jan 6 with 454 views | jeera |
| The country is broken on 13:19 - Jan 6 by brazil1982 |
So, if I am correct, your opinion is that nobody should be paid more than £200k per year? (or needs to be). |
That's not what I said at all is it.
I was referring to bonuses and surplus profit.
But no, since you ask, it's madness that there are people earning that money whilst on the same firms there can be others earning pennies in comparison. [Post edited 6 Jan 2020 14:11]
|  |
| |
| The country is broken on 14:10 - Jan 6 with 453 views | tractordownsouth |
Nah, if you don't earn enough it's because you're a lazy scrounger. Everyone knows that. |  |
| |
| The country is broken on 14:17 - Jan 6 with 434 views | tractordownsouth |
| 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 many times does it have to spelled out, PEOPLE DON'T THINK THAT THE RICH DON'T WORK HARD, we just want a system that recognises that people on low wages work hard also and that they deserve a fairer slice of the pie. Like the people who work for minimum wage in poor conditions making Mike Ashley a millionaire. Do you honestly think he works 1000 times harder than his employees? of course not. Do you think a trader in canary wharf works 1000 times harder than people in the care industry? of course not.
Wages don't depend on how important your work is, it's dependent on the wealth of the person that your work is important to. | |
| |
| The country is broken on 14:20 - Jan 6 with 431 views | tractordownsouth |
| The country is broken on 13:45 - Jan 6 by baltimore_suey |
This is just the norm. It doesnt matter how much big bosses earn, as someone has to be in charge you know. THis is just natural. You've gotta have an incentive to work |
If you work full time on minimum wage you are classed as being in relative poverty. Does that provide an incentive to work? | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
